| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| boydegg |
Posted - 09/03/2010 : 02:45:35
I asked about Alan Smithee before and people said 'Don't ask about Alan Smithee'.
But now I've just discovered he's on IMDB as a film maker. The mystery deepens!
So ... how did Alan Smithee's name originally get chosen as the elephant's graveyard of unwanted FWFRs? Is this one of those things where you find out and then wish you'd never delved?
Somebody must know! Please?
Boydegg
. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 22/02/2012 : 21:19:11
I noticed that Alan Smithtee is one of 2 people to get the Alan Smithee'd accolade. I don't think that was coincidence. I think he may have had help. |
| Sean |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 23:53:55
It would have been a better movie if the review was "Crossed, uncrossed, HELLO." |
| randall |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 22:50:48
That BASIC INSTINCT review is hilarious, no matter who the hell wrote it. |
| MguyX |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 07:11:53
Rubbish? Well, it's worth a chuckle, and it is somewhat iconic in its own right -- though I will concede that different folks gots different takes on things. 
Has anyone noticed that there ate TWO users registered under the name "anonymous," and one has TWO reviews?  |
| Sean |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 07:10:25
I can see the point in Smithee-ising anonymous reviews. But I can also see the point in leaving things the way they are.
Disowned reviews are what they are; reviews that someone didn't want for whatever reason. Whereas anonymous reviews are also what they are; reviews submitted by people who didn't bother with an account (or forgot to log in, etc). |
| bife |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 06:30:51
I can see logic in shifting all anonymous reviews to smithee.
And I always loved "Crossed, uncrossed, HELLO, crossed"  |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 02:39:47
That would make more sense if it was a current option, but it's not possible any more, thanks to my suggestion to Benj some years ago. It was just people who didn't bother to register or log in, I would suggest. I don't believe for a second that anyone actively decided to submit a review anonymously.
That review is just as rubbish as most of Alan Smithee's so it would fit very well. |
| MguyX |
Posted - 24/04/2010 : 02:02:37
I would say "no": some people want no one to take credit for a review (e.g., "Crossed, uncrossed, HELLO, crossed.") While I don't know that author's rationale (if there indeed was any) in not taking credit, I like to imagine some altruistic genius who posted that review in the spirit of a great artist, who appreciates the art more than the residual glory it can provide his repiutation. Though probably it was some pervy slob who thought it was funny but couldn't figure out how to register. We will never know.
IMHO, that's potentially a more powerful statement about a good review (as anonymous bad reviews generally don't make it, I assume). But, that's just my op-onion. |
| SixFourian |
Posted - 23/04/2010 : 17:14:10
Since Alan Smithee does exist, shouldn't all the anonymous reviews be given to him too? |
| randall |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 20:45:45
I've given reviews, and thus votes, to Smithee ever since he was invented. I've even voted myself on reviews just after I Disowned them for one reason or another [any specific reason I might have had happens to be, um, how you say, none of your fucking business]. I think he's one of our most fascinating fwiffers now...trawling through his pages is endlessly entertaining. Long may he fwiff. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 12/03/2010 : 00:35:31
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Tell that to the people who are 101st and thus get less exposure as a result.
Well, it's not people is it, it'll be a person [Edit: I see what you mean - those who are 101st in different lists. Gotcha], and the degree of exposure they get is minimally reduced. They're either going to be on their way out of the top 100 or on their way in so it's going to make very little difference to their exposure.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And it's not about the number of the ranking � it's just that I think it would be pretty fucking demoralising to come below other people's hand-me-downs on any of the quality scales.
I think you'd have to be fairly obsessed to be demoralised by it. And even if you were, do something about it and start posting better reviews (or less bad ones).
|
| Sean |
Posted - 11/03/2010 : 22:29:51
I've given Smithee at least 400. Benj can delete them if he doesn't want them on the site. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 11/03/2010 : 22:17:41
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
.... And bugger me if the gap isn't widening.
The wider the gap, the more likely the buggering, I'm afraid.  
I've voted on 34 Smithee'd reviews. I have votes registered against 34 Smithee reviews. I've only ever passed him one review, and that was by mistake - I meant to delete and hit the wrong button.
My view, FWIW, is that if you dislike a review that much, get rid of it completely, don't leave it hanging around like a bad smell. |
| MguyX |
Posted - 11/03/2010 : 22:03:45
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
.... And bugger me if the gap isn't widening.
The wider the gap, the more likely the buggering, I'm afraid. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 11/03/2010 : 22:02:21
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Normally I maintain a position of neutrality bordering on practised, even supreme, indifference on the matter of Smithee and his growing collection of rejects.
However, I am currently one place behind him in the ranking of total number of reviews. And bugger me if the gap isn't widening. (That's not a piece of Shropshire flirtation, by the way.)
I'd be most grateful if you lot would lower your standards and hang on to your despised reviews.
Smithee's got enough already.
Isn't that the WORST? I recall once upon a time having a goal of passing him and then someone disowned somewhere around 700 reviews. Cooked my chaps. I have never Smitheed a review. |
