h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A537338

First off, you need to change the style to GuideML cos it looks like it's still set to the default plain text.
Then I'd recommend fleshing the article out a bit more with at least a rudimentary outline of the plot. OK people could get the details elsewhere via one of the many movie sites on the internet, but you think the film's good enough to include here, so why not tell people about it yourself? Give your readers enough so they understand why you think it's the greatest film of all time ever (and I've got to say it's one of my all-time faves too )

Thanks for your suggestions, I've actioned them all!!

You obviously loved this film, and you get that passion across nicely. Well written!

However, I still think a little more text would be good: could you tell us the director? the date? how good the music is? (and what type, etc, etc... Also, you need to write this in the third person: try and remove the "I"s and "we"s, if you can.

Btw, you might wanna check out my Peer Review tips: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A475049

Brilliant movie. Also one of my favourites! I think you might mention that the massacre they witnessed was the famous "Valentine's Day Massacre".

I don't want to nag coz you obviously have a back ache, but there really is quite a lot more that you could say about the movie. I hope you do get round to it.

I would definitely agree that there is a lot more which can be said about this most excellent of movies and shouldn't the title be something like "Some Like it Hot - the movie"?

You might also want to mention that the film was remade in 1990 as "Nuns on the Run", starring Robbie Coltrane, Eric Idle and Camile Coduri.

Otherwise, an enthusiastic piece, well presented.

I have to agree with m'learned colleagues. I'd like to know what it is about the movie you like. Is it the idea that Jack Lemmon or Tony Curtis could ever be mistaken for women? Is it Curtis' impression of Cary Grant? Or is it just that magic moment of oo-boo-be-doo?

Others may cover the storyline better - but you should do your best to cover it here (with a warning against spoilers if possible), in your own words. Include a link to one of those sites too, if you feel it's necessary, but do what you can. I mean, if the entry on Australia just said "see the entry in Encyclopedia Britannica", the site would be poorer - and the reader might miss one or two interesting pieces of information. After all, no reviewer's perfect

GVI

I have to go aloing with what has been said above. You need more on the film.

But, there is a real problem about this. I chose to read your article because I am already familiar with the film. I was hoping to find more than someone saying, you gotta see this film.

At the same time I was hoping to see some reason why that film, as great as it is, belongs in the guide.

The conflict is that what you have presented is just a bare bones review, that is to say, this is your opinion. While the guide is full of opinions those opinions are attached to facts and the opinions about those facts are generally far in the minority.

So, I don't mind your presenting a critique of the movie, whether I agree with you or not. But, it has to be an in-depth critique. The plot summary you have offered is very brief, yet you seem to think that the events in that summary are enough to recommend the film to everyone without reservation.

Is it just that you have two of the funniest actors of the time trying to be taken for women while one of the most beautiful and talented actresses of the time sings and wiggles while dealing with these men? (I am being deliberately obtuse here -- I, too, love this film) Is the script well written? Why? Is the photography so supurb that you can't appreciate this film on the small screen. Is the plot development and timing such that to cut the film up and insert commercials is a crime? Why? Is the writing so witty that you can hardly bare to watch the film for the pain in your sides? Why? Is the direction and editing a landmark in the art of film making? Why?

Or is it just the fact that you are amazed to have seen this black and white film made before you were born and it's funnier than anything you've ever seen since The "Benny Hill Show" (or "Are You Being Served?" or "Monty Python's Flying Circus" or "H2G2" for that matter -- take you choice or insert your own)?

Saying, 'trust me!' is not going to make this an entry for the guide.

Tell us why you like it. I, at least, really want to know. I have too many years experience in the theatre not to want to know all about what everyone likes (and dislikes) about any sort of performance. If you don't think you know how to address these matters, just relax, do a very hard thing -- watch that wonderful film a few more times, and try to figure out what it is that works so well for you. Try to explain it to us remembering that we can't be there with you and that many of us like it too so we aren't looking for you to fail.

In short, try to share that joy with us and with someone who has never seen the film before as well. If misery loves company, laughter loves crowds. Maybe you can't explain the joke, but you can certainly compare it to other things.

It wouldn't hurt to look a how it is done on such web sites such as the Internet Movie Database where the reviews are written by ordinary people not trained critics. You don't need to copy them but they might give you an idea of how to proceed.

Go at this one, I really am rooting for you to make this a great entry.

Barton

Okay,

I've actioned a lot of the points you guys have made, thank to all for your input!

It is difficult working on these articals, you feel like you are being pulled in every direction! I hope I have succesfully added information to it without removing its chatty style!!!

Thanks again everyone, keep your suggestions coming in!!

BackAche

This is much better than you started with. You have a few little gramatical errors (i.e. 'millionaires who' not 'which', etc.) that will be caught by the sub-editor if you don't catch them first.

Your PS and PPS should be made into footnotes or fitted into the main structure.

Don't use the word 'I.' We have a style here that gently mocks the concept of impersonal encyclopedias so while we keep the opinions we do not use that word. You might say something on the order of 'There does not seem to be any evidence that substatiates the claim that ...' or you could get a bit pompous and say, 'This researcher cannot find any evidence . . .' Do what you like but don't use the personal pronoun.

You quite casually throw out the female-bonding thing, but how many other films before that time had dealt with the issue at all? I'm not one for over analyzing comedy to the point where you can't laugh and enjoy yourself, but there seem to be reasons in the nature of the structure and nature of the scenes to say the the film systematically examines the differences between the relationships of men and women, men and men, and women and women. These things are part of the reason why we laugh. Otherwise, the film would just be about men looking stupid while trying to hide with women.

Honestly, could you have mistaken either of them for a woman if you met them on the street and had more than monents glance? Of course, the film asks us to suspend our disbelief and that is much easier to do with a comedy, but, for me at least, I see some intersting commentary that stays with me after the laughter is done.

And that final joke, sets up another whole movie in my head that I don't need to have made, because the movie that is there has made it obvious what would happen. Don't you see him actually considering the offer as the film ends?

Barton

Hey Back_Ache!!
This is looking good. You've obviously put a lot of effort in since I last dropped by and it's proving well worth your time.
A couple of minor grammatical niggles - in your first sentence you've got too many "send"s and not enough apostrophes (should be "it's set.."). The editors will catch any you miss during their final checks but it'll help keep them sweet if you don't leave them too many to look for.
I think maybe your PS and PPS could come under a little known facts subheader at the end rather than be crammed into footnotes.
I was wondering if a couple of your bracketed comments might work well as footnotes though eg the note about the St Valentine's Day Massacre.
I think the style is working well and your enthusiasm for the film comes across nicely. Personally, I wouldn't include too much heavy analysis of why the comedy works but that might just be me. Barton's certainly got something with his comments on various combinations of genders interacting socially - although part of the joke is that "we know something they don't" feeling when all the girls, including Monroe just accept Curtis/Lemmon without hint of a question.

Whatever, just my thoughts, feel free to ignore them.
MC

The problem that I find is that I like a chatty slightly humorous style and I don't want to stifle that with too many facts and figures, the amount of footnotes I have put it have almost become a joke in themselves!!

I like the idea of suggesting to people that the film is deeper than it first appears but in the same breath I don't want to turn potential viewers off, I would hate anyone to miss out on this film.

But I suppose at the end of the day it doesn't matter as the artical is being ignored by the editors anyway!!

If anyones got anymore ideas I'll try my best to incorporate them (even it does mean spending five hours trying to find any evidence link "nuns on the run" to SLIH !!)

Your Nuns on the Run link effort may be futile. I imagine it would be possible to link 'Some Like It Hot' to any earlier film, stage play, or story that has to do with men disguising themselves as women or even the other way around. The plot device is not original.

If that is true then anything you try to link forward would suffer from the same problem, unless you can find a statement by the screen writer or director saying that the idea was to do a remake of Some Like It Hot, only different.

I suspect that the guides won't come till you say that despite all the suggestions you think your article is fine the way it is. Then they'll know it's done and make a decision.

Unfortunately, they seldome post that the decision went against you, which is a shame, but there you are.

I think this should be edited, but I also want more. I'm just that kind of guy.

Barton

Your sentences are just too long. Take the following example:

But before you slip into your trainers and adopt the sprinting position let’s tell you some more, it stars the dynamite comedy trio of Tony Curtis, Marilyn Monroe and Jack Lemmon all of them wearing dresses for most of the film, it has guns, gals, comedy, Cary grant impressions, tragedy, killer songs and killer punch lines (and they save the best one till the last).

This should really be three separate sentences:

But before you slip into your trainers and adopt the sprinting position let’s tell you some more. It stars the dynamite comedy trio of Tony Curtis, Marilyn Monroe and Jack Lemmon, all of them wearing dresses for most of the film. It has guns, gals, comedy, Cary Grant impressions, tragedy, killer songs and killer punch lines (and they save the best one till the last).

Another example:

The plot (written by Wilder and I.A.L Diamond) twists and turns a lot but basically Curtis's and Lemmon’s characters are musicians on the run from the mob after witnessing a massacre (the St. Valentine's Day Massacre to be exact), being broke and without transport they only have one option, to join an all girl Jazz band going to do a summer season at a Florida beach-side hotel location is popular with millionaires that moor their yachts nearby.

This should be:

The plot (written by Wilder and I.A.L Diamond) twists and turns. Basically Curtis's and Lemmon’s characters are musicians on the run from the mob, after witnessing a massacre (the St. Valentine's Day Massacre to be exact). Being broke and without transport, they only have one option, to join an all girl Jazz band. The band is going to do a summer season at a Florida beach-side hotel, a location popular with millionaires, who moor their yachts nearby.

There are too many footnotes that detract from the flow of the article. The sentence quoted at the start has three separate footnotes in the one sentence. These do not seem to be particularly relevant to the points where they are attached. For example, the footnote about Monroe's remake is attached to the phrase "wearing dresses for most of the film".

Perhaps you could put all the footnotes into a separate section "More details about the film".

Good work. Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without Some Like It Hot on TV.

Christmas? Do you worship at the Church of Holy Marilyn?

For some reason, that film doesn't seem to associate itself with Christmas here. I assume it's a tradition where you are. In the states, it tends to be movies that have bells in them. I don't recall one such in "Some Like It Hot" though the title could be viewed as a veiled reference to devil worship.

Barton

My house, thanks to my wife, is a shrine to Marilyn we have more Marilyn photographs than we have wall space though I must say the only film of hers that spoke to me was "some like it hot".

Anyway, I've done what I feel is the final edit of my little artical and I hope that the numerous re-edits triggered by all the great feedback had not removed its life.

Thanks again to Metal Chicken, Lucinda, Shorn Canary, Snaggletooth, Global Village Idiot, Gnomon and of course Barton for all your encouraging words and ideas.

Share and enjoy!

You seem to have left out a word in the following sentence:

"The music is fantastic 1920's classic big band jazz, the filmmaking is, the casting is spot on, Billy Wilder’s direction got the best from cast and crew, wow, wow and wow again."

What is the filmmaking?

Brilliant!

It is only appropriate to choose this place in Peer Review to reflect for a moment that there will never be another performance by Jack Lemmon, though we can continue to wonder at the magnetude of what he left us to remember him by.

Barton

Not being a good scout, I can never really comment on entries. I just agree with what everybody says, even when they contradict each other!

This film was televised just the other night here, so it is fresh in my memory. Once I had figured out that the entry was about the film (it is not obvious from the title of the Peer review thread, but I see you have since changed the title of the entry), I, too was a little disappointed that not more tidbits of information were contained in it. The list of notes at the end makes up for this in a way, although stating that the film was made in 1959 as an aside down in that list does seem rather odd.

The last one is enigmatic to me. What do you mean by:

Examples two great period cinemas in England are the Ritzy in Brixton, South London, (opened in 1911) and the Duke of York's in Brighton, (opened in 1910)

?

Anyway, it is a very good idea to write on this film, and there should be more entries on old films. Not that this one is old, the other night when I saw it, it was as fresh as ever. And thank heavens Tony Curtis took the part in the end. I can't imagine MM falling convincingly for either Bob Hope or Danny Kaye, however rich they proclaim to be.

One of my favourite things in the film was that Jack Lemmon was spinning that double bass and playing the back of it, because he was so distracted by the back view of Monroe, but you could still hear the double bass playing on the sound track. This is probably intentional, but: how about including a few nitpicks and slip-ups. They are always great favourites - even in well-loved films. Especially in well-loved films! One of my very favourites, for example, is "Back to the Future" but this scores really high on all the nit-picker sites. I'm sure even Billy Wilder managed a few!