The Four Word Film Review Fourum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Return to my fwfr
Frequently Asked Questions Click for advanced search
 All Forums
 FWFR Related
 Site Maintenance
 Duplicate Reviews
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 75

ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"

Israel

Posted - 04/11/2006 :  10:15:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bi7e

quote:
Originally posted by Chocolate7ady

Well one of them should be kept, since I immediately knew what film this was. Ah, that brings me back. I have this on video still from when my kids were little. Very cute film!




Then you should surely be comleting this, CL



Yes, I noticed that. But you know, I didn't even know they made those other two movies. The Mars one sounds really lame. But I have submitted reviews for them all now - thanks!

Edited by - ChocolateLady on 04/11/2006 10:34:59
Go to Top of Page

BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."

Posted - 08/11/2006 :  23:10:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe

quote:
Originally posted by Se7n
[br
1st - Fired anchor goes overboard. - indie - 4 votes
2nd - Anchor thrown overboard. - bife - 5 votes
3rd - Anchor goes overboard. - BaftaBabe - 19 votes

Some serious duplicity on that page, only 61 reviews there too. The voting figures also show how essential fourum participation is in getting votes.





Crikey Se7n ... I promise I never saw the other two. I'm very happy to withdraw mine -- is there any way to award my votes to either indie or bife? If not, I'll just delete mine.
Sorry, guys ... will do more careful checking in the future





Sorry for delay ... just got around to reporting my error and requesting that Benj transfer my votes.

Edited by - BaftaBaby on 08/11/2006 23:12:11
Go to Top of Page

Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."

East Yorkshire, England.

Posted - 08/11/2006 :  23:36:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Looks like Benj is starting to clear up the dupes, I just lost 1 and am expecting to lose a few more. I hope that the votes get passed onto the proper owner

Josh the cat
Go to Top of Page

Whippersnapper 
"Indescribably wonderful and modest"

United Kingdom

Posted - 04/12/2006 :  00:14:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

That bloody Whippersnapper has copied my review!
Go to Top of Page

Salopian 
"Four ever Salopian"

Posted - 06/12/2006 :  14:24:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Shaun of the Dead
Go to Top of Page

Salopian 
"Four ever Salopian"

Posted - 14/12/2006 :  11:16:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
*
Go to Top of Page

Whippersnapper 
"Indescribably wonderful and modest"

United Kingdom

Posted - 17/12/2006 :  19:17:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

Yukon wrote this excellent review on 17NOV06:

A bout. A boy.

I know its excellent because I wrote "A bout, a boy" for the same film on 14NOV06 and its still pending!

Don't forget to transfer the votes.

Go to Top of Page

Stalean 
"Back...OMG"

United States

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  05:11:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
That's funny, because noncentz has had that review for the 1931 version of "The Champ" since December 13, 2004
Go to Top of Page

Whippersnapper 
"Indescribably wonderful and modest"

United Kingdom

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  09:05:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK, I throw in the towel.

Go to Top of Page

Salopian 
"Four ever Salopian"

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  09:39:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by StaLean

That's funny, because noncentz has had that review for the 1931 version of "The Champ" since December 13, 2004

Damn it. I knew that I recognised it, but that I had chosen not to vote on it before. Have been and voted for noncentz's now in compensation. Whipper, I think you should still try to get yours approved instead and then delete it, so that his is the only extant one.
Go to Top of Page

Whippersnapper 
"Indescribably wonderful and modest"

United Kingdom

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  11:49:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

quote:
Originally posted by StaLean

That's funny, because noncentz has had that review for the 1931 version of "The Champ" since December 13, 2004

Damn it. I knew that I recognised it, but that I had chosen not to vote on it before. Have been and voted for noncentz's now in compensation. Whipper, I think you should still try to get yours approved instead and then delete it, so that his is the only extant one.



Actually thats just what I intended to do. However, the problem then is that someone else will come along one day and come up with the same original thought which Yukon and I did, and submit it and get a bundle of votes. Therefore I may smithee it instead.

The real solution is not to allow a review for a remake of a film which has been used for the original. Isn't it generic?
Go to Top of Page

Salopian 
"Four ever Salopian"

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  12:23:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Please don't Smithee it. I don't really want to be pushed further down the table in future just because you wrote a review without checking equivalent films first (not for the first time ). Also, Smithee can still get votes, which the review oughtn't in the circumstances.

Edited by - Salopian on 19/12/2006 12:40:19
Go to Top of Page

Salopian 
"Four ever Salopian"

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  12:57:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was going to start a new thread about this, but actually that does not make any sense.

Let's discuss the parameters of duplicate reviews.

I don't think that they have been disallowed for remakes of the same film. I am pretty certain that they have not been disallowed for different adaptations of the same book/play or for different documentaries with the same subject/biopics of the same person. Perhaps we ought to expand the rule to include these things. There would not be very many instances of this, and with the Report feature it would be very little extra work for Benj.

Another example as well as the above is "Band of brothers"/"Band of Brothers". (I checked with Whippersnapper a long time ago whether I could use this example when I got around to raising this issue. Bife actually got there long before with "Band of brothers", but that's a somewhat different issue.) I've seen other cases that don't now spring to mind.

What does everyone think?

Go to Top of Page

ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"

Israel

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  14:18:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian

I was going to start a new thread about this, but actually that does not make any sense.

Let's discuss the parameters of duplicate reviews.

I don't think that they have been disallowed for remakes of the same film. I am pretty certain that they have not been disallowed for different adaptations of the same book/play or for different documentaries with the same subject/biopics of the same person. Perhaps we ought to expand the rule to include these things. There would not be very many instances of this, and with the Report feature it would be very little extra work for Benj.

Another example as well as the above is "Band of brothers"/"Band of Brothers". (I checked with Whippersnapper a long time ago whether I could use this example when I got around to raising this issue. Bife actually got there long before with "Band of brothers", but that's a somewhat different issue.) I've seen other cases that don't now spring to mind.

What does everyone think?





Even in the case of these two Osmand Brothers movies, there is a difference - one has actors playing the kids and one has the real people in it. While neither review is wrong, they're both what I would call "generic" and today might not get accepted for either film.

If the same story is used for two or more movies, certainly the reviews must be different somehow, to make them unique to that particular version.

(If not, I would have had such an easier time of writing reviews for all those movies based on the books by the Bronte sisters! Nudge, nudge... )
Go to Top of Page

Salopian 
"Four ever Salopian"

Posted - 19/12/2006 :  14:37:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady

Even in the case of these two Osmand Brothers movies, there is a difference - one has actors playing the kids and one has the real people in it. While neither review is wrong, they're both what I would call "generic" and today might not get accepted for either film.

I did not explicitly address this issue, but in my opinion the same review should not be allowed for even both a straight documentary and a pure biopic - the subject matter is still the same. In one of the above, one or two characters play themselves and Marie Osmond plays her mother, but it is basically still just a drama. Anyway, I don't mean this discussion to be about this particular instance; Whipper already asked me some time ago whether I wanted him to delete his and I said I wouldn't ask him to do that (although it is annoying that it has got more votes, especially given that I assume he has voted for mine).
quote:
If not, I would have had such an easier time of writing reviews for all those movies based on the books by the Bronte sisters!

This is what needs clearing up. Reviews are certainly not deemed 'generic' if they fit a couple of films with identical storylines, and identical reviews for different films are currently allowed. So the only way that the same review would not be allowed for all the Jane Eyres would be if the 'generic' rule kicked it when there were a certain number of adaptations of the same story, which doesn't really seem fair. At any rate, currently, any purely plot-based review that would be passed for any of them would theoretically be passed for all of the others as well (leaving aside the issue of certain plot points being absent from some).

Edited by - Salopian on 19/12/2006 14:41:12
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 75 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
The Four Word Film Review Fourum © 1999-2016 benj clews Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000