| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 10/11/2004 : 11:07:30
|
LPH, Mary-Kate Olsen is always called Mary-Kate, because her name is hyphenated.
|
 |
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 15:01:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Downtown, you know I love you buddy, but your review for "Return of the Living Dead" is wrong. The review ("Wherefore art thou Romero") clearly and cleverly intends to invoke the pathos and sorrow of Juliet's pining for Romeo, playing on the verisimilitude of Romeo and Romero. Except the question is wrong. It's clear that you intend to say something in the vein of "Where is Romero", suggesting a criticism of the sequel. The problem, as I have explained before, is that "wherefore" does not mean "where": it means why. In that regard, I quote from a post of sometime last year:
I just voted for Evil G's fwfr of William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. I thought it [the review] was funny, it's got that modernized flair to it, plus it echos a popular phrase from current commercials for Boost mobile phones. Thumbs up!
Nonetheless, I just have to make this observation. Many people inadvertently misunderstand the famous phrase/question:
"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo."
"Wherefore" means "why," not "where." It's an archaic word and finds a loose parallel in the still-used phrase "how come" (which phrase amuses me even more, since one typically would associate "how come" with a more casual manner of speech when its origin comes from an older, more refined type of speech, as in "how come these things to such an end?")
When Juliet asks the question, she's not asking where her young lover is: she poses the ontological question "why are you Romeo," or, more specifically, "why are you a Montague" as in "why did I have to fall in love with a guy from precisely the wrong family?"
But, Evil G's review is still funny. You should vote for it (even though, technically, "Romeo ... why you be?" might be literally closer to the original phrase.)
In Evil G's case, there was cause to overlook the error. Indeed, in retrospect, I might even have argued that the error was appropos, given the tendency of today's slang culture to cannibalize the language without regard to classic or classical structure and meaning. At present, however, the functional equivalent of "Why are you Romero" does not really do anything; nor, unfortunately, does it relate to the film in question. I imagine, however, that a couple punctuation marks like "Where(fore) art thou Romero" would accomplish something in the vein of accuracy while preserving the intent.
Of course, I don't approve the reviews around here and I didn't write it, so you guys do what you want. I'm just making an observation so the young 'uns around here don't go astray and start hanging out in pool halls paraphrasing Shakespeare incorrectly. 
Et tu, Mguy? Were I like thee I'd throw away myself.
If I changed it to "Wherefore AREN'T thou Romero" would that make you happy? |
Edited by - Downtown on 10/11/2004 16:33:14 |
|
|
|
Montgomery 
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 15:37:10
|
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=1587
For War Games, MelissaS has "Broderick, Hunt upset government." Ally Sheedy is his cohort in that movie. That review is appropriate for Project X.
And, to be fair. Here is one of mine that is wrong.
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=399
I had "Septuplets become sextuplets." for Raising Arizona. Wrong. It's Quints and Quads.
EM :)
|
Edited by - Montgomery on 10/11/2004 18:44:05 |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 15:50:10
|
I think i have some that are wrong also..or maybe too vague.
One of mine is "Goldblum goes boom." - Didnt he also explode in the spaceship in 'Independence day'?
Also for 'Alice Sweet Alice' I think it was Brooke who got killed...not had killed.
I might fix sometime.
|
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 15:58:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Titanpa
I think i have some that are wrong also..or maybe too vague.
One of mine is "Goldblum goes boom." - Didnt he also explode in the spaceship in 'Independence day'?
Also for 'Alice Sweet Alice' I think it was Brooke who got killed...not had killed.
I might fix sometime.
If Alice Sweet Alice is the one with the creepy little girl and the mask, then, yes, I believe Brooke gets killed. She doesn't do the killing. EM :)
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 19:20:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
LPH, Mary-Kate Olsen is always called Mary-Kate, because her name is hyphenated.
I didn't realise that. Nevertheless, LPH's theory is still valid. A person called X Y Z can have X Y as the given name they go by even if it is not written X-Y. Similarly, Y Z can be a double-barrelled surname even if it is not hyphenated. As I have a boring surname, I have considered adding my mum's maiden name, but I'd have a space rather than a hyphen. Cannot think of any famous examples, but there certainly are some.
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 20:00:16
|
Actually, Downtown, your proposed revision would -- in my opinion -- succeed in multiple ways.
First, it would be grammatically and ideologically consistent.
Second, even for those who do not realize the distinction between where and wherefore, it would make sense regardless (i.e., those who think it means "where" would enjoy the punny implication "Romero ain't here", and those of us in the know will continue to delight in the true irony suggested, i.e., "why isn't this guy Romero."
I think it becomes brilliant at that point and deserves everyone's vote! And your revision far exceeds the lame suggestion I made, hence a testiment to your obvious genius.
Of course, I am but one of many. Obviously you don't have to do anything solely for my sake; my point was merely to preserve consistency in meaning. If you do decide to change it, I hope and ask benj to OK it, and quickly, because I think it's brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 00:15:50
|
Yep, ditto to Mguyx, the same thought occurred to me when I read DT's proposed revision, and glad to see someone else agrees. 
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 15:27:52
|
Ok, it's done.
"This above all: to thine own review be true"
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 10:32:12
|
Is there something I'm missing about Tori's review here?
For 12 ANGRY MEN,
"Fonda creates hung jury."
is wrong. The Fonda character created a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Someone else made a joke:
"No women = hung jury."
and I can see that -- even voted for it. But the 12 ANGRY MEN jury delivered a verdict.
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 10:38:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Is there something I'm missing about Tori's review here?
For 12 ANGRY MEN,
"Fonda creates hung jury."
is wrong. The Fonda character created a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Someone else made a joke:
"No women = hung jury."
and I can see that -- even voted for it. But the 12 ANGRY MEN jury delivered a verdict.
I thought the plot of the film was that Fonda disagreed with everyone else in the jury and eventually turns them all around to his way of thinking, but until that happens isn't it technically a hung jury?
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 14:46:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Is there something I'm missing about Tori's review here?
For 12 ANGRY MEN,
"Fonda creates hung jury."
is wrong. The Fonda character created a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Someone else made a joke:
"No women = hung jury."
and I can see that -- even voted for it. But the 12 ANGRY MEN jury delivered a verdict.
I thought the plot of the film was that Fonda disagreed with everyone else in the jury and eventually turns them all around to his way of thinking, but until that happens isn't it technically a hung jury?
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought a "hung jury" was one that reported to the judge that it could not come to a unanimous decision. Just because you disagree in the jury room doesn't make the jury "hung" [in the legal sense ] until they literally cannot arrive at a verdict. Any attorneys here to verify?
|
Edited by - randall on 10/13/2004 14:50:31 |
|
|
|
Montgomery
"F**k!"
|
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 15:11:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Is there something I'm missing about Tori's review here?
For 12 ANGRY MEN,
"Fonda creates hung jury."
is wrong. The Fonda character created a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Someone else made a joke:
"No women = hung jury."
and I can see that -- even voted for it. But the 12 ANGRY MEN jury delivered a verdict.
I thought the plot of the film was that Fonda disagreed with everyone else in the jury and eventually turns them all around to his way of thinking, but until that happens isn't it technically a hung jury?
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought a "hung jury" was one that reported to the judge that it could not come to a unanimous decision. Just because you disagree in the jury room doesn't make the jury "hung" [in the legal sense] until they literally cannot arrive at a verdict. Any attorneys here to verify?
That one hit me as weird, too. Because I also understood "hung" to mean, cannot come to an agreement. They finally do all agree. And, I thought of the other definition for that word, too. But, Fonda doesn't create the "hung" jury in that sense either, except for if you're saying, if he had been a woman, they all wouldn't be "hung."
EM :)
|
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 15:18:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Desmond
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Is there something I'm missing about Tori's review here?
For 12 ANGRY MEN,
"Fonda creates hung jury."
is wrong. The Fonda character created a unanimous verdict of not guilty. Someone else made a joke:
"No women = hung jury."
and I can see that -- even voted for it. But the 12 ANGRY MEN jury delivered a verdict.
I thought the plot of the film was that Fonda disagreed with everyone else in the jury and eventually turns them all around to his way of thinking, but until that happens isn't it technically a hung jury?
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought a "hung jury" was one that reported to the judge that it could not come to a unanimous decision. Just because you disagree in the jury room doesn't make the jury "hung" [in the legal sense] until they literally cannot arrive at a verdict. Any attorneys here to verify?
That one hit me as weird, too. Because I also understood "hung" to mean, cannot come to an agreement. They finally do all agree. And, I thought of the other definition for that word, too. But, Fonda doesn't create the "hung" jury in that sense either, except for if you're saying, if he had been a woman, they all wouldn't be "hung."
EM :)
 Emily! Im surprised at you.
Seriously. I thought a Hung Jury was the end of a trial. Basically like a mistrial. Noone comes to an agreement. So they stop the trial. Noone is guilty or innocent.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 16:08:22
|
Yes, a hung jury is the end of the trial. It's not like a mistrial, it is a mistrial. If the prosecution still wants to pursue a conviction they have to start all over again. But since there was no verdict, it's not double jeopardy.
It's a little different in civil trials because you don't need a unanimous vote. A hung jury is still possible, but very unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Reviews that are wrong
