Flaming Reviewers

When I think of the expression 'flaming' as applied to personal attacks (usually anonymous) in postings on a website such as this, it makes me think of the schoolboy trick of lying on one's back, knees to chest and applying a naked flame to the gases expelled from the nether bodily orifice, usually producing a spectacular tongue of blue fire, capable of burning quite an artistic pattern on a nearby wall. In my view, the 'Review' forum of this website should be for reviews (ie commentary on shows from an audient's point of view) ONLY. It is no place for personal attacks, anonymous or otherwise. It is especially no place for those overblown asses who did not even see a show themselves but can't resist the temptation to vent their guts over someone elses hard work the minute they smell blood. So to all you 'Walters' out there, you are giving 'Plinge' a bad name, as well as a foul smell.

I think we all need to keep a bit of perspective when it comes to reviews posted here. As actors, we get good reviews and bad reviews. while the good can lift us up, and the bad can crush, we need to remember that a review is one persons opinion of one performance of a show. While it reflects that persons opinion, it is just that - opinion. Performances can vary greatly from night to night, and just because one reviewer may pan, or praise a show, this doesn't define the show. Take it all with a grain of salt. No-one ever got to the top without a bad review. It's more important to ignore a good review than a bad one IMHO.

I think we all miss an important factor: until recently, reviews were published solely in newspapers. Even in most online publications, adding a commenting function is a new thing, and not often used by the people involved in the show (how many comments are made on The Age's review page, etc.?). But on this site, it's been available for years. Perhaps the issue is one unique to this site, which is much more community focused and not like publications where the reader is not expected or encouraged (as much) to participate. Finger puppets now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

Question: Who spilled the milk?

...does anybody know who the original Walter Plinge was/is?

Hi There, http://www.theatre.asn.au/book_page/walter_plinge It's a pseudonym.....

I am not complaining about getting a bad review as such (even though it was from a self-confessed 'peasant') - what gets up my nose is the plethora of 'Plinges' who then swoop in with their two bobs worth, even though they haven't even seen the show in question. That is just so petty and puerile and there is no place for it on the Review forum (IMHO). They can always do it in an appropriate receptacle - such as this one. With respect, I also think it is inappropriate for people involved in a show to respond to a review of that show in the Reviews forum. There are other places for them to fight or fawn (as the case may be). Ssstinger>>>

With respect Peter, I was under the impression that that was what the reply button was for. For anyone wanting to add anything to that particular thread. I don't feel that it is inappropriate for a cast member to say thank you to someone who has taken the time to see a show and post a review, good or bad.

We all can find behaviour on this (and any other) site that offends or annoys us Peter. We can complain about it, or we can suffer in silence, but we for the most part can't change it. A point to ponder.... When a review is posted of a show, and you/me as a director/actor want clarification of a point in the review, I believe the thread where the review is posted is a perfectly appropriate place to ask for such, should you feel the need to do so in public. It is obvious that this is common practice. I personally don't think that directors and/or actors should enter into the reviews/debates of shows they are involved in. What they should do, is take the review in the manner it is presented. If it is mean spirited, then ignore it. If it is contructive, take it on board, consider the merits of the comments suggested, and then disregard or learn from them, as you see fit. If the review is glowing and effusive, take it with a grain of salt. As a first time director, I welcome constructive criticism that will help me to learn and grow as a director. I have asked several accomplished directors who have seen my production for feedback - what could I have done better? How can I do better next time?

I thought you had decided to no longer contribute to this site,having been most vociferous in your condemnation of the validity of the various contributions, and yet here you are again, adding nothing but Troll fodder.

i think stinger (is this your real name?) misses the point so often and gets offended by the 'plethra of plinges' when the finger points firmly at him. he writes with an air of arrogance and lets be honest it is not warranted...you are a passionate amateur dramatist, enjoy it...ride above the critisism, bask in the glory of your plaudits, but first get down from your pedistle and relax. this is a great forum and would encourage all to have their say...whether you be stinger or walter plinge.

Speaking for yourself sunshine? I think you're the one doing the trolling.

Here's an idea. How about the Finleys having a wooden spoon award for the worst play and musical of the year. That should lift everybody's game.

How does one warrant " an air of arrogance" I'd like to know? I know how one warrants the epithet "Wally ". It is by posting in a public forum using bad spelling, bad grammar and bad punctuation. Dr Johnson would have used the term 'wantwit' or 'twit' for short. However, at least Wally Plonker (if that is your real name) takes my point; that this GOSSIP forum is more appropriate for a slanging or sucking-up match than the REVIEWS forum. I rest my case. Ssstinger>>>

Hey, Anon (although I have a pretty good idea who you are, because not that many people I know have problems spacing their commas). I can do and say what I want, as long as it's legal and adheres to this website's policy. I think you'll find that MOST registered members don't have significant objections to me posting. I'll do you a deal, if you can find five registered members who do not want me to post anymore, I won't. And, I'm curious; what exactly IS Troll fodder?

Ultimately, who gives a shit? Just produce good theatre. if the work is produced well, performed well, presented well and performed well then it is review proof. No, not everyone will like it, but it will be far easier to dismiss the occasional ranting of a dissident Walter. This whole debate seems to stem from insecurity.

I've noticed with some irritation that there appears to be some censoring of posts that, whilst they may be unpopular given the opinions espoused, aren't deserving of voting down. The question has to be asked - do we have a censorship "gang" in place voting down the posts they don't like? I think I may expand this to a general post

Actually, there are very few 'reviews' ever posted here, even in the review section. A traditional review, as defined by the job description 'reviewer' is not meant to give constructive feedback to the director or cast. It is written to target and entertain a newspaper readership. This can sometimes mean giving the reviewer's opinion on whether they thought the play was good, bad, or otherwise; but usually means trying to impress their readership with how witty and intelligent they are, and then paraphrasing a good deal of the plot. You're lucky if they get half the facts right, let alone express any sort of value judgment or opinion. On the other hand, what is written here is usually more of a 'critique'. The writer usually offers a strong opinion, has suggestions as to how they think it 'should' have been done, and cares about the fact that the participants will probably read it. In this context, they are submitting their side of an argument, with the reasonable expectation that other opinions and refutations may be expressed. This forum has never been an editorial, and it is ridiculous to get upset over the fact that it isn't set up that way, or to pretend that its 'reviews' are sacrosanct. It is a free-for-all dialogue, a group discussion, and a forum for argument. Unfortunately some people cling to their notions about what they think it should be rather than what it is, and so the arguments become centred rather too much around FORM, and not enough about CONTENT. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

It would give me great pleasure, there is one play a couple of years ago that deserved it, it was the most truly dreadful piece of s**t I have ever seen in 20 years involvement in community theatre. Maybe it would make a difference...but I doubt it.