| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
 Posted - 09/05/2008 : 07:48:46
|
This rule seriously requires a reevaluation. A few of my otherwise perfectly pertinent reviews have been declined based on this criteria, the utilisation of which has been inconsistent, to say the least (and to remain polite). Case in point: A recent review by Sludge.
And it's not just this one either. There have been dozens and dozens recent approvals that should have been declined based on the aforementioned rule. Just saying.
PS. I think the rule should be discontinued. But then again I also don't believe in astrology.
|
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 11:44:00
|
AMEN!
All the "rules" are inconsistent (after all, this is an art not a science), but this may be the worst. |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 12:12:02
|
I'd say Sludge's review is allowable (albeit not adding anything we can't already assume) because it doesn't spin the film into something it isn't about based only on the title, which is what Title Play is meant to curb. It's pretty much guaranteed the film will be trying to be fast and furious so this isn't wrong (unless the producers surprise us all and release a character-driven period drama).
As a God-awful pun example of what Title Play declines are intended to stop: 'Gladiator' reviewed with 'Man happily ate woman'. Nothing to do with the film's content, everything to do with a completely irrelevant interpretation of the title. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 12:41:39
|
I think the test for this should be whether the review would be basically valid (although perhaps generic) if the same film had a different title.
My review for "The Magical Roundabout" - "Magical (in roundabout way)" was wrongly refused as TITLE PLAY ONLY and almost six months later is still waiting to be approved, even though I mentioned it in another thread.
If someone points out a mistake I made, I try to correct it reasonably quickly. It was something I was taught to regard as part of good manners.
Unfortunately not everyone seems to see things this way.
Still, witch-hunting a few tv documentaries needs to take priority I suppose... 
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 13:00:20
|
Good news, Benj. Look for these reviews coming soon from me:
(I'm sure you can figure out the films involved)
Thunderous tropics
Bangkok can be dangerous
Bunny in the house
Read, then burn
The preying family
Women being women
|
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 13:17:03
|
I agree, obviously, with benj and Whipper. But, seemingly, many MERPs don't. Maybe it should be clarified for them.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 13:56:39
|
| Yup, I'm guessing it's the new MERP that does not understand this rule at all. I just reply with "Not title play ONLY." However, there are cases which do not pass Whipper's good test. Benj, what do you think about "Hopefully also last 'Sunday'" for First Sunday. This does rely on the title but is also commenting on the quality of the actual film. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 09/07/2008 01:49:23 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 14:22:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Benj, what do you think about "Hopefully also last 'Sunday'" for First Sunday. This does rely on the title but us also commenting on the quality of the actual film.
I've no probs with that- it's not saying the film is about something other than what it is based on the title alone. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/05/2008 : 15:12:36
|
O.K., thanks. The MERP thought differently.
I've resubmitted, asking her/him to see this thread. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 09/07/2008 01:53:44 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/07/2008 : 13:30:52
|
| Thanks Benj/MERP. |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 09/09/2008 : 18:32:41
|
I've been very inactive on fourum and the site of late but I submitted one review which I thought went beyond title play; sadly, the MERP did not think so.
The film: What happens in Vegas...
My review: ...should've stayed in Vegas.
While it is a play on the saying, given the universal panning by the critics that the film received, I don't think that my review can be considered as "title play ONLY." I've seen the film and am yet unable to understand why it is a hit. |
|
|
|
Pope George Ringo
"the Pope on stage"
|
Posted - 12/07/2008 : 01:08:43
|
I get a kick out of this one myself. I recently edited an old review of mine for "24 Hour Party People", changing "Manchesterians require no sleep" to "Mancunians require no sleep" and it was declined as title play only. A review that was okay when only Benj was deciding is now no longer acceptable. go figure.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/07/2008 : 01:21:07
|
| That illustrates a frequent problem -- MERPs rejecting an already approved review that has been amended insignificantly. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/14/2009 : 02:25:37
|
| I had another frustrating one in this category recently. It was for Monsturd -- apart from the fact that mine was not really title play at all, I defy anyone to come up with a review that plays on that title but which does not describe the film. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/14/2009 02:26:07 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 21:01:05
|
I'm not really clear how reviews which mention the word Beetle but make no other mention of a Bug/bug and no mention at all of love can be 'title play only' for The Love Bug.
|
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 02/09/2010 : 16:11:00
|
I think it's great that Salopian hunts down the old thread rather than starting a new one. It gives a sense of history and in this case, I hadn't remembered this thread or Ali's original critique. So, to comment on it over a year and a half later... I think my fwfr pointed out here is an excellent case to have been discussed.
I agree that it ventures into that possibly decline-able territory, and I thought just now of dumping the review. On further thought, though, together with Benj's commentary: it does reflect my opinion of the film as an extension of the Fast Furiously Gone In 60 Seconds "genre" - that is, I don't think it's forging any new territory, and the original territory was pretty shallow to begin with. This could be said of many sequels but this one happened to have the whole "we don't even know what to call the sequel" element, and I think that's what I was trying to capture with this equally shallow fwfr.
So, does the fwfr belong in the book? I'd say no.
Oh, wait. It's already in the book?
Yipeeeeee.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the book. I'm sure it's not really in there.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Title Play Only
