Four of my last eight submitted reviews were initially declined and one is still pending. What is going on? This increasing rejection of reviews without any stated reason and sometimes without any conceivable problem, as far as I can tell at least, is getting increasingly annoying. It's IMDb's approval process that's inexplicably changed--especially when it's become blatantly more lax in other regards (e.g. length, relevance). I've been posting reviews on this site for years, off and on, and have only had any rejections since IMDb relaxed review standards in other ways the last couple years. With nearly a thousand reviews now, I'm wondering more and more why I bother.
Posted 4 months ago
Jaime, Employee
Hello,
Thanks for your post.
Having read your reviews you don't seem to actually review the titles you have viewed, you tend to explain the plot or compare them to other titles or comment on how they represent real world events currently happening.
Please re-review your submissions and focus more on reviewing the titles.
Thanks!
Thanks for your post.
Having read your reviews you don't seem to actually review the titles you have viewed, you tend to explain the plot or compare them to other titles or comment on how they represent real world events currently happening.
Please re-review your submissions and focus more on reviewing the titles.
Thanks!
Forgive me for commenting, (not on the OP, however) but one of my HUGE pet peeves is reading a review that is NOT a review; instead the reviewer simply recaps the plot.
Why do they do that!??!?!
They should instead sumbit that as a plot outline (or storyline, or synopsis) and help IMDb instead!
I apologize but it has to do with the topic at hand (I don't want to start yet another page!) Take a look at a S&H review of an episode that just aired on COZI: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0709518/reviews?ref_=tt_ql_3
The first review (the 9/10 one) has a long paragraph where they ADD NOTHING review-wise, nothing of value whatsoever! They just narrate the show. Why do people do that?? It's all over IMDb! At least they used the spoiler tag, so we'll give them that!
But GEEZ! Please contributors: kindly either learn what a review is and actually pen one or click the "story synopsis/outline" button! (This is NOT directed at OP, as I did not read their review!) I'm just glad that this topic is broached on here.
A massive clean up of reviews, although probably impossible, would save up a lot of bandwith (and me the frustration of reading these nonsensical, waste-of-time reviews.) In reaction to that, I often pen snarky, sarcastic, outrageous ones, myself. But don't worry, 99.9% of them are declined! ;-D
Why do they do that!??!?!
They should instead sumbit that as a plot outline (or storyline, or synopsis) and help IMDb instead!
I apologize but it has to do with the topic at hand (I don't want to start yet another page!) Take a look at a S&H review of an episode that just aired on COZI: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0709518/reviews?ref_=tt_ql_3
The first review (the 9/10 one) has a long paragraph where they ADD NOTHING review-wise, nothing of value whatsoever! They just narrate the show. Why do people do that?? It's all over IMDb! At least they used the spoiler tag, so we'll give them that!
But GEEZ! Please contributors: kindly either learn what a review is and actually pen one or click the "story synopsis/outline" button! (This is NOT directed at OP, as I did not read their review!) I'm just glad that this topic is broached on here.
A massive clean up of reviews, although probably impossible, would save up a lot of bandwith (and me the frustration of reading these nonsensical, waste-of-time reviews.) In reaction to that, I often pen snarky, sarcastic, outrageous ones, myself. But don't worry, 99.9% of them are declined! ;-D
Wow! Content, context, and mentioning other titles you consider similar are exactly what IMDb says to include in the review guidelines.
That's not all I wrote about, either. For instance:
I also remark on a director's "penchant for canted angles and otherwise strange camerawork and production design." Sure sounds like I'm reviewing style there.
I wrote, "one of the better of many over-the-top performances." Sound like I'm reviewing a performance there.
"The characters are vapid and wear their loud emotions on their sleeves." Is that not a criticism of characterizations, as well as acting, again.
That's not all I wrote about, either. For instance:
I also remark on a director's "penchant for canted angles and otherwise strange camerawork and production design." Sure sounds like I'm reviewing style there.
I wrote, "one of the better of many over-the-top performances." Sound like I'm reviewing a performance there.
"The characters are vapid and wear their loud emotions on their sleeves." Is that not a criticism of characterizations, as well as acting, again.
You probably wrote some bad reviews about some "woke" productions.
Even if you did not criticise the "woke"ness of said productions, but other aspects of the films and series, such as the plot, characterisation or cinematography, they don't like it.
"You be raciss / sexiss / homofooobic."
Even if you did not criticise the "woke"ness of said productions, but other aspects of the films and series, such as the plot, characterisation or cinematography, they don't like it.
"You be raciss / sexiss / homofooobic."
Here are the twice-rejected reviews in question, if anyone wants to help me see the errors of my ways:
For "Twelve Monkeys" (1995): "The Jetty"
"Twelve Monkeys" appropriately cites the 1962 short film "Le Jetée" (1962) as inspiration, for this is largely not much more than a more-mainstream narrative revision of the same ideas but in Terry Gilliam's usual style. Although that may sound rather off given Gilliam's status as a cult filmmaker, or whatever, "La Jetée" is the more unique film experience. Indeed, it's arguably not even a film, but rather a series of narrated still images. In both pictures, however, a prisoner time travels to the past and before a disaster wiped out most of humanity and drove the survivors underground, and both include memories of a man killed at an airport. Whereas the threat was nuclear in the prior film, here the disaster is disease, which seems prescient today given the current coronavirus pandemic, although "Outbreak" was released the same year and was clearly inspired by the Ebola virus, so obviously such fears aren't new. Regardless, Gilliam's version has some things going for it, including the suggestion that the entire scenario might be the imagination of a madman.
This hint of insanity plays to the director's strengths and penchant for canted angles and otherwise strange camerawork and production design. One setting in particular, besides the airport, plays well into the remembrance aspect of the scenario as the time traveler visits it in present and past. Additionally, the WWI photograph seems a nice reference to the reliance on still photography in "La Jetée." The asylum stands out, too, while the underground reminds one of Gilliam's prior "Brazil" (1985). An especially energetic Brad Pitt is apt, as well, and one of the better of many over-the-top performances provided in Gilliam's oeuvre.
---
And for "Carriers" (2009): "Twentysomethings Drive to Beach Amid Apocalypse"
"Carriers" is a generic end-of-the-world movie, whereupon society, along with most of the population, has been wiped out by a virus, and the survivors are at risk from their inhumanity towards one another. The characters are vapid and wear their loud emotions on their sleeves. One loosely-connected action set piece follows another with no worthwhile destination in place. It's like a bad episode of "The Walking Dead," in other words. One episode involves wannabe rapists with military-grade weapons--yeah, I saw "28 Days Later" (2002), too. There are the home videos bookending the journey, which try to lend some significance to the beach destination as representing the past of the brothers before the outbreak, but nothing interesting comes of it.
Like others, I viewed this, along with similar movies, because of the current coronavirus pandemic. A recent article from "The Guardian" suggests that this trend is akin to exposure therapy. Anyways, there is one scene in "Carriers" that resonates particularly today and which has nothing to do with the disease itself, but rather the risk of xenophobia arising from it. Here, a man is murdered and hung with a sign bearing a racial slur and blaming the virus on the Chinese. Like any other potentially intriguing development in "Carriers," however, this scene is quickly dropped in favor of following twentysomethings driving to the beach.
For "Twelve Monkeys" (1995): "The Jetty"
"Twelve Monkeys" appropriately cites the 1962 short film "Le Jetée" (1962) as inspiration, for this is largely not much more than a more-mainstream narrative revision of the same ideas but in Terry Gilliam's usual style. Although that may sound rather off given Gilliam's status as a cult filmmaker, or whatever, "La Jetée" is the more unique film experience. Indeed, it's arguably not even a film, but rather a series of narrated still images. In both pictures, however, a prisoner time travels to the past and before a disaster wiped out most of humanity and drove the survivors underground, and both include memories of a man killed at an airport. Whereas the threat was nuclear in the prior film, here the disaster is disease, which seems prescient today given the current coronavirus pandemic, although "Outbreak" was released the same year and was clearly inspired by the Ebola virus, so obviously such fears aren't new. Regardless, Gilliam's version has some things going for it, including the suggestion that the entire scenario might be the imagination of a madman.
This hint of insanity plays to the director's strengths and penchant for canted angles and otherwise strange camerawork and production design. One setting in particular, besides the airport, plays well into the remembrance aspect of the scenario as the time traveler visits it in present and past. Additionally, the WWI photograph seems a nice reference to the reliance on still photography in "La Jetée." The asylum stands out, too, while the underground reminds one of Gilliam's prior "Brazil" (1985). An especially energetic Brad Pitt is apt, as well, and one of the better of many over-the-top performances provided in Gilliam's oeuvre.
---
And for "Carriers" (2009): "Twentysomethings Drive to Beach Amid Apocalypse"
"Carriers" is a generic end-of-the-world movie, whereupon society, along with most of the population, has been wiped out by a virus, and the survivors are at risk from their inhumanity towards one another. The characters are vapid and wear their loud emotions on their sleeves. One loosely-connected action set piece follows another with no worthwhile destination in place. It's like a bad episode of "The Walking Dead," in other words. One episode involves wannabe rapists with military-grade weapons--yeah, I saw "28 Days Later" (2002), too. There are the home videos bookending the journey, which try to lend some significance to the beach destination as representing the past of the brothers before the outbreak, but nothing interesting comes of it.
Like others, I viewed this, along with similar movies, because of the current coronavirus pandemic. A recent article from "The Guardian" suggests that this trend is akin to exposure therapy. Anyways, there is one scene in "Carriers" that resonates particularly today and which has nothing to do with the disease itself, but rather the risk of xenophobia arising from it. Here, a man is murdered and hung with a sign bearing a racial slur and blaming the virus on the Chinese. Like any other potentially intriguing development in "Carriers," however, this scene is quickly dropped in favor of following twentysomethings driving to the beach.
These strike me as very well-considered and written reviews.
I'm personally too lazy to write reviews of such length and quality, and am not certain whether I would be sufficiently competent to even f I weren't.
You seem to have a very legitimate case here.
Let's see what the staffers say.
Good luck.
I'm personally too lazy to write reviews of such length and quality, and am not certain whether I would be sufficiently competent to even f I weren't.
You seem to have a very legitimate case here.
Let's see what the staffers say.
Good luck.
(Edited)
Thanks. I wouldn't be so frustrated if this were a one, or two, off case, either, but IMDb has rejected several of my submissions since they loosened review requirements in other areas, what, a couple years ago now.
All of the other rejections were either posted when I asked for clarification, or I made slight alterations for things I would consider pretty stupid objections (mostly non-vulgar language that IMDb inconsistently considers vulgar sometimes), but I did it.
All of the other rejections were either posted when I asked for clarification, or I made slight alterations for things I would consider pretty stupid objections (mostly non-vulgar language that IMDb inconsistently considers vulgar sometimes), but I did it.
Abi, yes I agree. They are well written.
But they are exactly as described by Jaime.
Reprint.
Having read your reviews you don't seem to actually review the titles you have viewed, you tend to explain the plot or compare them to other titles or comment on how they represent real world events currently happening.
Please re-review your submissions and focus more on reviewing the titles.
But they are exactly as described by Jaime.
Reprint.
Having read your reviews you don't seem to actually review the titles you have viewed, you tend to explain the plot or compare them to other titles or comment on how they represent real world events currently happening.
Please re-review your submissions and focus more on reviewing the titles.
No, they're not. At least, they're not both of those things.
The reason Jaime said that "you don't seem to actually review the titles" may be a little off in it's description.
You do review it indeed. But you spend 80% of your "review" content not "reviewing". It's plot description. It's relating to things that are kind of semi related/unrelated. Or a gray area.
For example you reference Le Jette 3 times in your first review. You actually spend a little time reviewing Le Jette!
See here.
"La Jetée" is the more unique film experience. Indeed, it's arguably not even a film, but rather a series of narrated still images.
This passage is unnecessary.
Please, I'm looking at this not as an attack, but from the eyes of an editor with a set of clearly stated set of rules that my employer demands I adhere to or be fired.
Jaime stated directly what is wrong. Yet you do not wish to play by their rules.
Adapt, or spend an inordinate amount of time here.
It's up to you. I can clearly see their point. Question is....will you?
You do review it indeed. But you spend 80% of your "review" content not "reviewing". It's plot description. It's relating to things that are kind of semi related/unrelated. Or a gray area.
For example you reference Le Jette 3 times in your first review. You actually spend a little time reviewing Le Jette!
See here.
"La Jetée" is the more unique film experience. Indeed, it's arguably not even a film, but rather a series of narrated still images.
This passage is unnecessary.
Please, I'm looking at this not as an attack, but from the eyes of an editor with a set of clearly stated set of rules that my employer demands I adhere to or be fired.
Jaime stated directly what is wrong. Yet you do not wish to play by their rules.
Adapt, or spend an inordinate amount of time here.
It's up to you. I can clearly see their point. Question is....will you?
Thanks, I appreciate that--especially that you point out a specific edit. Jamie saying four paragraphs aren't reviews, when I thought they were, obviously, isn't very helpful. I could cut that sentence.
I'm not new to the practices of writing and editing, either. As I said at the top, I've posted a lot on IMDb. Plus, I have a degree in film studies--writing about movies, basically. Thing is, IMDb doesn't have a clearly stated set of rules, or, at least, they're not abiding by them. I already posted examples of the sort of "reviews" that are accepted. And, in the guidelines under "what to include," it says, "Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them."
That's what I was doing with the "La Jetée" comparison, which was one of my two arguments in the "Twelve Monkeys" review: the similarities and differences between it and the 1962 film, for which it's essentially a remake. The other point, which occupies nearly half the review, beginning at the end of the first paragraph and occupying most of the second, is how the themes of madness and memory is salient to Gilliam's style.
I suspect what you guys think is plot summary here, which it party is, I suppose, was meant more as thematic commentary: time travel/memories and photography, nuclear/virus fears. I could rewrite that, too.
Where I wrote about plot in both reviews, I also see criticism of that plot. The argument of the "Carriers" one is that it's generic, for instance. So, I don't know what Jamie thinks is "actual reviewing." And I don't see where in the guidelines, either, that commenting some on plot is proscribed. It's hard to play by the rules when they're shifting and made up on the spot.
I appreciate your last post, though, Ed Jones. That's why I posted the reviews here, with the hope that someone would try to explain what Jamie or IMDb in general object to (probably expecting too much for them to explain themselves beyond a couple sentences and a marking of the thread as "answered"). Pointing out specific edits is especially appreciated.
I'm not new to the practices of writing and editing, either. As I said at the top, I've posted a lot on IMDb. Plus, I have a degree in film studies--writing about movies, basically. Thing is, IMDb doesn't have a clearly stated set of rules, or, at least, they're not abiding by them. I already posted examples of the sort of "reviews" that are accepted. And, in the guidelines under "what to include," it says, "Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them."
That's what I was doing with the "La Jetée" comparison, which was one of my two arguments in the "Twelve Monkeys" review: the similarities and differences between it and the 1962 film, for which it's essentially a remake. The other point, which occupies nearly half the review, beginning at the end of the first paragraph and occupying most of the second, is how the themes of madness and memory is salient to Gilliam's style.
I suspect what you guys think is plot summary here, which it party is, I suppose, was meant more as thematic commentary: time travel/memories and photography, nuclear/virus fears. I could rewrite that, too.
Where I wrote about plot in both reviews, I also see criticism of that plot. The argument of the "Carriers" one is that it's generic, for instance. So, I don't know what Jamie thinks is "actual reviewing." And I don't see where in the guidelines, either, that commenting some on plot is proscribed. It's hard to play by the rules when they're shifting and made up on the spot.
I appreciate your last post, though, Ed Jones. That's why I posted the reviews here, with the hope that someone would try to explain what Jamie or IMDb in general object to (probably expecting too much for them to explain themselves beyond a couple sentences and a marking of the thread as "answered"). Pointing out specific edits is especially appreciated.
Rules to live by.
If you want to get out of a traffic ticket. Think like a Cop.
If you do not want your reviews rejected. Think like an Editor.
If you want to get out of a traffic ticket. Think like a Cop.
If you do not want your reviews rejected. Think like an Editor.
Write two repetitive sentences stating a movie is boring or how cool Brad Pitt is-- emoji optional? I don't want to think that way.
That is not what IMDb is asking for and you know it.
That's an over simplification.
Just cut out explaining the plots. Injecting too many excess title references. Review comparing that includes reviewing the other title as well. Etc Etc.
C-mon, your smart enough to figure this out.
Yeah, I get it. You do not like vague rules and inconsistencies in rejections. But if you write good reviews like I'm reading here with your two examples and just leave out the excess as described, you will still have really good top notch reviews in the end.
That's an over simplification.
Just cut out explaining the plots. Injecting too many excess title references. Review comparing that includes reviewing the other title as well. Etc Etc.
C-mon, your smart enough to figure this out.
Yeah, I get it. You do not like vague rules and inconsistencies in rejections. But if you write good reviews like I'm reading here with your two examples and just leave out the excess as described, you will still have really good top notch reviews in the end.
Maybe not. "Twelve Monkeys" was rejected a third time. "Carriers" was accepted, though.
Post your rejected re-write.
Let's look and see.
:):)
Let's look and see.
:):)
I re-wrote and submitted again. This one is pending:
"Twelve Monkeys" is about remembering. Time travel is an extension of this--revisiting the past, before most of humanity was wiped out by disease and the survivors imprisoned underground. As a remake of the 1962 short film "Le Jetée" (1962), there's also the memory of this past film. The twist in this revision from Terry Gilliam and company is the suggestion that remembrance, as viewed through the perspective of Bruce Willis's protagonist, may be mad and, thus, unreliable, which plays into the director's penchant for canted angles and otherwise strange camerawork and production design.
One setting in particular, besides the airport, plays well into the remembrance aspect of the scenario as the time traveler visits it in present and past, as the past bends to, transforms into the present. The asylum stand out, too, and helps question the reliability of the protagonist's perspective, with Brad Pitt, as another madman becoming the subject of obsession for Willis's character, providing an especially apt energetic and over-the-top performance. Meanwhile, the underground reminds one of Gilliam's prior "Brazil" (1895). And a WWI photograph recalls the reliance on still photography as mnemonic aid in "La Jetée," which are otherwise replaced in "Twelve Monkeys," along with more modern viral fears (especially relevant given today's coronavirus pandemic) instead of the threat of nuclear apocalypse, by erratic movement--actorly, cinematographically, and by time travel--within twisted spaces.
---
Oops, already see that I need to pluralize "stand"
"Twelve Monkeys" is about remembering. Time travel is an extension of this--revisiting the past, before most of humanity was wiped out by disease and the survivors imprisoned underground. As a remake of the 1962 short film "Le Jetée" (1962), there's also the memory of this past film. The twist in this revision from Terry Gilliam and company is the suggestion that remembrance, as viewed through the perspective of Bruce Willis's protagonist, may be mad and, thus, unreliable, which plays into the director's penchant for canted angles and otherwise strange camerawork and production design.
One setting in particular, besides the airport, plays well into the remembrance aspect of the scenario as the time traveler visits it in present and past, as the past bends to, transforms into the present. The asylum stand out, too, and helps question the reliability of the protagonist's perspective, with Brad Pitt, as another madman becoming the subject of obsession for Willis's character, providing an especially apt energetic and over-the-top performance. Meanwhile, the underground reminds one of Gilliam's prior "Brazil" (1895). And a WWI photograph recalls the reliance on still photography as mnemonic aid in "La Jetée," which are otherwise replaced in "Twelve Monkeys," along with more modern viral fears (especially relevant given today's coronavirus pandemic) instead of the threat of nuclear apocalypse, by erratic movement--actorly, cinematographically, and by time travel--within twisted spaces.
---
Oops, already see that I need to pluralize "stand"
Hi IMDbmember,
I see 2 possibilities:
The most probable is that you made reference to the coronavirus, presently editors of IMDb or paying a lot of attention to this since it is a really recurrent subject in the actuality. If I were,
I would avoid to relate it to a specific non-fictional event.
According to the guidelines:
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH
I see 2 possibilities:
The most probable is that you made reference to the coronavirus, presently editors of IMDb or paying a lot of attention to this since it is a really recurrent subject in the actuality. If I were,
I would avoid to relate it to a specific non-fictional event.
According to the guidelines:
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH
Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.My second hypothesis is that your review is a little bit too much plot explanatory if you didn't indicate that your review was containing spoilers it is possible that the IMDb editor declined it.
Hi IMDbmember,
I see 2 possibilities:
The most probable is that you made reference to the coronavirus, presently editors of IMDb or paying a lot of attention to this since it is a really recurrent subject in the actuality. If I were,
I would avoid to relate it to a specific non-fictional event.
According to the guidelines:
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH
I see 2 possibilities:
The most probable is that you made reference to the coronavirus, presently editors of IMDb or paying a lot of attention to this since it is a really recurrent subject in the actuality. If I were,
I would avoid to relate it to a specific non-fictional event.
According to the guidelines:
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH
Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.My second hypothesis is that your review is a little bit too much plot explanatory if you didn't indicate that your review was containing spoilers it is possible that the IMDb editor declined it.
Thanks for the suggestions. I was wondering whether IMDb was being persnickety over the mere mention of coronavirus, although other reviews of mine that mention it have been eventually accepted. I wouldn't think my mentioning of it would constitute a personal opinion, although it may be what's flagging the reviews.
Thanks for the suggestions. I was wondering whether IMDb was being persnickety over the mere mention of coronavirus, although other reviews of mine that mention it have been eventually accepted. I wouldn't think my mentioning of it would constitute a personal opinion, although it may be what's flagging the reviews.
Hey, Sorry about the delay in replying. Had my first service call ($$$) in over 3 weeks!!!!
I have to agree with cinephile's reply 100%.
It is too much plot summary. Paragraph one (The Setup) is OK (Almost) I would have left out a plot reference.
But paragraph 2 is where the issue lies. You gave away 3 key plot points and the aforementioned reference to the realities of the day with this passage....
Cheers.
:):)
I have to agree with cinephile's reply 100%.
It is too much plot summary. Paragraph one (The Setup) is OK (Almost) I would have left out a plot reference.
But paragraph 2 is where the issue lies. You gave away 3 key plot points and the aforementioned reference to the realities of the day with this passage....
along with more modern viral fears (especially relevant given today's coronavirus pandemic)Remember, reviews should relate to the day it was made, not to a far reaching reference some decades later. In the case of this film being a remake you can easily refer to the 1962 version and draw comparisons to the changing times for example. But referring to the current state of affairs is out of bounds by IMDb rule. I rule I don't like. But it's their sandbox. Not ours! Another thing to ponder is by making reference to the current state of affairs, you have made your review time specific. Someone reading this review 30 years from now will scratch their head and say WT* is coronavirus? You review becomes not relevant for someone reading it in the year 2050.
Cheers.
:):)
(Edited)
Thanks for the suggestions, we'll see what happens with it. Not sure if I'll try anymore if this one is rejected, unless it's something as simple as a spoilers warning I had thought unnecessary or maybe I'll remove the coronavirus mention entirely, although it was the reason I watched the film now, and I've already had others accepted that made similar brief asides.
Well, it was one of those two things (adding spoilers warning and removing "coronavirus") that finally got quick approval. The re-write above was rejected and, then, accepted seemingly without being flagged to be read by an editor after I made those two changes.
Thanks again Ed Jones, cinephile and Abi for your help.
Thanks again Ed Jones, cinephile and Abi for your help.
(Edited)
