Re: Ohh, the pain, the pain!
 

Great, I'll be glad to help out! :) I enjoy working on the "technical" aspects of writing as well as the "expressive" parts.

Just email me the review(s) you want me to look at, and I'll intersperse my comments with the text in the reply. If you want, you can let me know how detailed a critique you want -- my default is "really detailed" :) -- and whether you want just a grammatical critique, or also comments on style and structure.

It will be a couple of days until I get a chance to reply, though -- I'll be out of town from tonight until Wednesday evening. (I'm flying out to California to compete in the National Fencing Championships :)). But when I get back, I'll catch up on all my email.

I'm glad for the clarification on the "database" information... I was puzzled about where to click to find this information, and I'm relieved that it was hard to find because it wasn't actually there, not just because I'm not observant enough! ;) I'm going to go add my technical information to my profile now, before I forget.

--Holly

Re: Re: Ohh, the pain, the pain!
 

Thanks Holly, I'll send some your way once, I have a few completed! :)

The love on this site is almost enough to make you cry! Come on everybody GROUP HUG! :D

Hey, this is somewhat unrelated, but would it be possible to have a signature for reviews? In my obsessive compulsiveness I add my little sign off to my reviews, but if I wanted to change them all I'd go nuts. Just a thought.

I'm glad to see that the reviews are trying to work together to put together some standards.


I've often wondered how the reviews became reviews.

Did you have to submit reviews based off of a dvd that you own?

A few of the posted reviews have influenced my purchase decisions.


Thanks again for the work that each of you do in reviewing a dvd.

If the reviews are chosen on a volunteer basis, hopefully I'll feel confidient enough in my writing and analysis of a movie to submit a review for consideration.

Dear Vryce,

The DVD Talk reviews come from a small staff of folks like myself (Aaron).

As far as I know, the reviewers here (I hope one will correct me if I'm wrong) are reviewers only for this site.

For the past 3 1/2 years though, I have run my own DVD/Film related site at www.currentfilm.com (also accessible via currentdvd.com).

hey, Aaron, I just followed the link to your site and am somewhat disturbed to find that you are recycling reviews between the two sites. Maybe that's not a problem, but it seems some sort of breach of journalistic ethics to me. I know this isn't Time magazine, but the reviewers are all trying to work to give DVDTalk an identity as a good source for opinionated, thoughtful reviews. This just seems kinda wrong to me.

Check this out:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=2031
http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreview...fmirthdvd.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=2284
http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreview...oearthdvd.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?id=2291
http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreview...lmusicdvd.html

Huh?

I've been sharing (recycling is not exactly a kind term) reviews with this site for probably over a year and a half now - maybe it's been even two years. The majority of my reviews can be found at DVD Talk. I've chosen to share several hundred reviews with this site that I've written specifically for my own DVD site as well as work on a great number of assigned DVD Talk reviews. I would hope that DVD Talk readers would enjoy having reviews written specifically for my own site accessible here, as well.

I don't see anything wrong with it at all. This is why I was afraid to post to this thread yet again after the first time - that something would be made out of what I said when I just intended for a friendly contribution to the proceedings.

He's mirroring reviews he wrote for DVDTalk on his own site. As a journalist, I don't see anything ethically wrong with that. The only person who could honestly object might be Geoff, but I really doubt he'd get his feathers ruffled. And a lot of times, Aaron is writing reviews from his own collection, not just ones provided by DVDTalk.

Now, I wrote a handful of reviews for DVDShrine, and it wouldn't have been ethical for me to post reviews I'd written for them on DVDTalk, or the other way around. Mostly because of who gave me the discs.

I didn't mean to offend. I was just surprised to see some reviews that I've read here. If Geoff is ok with it then it's ok. I'm not sure, however, that I see a difference between Noel's DVDShrine distinction and Aaron's. It's not entirely about who gave out the discs (although that's part of it). It's also about original content. On the web the whole idea of intellectual property is (or should be) very fluid, so it's not a big deal, but all a site has is its content. I was just a little surprised to not find any acknowledgement on either site of the sharing of reviews.

It took a lot longer than I said :), but I just sent Geoff the newly created bio file...should be up later today.

Guys, Aaron goes so above and beyond when it comes to doing reviews, he submits a TON TON TON of reviews. I am more than aware of his site which predates him doing reviews for DVD Talk, part of our agreement for him to write for DVD Talk was that he could post DVD Talk reviews on his site and post his reviews on DVD Talk.

Please don't flambast someone in an open forum before checking out the facts.

Thanks

I apologize for sounding like I was flambasting Aaron. I was just trying to ask a question (and like I originally stated, if it's ok with Geoff it's ok by me) but it did come out kinda cranky. Cyberspace has a way to distorting tone.

This is a good thread. A lot of different suggestions flying around that can only make the review site better.

OK, bios are now up and running! Any DVD Talk reader who's curious about a reviewer can click on his or her name in the review. (I thought about adding the links on the index page as well, but I didn't want to get too "link happy" or confusing.)

Now I guess I need to find a less strange picture to use.

Nice work!

Neato! Thanks buddy.

That looks great. I definitely like the bios. I do think that some sort of link on the index page would be good -- maybe just a link called "Review staff" that leads to a page with all the linked names of the reviewers. It would also help to keep the less prolific reviewers in the public eye! (How *do* you guys find time to even watch that many DVDs, let alone review them???)

Actually, I'm curious -- for you guys who put up, say, ten reviews or so at a time -- I assume, based on how the screener request page only takes requests for 4 at a time, that most of these are coming from your own collection?

Eeek. That *is* a strange picture. In defense of DVDTalk's image, I promptly put my picture up too ;)

Now a question for the experienced reviewers: How does the "review request" process work?

In the initial "introduction" email from Geoff, he mentions that in addition to requesting screeners from the review database page, you can request specific movies. How does that work?

And what's the procedure for getting the more wanted DVDs? Is it a seniority thing, so that the most popular new releases are offered first to the most senior reviewers? Do reviewers have a standing "wish list" that Geoff checks? Or is it random, so one day you look at the list of screeners and see "Godfather DVD set" and your brain explodes?

I'm dying to know, because there are several upcoming DVDs that I would *love* to get to review, plus many catalogue titles that aren't on the screeners list and don't have reviews up, but that I'd definitely enjoy getting to review.

Thanks!

This is just a stop-gap measure until I sit down and redo everything, but I'm juggling enough projects right now that a top-to-bottom revamp is a while off.

It's extremely time-consuming. Thankfully, I don't have a life to get in the way. :)

The number of requests is reviewer-dependent. With a couple of exceptions, everyone (including myself) is set to 4.

LOL, I don't like to be photographed, so I don't have a lot of pictures handy. (For the record, I'm the one on the left in the picture, with the shirt that doesn't have some sort of pink alcohol spilled all over it.) I used that one for testing purposes. I'd change it, but I literally do not have a single photo of myself in my apartment to scan.

I can't speak for Geoff, but I think he means that if there's a specific movie you're really chomping at the bit to review, you can contact him and he'll set it aside before adding it to the screener list. I could be completely wrong there, so he might need to clarify... Geoff might be able to request specific titles from the studios themselves, but I have <i>no</i> idea how that works, or if that's even possible.

Maybe other reviewers have a wish list. I don't, myself. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the way screeners are added -- I'm guessing Geoff just inputs whatever arrives in the mail each day. Generally, it's a free-for-all, and new additions tend to get snapped up pretty quickly. I would say to check the screener list more often, but then, that'd hurt my chances of getting titles I want. :) <small>Actually, that's not really true. I tend to pick the more offbeat titles that no one seems to be interested in. In a lot of ways, I enjoy reviewing those more than the A-list special editions.</small>

Well, <a href="http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134984">this thread</a> is closed now, but a lot of stuff was said in it. Anyone have any thoughts?

I don't think I have a cavalier attitude ;)

Seriously, I *think* the main point was that if you've already reviewed a previous version of a film on DVD and you also later review a newer version of the same film on DVD, then a comment of compare/contrast would be nice in the newer one, for reference sake. Aaron did do this in his review tho, but instead of focusing on the content, the poster focused on the stars, which did change (which is where my comment came from about ratings change over time, as new standards are made).

I think the post could have definitely been made more clear, especially the points near the end, which were a little harsh.

I agree. I'd like to hear some constructive criticism on the system as a whole, though, particularly from readers rather than other reviews. I think pretty much all of the points I raised when I started this thread have been taken care of or strides have been made in that direction...

As for the star ratings, those for me are an afterthought, and I don't really have any sort of system for 'em. I just mark down whatever first pops in my head. I would hope people would pay more attention to the body of my reviews instead of those stars or the soundbite summary.

I objected to the overall tone the thread evolved into. Regardless of his opinion, it seemed like a bunch of DVD Talk Reviewers ganging up on the original poster. The words used were professional, but I didn't think the whole team needed to chime in. I agreed with him that we should make a better effort to consider previous star ratings when assigning new ones, which is why I brought up the fact I actually chart mine for comparison. I didn't agree with some of the other stuff the guy said. But it's probably best to drop it, as the thread was closed for a reason.

I hope I didn't seem like I was ganging up on him. In any event, since Filmmaker's complaints were apparently limited to one set of reviews by a single reviewer, he probably would've been best off contacting Aaron directly instead of starting a thread. I certainly don't think DVD Talk reviews are beyond criticism, but presenting such a broad complaint while giving only a single example seems like somewhat of a waste.

OK here is the viewpoint of someone who is not a reviewer but likes reading DVD Talk reviews :)

I don't think reviews should be edited to reflect changes of opinions over time, except to clarify or add information, and even then I think the added comment should be clearly marked as such. Certainly a review of a new edition of a DVD can always refer back to the previous review with commentaries if appropriate, but I don't believe that the previous review should be edited to be consistent with the new review. That would be too much like revisionist history.

I also frequently read Roger Ebert's reviews, and it is easy to pick up how his views of movies have evolved over the last 10 years, as has his writing style. I actually find that change refreshing and interesting, instead of annoying or disturbing. Let the studios come out with new special editions and ultimate editions, but leave reviews alone, please.

<b>kuroiinu</b>, I agree with everything you said. There is something about the way that professional critics change their tune that bugs me. A non-DVD example is with the critical assessment of U2: All throughout the 90's mags like Rolling Stone proclaimed each U2 release their best (excpt Pop) with critics falling all over themselves praising Achtung Baby and Zooropa like crazy. Then the new "sincere" one comes out and all these critics are saying "After spending the 90's on an overly-ironic tangent U2 have returned to making great music..." Say what? But you go with it.

That having been said, I think it's good to note in outdated reviews that a new version has been released or that something has changed.

Didn't we agree to start abbreviating "Special Edition" to SE?

Forrest Gump: SE
Forrest Gump: Special Edition

Maybe I'm dreaming.