 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 12 13 14 15 16 17  Previous Next
|
 New "Unrated" Rating (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Excellent, gentlemen, thanks...both of you. The we definitely need the ability to deal with BOTH Not Rated(NR) and Unrated because that is how the data actually appears. Sometimes you're just unbelievable Skip. For 40 pages now (including the previous thread) you've drug down this conversation, spun people in circles, offered up opinions based on God only knows what. And all because YOU were uneducated on the facts. Facts that everyone else, including Ken, simply believed at face value. This post may get deleted. It will probably receive some red votes. But it's just infuriating at times that there are people who are trying to provide Ken input, at his own request no less, to make this program better and we can't have a civil discussion because you derail the thread for 40 PAGES based on your own ignorance of the facts. When I don't understand the facts of the situation I either move along or try to educate myself. I don't offer up opinions and argue with others until I know the facts. So, now that you're caught up with everyone else, do we now have your permission to continue moving forward? | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Mark: You are the unbelievable. I have come to a completely different conclusion from what Ken has proposed to date. I am not suggesting a definition for Unrated and one for NR. They remain what they ARE. Nop RR=1 and Unrated=17, that is crazy. that is parental cotrol, we set that up and let each other handle that locally. Now how that can handle is as i described, but I am not even close to where Ken was. I have been trying to engage in serious and polte discussion, you came simply to attack. Now go away.  Assigning a fictional value to each of them accomplishes NOTHING when it comes to sorting and filtering in either case you would wind up with Dora being grouped wit Beowulf, which i don't think is the objective at all. The only way that can be achieved is that each film with either Not Rated or Unrated has the opportunity to be assigned more definitive data by the user, only THEN will the sorts and the filters begin to take on any useful meaning to anyone.  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Mark: In case you hadn't noticed, i was not alone in my confusion with what ken was doing and why? But you chose to attack ME! Why, I don't know... that's your problem, i did not go off on you or anyone else, but then you just had to screw it up...huh. There was quite a few other users that were and still are rather confused, by this whole issue. I'll thank you for an apology. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | I haven't posted in about a month or more, and I doubt I this will change much, but wanted to say 2 things:
1. Glad to see you back Northbloke. I enjoy reading another voice of reason on these forums which is so full of the opposite.
2. I really can't understand what's so confusing about the difference between Unrated and Not Rated. Maybe it's a language issue though, so forgive me if that's the case. To "UNdo" something is to take something away that has already been done. So "UNrated" is something that has been rated in the past and then changed in some manner to become "unrated". Not Rated, very simple, it hasn't been rated...ever. I think I speak for most people, that the issue isn't with parental control, and most people agree that this could easily be fixed down the road via a program change and an "adult" tic box or similar.
Anyway, the proposed change covers what people want separation on. Why people are having such a pissing match over making the program more usable for more people is beyond me. Like others have said, it's very easy to lock things locally if you don't like a change. Secondly, a lot of the negativity for said change for flexibility has come from someone who wants open credits? If you the edition of Unrated will throw the world into chaos....well....I'll just leave it at that.
Anyway, you may return to your regularly scheduled fighting.... | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire | | | | Last edited: by Vittra |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | The problem Vittra with that, while you are correct, the film industry does NOT necessarily use them that way. The way the industry uses them, they are synonymous, or nearly so. But even so neither of them is equal to 1 or the lowest rating. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Nr and Unrated are two like terms, they mean essentially the SAME thing. They don't mean the same thing to me. As others have suggested, "unrated" implies the removal of rating (by including additional material that would invalidate a previous rating), and "not rated" implies the lack of being ever rated. To me "unrated" means not family friendly, but "NR" means virtually nothing about content. So there is and should be a distinction made between the two. --------------- |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Mark:
In case you hadn't noticed, i was not alone in my confusion with what ken was doing and why? But you chose to attack ME! Why, I don't know... that's your problem, i did not go off on you or anyone else, but then you just had to screw it up...huh. There was quite a few other users that were and still are rather confused, by this whole issue. I'll thank you for an apology. You may not have been alone in your confusion, but you were at least nearly alone in how you dealt with it. You don't seem to have attacked anyone, but spent page after page apparently unable to understand the difference betweeen parental controls and ratings filtering, were apaprently nto familiar with how the ratings sytem works, how unrated is commonly used, etc. Repeatedly insisting people were just making stuff up instead brushing up on the issues (or just butting out since this apparently doesn't affect you) rubbed some people the wrong way. A little Wikipedia goes a long way. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Nr and Unrated are two like terms, they mean essentially the SAME thing.
They don't mean the same thing to me.
As others have suggested, "unrated" implies the removal of rating (by including additional material that would invalidate a previous rating), and "not rated" implies the lack of being ever rated.
To me "unrated" means not family friendly, but "NR" means virtually nothing about content. So there is and should be a distinction made between the two.
--------------- But unrated my not mean "Not family Friendly". It just means that a particular release is "NOT RATED" because of a change in content. That content could be relatively harmless. It could have been removed from the theatrical release for any number of reasons, and only 1 of those would be to achieve a lower rating. So by this logic a theatrical release that was rated "r", that is now an "Unrated" must be now "NC-17". I highly doubt that. The current proposal was setting an arbitrary age to an "UNRATED" video release that is greater than an "R" release. There are a number of "PG-13" movies that have an "UNRATED" dvd release. These releases probably are still "PG-13", but we as a consumer have been "brainwashed" into believing that the "UNRATED" release must be something worse. To add this proposal to a contributing rating, will force all to live with this, or again make another section unusable for a number of people. To me it is not flexibility, but removes such by putting in a rating that has no basis in reason, aside Marketing. Charlie |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
But unrated my not mean "Not family Friendly". It just means that a particular release is "NOT RATED" because of a change in content. That content could be relatively harmless. It could have been removed from the theatrical release for any number of reasons, and only 1 of those would be to achieve a lower rating.
So by this logic a theatrical release that was rated "r", that is now an "Unrated" must be now "NC-17". I highly doubt that.
The current proposal was setting an arbitrary age to an "UNRATED" video release that is greater than an "R" release. There are a number of "PG-13" movies that have an "UNRATED" dvd release. These releases probably are still "PG-13", but we as a consumer have been "brainwashed" into believing that the "UNRATED" release must be something worse.
To add this proposal to a contributing rating, will force all to live with this, or again make another section unusable for a number of people. To me it is not flexibility, but removes such by putting in a rating that has no basis in reason, aside Marketing.
Charlie Most unrated versions of PG-13s I've seen are equivalent to R in content, though I'm sure some are not. This seems to be the best we can do without a program update, though as the alternative would be to treat them as Gs. Besides, if people think unrated means "not family friendly," that's because the industry has encouraged this perception. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:
Quote:
But unrated my not mean "Not family Friendly". It just means that a particular release is "NOT RATED" because of a change in content. That content could be relatively harmless. It could have been removed from the theatrical release for any number of reasons, and only 1 of those would be to achieve a lower rating.
So by this logic a theatrical release that was rated "r", that is now an "Unrated" must be now "NC-17". I highly doubt that.
The current proposal was setting an arbitrary age to an "UNRATED" video release that is greater than an "R" release. There are a number of "PG-13" movies that have an "UNRATED" dvd release. These releases probably are still "PG-13", but we as a consumer have been "brainwashed" into believing that the "UNRATED" release must be something worse.
To add this proposal to a contributing rating, will force all to live with this, or again make another section unusable for a number of people. To me it is not flexibility, but removes such by putting in a rating that has no basis in reason, aside Marketing.
Charlie
Most unrated versions of PG-13s I've seen are equivalent to R in content, though I'm sure some are not. This seems to be the best we can do without a program update, though as the alternative would be to treat them as Gs. Besides, if people think unrated means "not family friendly," that's because the industry has encouraged this perception. Ace: They may be in your mind. But they are NOT if they are either Not Rated or Unrated, assuming that is the data. You would be free to set whatever age you want to locally, it would not be appropriate for you to determine the age for someone else. Now I can think of one film that was rated PG-13 theatrically and the DC was rated as R, but in reality that is actually pretty unusual. Typically a DC , an EE whatever want to call them or far more typically either Not Rated or Unrated. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Ace you are so utterly clueless.
All that you demonstrate to me by attacking me personally, Ace, and mark, is that you (1) don't understand the issues and (20have NO argument..,.NONE...zip, zero, nada.
I want to thank both of you for derailing what was to this point a CIVIL discourse. Who's being uncivil? I didn't call you any names. I didn't attack you. I'm just saying assume good faith and try to get a handle on what other people are saying. |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Most unrated Ace:
They may be in your mind. But they are NOT if they are either Not Rated or Unrated, assuming that is the data. You would be free to set whatever age you want to locally, it would not be appropriate for you to determine the age for someone else. Now I can think of one film that was rated PG-13 theatrically and the DC was rated as R, but in reality that is actually pretty unusual. Typically a DC , an EE whatever want to call them or far more typically either Not Rated or Unrated. I assume you are refering to Daredevil. It's only unusual because they don't typically bother to go back to the MPAA. Hancock probably would have been an R, Anchorman certainly would have been an R. The Aliens Vs. Predator movies and Terminator Salvation and XXX all would have been R. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
But unrated my not mean "Not family Friendly". It just means that a particular release is "NOT RATED" because of a change in content. That content could be relatively harmless. It could have been removed from the theatrical release for any number of reasons, and only 1 of those would be to achieve a lower rating.
So by this logic a theatrical release that was rated "r", that is now an "Unrated" must be now "NC-17". I highly doubt that.
The current proposal was setting an arbitrary age to an "UNRATED" video release that is greater than an "R" release. There are a number of "PG-13" movies that have an "UNRATED" dvd release. These releases probably are still "PG-13", but we as a consumer have been "brainwashed" into believing that the "UNRATED" release must be something worse. I agree with everything so far. While it's implied that an Unrated movie will be worse than the original rated version, and I'd guess it usually is, there's no guarantee of that. Quote:
To add this proposal to a contributing rating, will force all to live with this, or again make another section unusable for a number of people. To me it is not flexibility, but removes such by putting in a rating that has no basis in reason, aside Marketing. Here you seem to be implying that the change Ken wants to make will somehow break the program for a particular group of users. That functionality that exists today will go away or no longer work. I'm not following the reasoning here. Could you explain how this change will "make another section unusable for a number of people"? And how it removes flexibility? Seriously. I'm just not understanding the logic here and it could simply be that some people use the program in a way I hadn't thought of prior to this point. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ace:
You are making ASSUMPTIONS. Yes, Daredevil is unusual. The only person that you make an assumption that is different from the data is yourself. If the data says Not Rated, from an Online point of view you can't say it is R, it is NOT. That seems to be the problem that you are having is that you don't seem to understand DATA and Personal (or Parental Control issues). In the case of Daredevil I am right there with you, the Theatrical Version says PG-13, the DC SAYS R, they went back to the MPAA, very unusual but they did it. By the same token I will not say that Daredevil DC is actually NC-17, that's not what the data says, Ace, it MIGHT be true for me, but it would not be correct for me to Contribute it because that wiould be my opinion whe the data FACTUALLY says something else. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 12 13 14 15 16 17 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |