It just says "Declined", without reason.
This is not the first time this happens. What is wrong with this site?
This is not the first time this happens. What is wrong with this site?
Posted 7 days ago
Since they don't say any reason why it was declined, I just have to guess. My review doesn't break the conditions of use, it doesn't break any copyright or have any offensive language. So what's the reason it wasn't approved? I have no idea, and it doesn't say. So I just have to guess. The reason I could think of is that I used the word "dumb", maybe they thought that was an offensive word? That seems too sensitive to be honest.
Anyway I removed that word, and re-posted the review. Just one minute later, it was already rejected. And of course as always it doesn't say any reason.
Here's what I wrote in my review:
"Historical inaccuracies ruin an otherwise exciting movie
There is no doubt that Gladiator is an exciting movie with a moving story. At least that's what I thought when I first saw the movie as a teenager. Of course being a teenager, you are easily mesmerized, and might miss a lot when seing a movie.
What is very unfortunate about this movie is that there are extremely many historical inaccuracies. Many of these are things that could have easily been changed. Therefore, people watching this movie might think they are learning historical facts, when they are in fact not.
What you end up watching therefore, is rather like a fantasy movie taking place in a setting inspired by some history. That can still be enjoyable, but it makes the movie lose a lot of its potential magic."
Anyway I removed that word, and re-posted the review. Just one minute later, it was already rejected. And of course as always it doesn't say any reason.
Here's what I wrote in my review:
"Historical inaccuracies ruin an otherwise exciting movie
There is no doubt that Gladiator is an exciting movie with a moving story. At least that's what I thought when I first saw the movie as a teenager. Of course being a teenager, you are easily mesmerized, and might miss a lot when seing a movie.
What is very unfortunate about this movie is that there are extremely many historical inaccuracies. Many of these are things that could have easily been changed. Therefore, people watching this movie might think they are learning historical facts, when they are in fact not.
What you end up watching therefore, is rather like a fantasy movie taking place in a setting inspired by some history. That can still be enjoyable, but it makes the movie lose a lot of its potential magic."
"Historical inaccuracies" is not a legit criticism.
This movie does not claim to be a Documentary.
Still, if it's rejected immediately, maybe your account is sh-- listed for reviews.
There are some errors in language usage, but not many and not particularly egregious ones... I've seen much worse...
This movie does not claim to be a Documentary.
Still, if it's rejected immediately, maybe your account is sh-- listed for reviews.
There are some errors in language usage, but not many and not particularly egregious ones... I've seen much worse...
So you think a movie has to be a documentary in order to be historically accurate? That's laughable to be honest :-)
(Edited)
I recently watched "The Oxford Murders".
It is a very entertaining "Math-fiction" murder mystery.
Elijah Wood refers to the golden ratio (phi) as "pi". William Hurt mispronounces Kurt Godel's name; applies a quantum phenomenon to the "macro" world and oversimplifies aspects Wittgenstein's epistemology to the point of absurdity.
It's still an entertaining movie.
Do you like Spiderman?
Do you think that the idea that being bitten by a radioactive spider can give you spider-like abilities has *any* reasonable scientific basis?
I think I have made my point.
It is a very entertaining "Math-fiction" murder mystery.
Elijah Wood refers to the golden ratio (phi) as "pi". William Hurt mispronounces Kurt Godel's name; applies a quantum phenomenon to the "macro" world and oversimplifies aspects Wittgenstein's epistemology to the point of absurdity.
It's still an entertaining movie.
Do you like Spiderman?
Do you think that the idea that being bitten by a radioactive spider can give you spider-like abilities has *any* reasonable scientific basis?
I think I have made my point.
So you think a movie has to be a documentary in order to be historically accurate? It's a simple yes or no question. :-)
Do you think a movie has to be a documentary to be scientifically accurate?
Techno.
In a Documentary, leeway is given in the reviews topic structure.
In a movie, accuracy is out the window. Artistic license is in play. So to harp about it is not reviewing. It's complaining. Complaining is not reviewing.
In a Documentary, leeway is given in the reviews topic structure.
In a movie, accuracy is out the window. Artistic license is in play. So to harp about it is not reviewing. It's complaining. Complaining is not reviewing.
I'm not reviewing a documentary here.
(Edited)
My point exactly. You do not have that leeway afforded in a documentary to comment on historical accuracy. It is a movie. Fiction. Fiction is fictitious. Fiction IS inaccurate. So to comment about an inaccuracy in fiction makes zero sense. Fiction is supposed to be inaccurate.
Scientific inaccuracies ruin an otherwise exciting movie
"There is no doubt that Spiderman (2002) is an exciting movie with an engaging story. At least that's what I thought when I first saw the movie as a teenager. Of course being a teenager, one is easily mesmerized, and might miss a lot when seeing a movie.
What is very unfortunate about this movie is that there are extremely many scientific inaccuracies. Many of these are things that could have easily been changed. Therefore, people watching this movie might think they are learning scientific facts, when they are in fact not.
What you end up watching therefore, is rather like a fantasy movie taking place in a setting inspired by some science. That can still be enjoyable, but it makes the movie lose a lot of its potential magic."
"There is no doubt that Spiderman (2002) is an exciting movie with an engaging story. At least that's what I thought when I first saw the movie as a teenager. Of course being a teenager, one is easily mesmerized, and might miss a lot when seeing a movie.
What is very unfortunate about this movie is that there are extremely many scientific inaccuracies. Many of these are things that could have easily been changed. Therefore, people watching this movie might think they are learning scientific facts, when they are in fact not.
What you end up watching therefore, is rather like a fantasy movie taking place in a setting inspired by some science. That can still be enjoyable, but it makes the movie lose a lot of its potential magic."
Write reviews based on how well the actors did. How well the script was written. How good the cinematography was. How good the editing was. How good the soundtrack was. How good the director did his job. That's a review. You can make a small blip of a comment of the accuracy presented in the production at the end of a review. But don't overdo it.
Techno.
Hi
Here we go.
I'll break it down for you.
Historical inaccuracies ruin an otherwise exciting movie
You are comparing the movie to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
At least that's what I thought when I first saw the movie as a teenager. Of course being a teenager, you are easily mesmerized, and might miss a lot when seing [sic] a movie.
You are talking about "You"....Not the movie. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
What is very unfortunate about this movie is that there are extremely many historical inaccuracies.
You are comparing the movie to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid. And you repeated yourself.
Many of these are things that could have easily been changed. Therefore, people watching this movie might think they are learning historical facts, when they are in fact not.
You are comparing the movie to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
What you end up watching therefore, is rather like a fantasy movie taking place in a setting inspired by some history.
Again you partially interjected a comparison to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
Hi
Here we go.
I'll break it down for you.
Historical inaccuracies ruin an otherwise exciting movie
You are comparing the movie to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
At least that's what I thought when I first saw the movie as a teenager. Of course being a teenager, you are easily mesmerized, and might miss a lot when seing [sic] a movie.
You are talking about "You"....Not the movie. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
What is very unfortunate about this movie is that there are extremely many historical inaccuracies.
You are comparing the movie to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid. And you repeated yourself.
Many of these are things that could have easily been changed. Therefore, people watching this movie might think they are learning historical facts, when they are in fact not.
You are comparing the movie to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
What you end up watching therefore, is rather like a fantasy movie taking place in a setting inspired by some history.
Again you partially interjected a comparison to real life. This is in the guidelines as a thing to avoid.
Are you seriously saying that you are not allowed to say something about the historical accuracy of a period movie? That sounds very, very odd.
Oh... you can say it. Just not the way you did.
Not at all.
He's saying you shouldn't make it the primary theme around which your entire review revolves.
A few sentences within a broader review is completely acceptable.
He's saying you shouldn't make it the primary theme around which your entire review revolves.
A few sentences within a broader review is completely acceptable.
My second beat your second out!
Where in the guidelines does it say you are not to allowed to have a primary theme for your review? If someone writes a review centered around for example costume material, I might not be very personally interested in that, but someone else might be and find it really helpful. Shouldn't they be allowed to center their review around that?
Ed, I'm bored now.
You have at it. :D
You have at it. :D
This is what you can use.
There is no doubt that Gladiator is an exciting movie with a moving story. What you end up watching however, is a fantasy movie, with a lot of inaccuracies that is still enjoyable. But because of this it loses a lot of its potential and magic.
You use this and it will be approved.
There is no doubt that Gladiator is an exciting movie with a moving story. What you end up watching however, is a fantasy movie, with a lot of inaccuracies that is still enjoyable. But because of this it loses a lot of its potential and magic.
You use this and it will be approved.
When you write "with a lot of inaccuracies" you skip the word "historical", which makes it less clear. Inaccuracies might refer to the plot, language or even lighting or anything else. But in this case it refers specifically to history. Why would you remove that word?
(Edited)
Inaccurate lighting?
Anyway....You have to leave certain words at the door. Inaccuracies can only extrapolate to the plot. People will "Get It" when you say that the movie was inaccurate. It can only mean one thing. Oh and the plot inaccurate is the same thing as historically inaccurate. They are one in the same. Still can't get over inaccurate lighting. Inaccurate lighting is mentioned as poor lighting which ruins a scene. You do not refer to poor lighting as inaccurate. That's just silly.
Anyway....You have to leave certain words at the door. Inaccuracies can only extrapolate to the plot. People will "Get It" when you say that the movie was inaccurate. It can only mean one thing. Oh and the plot inaccurate is the same thing as historically inaccurate. They are one in the same. Still can't get over inaccurate lighting. Inaccurate lighting is mentioned as poor lighting which ruins a scene. You do not refer to poor lighting as inaccurate. That's just silly.
You think plot is the same as historical accuracy? Ok, that sounds intelligent.
Excuse Me I am interested ONLY in the Video:
TACHYONIC ANTITELEPHONE.May You let me see??!!
TACHYONIC ANTITELEPHONE.May You let me see??!!
Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion
Btw. Funny how a lot of reviews on the movie have historical inaccuracy as the main theme of the review. That must hurt for people thinking that historical accuracy only concerns documentaries. :-)
Thanks
I shall report them as non reviews and have them removed.
Appreciate it.
I shall report them as non reviews and have them removed.
Appreciate it.
(Edited)
This seems wrong--suggesting someone submit a three-sentence "review" while reporting supposed non-reviews that go into some detail on the matter being examined. I would love for IMDb to clarify such matters; I don't know how much Ed Jones or others are actually informed on such matters. Maybe they are; maybe they're not. Clearly, things have changed since I first became a member even though the guidelines haven't actually been altered much.
The guidelines state not to include "personal opinions" on real life events.... Sure, some subjectivity comes into play as in most things, but history is primarily made up of facts. Seems there's not only reading the guidelines being requested here, but also some reading between the lines or unwritten supposed rules. Personally, I've interpreted this rule as an anti-politics one, to avoid users from arguing their views over whatever issue.
P.S. that first review from 2006 for Gladiator has a funny last paragraph--clearly written before Inglorious Basterds which did just that. Shame to try to take that down, especially when there are so many tweet-sized excuses for "reviews" on IMDb.
The guidelines state not to include "personal opinions" on real life events.... Sure, some subjectivity comes into play as in most things, but history is primarily made up of facts. Seems there's not only reading the guidelines being requested here, but also some reading between the lines or unwritten supposed rules. Personally, I've interpreted this rule as an anti-politics one, to avoid users from arguing their views over whatever issue.
P.S. that first review from 2006 for Gladiator has a funny last paragraph--clearly written before Inglorious Basterds which did just that. Shame to try to take that down, especially when there are so many tweet-sized excuses for "reviews" on IMDb.
This seems wrong--suggesting someone submit a three-sentence "review"I only said that it is all that would be acceptable to the editors, from your words with minor editing. You can add more as long as your personal opinions are about the technique in which the film was made. Actors performances, etcetera. Not harping on one technical aspect. People want to hear about quality or lack of, not excessive complaining based on how it related to real life. Your assumption on the 'political" aspects are but only one portion of the "not to include "personal opinions" on real life events" in that line. Not "The" only thing.
And I agree 100% with you about tweet sized reviews. They "Suck"!
Just follow the guidelines and you cannot go wrong.
Don't know if I mentioned it, but I have never had a review declined.
I only said that it is all that would be acceptable to the editors....Fair enough.
Actors performances, etcetera. Not harping on one technical aspect. People want to hear about quality or lack of, not excessive complaining based on how it related to real life.I'm not so sure about this point. Not the "excessive complaining" part, but I would think making historical inaccuracy the thesis of a review could work. The original poster doesn't really do that, but there are websites devoted to examining the historical accuracy or lack thereof of movies. I consider those reviews, albeit ones primarily focused on a historical perspective as opposed to the usual entertainment-based ones.
Just follow the guidelines and you cannot go wrong.
Don't know if I mentioned it, but I have never had a review declined.
That's what I thought, but I thought I did follow the guidelines, and according to a few declined submissions, I have gone wrong. Indeed, I'm waiting to hear back on one that's on a historical drama.
By the way, do you have more than the 11 reviews of your profile page? I never had a review declined at that point, either.
I have another page that I used from 1999 till 2013. I made this new page with my real name on it for tie in to my actors page and my poll making at IMDb.
Actors page: Ed Jones (XLIX)
You have visited my IMDb user page.
But my other page is private.
It has over 10,000 ratings and about 600 reviews.
Actors page: Ed Jones (XLIX)
You have visited my IMDb user page.
But my other page is private.
It has over 10,000 ratings and about 600 reviews.
I see. Funny enough, I think somewhere after 600 reviews is when I got my first rejection. This is part of the reason I think the enforcement of guidelines has changed over the years.
Enforcement changed when Netflix closed down their reviews. The mindless stuff that Netflix never edited or rejected, got so outta hand that they had no choice but to remove them altogether.
Well those people all came over here. They wrote reviews like they were still writing for Netflix. Used to be IMDb reviewers really reviewed. They knew the rules. They did good work. But when IMDb became inundated with the "Can't wait for season 3 B.S." kind of reviews, they had to start enforcing the rules more. So they have gotten more restrictive as time goes on. Also IMdb looked at what reviews were most reported by users. I'm sure the data compiled determined where the line needed to be drawn by the submissions for removal percentages.. Also the Helpful vs. Not helpfuls came into play here too. I just know from hanging here where an editors head is by observation. Once you know where that line is you can advise here to others and also not get your requests for review removals rejected. My requests for removals went up from a beginning number of 70% or so to almost 95%.
So I have a good bead on what they think.
I hope that explains it.
Well those people all came over here. They wrote reviews like they were still writing for Netflix. Used to be IMDb reviewers really reviewed. They knew the rules. They did good work. But when IMDb became inundated with the "Can't wait for season 3 B.S." kind of reviews, they had to start enforcing the rules more. So they have gotten more restrictive as time goes on. Also IMdb looked at what reviews were most reported by users. I'm sure the data compiled determined where the line needed to be drawn by the submissions for removal percentages.. Also the Helpful vs. Not helpfuls came into play here too. I just know from hanging here where an editors head is by observation. Once you know where that line is you can advise here to others and also not get your requests for review removals rejected. My requests for removals went up from a beginning number of 70% or so to almost 95%.
So I have a good bead on what they think.
I hope that explains it.
Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion
Ed Jones(XLIX), just to be fair, there's nothing inherently wrong with some reviews being short. It is possible to condense a relatively useful/informative/insightful outlook on the movie in as much as few sentences.
I actually prefer taut short reviews myself.
Elizabeth, Employee
Techno
This is not the first time it happens. What is wrong with this site?