| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 03:40:44
For a long time I've had in mind an idea about certain categories of films. This is that they be grouped together in sets, with a page for the set as a whole as well as each individual film.
There are various cases that this feature could cover:
Grindhouse
Films originally planned as one and then split (e.g. Kill Bill, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows)
Films in planned series (e.g. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter as a whole)
Films in series that develop ad hoc (e.g. Police Academy)
I've listed these in descending order of current problematic status, and it's Grindhouse that first made me think of a non-flat structure. Its three separate entries have just been left in limbo and the ideal really is to do something else with them. The other cases are less of an issue, but would still benefit if a change were introduced for Grindhouse's sake. We wouldn't have to wait to see if some Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows reviews need to be moved or, worse, rejected if they turn out to apply to neither film on its own. Reviews that are realistically about a whole planned series may as well be attached directly to it rather than by custom to the first one, and there will be potential reviews that are too over-arching for any one film at present. Ad hoc series are less likely to benefit in that way, but it's still almost certain that they could sometimes. |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/07/2009 : 15:42:31
Just so that Benj is more likely to see it, I just wanted to note that I have made some suggestions (with spoilers) here about Deathly Hallows reviews. (I've also reported all the individual cases that struck me.) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 13:39:48
I'm not pushing for this idea, I promise, but I just wanted to note that it was Che that reminded me of it. It would particularly benefit from it since it is being released so close together (i.e. is seen very much as one project) and a lot of people will actually just be 'reviewing' about the historical figure rather than the films anyway. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 16:47:22
The Pirates films are in the third category down. Bond would be the fourth.
Benj, yes I see what you mean, but I was just thinking in terms of categories of confusion rather than total amount. On the other hand, that same potential amount does in fact exist now as people have to follow the rule of applying general reviews for any of those series to the first film. I don't think it would be so hard for people to follow this idea, but as I say I'm not desperate for it to be in place either. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 11:05:24
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The idea would be that any review that applies to the whole has to go on that page, in the same way that it is currently supposed to go with the first film. So there wouldn't really be more potential confusion than there is now, especially as the first-film convention is just that rather than structurally intrinsic.
Well, there would be because instead of having just the confusion of Grindhouse/ Death Proof/ Planet Terror, you'd also have the same confusion added for HPATDH and any other films this could apply to. That is more potential confusion- not less and not even equal. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 07:36:23
I didn't read this thread carefully, but would things like the last two Pirates movies be applicable? They were filmed together but from the outset were always going to be two films.
And what about the James Bond movies? Wouldn't they somehow fit in?
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 03:25:42
That's evidence, sure, but it's not definitive now that we are going with a bit of a what-do-we-instinctively-feel-is-a-film vibe.
But yes, if the reviews specific to each film would at least be moved there, that would be the main thing. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 03:10:02
But the title card gives it away - no matter what was intended at the outset - sit down in the cinema to watch Grindhouse and you get a Grindhouse title card. Unless I'm imagining it Presto and Wall-E got separate title cards. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 02:37:23
quote:
Originally posted by dem9nic
Grindhouse was one movie though - I saw it in my cinema that way. Also, if IMDB lists it as a separate entity, then fair enough. It does include the trailers that the two separate films didn't. The existing reviews that cover both films wouldn't make sense on the separate pages of course.
I still think it wasn't. It was one project, planned to be shown together, but that doesn't make it one film, as with my Presto example. (Not quite the same thing, I know, but not so very different either.)
You're right that the I.M.D.B. has a page, but we're not following them blindly any more. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 01:45:48
Grindhouse was one movie though - I saw it in my cinema that way. Also, if IMDB lists it as a separate entity, then fair enough. It does include the trailers that the two separate films didn't. The existing reviews that cover both films wouldn't make sense on the separate pages of course. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 01:40:15
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
This would also bring up the question of whether the same review can be submitted for a set as well as the individual film or vice versa. I think this would open a whole can of "such and such copied my review" complaints.
The idea would be that any review that applies to the whole has to go on that page, in the same way that it is currently supposed to go with the first film. So there wouldn't really be more potential confusion than there is now, especially as the first-film convention is just that rather than structurally intrinsic.
Anyway, I am not massively hung up on the idea, but I do think it's time to bite the bullet on the Grindhouse issue. All reviews about one of the films should be moved from the Grindhouse page straight away, no question. But I'd also say that we ought to delete that page, even if it means losing some reviews. Didn't the same happen when the Apocalypse Now Redux page was deleted? Grindhouse was never one film, however much it was planned to be universally in cinemas together: Presto and WALL-E are not one film, after all. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 23:51:54
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm still all for the Grindhouse reviews getting re-organised according to what the review is. Reviews obviously for Planet Terror or Death Proof should go to their respective films, and those covering both or about the general concept stay with the combined title. Feel free to move mine. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 18:58:32
I can see your reasoning, but I do think it would confuse the sweet buggery out of your average punter wanting to just post a review. I understand there may already be confusion with Grindhouse/ Death Proof/ Planet Terror, but I don't see that adding sets would do anything but amplify that problem.
This would also bring up the question of whether the same review can be submitted for a set as well as the individual film or vice versa. I think this would open a whole can of "such and such copied my review" complaints.
I do like the idea in theory though  |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 18:21:57
Yes, I forgot about the Redux issue, which has also cropped up before.
All the individual films would still have pages. If people got confused (which shouldn't happen that often) the MERPs could just process the reviews onto the correct pages instead, or reject with an explanation if they preferred (as they presumably do now if people get any films confused). And there is already that type of confusion with Grindhouse anyway, but where there isn't really a 'right' way to do things. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 16:08:38
Presumably something similar could also be applied to original, director's cut, redux versions?
Hmm... it's an interesting idea although I'm not really sure how it would work. Would it not confuse people as to which entry they would need to submit the review for (HPATDH Pt 1, HPATDH Pt2, or HPATDH: the set) or would the individual entries (i.e. Pt 1 and Pt 2) not be listed/ reviewable, meaning all reviews must go to the set? |
