| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Willy Weasel 
"Look left and right."
|
 Posted - 06/25/2006 : 13:04:05
|
Following on from the comments about duplicates across different films I think that different versions (remakes) of films should be classified as just the one title to avoid duplicates. In practise there are different cast, directors, approach etc. so it is the reviewers job to check other versions for duplicates. Easily done by a search for "Film Title", IMDB, FWFR.
I just submitted a review for 'Animal Farm' and saw that 'Josh The Cat' has several reviews for both the 1954 version and the 1999 version. Unfortunately he has duplicated 'Pigs are more equal.' which was accepted from 'Rovark' two years previously for the other version. |
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 07/04/2006 : 01:57:22
|
| I agree. It's the laziest form of reviewing when a user blatantly checks the original of a recent remake and then copies and submits someone else's idea. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 07/04/2006 : 08:35:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Weasel
I just submitted a review for 'Animal Farm' and saw that 'Josh The Cat' has several reviews for both the 1954 version and the 1999 version. Unfortunately he has duplicated 'Pigs are more equal.' which was accepted from 'Rovark' two years previously for the other version.
Thanks for highlighting this perhaps a more polite manner would have been to pm me, I shall sort it out. It was an honest mistake!
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I agree. It's the laziest form of reviewing when a user blatantly checks the original of a recent remake and then copies and submits someone else's idea.
Thanks for the character assassination I am glad to know your honest opinion. Of course it was only lazy reviewing if I knew that the original was there which apparentley you believe that I did!
Josh the cheating lazy git reviewer.
EDIT: Benj there are votes involved can you give the 3 votes to Rovark (and I shall add mine to it now) then when its done decline the review. If I bin it myself then the votes are lost, cheers Josh the cat |
Edited by - Josh the cat on 07/04/2006 08:39:12 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 07/04/2006 : 14:33:25
|
Hey Josh - I didn't mean you specifically, even though reading it back it looks a bit that way. I was agreeing with Willy's criticism of the practice, not the particular example he used.
Anyway, I hope I didn't annoy you too much with my always outspoken opinions. I'm hitting a couple of pages of your reviews as a recompense for any bad feeling. 
(Did you watch Ghosts of Mississipi last night too?  ) |
|
|
|
Pope George Ringo 
"the Pope on stage"
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 10:14:15
|
| The recent "Twat shot, part dieux" sounds a lot like "Muff shots part deux" for Basic Instinct 2 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/18/2006 : 17:29:22
|
| Yukon's "Pitt's Achilles' heel: acting" sounds an awful lot like my "Acting's Pitt's Achilles' heel" for Troy. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/22/2006 : 08:50:07
|
| "Douglas romances the Stone" sounds a lot like Joe Blevins's "Douglas romances another Stone" for Basic Instinct. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 12:13:02
|
Strangers on a Train has:-
Montgomery - "Hitchcock boards with bass" (first)
BaftaBabe - "Hitch boards with bass" |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 15:46:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Strangers on a Train has:-
Montgomery - "Hitchcock boards with bass" (first)
BaftaBabe - "Hitch boards with bass"
Gosh, THANKS Sean ... and SORRY EM! I never saw yours. I submitted that one in a flurry of all the great man's films when I was composing my accolade of Hitch in his own films. I've deleted it now [wave farewell to those 4 votes!], and resubmitted with different enough words. Sorry again.
|
|
|
|
Pope George Ringo
"the Pope on stage"
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 15:17:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the cat
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Weasel
I just submitted a review for 'Animal Farm' and saw that 'Josh The Cat' has several reviews for both the 1954 version and the 1999 version. Unfortunately he has duplicated 'Pigs are more equal.' which was accepted from 'Rovark' two years previously for the other version.
Thanks for highlighting this perhaps a more polite manner would have been to pm me, I shall sort it out. It was an honest mistake!
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I agree. It's the laziest form of reviewing when a user blatantly checks the original of a recent remake and then copies and submits someone else's idea.
Thanks for the character assassination I am glad to know your honest opinion. Of course it was only lazy reviewing if I knew that the original was there which apparentley you believe that I did!
Josh the cheating lazy git reviewer.
EDIT: Benj there are votes involved can you give the 3 votes to Rovark (and I shall add mine to it now) then when its done decline the review. If I bin it myself then the votes are lost, cheers Josh the cat
May I say, very belatedly, that one should always give the reviewer the benefit of any doubt regarding duplicates. It's very easy to do indeed.
However, in Josh's case, it's particularly silly to suppose he would deliberately copy someone else's review for another film. Josh may have his faults (like all of us) but moral laxity isn't one of them.
I also think the idea of originality around here is sometimes a little strange. Do you really think the "Youth In Asia" pun was original to FWFR? I mean, is it not a stunningly obvious pun which must have beeen made thousands of times before ever being written on FWFR? So what's the big deal if it appears, appositely, under more than one FWFR film by different authors? That doesn't necessarily mean that people are lowering themselves to copy another FWFR review, merely that they have had the same unoriginal thought which another FWFR had earlier (with equal unoriginality!) .
Actually, someone has probably made this point before...
|
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 17:58:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I also think the idea of originality around here is sometimes a little strange. Do you really think the "Youth In Asia" pun was original to FWFR? I mean, is it not a stunningly obvious pun which must have beeen made thousands of times before ever being written on FWFR? So what's the big deal if it appears, appositely, under more than one FWFR film by different authors? That doesn't necessarily mean that people are lowering themselves to copy another FWFR review, merely that they have had the same unoriginal thought which another FWFR had earlier (with equal unoriginality!) .
Actually, to be clear, I didn't think anyone copied off of anyone (in fact, I never assume that, even when the dupes are for the same film). I was just curious.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 19:11:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I also think the idea of originality around here is sometimes a little strange. Do you really think the "Youth In Asia" pun was original to FWFR? I mean, is it not a stunningly obvious pun which must have beeen made thousands of times before ever being written on FWFR? So what's the big deal if it appears, appositely, under more than one FWFR film by different authors? That doesn't necessarily mean that people are lowering themselves to copy another FWFR review, merely that they have had the same unoriginal thought which another FWFR had earlier (with equal unoriginality!) .
Actually, to be clear, I didn't think anyone copied off of anyone (in fact, I never assume that, even when the dupes are for the same film). I was just curious.
These things just happen. I just thought that not everyone who posted about Josh's dupe went as far as they could have to make it clear they were not suggesting Josh did this deliberately. I'm not specifically saying anyone said he did do it deliberately, but it wouldn't have taken much to avoid any inference being drawn. Having been the victim myself in another thread of a [SELF-CENSORED] who challenged my motives I know how hurtful such remarks can be.
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 08/11/2006 : 16:05:44
|
| "Alfie becomes Alfred" came before "'Alfie' now plays Alfred" for Batman Begins. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Duplicate Reviews
