| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/10/2011 : 04:09:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
The way I see it - votes are given to us on a case-by-case basis as well. Once it's moved to another film I think you can't necessarily expect the yield to be identical and passing on a vote previously given in a new context, even if it is practically identical, is in a way a misuse of that person's original vote. I still reckon it's better to take the punch and start over. Unless that particular review has 30 votes or more and then I take back everything I just said... then it's war.
I reluctantly broadly agree. It would be nice to transfer votes, but in practice it is not that common that one can say that a review is just as good a fit with another film. When it is, though, what was the reason for not choosing the new film in the first place? Unless it didn't exist at the time, the most likely reason is that the old one was better known here. And when it comes down to it, why should a moved review get to keep more votes than an equally good review has for an equally well known film (perhaps even the same film)?
This even happened pre-purge. For example, many of us had reviews approved here which turned out to be completely wrong (although Mr. Stupid's remained serendipitously accurate). I resubmitted mine here (as I think did other people). I don't think they've ever gained as many votes, and if they have it has taken much longer than the first time. That's life.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 04:42:03
|
| Another issue is whether the review be dated according to its original submission or when it is moved. What happens when a similar review has been submitted for the new film between the two dates? Which review gets priority? In an ideal world, people wouldn't duplicate ideas all over the site, but we know that they do. |
|
|
|
[matt] 
"Cinemattic."
|
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 01:14:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
The way I see it - votes are given to us on a case-by-case basis as well. Once it's moved to another film I think you can't necessarily expect the yield to be identical and passing on a vote previously given in a new context, even if it is practically identical, is in a way a misuse of that person's original vote. I still reckon it's better to take the punch and start over. Unless that particular review has 30 votes or more and then I take back everything I just said... then it's war. 
Fair point. I agree that a review shouldn't be moved with its votes if moving it might change why people gave it a vote in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 04:31:47
|
| P.K.M.N. has for some reason added this mini-series. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 05:33:34
|
| I think because the same material has been edited together to make a film which was given quite a wide cinema release - I remember hearing about it and wanting to see it- it reminded me of similar recent approaches to Che and Mesrine. It's meant to be excellent. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2011 : 16:28:38
|
| Hanged. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/06/2011 : 04:05:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian
The wacky exclusions now extend to Greta Garbo's last appearance on film.  
The wacky thing is that you're seriously defending this. Are you? It's a porn movie. And you know how disingenuous the Garbo comment is given the circumstances of her "appearance"...  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/06/2011 : 10:14:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
The wacky thing is that you're seriously defending this. Are you? It's a porn movie. And you know how disingenuous the Garbo comment is given the circumstances of her "appearance"...
Not at all. Regardless of its genre, it is unambiguously a film (and there are many other porn films on the site nowadays). Given that Benj has been removing films of all genres, that leaves the issue of whether it is notable and reviewable. Garbo's appearance (which I didn't misrepresent in any way), in light of her decades of seclusion, makes it very notable and very, very reviewable. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Non-films
