| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 12/08/2006 : 08:32:06
|
There are some excellent points being made in the previous thread - No Decline Reason. Thinking again about the difference between a four-word plot summary and a four-word review, does anyone think there might be room for two categories:
FWFS
FWFR
No value judgements are needed since it takes just as much care to provide a pithy summary of a complex film as it does to focus on a qualitative analysis of the film -- all in four words. And nothing to stop FWFRers contributing to both categories.
It also might help reduce the number of reviews which merely focus on a single incident or an actor's physical appearance as representative of the entire movie, especially as Benj has already expressed a wish to see the back of those!
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 08:55:18
|
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean. Do you want our reviews to be separate from those that are simply summaries? How would you do that, exactly?
|
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 09:10:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean. Do you want our reviews to be separate from those that are simply summaries? How would you do that, exactly?
Hi CL
Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'll try ...
Well, some FWFRs -- I guess noncentz is the prime example -- go much further than summarizing the plot; they provide a comprehensive, often amusing and idiosynchratic comment on a film. Other FWFRers take much care in summarizing the plot using apposite verbs to convey a feeling of the film, but limited to the storyline. The first category could stand alone as a Film Review, while the second could be part of a review as a plot summary.
Maybe it's a terrible idea 
|
|
|
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 18:33:36
|
Not a terrible idea - but raises an issue that has come up several times before - either is acceptable assuming its not overly generic, and is four words. The big line of demarcation typically comes down to how many people vote for a given review - look at some of Noncentz's zero vote reviews for instance (not to pick on him its just to use your example).
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 18:39:37
|
I'm still not sure what the idea is here.
Yep, there's basically two types of things submitted here, with a large number falling somewhere between (so it's not really as simple as saying there's only two types), but even going working on the assumption everything is easily classified as either one or the other... what idea are you trying to suggest?
I'm just really confused reading this thread  |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 18:56:12
|
Lemme try to rephrase BB's suggestion.
Rather than lumping everything together as a FWFR, each film would have two categories: FWFR, and FWFS (for summaries), and users could contribute to either (or both).
Well, in theory, it sounds like a good idea, but I think it wouldn't work, basically because then everything on the site would be split in two. You'd have My Reviews and My Summaries, Top Reviewers and Top Summarizers, etc. Just makes things too complicated (unless someone made a www.fwfs.com, but let's not go there).
Plus, the FWFS's would vastly outnumber the FWFR's. As has been noted before, it is very difficult to actually review a film in four words, and most 'reviews' on this site don't even try. Better to keep the current system, where we call everything a review and really mean review/summary/joke/etc. |
|
|
|
Gentleman Ghost
"Brevity: soul of wit."
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 22:33:05
|
I also prefer the simplicity of the current system.
I think that it is implicitly understood that the four word phrase is not specifically limited to being a review, but can be a summary, a minor detail, a joke, etc.
There has been a tendency in some recent Fourum threads to promote further rules and regulations for the FWFR. I personally consider this to be a form of instruction creep, and I think that Benj has been wise in avoiding it.
That said, there's no reason to be hard on yourself, BB.  It's not a terrible idea.
It just wouldn't be my preference.  |
Edited by - Gentleman Ghost on 12/08/2006 22:50:53 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/08/2006 : 23:21:51
|
[quote]Originally posted by Gentleman Ghost and Originally posted by M0rkeleb[quote]
Good points, gentlemen! And sorry, Benj, for not being clearer -- M0rkeleb said it better than I did. At least we wrestled the idea around for a bit, which is probably not a bad thing 
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
2 FWFR categories?
