| Author |
 Topic  |
|
clay 
"Viewer discretion is revised."
|
 Posted - 08/26/2009 : 15:07:41
|
 I suggest more character space allotted for explanations of one's review for MERPs who need enlightenment. I just submitted a "Julie & Julia" review: "Art Oeuf Cooking, poached." It was rejected, acknowledging the "cute pun" but dismissive as "not specific enough."
Grrrr! HOW MANY MOVIES HAVE AN EGG-POACHING SCENE??! Plus, the review riffs on the title of Julia Child's most famous treatise, THE ART OF FRENCH COOKING. Plus, 'poached' is not only a pun but descriptive of Julie's riding on the coattails of Julia Child.
I can live with the rejection, but I'd like more room to explain my entries in the future. So many times I will get a "Don't understand" or other evidence that the MERP doesn't understand . . .
Thanks for listening. |
Edited by - clay on 08/26/2009 15:09:03 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 15:37:59
|
That's OK.
What's the address for the invoice?
|
 |
|
|
clay
"Viewer discretion is revised."
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 16:02:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
That's OK.
What's the address for the invoice?
25 SW Noah Way
Ammaipainfurthis, AK 47007 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 16:22:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by clay
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
That's OK.
What's the address for the invoice?
25 SW Noah Way
Ammaipainfurthis, AK 47007
Rejected: not specific enough.
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 18:34:20
|
The review is BRILLIANT but, even if they gave you more space for an explanation, once the review was resubmitted it'd just sit there for two or three months.... and when finally approved (if it is -- there's a strong possibility it would be re-rejected, making you even more enraged)... when approved the timing would be way too late. You wouldn't care anymore and neither would the voters. The "moment" will have passed. The minute the MERP rejected it, the review went from a possible 15-to-20 votes to a more-than-likely 3-to-5 votes when it finally gets approved.
By the way, I believe benj said (and I'm paraphrasing) the reason they don't allow longer explanations is they hardly have time to read them all at the length they are now. Longer explanations would slow down the approval process, and we certainly don't want that.
|
|
|
|
clay
"Viewer discretion is revised."
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 18:55:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
The review is BRILLIANT but, even if they gave you more space for an explanation, once the review was resubmitted it'd just sit there for two or three months.... and when finally approved (if it is -- there's a strong possibility it would be re-rejected, making you even more enraged)... when approved the timing would be way too late. You wouldn't care anymore and neither would the voters. The "moment" will have passed. The minute the MERP rejected it, the review went from a possible 15-to-20 votes to a more-than-likely 3-to-5 votes when it finally gets approved.
By the way, I believe benj said (and I'm paraphrasing) the reason they don't allow longer explanations is they hardly have time to read them all at the length they are now. Longer explanations would slow down the approval process, and we certainly don't want that.
Thanks, Larry. If benj said that, I ask him to consider that even at a slowpoke reading rate of 300 words per minute, doubling the "shelf space" will only add a handful of seconds to the reading time--and the MERP will SAVE time not having to interpret telegramese--SPEEDING UP the approval process, which is, what? currently about 30 a day?
So my suggestion remains unwithdrawn. |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 19:25:57
|
"telegramese" -- I love that. Some of the explanations I've submitted read more like headlines than sentences, and I'm quite sure you're right, they must slow down the readers. Here's hoping your suggestion gets instituted. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 23:33:02
|
I don't explain my reviews to the MERPs, at least on first go. [And I frequently pay for it; I will succumb if they decline what I think is a really good one.] Nor do I offer explans in the FYCTH, though I have no beef with anyone who does. [That personal preference has probably cost me some votes over the years. Explans don't necessarily patronize people, it's just that you may not have seen that one. Fair enough.]
My hesitation is that I get to explain only once, but the review itself will, er, persist w/o that benefit, so I'd better let it start practicing. [You can make the case that an unfathomable review which has a buncha votes will inspire research in uncomprehending fwiffers, then maybe another vote, and you're probably right. But I want my reviews to either smack you in the face, or else walk on by, no harm, no foul. As I've just said, live and let live: I don't mind explans, but I try not to look at them myself.]
FWIW, I thought your JULIE & JULIA review was great. But then I've disagreed with the MERPS many times before. On balance, they seem to revert to the mean, with some outlying WTF?s in there too. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
|
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 03:59:48
|
I've been submitting reviews for nearly six years now, and I've more or less given up on resubmitting reviews with explanations. I only submit a handful of reviews per month nowadays, and when I do submit one it's generally because I've thought of some little joke or pun I found amusing. If it gets rejected, I generally figure that the joke wasn't as hot as I thought it was. If it doesn't get an immediate, gut-level reaction from a MERP, I chalk it up as a dud and move on. I say this even though a couple of my most-voted-on reviews are ones I had to resubmit. I used to get angry and frustrated about declines (especially retroactive declines), but now I just sigh and delete them. Heck, I've got 1300+ reviews. What's one more or less?
The last time I really argued vehemently for a review was when The Aviator came out. I desperately wanted to submit the same review (some really bland but accurate plot summary, can't remember the exact phrasing) five or ten times to mimic Howard Hughes' habit of repeating phrases over and over again. To me, Hughes' vocal repitition was the defining characteristic of the movie, and I thought the FWFR page for the flick should represent that somehow. Whoever was approving reviews back then -- it might've been Benj personally, pre-MERPs -- said no. I think I took the issue to e-mail, and the answer came back "no" every time. One copy of the review was approved, but that's as far as it would go. To me, the joke only worked if there were multiple copies of the same review so I either deleted that one or gave it to Alan Smithee.
Looking back, I don't think the idea was so great, but at the time I was really keen on it. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 08/27/2009 : 20:59:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
The last time I really argued vehemently for a review was when The Aviator came out. I desperately wanted to submit the same review (some really bland but accurate plot summary, can't remember the exact phrasing) five or ten times to mimic Howard Hughes' habit of repeating phrases over and over again. To me, Hughes' vocal repitition was the defining characteristic of the movie, and I thought the FWFR page for the flick should represent that somehow. Whoever was approving reviews back then -- it might've been Benj personally, pre-MERPs -- said no. I think I took the issue to e-mail, and the answer came back "no" every time. One copy of the review was approved, but that's as far as it would go. To me, the joke only worked if there were multiple copies of the same review so I either deleted that one or gave it to Alan Smithee.
Looking back, I don't think the idea was so great, but at the time I was really keen on it.
I personally don't dig that AVIATOR flock, though I understand your point. Check out Conan's reviews for the POLICE ACADEMY series to see the gag done properly & legitimately! |
Edited by - randall on 08/27/2009 21:02:10 |
|
|
|
Pope George Ringo
"the Pope on stage"
|
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 06:02:03
|
Likewise, I've had a few reviews denied with the response "I don't get it" which made me wonder, my review is so obvious if you "don't get it" you probably haven't seen the movie. And if you haven't seen the movie you shouldn't be done reviews for said film. Which may have been the case with Clay's rejection that started this thread.
|
|
|
|
Canklefish
"Let's Get OUTTA Here!"
|
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 07:10:25
|
I know exactly what you mean... If you don't get the review passed in time to enjoy the success of the film, well then you may miss out on the wave of votes that may follow...(Larry's words, not Clay's)
I got lucky... These made it just in time for the hype... Way back in the day, that is...
I also fully expected Randall to post something akin to 'quit yer cryin' 'cuz you haven't been around these parts long enough to understand the process or the times when an artist struggled with the acceptance policy, etc,' but he took the high road and offered constructive criticism... I underestimated the master, which happens quite often in my puny world.(That was my first take when I saw this thread, I have been surprised by the response by all)
Damn, I have no finish or complaint beyond that, other than to say... Good luck with the MERPS, they're a fickle bunch, yet I just had a review approved that had been rejected several times, which I re-submitted a week ago, so keep at it... It'll get no votes (my review, that is), but it felt good (Many months between resubs)...
Clay, Keep at it, brother... You'll find much more satisfaction with this process than angst. It'll all come together for you, etc. How would you like to be known as the best new reviewer of 2009?! Who else could possibly challenge?!
|
Edited by - Canklefish on 08/29/2009 07:42:38 |
|
|
|
clay
"Viewer discretion is revised."
|
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 11:37:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by CankleFetish
I know exactly what you mean... If you don't get the review passed in time to enjoy the success of the film, well then you may miss out on the wave of votes that may follow...(Larry's words, not Clay's)
I got lucky... These made it just in time for the hype... Way back in the day, that is...
I also fully expected Randall to post something akin to 'quit yer cryin' 'cuz you haven't been around these parts long enough to understand the process or the times when an artist struggled with the acceptance policy, etc,' but he took the high road and offered constructive criticism... I underestimated the master, which happens quite often in my puny world.(That was my first take when I saw this thread, I have been surprised by the response by all)
Damn, I have no finish or complaint beyond that, other than to say... Good luck with the MERPS, they're a fickle bunch, yet I just had a review approved that had been rejected several times, which I re-submitted a week ago, so keep at it... It'll get no votes (my review, that is), but it felt good (Many months between resubs)...
Clay, Keep at it, brother... You'll find much more satisfaction with this process than angst. It'll all come together for you, etc. How would you like to be known as the best new reviewer of 2009?! Who else could possibly challenge?!
Thanks for the encouraging words, CF et al. You're all Champs!
I love this site and the people I have come to know; and as a poet, I think it's a superior training method to demand the distillation of a two-hour-on-avg experience into four words or less. (Better than Haiku--and there's also Haiku!) Here I saw a possible improvement on logistics, and I appreciate that my suggestion was taken seriously.
What a great phrase Randall used: "outlying WTFs." Life has its share of same, eh?
To the MERPS: without your efforts, there wouldn't be anything to argue about, because there wouldn't be a point to visiting the site. THANK YOU ALL. If you're ever in Phoenix, Arizona, look me up and I'll give you some of your favorite caffeine-laden beverage to take home with you--for, I hope, "specific enough" reasons.
That's un oeuf for now.  |
|
|
|
rockfsh
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 15:40:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by clay
To the MERPS: without your efforts, there wouldn't be anything to argue about, because there wouldn't be a point to visiting the site. THANK YOU ALL. If you're ever in Phoenix, Arizona, look me up and I'll give you some of your favorite caffeine-laden beverage to take home with you--for, I hope, "specific enough" reasons.
That's un oeuf for now.
^^ An obvious ploy to get a MERP to out him or herself.  |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/29/2009 : 16:53:38
|
Or a cunning bluff to cover the fact this whole thread is to divert attention from the fact that Clay is, of course, the new MERP....  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Suggestion from a madder-than-a-wet-hen guy
