| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
Canada
|
 Posted - 27/07/2010 : 23:26:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Sal, you're not going to let this lie?
We're all logging in multiple times a day in anticipation of your response! You surely can't let an opportunity like this pass
A proportion of fourum-dwelling fwiffers regularly ignore or curse your posts, now they're hanging on with baited breath for 'the comeback' ...
Before the "subeditor" [or "copyeditor," as we say here in the US] gets there, it's "bated," as in "abated." Just trying to be helpful and save you some typing, Sally.
If one eats a minnow does one get baited breath? |
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 08/08/2010 : 23:22:09
|
| I was just having a poke through my added films list (having been too overwhelmed by the unreviewed films list to even attempt to find films in there I've seen) and found this one that can certainly go; as much as I rate the material, it's not a film. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
United States
|
Posted - 23/08/2010 : 15:57:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by lamhasuas
benj, this seems to have been kicking around here for quite some time. Is its continuing presence some sort of time-honoured exception to the rule about excluding non-movies? Unless I�m missing something, I can�t think of any other reason for it to be on the site. Not that I�d regard that as a valid reason anyway. It�s a 33-year-old idea for a movie by an �outrageous� Danish artist who died a decade ago. Non-movie? It�s a non-entity.
Crucified again; it's gone.  |
|
|
|
Pope George Ringo 
"the Pope on stage"
Texas
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
|
|
ci�nas 
"hands down"
Brizzle
|
Posted - 27/10/2010 : 23:50:37
|
I�ve just had a review of My Name is Bill W. in effect declined because �this submission is for a title that we believe is not a film.� (Mine was by no means the first review.) The movie, or supposed non-movie, has therefore been un-added. I assume this has occurred because it was made & shown as part of the Hallmark Hall of Fame anthology series in America. This series has had the aim of televising high-quality drama for nearly 40 years. Each production is a one-off. Maybe, generally speaking, these decisions aren�t always clear cut � & IMDb tends to cloud the issue by subcategorising productions like this as though they�re episodes in a serial � but I�d say that whatever auspices it was made under, Bill W. is without any doubt a movie. I've seen it. It's a movie, & a pretty good one.
If, for the purposes of this site, it isn�t a movie, then all the other Hall of Fame titles should be un-added too. There are quite a few of them.
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 28/10/2010 : 03:36:33
|
| I agree. And actually there are Hallmark Hall of Fame 'episodes' that I'd rather like to be added let alone reinstated - they are feature length movies as far as I see it, even if they premiere in the US on television (not necessarily the case elsewhere in the world) care of that particular umbrella series. We can still add TV movies as legitimate entries can't we? I understand why TV series aren't allowed (and that must be why the individual movies don't work when you try to add them, even though they have their own IMDB addresses) - but I think these should be an exception to the series rule. |
|
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 28/10/2010 : 05:04:02
|
| Let's face it: as IMDB goes, so goes the world... and IMDB has decided to move the Hallmark Hall of Fame films from "individual films" to being episodes of a series. IMDB is absolutely wrong, but that makes no difference... as long as benj blindly follows IMDB guidelines, FWFR will falter. I suspect it is decisions like this that has caused our beloved website to dwindle to a handful of active fwiffers. |
Edited by - Larry on 28/10/2010 05:04:55 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 29/10/2010 : 02:25:16
|
| I don't know if it's really things of this sort that really make a massive difference to the community - they really are very minor issues in the grand scheme of things. But it is a question that's never been raised as far as I know why a large number of previously frequent forum visitors (hard to account for those who regularly review but never discuss it) have evaporated over the last 6-12 months. I have a few ideas, but we're definitely in a downturn now. I wonder if the new site design will fire things up? |
|
|
|
SixFourian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 14/11/2010 : 09:18:18
|
It's completely ridiculous the films that are getting excluded now. They include Warhol films, films that have won prizes at film festivals and loads of mainstream films that were released at the cinema.
I cannot understand how this can be when obvious non-films like these are apparently endorsed. |
|
|
|
SixFourian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 14/11/2010 : 21:03:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian
obvious non-films like these
Eh-oh-lujah! |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
Israel
|
Posted - 17/11/2010 : 07:23:25
|
| Oh dear, I think No Trams To Lime Street may have to go. IMDb lists it as one episode of a TV series. |
|
|
|
SixFourian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 17/11/2010 : 10:20:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Oh dear, I think No Trams To Lime Street may have to go. IMDb lists it as one episode of a TV series.
I think it should stay, assuming that I understand the format and that series consisted of separate television plays (i.e. with unrelated situations and characters). Some quite famous films fall into that category. However, lots of other valid television films have been removed, so it's hard to say what will happen.
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 17/11/2010 : 13:34:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Oh dear, I think No Trams To Lime Street may have to go. IMDb lists it as one episode of a TV series.
I think it should stay, assuming that I understand the format and that series consisted of separate television plays (i.e. with unrelated situations and characters). Some quite famous films fall into that category. However, lots of other valid television films have been removed, so it's hard to say what will happen.
benj is removing the HALLMARK HALL OF FAME films, a kind of US counterpart to Armchair Theatre, so yours will probably have to go, too. It's a shame. I was just looking at some of the Armchair Theatre titles and cast lists. What marvelous films must have been presented there!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Non-films
