 |
|
|
|
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... 7 8 9 10 11 12  Previous Next
|
|
Unrated, part 3 (the final chapter?) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
As to Canada, we will not be rolling the new Unrated rating to Canada at this time. We'll see how it works for the US, and get feedback from Canadian users on whether they want it. Can I give you my feedback already since I'm canadian? I don't want this at all in my locality... the American want it so do it, but we are happy and we can live with what we had already  Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Not if it says NOT RATED, then it would be mixed right in there will all those lovely G, PG, PG-13 and R rated old TV shows and movies. Of course, we as users would always be free to change it locally to Adult, NC-17 or whatever, but that would be a LOCAL cal;l, which it SHOULD be. Can I say I'm amazed with this... The adult rating isn't a local one at all and must be used for all the hardcore features. Why do you think it pissed me off enough to stop contributing? It's a fantasy from the rules not a local fantasy of mine don't reply that it's a personal preference when it is clearly not one, since mine it's quite the contrary  | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 756 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
@Addicted
See, that's something I don't like the sound of.
Merrik posted a specific example of:
Pulse (UPC 065935-223313). According to the front cover, this profile is an: "Unrated: Widescreen Edition". And according to the back cover, this profile has a distinct Canadian home video rating of 14A: Frightening Scenes, Not Recommended for Young Children.
There is an "Unrated" on the front cover, but the DVD has been rated for the Canadian market. Therefore to label it as Unrated is incorrect. The "Unrated" in this case only refers to the American market. OK, I've just found another one....this a US R1 DVD containing, <cough>, "Mature subject matter. Contains adult language and nudity. Parental discretion is strongly advised." 0 25192 37992 5 American Wedding UNRATED on the front, but NOT RATED (in box) on the back. Definately not recommended viewing for "tiny tots"!  | | | | Chris | | | | Last edited: by Mole |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | The data clearly says Not Rated, Unrated is merely edition, and as you noted it also includes Advisory Data. But we shouldn't make NR the highest rating because of ALL that G rated material that is there too  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't see why we are arguing about this anymore.
I think Ken has pretty much made up his mind. Agree or Disagree doesn't matter.
What was before has now become irrelevant. Any arguments about it now, are just for the sake of arguing (I don't know why I would expect anything different)
If I understand it will be this order
NR(or what is classified as Not Rated) - Primarily pre 1968 films, Straight to video, Made for TV
G
PG
PG-13
R
UNRATED - Any Movie that had a previous rating, that has been released with altered content (I assume must say UNRATED ANYWHERE on cover)
NC-17
ADULT - for those titles with purely adult content (We know it when we see it)
I guess some will have to figure out how we want to deal with it personally. But what will be...
Charlie |
| | Registered: January 11, 2008 | | Posts: 168 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
I don't see why we are arguing about this anymore.
I think Ken has pretty much made up his mind. Agree or Disagree doesn't matter.
What was before has now become irrelevant. Any arguments about it now, are just for the sake of arguing (I don't know why I would expect anything different)
If I understand it will be this order
NR(or what is classified as Not Rated) - Primarily pre 1968 films, Straight to video, Made for TV
G
PG
PG-13
R
UNRATED - Any Movie that had a previous rating, that has been released with altered content (I assume must say UNRATED ANYWHERE on cover)
NC-17
ADULT - for those titles with purely adult content (We know it when we see it)
I guess some will have to figure out how we want to deal with it personally. But what will be...
Charlie  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
I don't see why we are arguing about this anymore.
What was before has now become irrelevant. Any arguments about it now, are just for the sake of arguing (I don't know why I would expect anything different)
If I understand it will be this order
NR(or what is classified as Not Rated) - Primarily pre 1968 films, Straight to video, Made for TV
G
PG
PG-13
R
UNRATED - Any Movie that had a previous rating, that has been released with altered content (I assume must say UNRATED ANYWHERE on cover)
NC-17
ADULT - for those titles with purely adult content (We know it when we see it)
I guess some will have to figure out how we want to deal with it personally. But what will be...
Charlie I think Ken has pretty much made up his mind. Agree or Disagree doesn't matter. Oh I agree, Charlie, I just think it's a shame that Ken has created a situation where some users have to decide, instead of looking for a solution that is a win-win for all, instead of win-lose, depending on where you are philosophically. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 168 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Fine, Rom using my example go right aheda and show Deep Throat to your kids, after all under my hypothetical it would receive Not Rated...the LOWEST rating of all and therefore must be acceptable viewing fare for your children...RIGHT. How stupid can we possibly be to not comprehend this simple issue. There are ways to do what you want Rom, not in the short run, although even there it is POSSIBLE to do, highly possible. But I will guarantee if you really thik that Deep Throat ios acceptable for your kids to watch, I definitely what any age settings by you to be purely kept locally, because you aren't qualified to determine age ratings for MY family.
Skip Actually, according to filmratings.com, the 1973 release entitled "Deep Throat" DOES indeed have a rating - X. Doesn't matter that the MPAA no longer issues X as a category of rating and instead useing NC-17 in its stead. But because this film DID have a rating, the subsequent DVD would be classified as Unrated if I understand this whole scanario. And since Unrated is higher than R, Unrated would sort this title with the rest of the family-not-so-friendly fare right where it should. | | | | Last edited: by MsPaula |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Quoting AESP_pres:
Quote:
Skip of course it will received a NR rating as he got in my collection. But even if I don't like it the "adult" rating place those movies in their own category who make them impossible to be mixed with the kiddie stuff.
Edit : it's about the last post from Skip, we have jumped one page ahead since than.
AESP:
Not if it says NOT RATED, then it would be mixed right in there will all those lovely G, PG, PG-13 and R rated old TV shows and movies. Of course, we as users would always be free to change it locally to Adult, NC-17 or whatever, but that would be a LOCAL cal;l, which it SHOULD be. You might think Deep Throat is a PG1-3 film, I would probably think you crazy, but that would be YOUR call and not mine, as long as there is no way for you to impose that call upon me. AESP_pres is correct. Even if the rating on the case is 'Not Rated', the fact that it is an adult film requires that it be entered as 'Adult'..."Use the “Adult” rating for all Adult films." Even if that weren't the case, the person who is selecting the film...the parent in you hypothetical...has the profile and the case right in front of them. Unless they are completely blind, they will know that Deep Throat is not a kid friendly movie. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Skip... you know I prefer the hard data just as much as you do. But I look at it differently then you... because to me If I see both NR and Unrated (no matter where on the case)... they are both hard data. As I can see it with my own eyes it is there. So the way it is worded... I would have to say Unrated over NR because both is on the cover... and he has it so Unrated would be higher then NR... and have it as highest wins. So that would mean I have to put Unrated. The difference is, when "Unrated" appears on the front cover, it is an "Edition" not a rating. When the same DVD has "Not Rated" on the back cover in the "Rating" box found on most DVD's, then "Not Rated" is what belongs in the "Rating" field, not "Unrated". It doesn't matter what the majority "wants". The rating is the rating. You cannot arbitrarily change it to something else, just because the "majority" wants it! That's why I'm really struggling with this "change". In the "rush" to fix a "perceived" problem, Ken seems to be determined to pollute the data in the rating field, instead of leaving things the way they have been for many years and coming up with a real solution that maintains the integrity of the data, even if it may take until the next release to fix. I just cannot support that approach. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The difference is, when "Unrated" appears on the front cover, it is an "Edition" not a rating. When the same DVD has "Not Rated" on the back cover in the "Rating" box found on most DVD's, then "Not Rated" is what belongs in the "Rating" field, not "Unrated". It doesn't matter what the majority "wants". The rating is the rating. You cannot arbitrarily change it to something else, just because the "majority" wants it!
That's why I'm really struggling with this "change".
In the "rush" to fix a "perceived" problem, Ken seems to be determined to pollute the data in the rating field, instead of leaving things the way they have been for many years and coming up with a real solution that maintains the integrity of the data, even if it may take until the next release to fix.
I just cannot support that approach. This doesn't pollute the data. It's easy enough to convert if Ken decides to take a different approach next time. I don't mind making the rules a little more complicated if it makes the data more useful. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
This doesn't pollute the data. It's easy enough to convert if Ken decides to take a different approach next time. I don't mind making the rules a little more complicated if it makes the data more useful. Of course it pollutes the data. If you enter "Unrated" in the "Rating" field, when the back cover clearly lists "Not Rated" in the "Rating" box, then you are polluting the data. Especially when they are on opposite ends of the heirarchy! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Skip... you know I prefer the hard data just as much as you do. But I look at it differently then you... because to me If I see both NR and Unrated (no matter where on the case)... they are both hard data. As I can see it with my own eyes it is there. So the way it is worded... I would have to say Unrated over NR because both is on the cover... and he has it so Unrated would be higher then NR... and have it as highest wins. So that would mean I have to put Unrated.
The difference is, when "Unrated" appears on the front cover, it is an "Edition" not a rating. When the same DVD has "Not Rated" on the back cover in the "Rating" box found on most DVD's, then "Not Rated" is what belongs in the "Rating" field, not "Unrated". It doesn't matter what the majority "wants". The rating is the rating. You cannot arbitrarily change it to something else, just because the "majority" wants it!
That's why I'm really struggling with this "change".
In the "rush" to fix a "perceived" problem, Ken seems to be determined to pollute the data in the rating field, instead of leaving things the way they have been for many years and coming up with a real solution that maintains the integrity of the data, even if it may take until the next release to fix.
I just cannot support that approach. I agree with this. The proposed rule is stating "anywhere". If it was restricted to the ratings box, I think that I could come to terms. I do see on the back of many dvd's that where the MPAA ratings box should be, it will say "Unrated", the the appropriate disclaimer. And I see a lot of Not Rated in rectangular Boxes. But to mark it unrated, due to an edition tag, without the appropriate marking on the back, "Ratings Box" if you will, Makes it a little hard to swallow.... Charlie l | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | If we just do it by what the rating box says, adding unrated is basically useless as a lot, possibly a majority, of unrated releases say "not rated" in the rating box. Whether they say not rated or unrated here is basically a quirk of publisher policy. It doesn't say anything about the content. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
If we just do it by what the rating box says, adding unrated is basically useless as a lot, possibly a majority, of unrated releases say "not rated" in the rating box. Whether they say not rated or unrated here is basically a quirk of publisher policy. It doesn't say anything about the content. It would not be useless, if Ken were to make a "sub-rating" for "Not Rated" and "Unrated" ratings (local only). Then people would be able to assign it to the "hierarchy" wherever they wish, without putting false information in the "Rating" field! Rushing to "fix" this problem, is going to be accomplished by "breaking" something else. Not a good move, IMHO. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The difference is, when "Unrated" appears on the front cover, it is an "Edition" not a rating. When the same DVD has "Not Rated" on the back cover in the "Rating" box found on most DVD's, then "Not Rated" is what belongs in the "Rating" field, not "Unrated". It doesn't matter what the majority "wants". The rating is the rating. You cannot arbitrarily change it to something else, just because the "majority" wants it! Actually Ken can arbitrarily change the rules to whatever he wants.  I do understand your point of view Hal. I just don't agree with it. For me usability trumps "correctness". I see this as no different that entering proper regions regardless of what's printed on the cover. We're just entering a more accurate rating regardless of what's printed on the cover. We're doing this because we're less interested in profiling the cover (we already have scans for that) and more interested in the content. Also, when the rating is NR, Not Rated, Unrated, etc., it's technically not the rating as you suggest. It's nothing more than a marketing term in place of a real rating assigned by the MPAA (for US locality). So I would argue that the rating isn't always the rating. And I fail to see how doing it your way brings any value to the general public. If they cared about correctness as much as you do, I suspect they'd already be here. They're more casual users and I suspect the vast majority of them would prefer something useful as well over something 100% accurate according to the cover art. I'm no longer sure what the majority around here is on this topic. But for me I just want things to filter / sort properly. And if it takes an awkward rule to get the most usable data, I'm fine with that. I'd like to do as few manual corrections in my local database as possible. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. | | | | Last edited: by Mark Harrison |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
It would not be useless, if Ken were to make a "sub-rating" for "Not Rated" and "Unrated" ratings (local only). Then people would be able to assign it to the "hierarchy" wherever they wish, without putting false information in the "Rating" field! Ken has indicated a preference at this point to not make changes to the main program. Your solution would require that. This is a band-aid. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 7 8 9 10 11 12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |