Have you ever submitted an review in the magestic confidence that it was destined to be accepted, and then found out later--to your chagrin, anguish, and lament--that it was declined? In that category for me was "The Iceberg Cometh." This was declined as being too generic, but I thought it was simply a riff on a Eugene O'Neill play and that the film being reviewed was instantly detectable, supposedly a requirement for a good review. Who knows, perhaps I'm wrong. I'll email gold to the first respondent who correctly identifies the movie. If anyone thinks the review reeks of ambiguity, please let me know.
I really don't have anything to add. I just find it sad that I have only one reply to my thread.
Hiya Catuli
I think CL has said it all, really. O'Neill's play aside, your review of course evokes Titanic, but which version? It could apply to any of them, really, including some documentaries.
Also, as Benj has recently stated publicly in another thread, it's quite demoralizing, not to mention diverting of his [and MERP's] time to have to explain everything.
I'm only posting this way because in my earlier days on the site -- ah, waaaaay back last spring -- I felt as frustrated as you. But in the vast majority of cases declines because of "too generic" are usually spot on! If you think about this in relation to your review you'll see how wise the decline decision was. Which isn't to say it couldn't be resubmitted to make it more picture-specific ... just off the top of my head: "Cameron's iceberg cometh" or some such.
Wotcha reckon? PS sorry to be picky, but I think you meant to say: majestic ... no?
Maybe, but there arent many of them where you know an iceberg is coming and you're waiting for the moment, as implied in Catuli's review.
As for Baffy's argument that it could apply to any version of the Titanic, well, go see how many reviews are there for Titanic (1997) which could apply to any version of the story - there are loads - virtually all those which don't mention Jack or Rose or Cameron. For most people on the planet the 1997 version is the version of Titanic.
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
Maybe, but there arent many of them where you know an iceberg is coming and you're waiting for the moment, as implied in Catuli's review.
As for Baffy's argument that it could apply to any version of the Titanic, well, go see how many reviews are there for Titanic (1997) which could apply to any version of the story - there are loads - virtually all those which don't mention Jack or Rose or Cameron. For most people on the planet the 1997 version is the version of Titanic.
However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
Wow, first a drought and then a flood of replies. Thanks for the interesting feedback all. I'm really not frustrated about the decline, just curious. I know sometimes the review requirements can be daunting, conveying a specific review within four words. I don't know how often that is perfectly accomplished. While "iceberg" may apply to movies other than "Titanic," there are many key words that apply to a whole lot more. A lot of times the only way to add specificity is work the director's or an actor's name into the review. This was suggested here, but frankly, I think it would be just too ironic to have the review of "Titanic" watered down
quote:Originally posted by Whippersnapper However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
quote:Originally posted by Whippersnapper However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
quote:Originally posted by Whippersnapper However, I think the most persuasive reason for rejecting this review, assuming it was for Titanic (1997) is that it would be a dupe.
It's already there, written by Mak and has 4 votes.
And it's the only review that person has. Ironic.
Isn't it?
Not sure I understand, Whippy ... does that mean you've double-registered as Mak
OK, it's a dupe, you might say I was duped. I disagreed with the "too generic" decline but I find "identical to another review" to be a perfectly sound reason.
Being Barbaric About Too Generic
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 14:54:50
