Yeah, my girlfriend has done her fair share of copyediting for big magazines and such and she was the one who told me the proper way to denote titles is italics. I didn't just make an aesthetic suggestion. I think bold breaks up a paragraph and actually makes it a little tougher to read. Again, my main point was that we should decide on a format and be consistent, that's all.

Did anyone think that my suggestion of a reviewer forum was worthwhile? Didn't there used to be a moderator forum? Also, if our forum memberships were designated as reviewer accounts (since I believe they are separate from our reviewer accounts right now) they could:

a) label us as reviewers in the space that currently says "DVDTalk Addict" or whatever so that people would feel that they could ask us questions about reviews (most people probably have no idea who we are if our username and our real names don't match)

b) be used to access a reviewer forum. A forum would alleviate the need for a copyeditor since we would all essentially copyedit each other with suggestions and comments. Pretty neat, eh?

[Edited by buskerdog on 06-28-01 at 11:58 AM]

As a point of fact, y'all are entirely correct, movie titles are traditionally in italic. But we're writing for the web here. People are looking for information quickly. They're not (generally) kicking back with a nice, neat printed page to read your artful prose. Bold keywords provide visual cues that help readers decide whether or not to spend additional time with your review. "Yes, I'm interested in this actor. Oh, she's in it also? It's similar to THAT movie?" What you may perceive as clutter are actually stepping stones across a roaring stream of information.

I'm actually a senior designer at a major daily newspaper where I work exclusively in arts and entertainment stories. I understand the rules of tradition, but I'm more interested in conveying information -- quickly -- to online readers.

[Edited by noelgross on 06-28-01 at 11:45 AM]

Well, like I said, I'm not married to a particular style. Does anyone want a manual of style? A reviewers forum?

The difference is that vBulletin recognizes administrators and moderators. At least on the version I have installed, there's no built-in way to create forums specific to a user-type if that user is not an administrator or moderator. I <i>could</i> build a board or something into the review software, but that's a while off....

I think these ideas only address the least of our problems. We'd be better served by recruiting better quality reviewers and if we were more vigilant in our proofing.

I think that's a little harsh. Yes, not all our reviewers are at the same level of experience. But it's always been important to me have a mix of voices and opinions about DVD and not have a panel of 'experts/professional reviewers'

One of the things I STRONGLY dislike about some of the other DVD Review sites is how they bring all the external baggage that has nothing to do with the DVD into their reviews. It's always been important to me to find people who take a real honest look at what they are reviewing and don't pay attention to all the external crap that can influence a review.

Now about the idea of having a review editor, I would LOVE it, but it's really hard to find someone who is willing to do something like that and not charge a hefty sum. I see that <b>ordway</b> has volunteered to look over reviews if reviewers approach her, that's a great opportunity for those of you who'd like to get a polish on your review before it goes out.

I DO agree that we need some standards in titles (like DVD-Audio, and Criterion and DTS or SE). I'll take the action item to try to come up with a guideline on this.

In terms of theatrical reviews, I've talked to cytner before about the idea of working with the review system so it can deal with Theatrical Reviews. I do think there's a good case to look at theatrical reviews, as the DVD releases are getting closer and closer to theatrical.

I've looked into the idea of doing a Reviewers forum, and if there's enough interest I think there's a way it can be done.

Thanks everyone for your feedback on DVD Talk Reviews, I think we can all work together to raise the bar and bring our readers the best reviews we can!

I think there's a difference between 'experience' and 'possessing a basic grasp of the English language', though. Chuck Arrington, the one and only reviewer whose work bothers me in the slightest, has been writing for DVD Talk for 18 months now. He has as much, if not more, experience writing reviews than I do. His poorly written reviews have a very 'rushed' feel to them, as if he's just trying to crank them out in order to get the next batch of discs in his hands as soon as humanly possible.

If you sent me an e-mail about theatrical reviews, I've long since forgotten about it. Can you shoot it off again, if you have that message handy?

[Edited by ctyner on 07-03-01 at 03:50 PM]

You're right, but the meaning behind what I so tersely barked had more to do with the motives of incoming reviewers than their so-called pedigree. (Which would partially explain how this East Texas son got the nod.) Like Adam said, reviews that appear hastily thrown together do smack of someone more motivated by lure of free discs than an interest in communicating with DVD Talk readers.

To be honest, I don't think people do take DVDTalk reviews seriously. I know I don't. You guys need to try and legitimize the reviews A LOT, until you reach the caliber of, say, DVDTalk.

One big step forward would be posting equipment. Not a big deal to a lot of people, but it is helpful information. People can match themselves up with a reviewer who has similar equipment. This is especially important for the video aspect. For example, since I have a 27 inch wega, I'm going to listen to someone who has a 27 inch wega more carefully than someone who has a 60 inch rptv.

You guys seem to think of it as some sort of status thing, and like you are trying to hid something. Unfortunately that's not a good thing.

Another pet peeve is movie reviewed by people who didn't like the movie, but then go on to give the DVD a recomendation. It's weird, I know, but for me if someone doesn't like a movie, but still say people should own it, just because it's a good DVD, doesn't strike me as honest.

Maybe you guys could work on a system where people review the movies they like. I think when people review movies they like, they tend to take the review more seriously and do a better job overall. That's just my observation, however.

By and large, the reviews in the forums tend to be a couple of sentences long. You'll notice that the vast majority of those reviews don't include equipment lists either.

You've already made this same comment earlier in this thread, and you've already received a response from Noel.

I'm not sure where the 'status' comment is coming from, but I assure you that is <i>not</i> the case. I adore my 36" VVega, and I'd be more than happy to boldly proclaim that wherever I can. Again, this was all covered by Noel's post earlier.

Weren't you also the one who said the following? "I'd like to see less focus on the subjective aspect of the film and more focus on the technical aspect of the DVD." If a DVD is particularly well done and I didn't care for the film, I have no problem recommending that disc to a reader who has already seen and enjoyed the movie in question. I personally cannot recall ever flat-out recommending a DVD that featured a film that I disliked.

Can you post the URLs to some reviews in particular where you see this as a problem?

The limitations you're suggesting would greatly affect the diversity of reviews on DVD Talk, and one of my favorite aspects of this site is that we cover titles that <i>no other site</i> has the time or inclination to review. I can't speak for all the reviewers here, but I honestly haven't heard of the majority of titles that fall into the DVD screener pile. If a reviewer were limited to commenting on titles that he or she has previously formed a positive opinion on, I'd guess somewhere around 65-70% of the screeners we receive will go unreviewed. I don't intentionally write shoddy reviews for titles I dislike, and I haven't really noticed any reviewers making a habit of that (excluding some of Chuck Arrington's reviews, such as <a href="http://dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=2016">Anchor Bay's 'House By The Cemetery'</a> or <a href="http://dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=1432">'The House On Sorority Row'</a>).

DVD Talk offers more opinions of more titles than any other site I can think of offhand, and only one of the regular reviewers strikes me as particularly inept. With a snazzier look and some minor tightening, I don't find it hard at all to believe that DVD Talk could be widely considered among the top DVD review sites.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gallant Pig
[B]He must've been referring to another DVD website...since we review for DVDTalk I'm just guessing though. But I totally agree with Adam - the reviews forum mainly consists of people asking for reviews and then getting pointed to reviews on this or other websites. Not alot of actual reviews are posted, and most are certainly not as in depth as many of the reviews written for this site...in my opinion. I'm still unclear as to what you meant by "legitimiz[ing]" a review...

[b]I purposely do not choose films to review that I've already seen and disliked. I passed on Wayne's World 1&2 for this reason alone. Many of the films I review are those which I have no prior experience with, so I really don't know if I'll like it or not till after I've seen it. I agree with Adam though - I'll recommend a movie for fans of the main stars or the genre or recommend the DVD to fans of the film even if I didn't particularly care for it, usually under the "Rent it" category.


[quote]Originally posted by cytner
[b]Again, I totally agree with Adam. I think that MANY of the titles we review for DVDTalk will only be reviewed at a few places on the Internet - many other large DVD sites (such as thedigitalbits or dvdfile and to some extent, dvdreview) will never feature those films. And again, thats one of the best things about DVDTalk reviews - the reader gets exposure to a vast array of films that the "other guys" don't have time for.

Also, I would like to add a vote in favor for a reviewer forum and some guidelines A more cohesive look to the reviews couldn't hurt and would definitely give some direction.

-Earl-


I think I messed up that whole quoting thing

My wife has ragged on my writng style primarily because I write like I talk. I'll admit that correct/perfect punctuation and I are seldom on the same page and for that all I can say is that I will endeavor to correct the situation with closer inspections and, a format that is better suited to the DVDTalk Reviews standards of excellence.

Guys, points taken.

Just a short retort:

Cytner, you cited before some reviews with mangled English. I tend to think of weeding those out of your database as a more legitimate review site. Along with post equipment. Noel jumped to assumptions last time I mentioned it. I don't get it, what's the big deal about posting your equipment? Again, this pertains to making the review site more legitimate. I've been reading a lot of Aaron's reviews which knock the film, but give the DVD a recommended status. Why not just read the side of the box, check out the number of extras and then give it a recommended status? Seems a lot easier to me. My thought is either eliminate the subjective, opinionated part of the review (link to rottentomatoes or something like that instead) and just give a short overview of the plot. I just can't see someone telling me to buy a disc that they didn't like. Like I said, it's weird, and maybe just me.

Anyway, I'm just trying to give you guys some constructive criticism. Apparently it's not needed (otherwise you guys wouldn't be so defensive). So I'll bug off.

Later

Well, yeah. That's the whole reason I started this thread.

Dude, did you read <i>any</i> of the replies? I'll say it <i>again</i> -- equipment is in the db. I just have to pretty up the page before activating that feature.

I've tried to respond to your comments intelligently. I appreciate the feedback. I'm sorry if you've misconstrued my replies as being defensive as any way, but that's absolutely not my intention.

-Adam, who genuinely does not understand why so many people can't spell his username

Adam Ctyner

I guess I didn't get the point about the equipment when you referred me to Noel's earlier responce (which simply said it's elitist to want equipmet posted). I mean, I read your reply about having it available, so I expected it when I recently perused the site, but dismayed not to find it.

I was probably too hard on you earlier, saying your review site isn't legit... It is quite comprehensive and I do appreciate that.

What truly does bug me, and maybe this is my whole problem with subjective opinions, is having someone bash a good film that I liked and simply trying to find out how the DVD is. It turns me off to the review.

I do have my own review site, but won't link it since last time I tried it was deleted, and I try to be gentle on every flick I like, at least for the subjective parts. I do try and see that other people might enjoy what I don't. Since it is a software review site, not a film review. But I digress...

Anyway, keep up the good php work ( I wanna learn this stuff someday, is it like perl?)

GP

Having taken a closer look at some of my reviews, there is definately great room for improvement! While I enjoy the reveiw process and attempt to put together fairly solid reveiws, I had no idea that they were as grammatically terrifying as they are! Typos are one thing, and a lack of coherence is another. Neither have any place in the reviews forum and for that I apologize. Aaron Beirle is IMHO the benchmark against which all reveiws are measured. For staggering numbers of reviews and tremendous attention to detail, he has consistently provided a measure of excellence that I truly admire.

My reveiws on the other hand, need a little help. My wife and mother-in-law have volunteered to critique all of my future posts and I'm gonna take Ordway up on her offer as well.

Thanks for the heads up on all fronts! I'll submit thrice proofed posts from now on!

By the by, I'm Chuck Arrington, if you didn't already know!

[Edited by buckee1 on 07-05-01 at 07:11 AM]

I just wanted to say that if the format switches to unopinionated lists of technical specs I'm not interested in being involved. The best thing about writing these reviews is the ability to break down the FILM, not just the specs, and that's what makes me so enthused to be a reviewer. If you don't like the opinions, then don't read the reviews.

(not being nasty, just wanted to voice my opinion)

I'm the Gil Jawetz of reviews (see, our titles to the left should identify us are reviewers.)

Gil, I don't expect DVDTalk to my somewhat radical ideas to heart. You're right, reviewing a movie is part of the fun of writing it, gives a chance to play Ebert. Maybe I'd be appeased if a quantative number wasn't put on the quality of the film I dunno mate, my last post was a lot of my own opinion, and I do think there is room for a review site based purely on specs. For me either I like the movie and I don't need someone to reassure of that, or else I haven't seen the movie and I don't want to hear one iota about it so not to spoil a thing. Anyway, I've read your reviews and they are good. Sorry to take this thread off topic.

In defense of Chuck, I don't think his reviews are bad at all. Perhaps it's because our writing styles are similar?!

It's been there since early March, but it hasn't been activated. Geoff can turn it on whenever he wants, but I'd prefer he wait until I have time to add a few more features to it. I'm not sure when I'll have the time to do so. It's not formatting correctly, but if you'd like an example, take a look at http://dvdtalk.com/reviews/bio.php?id=1. Yes, I know it's not doing the new lines properly.

Well, comments about technical aspects of discs are often subjective, too. What constitutes a 'good' transfer, for instance, will vary from reviewer to reviewer. The majority of DVD Talk reviews have comments about the film separate from comments about the disc, and it's easy enough to just skip straight to the technical bits if you'd like.

Thanks. I used to program exclusively in Perl, but a couple of PHP projects quickly turned me towards the light. Hop over to http://www.php.net/ for more information.

Don't pay attention to the numbers. I don't. I generally just slam down whatever number first springs to mind. I don't really have any sort of methodology or whatever to determine if audio warrants a 4.0 or a 4.5.

That's not a niche we're looking to fill. It'd be interesting to see one, though.

[Edited by ctyner on 07-05-01 at 09:18 AM]

Thanks for the support dude! Aww Geez, you're making me all weepy!

Hey, Adam, I think the profile deals look OK. Can't we go ahead and kick them into action, and if you find time in the future to pretty them up ... you can go for it then, right? It looks OK if everyone fills in their profile info ... here's mine ...
http://dvdtalk.com/reviews/bio.php?id=15

Does anyone think it might be worth while to have the database spit out a list of our reviews on our profile pages? Just like if someone searched for our name.

[Edited by noelgross on 07-05-01 at 12:11 PM]

Yeah, I was waiting to send Geoff one huge update, but I'll get the bio stuff sent to him tonight. It's turned on by changing a variable in the config file, so that'd have to be done by Geoff directly.

As for listing reviews, I was planning on listing the 15 most recent and then having a link saying "show all reviews by ____".

Oh, that'd be great!

I agree, that would be terrific