King Kong (1976)

[Andrew]

I mean, the odds of Ashthecat being the same person who gave me the same feedback on this site five years ago are pretty slim.

Oh, you don't know Ashthecat very well.

[RCMerchant]

SEE?! See what you did,Ash?!? You scared another one!"YOU-YOU NAP HAIRED IDIOT! YOU-YOU RUINED THE DOOR!!!"

[Captain Tars Tarkas]

If you are going to post your work in a public forum (this site, your own website, books, magazines) you're going to have to develop some thicker skin, and learn to ignore the criticisms that aren't relavent.  Certain people just aren't worth listening to and are best ignored(this is not in regard to anyone at this site specifically, I don't know anyone here well enough to know if anyone is a troll)   Running to another message board and starting a thread complaining about the response here is pretty bad form.   There are always going to be people out there who say things you don't agree with, even about your own work.

[Menard]

If you are going to post your work in a public forum (this site, your own website, books, magazines) you're going to have to develop some thicker skin, and learn to ignore the criticisms that aren't relavent.  Certain people just aren't worth listening to and are best ignored(this is not in regard to anyone at this site specifically, I don't know anyone here well enough to know if anyone is a troll)

Now anytime you go on a diatribe which potentially is aimed at anyone on this board, you are going to have to name names. Not out of any coutesy mind you, it's just that some of us (me specifically) are attention whores and like to have others mention us.    

Running to another message board and starting a thread complaining about the response here is pretty bad form.

*EDIT* Well dang, I can't even read as of late. I read that incorrectly until Andrew's reply pointed it out to me.  I withdraw my response; even though it was beautifully written (ahem).

[Andrew]

I don't think Bill "went running to another message board."  From what I know, that is a place he often posts to and has been interacting with others.  As such, he has a good feel for them and probably values opinions from some of the other posters.  If you encounter something and have a certain reaction, but are concerned that your response is no objective, you might well ask some friends or associates what they think.  This would seem to be the same deal.

I will agree that one should be ready for criticism when posting reviews; it is a very valid point.  Other people will not like your opinion of the movie, will disagree with your observations, and find your method lacking.  Nature of the world and there is nothing wrong with that, unless the debate goes from something productive to a useless flame war.

[Menard]

Really wish I had paid attention when I read the martian's post before. I misinterpreted it at first and disagreed. "Running to another board", depending on the circumstances, can be somewhat of a p***y act.

On a forum I ran once, someone had posted a somewhat lengthy diatribe pretty much against the entire board. One element of his post was telling of a friend he knew and such a friendship as he had with him gave him the knowledge to tell everyone on the board that they were basically full of *tuna fish* with regard to a specific thread. I responded, as he posted anonomously, that I did not know him and for him to expect me to accept what he said as gospel regarding the subject, especially against much greater and confirmed testimonial to the contrary of his statement, was utterly ridiculous.

It turns out that he was a member of another board of which I was a member, and he posted on that board that he went to mine and was called a liar. Of course, he got the sympathy he so desired from his fellow board members.

Being that I have not been able to read the post in question, I cannot comment on it. I can say that boring me by writing an overly long recap of what happened in a movie from beginning to end, and not much more than that, is not my idea of a review, and I will reiterate that it is preposterous to compare a recap to a novel. If somebody wants to go running to another message board and tell them what I said, feel free; just make certain that you get it right.

My apologies to the martian for misreading the post. I obviously need to brush up on my reading skills.

[Andrew]

I think this is probably the post in question:

http://www.agonybooth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4726

[Menard]

I don't have any disagreement with his post. He basically used it as a lead into the topic of his thread. But that's my take on it.

His statement "and I finally lost my temper and came to the conclusion that the world of sci-fi and monster movie fans is full of hypocrites" is a little moronic, but that's his business and his somewhat self-excusing assumption.

[RCMerchant]

Funny,I don't feel full of hypacrites.

[Captain Tars Tarkas]

I've been around several boards where someone would go running to another place, and it always causes much more drama.  I write reviews myself, and I know they aren't the type everyone loves.  I do it for me, and publish them for me.  If others like them, good; if not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  I like longer reviews, but I also like short synopses.  The Agony Booth and Bad Cinema Diary are like polar opposites, but are some of the Bad Movie Sites I check regularly for updates.

[Ash]

I can't remember if I posted about whatever it was you wrote 5 years ago.
It may very well have been me.
If it was, I wouldn't apologize for it...just like I'm not going to apologize now.
Offering constructive criticism is nothing to apologize for.

And Tars...everyone's criticism is relevant.

Like Andrew said, "Different writing styles for different people."
I prefer shorter reviews that generally tell about the film without giving away too much (even if I've already seen it) and include bits of humor.  I don't want the review spoiled for me when the author gives a play-by-play of the entire film.
I'd rather just watch the movie! 

Many of you like recapping.  You love those insanely long recaps...and that's ok.
There's nothing wrong with that.
If that's what you like, then by all means, read or write away.  Knock yourself out.

But in my personal opinion, most recaps stink and I'll tell you why...

One of the things that most of us here unanimously agree on is that a bad movie, no matter how low its production values are, can still be good, as long as it's not boring.
Boredom is the kiss of death not only for films, but reviews or recaps as well.
(or pretty much anything for that matter)
When a recap or review starts to bore me and/or fails to entertain in any way and I'm not even a quarter of the way through it...well, you get the idea.

The trick to writing a good recap is to make it entertaining and not boring.
Unfortunately, few writers are able to successfully do it.

Like I said before, it was just a bit of friendly criticism.
Don't take it personally.

[Dennis]

I prefer a short review of a movie, giving some of the characters, plot, and any interesting things to watch for. All  I really look for is a little more information about the film than you get in TV Guide, this is important in deciding whether to watch a schlock/cheesy movie or not. A long re-cap kind of spoils the film for me, I want just enough information to base a decision on, it's helpful to know whether the reviewer liked or disliked the film, but since each of us has their own tastes thats not what I base my viewing choice on. I assume most of us here feel the same way, that's why we're here and not over there, just personal preference, nothing more.

[the agony booth]

Well, since we've deviated far from the topic of King Kong, I may as well say what I originally wanted to say.

You compare a novel in the same vein as a recap though. That is a poor comparison. A novel involves creative content from the writer from word one; a recap involves telling about someone else's creativity.

First of all, you misunderstood my point. I wasn't comparing novels to recaps, I was drawing an analogy. "short story : novel :: brief review : recap".

Regardless, what you say about recaps is true of all movie criticism, brief or long. Even when you read a review in the NY Times, the reviewer is simply "telling you about someone else's creativity". Even the reviews on this site, essentially, are "telling you about someone else's creativity". I don't see how the length of the review makes a difference in that respect. And to say that no form of movie criticism involves "creative content from the writer" is patently ridiculous.

[the agony booth]

A long re-cap kind of spoils the film for me, I want just enough information to base a decision on, it's helpful to know whether the reviewer liked or disliked the film, but since each of us has their own tastes thats not what I base my viewing choice on. I assume most of us here feel the same way, that's why we're here and not over there, just personal preference, nothing more.

It's not really a "here" or "there" choice. I didn't invent recapping--like the Wikipedia article says, it's been around for decades. And there are sites that feature long recaps that, in terms of traffic, blow away my site, Jabootu, and even Badmovies.org.

Television Without Pity, for example, posts nothing but long recaps. They currently have an Alexa rank of 2,793 (compared to 276,879 for my site, and 119,225 for this site). So whether people here enjoy them or not, there is a substantial audience for those "boring", "non-creative" recaps.

So just because you don't enjoy a certain style of writing doesn't mean it's inherently a worthless style. To dismiss it with "too long, dude" or "recaps involve no creativity" or "why not just watch the movie" isn't really what I would consider constructive criticism. It makes it sound like length automatically makes something bad, which is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, Ash's last post is what I would consider constructive criticism. Saying "I got bored a quarter of the way through" at least gives the writer some idea of where things may have gone wrong.

[Menard]

It's not really a "here" or "there" choice. I didn't invent recapping--like the Wikipedia article says, it's been around for decades. And there are sites that feature long recaps that, in terms of traffic, blow away my site, Jabootu, and even Badmovies.org.

Television Without Pity, for example, posts nothing but long recaps. They currently have an Alexa rank of 2,793 (compared to 276,879 for my site, and 119,225 for this site). So whether people here enjoy them or not, there is a substantial audience for those "boring", "non-creative" recaps.

And part of that ranking is due to keyword density. Two sites can both have 1000 reviews, but one of them can have reviews 10x as long as the other's which would generally give them about 10x the keyword density (generalizing). Although keyword density and rank are not the same thing, keyword density will get a site more hits when due to the returns from keyword searches listing a site with a greater keyword density ahead of a site with lesser keyword density for the particular search terms. Being that Alexa is particularly influenced by traffic on their ranking, then the sites with the greater keyword density are going to have a better chance (I did not say it was absolute) at being ranked higher.

Television Without Pity was designed by Uber Interactive, and is registered by them. Content on their site was provided by many contributors. I'm certain that their partnership with Yahoo doesn't hurt them either.

Trying to pass off keyword loading and backing as evidence of a 'substantial audience' for boring recaps is as preposterous as you comparing a recap to a novel.

So just because you don't enjoy a certain style of writing doesn't mean it's inherently a worthless style. To dismiss it with "[too long, dude" or "recaps involve no creativity" or "why not just watch the movie" isn't really what I would consider constructive criticism. It makes it sound like length automatically makes something bad, which is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, Ash's last post is what I would consider constructive criticism. Saying "I got bored a quarter of the way through" at least gives the writer some idea of where things may have gone wrong.

First of all, if you are going to bother to suggest you are quoting somebody, then quote them; don't paraphrase them.

If I tell you that you wrote a long assed boring as hell recap that was nothing but telling me what happened in a movie from beginning to end and offering nothing more than that, I am not offering constructive criticism at all, I am just simply telling you how damn boring you are. If you want constructive criticism, go join a writer's club and tell them that your recaps are comparative to novels.

A review is not a request for somebody else to review it. A review is sharing your thoughts and feeling about something, giving them an idea of what to expect (in many cases, we can call it a warning), and preferably to also entertain them at the same time. If people don't like the way it is presented, are bored by it, or consider it to be too long, don't put it off on them as being their fault and not properly responding to it.

What all this comes down to is: geez dude, come on; all that was said was that the review was too long and it comes down to this overly extended conversation (not even involving the person who wrote the review) about...a comment?

Get a grip.