Adam Tyner

Before anyone asks, no, I'm not volunteering.

I've noticed some inconsistencies in the DVD reviews portion of DVD Talk, and I thought perhaps having an editor sort through all the reviews before they are posted might make that section of the site more useful for everyone. Looking through the first few pages of the most recent reviews, there are some titles in all caps, the reviews of the new Kubrick collection are awkwardly titled, and, inexplicably, there is a review of "Pearl Harbor", which was <i>just</i> released theatrically. Also, although I'm aware that I frequently make minor grammatical flubs, the spelling and grammatical errors in some reviews are appalling. Again, I'm all-too-aware that I make mistakes too, but I cringe when I see segments like this:I don't want to sound as if I'm singling out one reviewer in particular, although I obviously am. I'm very likely being overly sensitive, but I'm a little embarassed to see my rantings alongside reviews like <i>that</i>.

Some very talented writers are part of the DVD Talk reviewing team, and realizing that Geoff's time is limited as it is, I was hoping one of them could steer the reviews section from being 'very good' to 'really great'. I realize those quibbles are minor individually, but lumped together, they seem a little more significant. I don't know if any users or other reviewers have noticed or even care, but I thought this was worth a mention.

<small>To be clear, I <i>really</i> don't think I am that great a writer, and I don't see myself as being qualified enough for an undertaking of this size. I don't have the time either, of course. I'm far, far better at coding PHP/MySQL than I am at writing reviews, if anyone has any suggestions for the review software. I'd like to give it its own unique look and feel in the not-too-distant future. I modeled the look after the old software, and it seems dated.</small>

-Adam, who is completely and utterly paranoid that this post will be misinterpreted. Actually, Adam is completely and utterly paranoid in general.

Alyoshka

Adam,

I understand what you're getting at with your post. Hopefully they will listen because I've been feeling this way for about 6 months now. There is a little too much inconsistency in the little things.

Grammar/Spelling/Capitalization do make a difference when trying to read. When there is improper grammar in an article, I find it very difficult to read. I know I'm not perfect when I write, but most people can tell something is wrong when they read.

It would be nice if Geoff could find a volunteer to take on the task of editing to make sure there aren't obvious mistakes. Also making sure the review formats are uniform.

I know it's terribly difficult to do this as I did reviews for cds at another big internet site in the past. In some ways it is more difficult than in print, and then in other ways it is easier.

Again, I'll agree that the dvd reviews are far above par as they are. They could just use a little touching up--like the wax after a good wash on a car.

DVDer

Same here, which is one of the reasons why I support having a review editor. I try to catch and immediately correct the mistakes I make in my reviews, but I'm a horrible editor. One of my projects for the summer is to go through my reviews and clean them up as best I can.

--Heather

G. Noel Gross

I don't like the idea of someone coming in after the fact and fiddling with something I've written, but I wouldn't be opposed if it were limited to spelling, grammar and punctuation. I think Adam's new review software has gone a long way toward improving the database, as we're all able to go back and make fixes at will.

I'm more concerned with how freely we seem to be tossing out DVD Talk Collectors Series ratings.

Alyoshka

I hope that they would, if this happened, preserve the integrety of what people write. Grammar, punctuation, and spelling are really the only thing an editor need mess with unless they request permission to change other little things.

I agree about the DVD Talk Collectors series. It used to be that I would make sure to buy those a year or so ago. Anymore I can't keep up.

On an aside, I see that you live in Dallas. By any chance, since you're into film reviews, do you know John Lewis who used to review for The Met and on Merge 93.3?

TheyCallHimJim

Sorry to be pedantic, but this isn't so much a case of editing as it is proofreading. Editing suggests that the person or persons would also be keeping an eye out for trimming stuff with length and stuff in mind, which could lead to all sorts of problems with people not liking changes that are made to their reviews. Simple proofreading, though, should hardly be a problem. Mind you, the bigger problem is that people need their reviews proofread at all; people should read through what they write before they submit it to make sure it scans well and is written in good English, instead of relying on someone else to pick up on their mistakes at a later date.

Adam Tyner

Yeah, the more I think about it, the less comfortable I feel about someone changing a review I've written. Maybe before going <i>that</i> far, someone (Geoff?) could draw up some review standards or guidelines, or if we do add an editor, he/she could e-mail us a list of suggested corrections before a review is posted rather than make changes directly.

I don't really see grammar/spelling errors as any sort of <i>epidemic</i>, seriously marring the reviews section. It's really just that <i>one</i> guy I quoted earlier, but I didn't want to come off seeming as any more of a putz than I already am by singling him out specifically.

I haven't checked to see how frequently "Collector Series" ratings are doled out. Looking at the 11 reviews I've given that rating out of 149 total, I'd change 3 or 4 of them (and probably will soon). In general, "Skip It" ratings bother me more, particularly when reviewers overuse it.

TheyCallHimJim: 'Proofreading' sums it up pretty well, I suppose, but I said 'editor' because some of the problems with inconsistent titling and including theatrical reviews in a DVD reviews section seemed to go outside of those boundaries.

Gallant Pig

Here are my problems with the DVDTalk reviews:

1. No one posts what equipment they used for the review.

2. The review's subjective opinion of the movie directly goes toward the overall rating of the DVD. I'd like to see less focus on the subjective aspect of the film and more focus on the technical aspect of the DVD.

G. Noel Gross

The new software allows for reviewer profiles, which will contain that info. It just hasn't been activated.

Regardless, I think you and I may have to respectfully disagree that a reviewer must have a state-of-the-art home theater system to assign appropriate A/V ratings. It's not rocket science. Either the image and sound suffer, or shine. I'll never be one of these guys who writes three graphs on how the left-rear channel fades for 10 seconds on Track 22.

I've reviewed movies I've loved and given them lower advice ratings because of poor DVD production. Our "advice" rating is only one of several ... Movie, Sound, Video and Extras. As a reader, you can weigh the review however you wish, by whichever category is more important to you.

Holly E. Ordway

(A little shy about stepping forward, but hey...)

Geoff has just welcomed me aboard the DVDTalk review panel a couple of days ago, which I'm definitely excited about. (By the way, Geoff, let me know if you didn't get my email with the reviewer's agreement; my server has been acting up lately, and might have eaten some of my incoming mail too.)

I'm a technical writer, so I do a lot of proofreading / revising in my work, I've got a Ph.D. in English (yeah, I'm fairly overeducated!) and I've taught university-level composition in the past. So grammar, spelling, and punctuation are practically second nature to me at this point in my life.

Spellcheckers won't catch all mistakes, and computer grammar checkers are actually *worse* than useless. Trust me on that one (shudder). So all the good intentions in the world won't prevent certain types of mistakes from making it through, if the writer doesn't realize that it's a mistake. On the bright side, however, most of the time people tend to have just one or two main mistakes that crop up again and again (like its/it's, or comma splices), so learning how to identify and fix those particular problems is a pretty efficient way of polishing up your writing.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that if anybody would like me to look over one of their reviews and give feedback (privately) about proofreading issues, I'd be more than happy to help out.

DVDRules1

I have changed the Kubrick reviews from (New) Kubrick Collection to Kubrick Collection: Title (Remastered)

Thank you for your kind comments about my reviews.

Aaron.

Adam Tyner

I noticed that the 'last response' field listed a reply at 4:50 AM EST by DVDRules1, but apparently Aaron or someone else decided to delete that post. I can't really respond without seeing what was there , but I can safely say the following:

Aaron, absolutely nothing you did would be considered "wrong". I didn't care for the naming convention you used for the new Kubrick releases, but there aren't clear standards or guidelines for review titles, and honestly, I don't know how I'd differentiate between discs in the new set and the older releases. My first instinct was to append a " (2001)" to the end, but wouldn't "2001 (2001)" look a little goofy? As for the "Pearl Harbor" review, the reviews section says nothing about being DVD-specific, and I don't fault you in the slightest for submitting it. I think including theatrical reviews with DVD reviews without breaking them up into separate sections clutters things up, but that's just my opinion, not some immutable fact. Those reviews <i>were</i> queued and approved, after all, so if anything, you're the one with more support on his side. It's the lack of guidelines (and the laughably poor grammar of another reviewer) that's the problem here, not you or anything you've written. I think you're an extraordinary reviewer and a genuine asset to DVD Talk, and those are two phrases I wouldn't use to describe myself.

<small>Edit: Yikes. I didn't realize I use that many smileys.</small>

[Edited by ctyner on 06-11-01 at 05:27 AM]

G. Noel Gross

There's a Pearl Harbor review in the database?! That's ridiculous. It's great that you're ahead of the game with half your review written, but save it for when the disc comes out. A stand-alone "theatrical" review has no business in this database. Or am I crazy?

DVDRules1

How about giving me a break?

It was a big movie - possibly the most highly anticipated of the year, and I didn't like it. I wanted to share that opinion. I know it's not a DVD review but I reviewed it for my site and decided to submit it here.

I'm <I>terribly</I>, horribly sorry.

Aaron



[Edited by DVDRules1 on 06-11-01 at 08:03 AM]

G. Noel Gross

I hereby issue a break to Adam.

How about an entirely different issue? What if we standardized Special Edition, Collector's Edition and the brand-specific SEs like Platinum. Should we universally abbreviate them? If so, should we call all of them SE? Unless, I guess, if multiple editions exist? It just gets weird when studios make up stuff like Awards Edition or Deluxe Collectors Edition to try and make themselves distinctive. And why should we give preferential treatment to Criterion? When essentially they're just SEs. Then there are the titles whose packaging ignore their bonus content. If they've got a commentary track, I've been going ahead and labeling them with a Special Edition. I'm sure everyone has an opinion on this.

When I wrote a few reviews for DVDShrine, they had me abbreviate all that stuff like Foxy Brown (SE).

Adam Tyner

I decided to bump this thread to the top with a few more quotes. I know I'm <i>far</i> from the greatest reviewer, but this is just embarassing. With over 20,000 members, Geoff, I'm sure you can find someone more coherent than this guy. These quotes, by the way, have not yet been added to the list of reviews at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews.html .

Any quote lacking punctuation at the end is not the result of poor copying-and-pasting on my part.

"Love Story was always one of those films that I never wanted to see. It seemed way to contrived and looked to overdose on the emotions meter. While the latter proved true, the storyline is truly classic. Love Story may have its detractors but, this film single-handedly, brought “Love” back to the big screen and in a huge way. It’s a good film that has aged well and is still very moving today as it was thirty years ago "

"The film’s theatrical trailer is also included which, rounds out the extras portion of the disc."

"While there are no interviews either pas or current with the film’s stars, this documentary is both engaging and informative."

"The interior shots all bear the richness and warmth you’d expect however, as the film draws on, the poor color saturation and overall, dullness of the images take hold."

"The balance of his commentary is full of reminiscence regarding actors with whom he’s worked his joys or lack thereof given their particular acting styles and quirks."

"The problem however lies in their totally separate backgrounds. He’s the son of a rich and powerful attorney. So rich and powerful that Barrett Hall on the campus of Harvard and Radcliff University (where this is set and filmed) is his great grandfather’s legacy to him."

"The younger Barrett being made of the same defiant and stiff material of his father refuses to bow to the superior forces and embarks on life’s marital journey with his new found wife at his side and his father’s money out of his pocket."

"For all his talent however, he’s misfiring on some very fundamental issues."

"Assured his success is right around the next corner, Mike refuses to get a job to take care of his family’s needs. Needs like milk, food and rent."

"The dialogue is clear and easily understood and the aural textures of the feature are nicely spread out throughout the HT environ."

"Not a detracting element rather, a different and cool twist on a usually commentator- alone, segment."

"At first glance, the cover may put you off as it screams low budget indie flick and it’s original title “Urban Love Story” definitely would have put you under however, give this film a chance, it’s got a charm all its own and it really is a good film."

"As one reviewer put it, “When it’s over, you’ll wish it wasn’t.) I wholeheartedly agree"
<small>It's worth noting that there's not a corresponding open-paren in the review.</small>

"Per the commentary track, this is Yang’s first commentary."

"By strict definition, it means, individually. Which is the main thrust of Yang’s film."

"While I am unaware as to a resolution of the controversy that should result in the re-mastering of the disc, the edition I reviewed for all intents and purposes was fair to good in it’s presentation."

"Visual errors aside, Yi Yi is an excellent film that is worthy of all the accolades it has received. While three hours is a ling time for any film,. It’s well spent here."

<small>...and I'll close this with one of my favorite quotes.</small>

"The audio is presented in a very dull mono platform that equals the tone of the film. There are no surround effects..."

<small>Imagine that! Is he seriously complaining that a mono track doesn't have any surround effects? </small>

Liquid Death

<phew!!!> You guys had me worried that maybe a section from one of my reviews would be in there - thank god that they weren't (at least, not that I could see)

I usually spend an hour writing my reviews and I go over them 3-4 times to make sure everything "sounds" right and that I don't use the same word too many times And sometimes I get paranoid about semicolon or colon usage. Its been 2 years since I took English 101 and 102 in College, so some of the rules I've forgotten

I do agree with the above comments that maybe a proofreader would be good and that maybe some guidelines should be established. I'm sure many people don't know this, but for me at least, I was accepted as a reviewer, pointed to a few reviews, and told to write in that sort of format I, for one, have never recieved any sort of criticism, good or bad, about my reviews (except Aaron did tell me that my first one was good, that I wrote for the forum) so I really don't know how they are to other people. I've written over 130, currently.

And I would like to offer a warm welcome to our new reviewer "ordway."

-Earl Cressey-

BTW, if you have some constructive criticism about my reviews, please feel free to let me know I'm not the world's or DVDTalk's greatest reviewer (I know this and I have no background in film) but I do try really hard to make sure they're at least informative and accurate. I do think that I've gotten better as I've went along and sort of found a style that I feel works for me though.





[Edited by Liquid Death on 06-24-01 at 07:44 PM]

Breakfast with Girls

I agree. No offense to Chuck, but some of his reviews are incoherent in places.

Gil Jawetz

Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread since I'm always plugging my reviews like mad. I've been guilty of some bad typographical errors and some slips in judgement but I think that the level of reviews on here is pretty high considering that we're not really a "staff" per se. The reviews at some of the other big 2 or 3 DVD sites are really much worse. I think it is also good that people get opinionated about the movies themselves. It makes better reading!

Having said that I have 2 suggestions:

1) We need a DVDTalk style guide. The big publications all have one, we need one too. If I were to write one based on my own reviews it would start like this:

- Film titles should ALWAYS be italicized. Not bolded, not in quotes.
- The first reference of any film title should be followed by the year -- Raging Bull (1980) -- unless the year is in the text -- 1980 saw the release of Raging Bull was released...
- Titles go like this:
Do The Right Thing - Criterion Collection
Terminator 2 - Ultimate Edition

etc...

2) All reviewers should print out and copy edit their reviews on paper before submitting them. In the world of internet writing immediacy is king. Unfortunately this means that a lot of writing gets published without anyone really looking at it. When I print out a review I've written and read it, say on the subway, I catch a lot more mistakes than on the computer monitor. Now, this may not work for everyone, but everyone should give it a try.

Also, a certain amount of research should go into reviews. A little context on the filmmakers, a little historical background. Not just a short plot description and then technical stuff.

Anyway, keep on truckin'. I hope people have enjoyed my reviews so far. Here's to plenty more...

stingo

Would use of style sheets/templates help with the stylistic issues?

G. Noel Gross

I disagree. I use bold on movie titles and actor names to aid scanning readers. Few people actually read things from beginning to end online. Highlighting certain words helps them determine if they want to spend additional time with the story.

Like I've said earlier, this buying into each distributor's marketing strategy. I think we should call an SE an SE instead of whatever brand-specific name they come up with.

I'd hope the majority of us are doing these things already.


I sort of think we're missing Adam's point. There's a difference between a reviewer who's just slapping reviews together to get free DVDs and one who's actually interested in communicating with fellow enthusiasts. I'd rather see discs go unreviewed than have so many done poorly, as that lowers the general credibility of DVD Talk.

Gil Jawetz

Like I said, that would be if <i>I</i> were writing a style manual. But I think we should decide on a standard. Quotes don't work for me (Quotes are for songs) and many of the reviews don't use any method of differentiation - a big mistake in my opinion. I personally don't like bold. i think it should only be used for headers as it turns paragraphs into checkerboards. I personally like italics. i think it looks professional.

Actually I totally disagree with this. We should help readers know what we are talking about and with multiple versions of so many movies we should identify the discs with whatever their real designation is. If you think Scarface Special Edition or whatever it is is not very special is not the point. That is what it is called and that's the name people will need to know to find it. Similarly, if Goodfellas: The Poopoo Edition comes out, then that is what that is called. you can comment in the review that you think a better name could have been used, but that's what it is.

I also think Criterion should be identified partially because of the extra weight they carry, both for being innovators and for name recognition. Alot of people havebeen exposed to important and worthwhile films that they would never have seen just because they are on Criterion. More people probably read a review of, say, Coup de Torchon or Double Suicide because it is identified as Criterion. If you identify a film as a Platinum edition or Ultimate edition that also identifies the releasing company, only a little less obviously so. Plus, while I think collecting a certain brand is kinda silly, people do it and those are many of the people reading this site.

Well, you've read some of the reviews that show that that's not the case.

I totally agree with this. There have been movies that I felt strongly about and wanted to review that someone else grabbed first. When I see a shallow review of a movie that I love I feel a little aggravated. It's a bummer. I think a start would be agreeing on a style manual. We could do that right here. People could post suggestions, we could hammer it out and Geoff could post it on the reviewer manager.

As for raising the quality of the writing, that takes time. Not that we need another forum, but maybe a restricted reviewer forum where reviewers could critique each other's writing and help each other out wouldn't be a bad idea. Or maybe it could be open to the public. That would actually be very valuable since being able to write well is helpful in a lot of ways.

G. Noel Gross

You're talking about asthetics. I'm talking about helping readers through material.

In cases of multiples I see your point, but there's really no difference between an SE and a Platinum Edition. At that point we're just plugging brand names.


This is playing favorites. No doubt Criterion has also benefited from people bending over backward to refer to releases as "Criterion Editions." We don't call their competitor's releases "Anchor Bay Editions" or "Universal Editions." This is exactly why you see other distributors coming up with their own branding of "Special Edition." It's pointless in cases where there's really no other "special" release that would cause confusion.


[Edited by noelgross on 06-26-01 at 11:33 AM]

Liquid Death

Quote (sorry, I wasn't going to quote the whole thing

>I totally agree with this. There have been movies that I felt strongly about and wanted to review that someone else grabbed first. When I see a shallow review of a movie that I love I feel a little aggravated. It's a bummer.


I would imagine that everyone who reviews feels that way; I certainly do from time to time. I don't think there's any way around that, though. I try and choose movies that sound interesting - quite a few of the films that we can choose from I've honestly never heard of, and I've worked in a video store for the past three years. For particular films, if I don't think I can do the review justice (like Bamboozled, I know next to nothing about Spike Lee) in terms of "history," then I don't pick it.

Also, I really have no preference over how movies are "highlighted" in reviews - whatever you guys work out is fine, just lmk how to do it (I don't know alot about HTML formatting, so I don't get too creative).

Further, I think that Criterion titles should be labeled - some people collect those and searching by "criterion" in the database is alot easier - I like doing that for IMAX as well. That way you can pull up a list - those titles get smaller press, than say the newest blockbuster. However, if in the near future there was a search option to search by company, then omitting the criterion tag is something I'm in favor of. In fact, a more comprehensive search would be great - I would like to be able to search by reviewer again (or at least, click the reviewer's name and pull up the list like before) or the "rating" (skip it, rent it, etc). I do think that "special" edition designations (SE, CE, VS, PE) are good, but maybe we should come up with an agreed upon list. Coz I don't know how I'd abbreviate Infinifilm (if I even spelled it right).

Holly E. Ordway

My first set of reviews is up, so I hope you guys will take a look and tell me what you think! Hopefully they're up to standard!

As a new reviewer, I'd agree that a style guide would be really helpful. I've been reading DVDTalk's reviews for a long while, so I was pretty familiar with the format. Even so, when it was time to write my own reviews, and I doublechecked some of the existing reviews on the site, I noticed that there was some definite variation in the way the reviews were organized, which meant I had to make some guesses as to how to organize my reviews.

Quote:

- Film titles should ALWAYS be italicized. Not bolded, not in quotes.

Yep. I can confirm that this is NOT something that is just determined by a publication's whim or what looks nice -- it's a basic rule of English writing. The rule is that books, movies, and plays are italicized, while short stories and articles are put in quotes.

On the subject of bolding... This is a subject near and dear to my heart, since I'm a technical writer, and recently I did a style guide for my department. My opinion is that bold should *only* be used for headings, and not for emphasis.

Bold calls a great amount of attention -- it draws the scanning eye to itself. Bold is perfect for headings, which are the most important divisions in the review, allowing the reader to skip to the technical part of the review, for instance, or even head straight for the "final thoughts." Putting bolding on other elements, like titles and actor names, acts as a distractor from the headings, which reduces their effectiveness as visual "road signs" to the review. It basically is asserting to the reader that the casual mention of an actor's name is of equal importance to the division of the review into different parts, which is going to mess the reader up.

So while I agree that the main concern with using bold or italics is in helping the reader get through the material, it's my professional opinion that an overly liberal use of bolding is actually counterproductive. On a side note, using bold *instead of* italics for titles is incorrect. If you want to use bold like that (which stylistically I disagree with, anyway), you should use bold *plus* italics.

Sorry if I have gone on and on too much! If you hadn't guessed already, I love writing, including the more "technical" aspects of it, so sometimes it's hard to shut me up

Liquid Death (Earl): Thanks for the welcome! I'd be happy to take a look at your reviews. Is there a particular one you'd like me to look over?