| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
 Posted - 05/12/2005 : 17:52:04
|
The forum's sure active - this was on the 3rd or 4th page.
At any rate, Kolo's Connery review here probably belongs here.
There's a remake in the works (says IMDB), but Connery is in the 1971 original. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 18:07:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Corduroy Pillow
At one point in the film, early in Ray's marriage to Bea, Ray tells her his father had other families. Bea tells him that he, however, will have only one. If that was the goal, he ended up having one kid too many.
I'd be surprised if that was what the reviewer meant, but I'm still impressed by the save, C.P.! 
|
|
|
|
AC 
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 19:46:22
|
I'm probably stirring up a firestorm here again bringing this up, but in looking at outstanding reviews for the "Accolade!" accolade today, I clicked on "Beware! The Blob!" and voted on a clever review (the only one for that film) by lapsed member godspellgroupie: "The Film J.R. shot", which refers to the 'Who Shot JR' thing and the fact that Larry Hagman directed this movie.
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=4902
Then I went over to imdb to see what the film was about so I could review it, and lo and behold, I come across, on the first page, as the film's major tagline: "The Film that J.R. shot!".
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0068271/
I don't want to piss anyone off by bringing this up, but it harks back to a similar problem we had with Chicken Run, although in that case it was an example of a clever pun being used in the same way in two areas, which is feasible. This is similar, but I just thought I'd bring it up and spark some conversation on it.
|
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 05/12/2005 : 19:56:04
|
You raise an interesting topic AC, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand on it, but I think:
- it's a valid review
- it should be allowed on the site
- I wont vote for it
- I wouldn't do it myself
I don't think there's anything wrong with it as a review, and we all take our inspiration from different places, the problem is that it seems funnier and cleverer than it really is, and most of the time I will vote, because I wont know it has been 'stolen'. Still, I think the review is valid and should stand.
|
Edited by - bife on 05/12/2005 19:56:31 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 09:05:29
|
It's hard to know whether the review was thought of independently or not. I'd always like to give the reviewer benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 09:18:15
|
It doesn't bother me if it's plagiarised or not. I.e., I see fwfr as a joke site, and I really don't care when someone tells me a joke if they invented it or not. Sharing a good joke as much as possible is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 11:10:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
At any rate, Kolo's Connery review here probably belongs here.
Fixed- cheers.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 21:54:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
It doesn't bother me if it's plagiarised or not. I.e., I see fwfr as a joke site, and I really don't care when someone tells me a joke if they invented it or not. Sharing a good joke as much as possible is a good thing.
That's pretty much how I think of it (except that I would not describe it as a joke site). It's better if a pun is original, but it's almost as good to select/adapt one for our entertainment.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 22:24:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
It doesn't bother me if it's plagiarised or not. I.e., I see fwfr as a joke site, and I really don't care when someone tells me a joke if they invented it or not. Sharing a good joke as much as possible is a good thing.
I'd lose a lot of respect for this site if I thought most [or even MANY] reviews had been filched.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 22:50:35
|
"Icy dead people" was filched. 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/13/2005 : 23:20:38
|
Most puns are relatively obvious so the borderline between original and not is very grey. I think Sean's comedian/joke analogy is very appropriate.
This has all been discussed before. Could someone please find the archived thread and post a link? If not/Also, couldn't this discussion please move to a special thread? The 'wrong' in the title here was (I believe) not intended to cover this sort of ethical area! |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 05/13/2005 23:22:43 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 05/14/2005 : 13:24:24
|
Is there any queasiness involved here? To be honest, I entered my review very lazily and am content to delete it if it does not actually fit the film.
|
|
|
|
Fresno
"Back from the dead"
|
Posted - 05/14/2005 : 18:09:33
|
about half the reviews for this documentary are off base and have nothing to do with the film. There probably is another film they could apply to, however. . . .
Bill Clinton: Rock & Roll President (1997)
|
|
|
|
AC
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 10:19:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
about half the reviews for this documentary are off base and have nothing to do with the film. There probably is another film they could apply to, however. . . .
Bill Clinton: Rock & Roll President (1997)
Anyone know the plot? (IMDB has nothing)
Is it just a documentary about Bill Clinton's musical talents or something else?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Reviews that are wrong
