 |
|
|
|
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 2 3 4 5 6 ...13  Previous Next
|
|
Unrated, part 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
You can call it whatever you, if referring to it as marketing soothes yiou...fine. But the poinnt that you are missing is that while it might marketing it is also THE DATA.
I'd say that a movie that was previous rated PG-13 or R and is now being release in an unrated form is also DATA. And I find that data far more useful than the data that is on the cover. This is why I keep the lower "original theater" rating reasons locally, esp. when 9 out of every 10 unrated would be the exact same rating for the same reasons IF it had been submitted for rating! Which leads to me another thought, original rating field for unrated versions. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:
Quote:
To take care of your problem, you simply don't accept those changes either by locking the rating or just not accepting them as they come down.
So the onus is placed on me to validate that someone has contributed a rating which does not match what's on the box?
Let's take an example Hal. The Director's Cut of Alien. I don't believe it says unrated anywhere on the cover. Could be wrong about that of course, but let's just say it doesn't.
Are you really going to be confused about this because Unrated isn't on the cover? Are you honestly going to claim it should be NR? It was rated R before. It should be obvious the Director's Cut isn't going to turn that into a G movie. I will never be confused if DVDP reflects exactly what is on the cover, regardless of what it is. Since I bought the DVD, I know in almost every case whether it's appropriate for a 5-year-old or not. If I don't know, I keep it away from the five-year-old, until I do know. Like I said earlier, there are other functions of the program, to accomplish what you want, without changing the actual data. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bigdaddyhorse: Quote:
Which leads to me another thought, original rating field for unrated versions. There's a thought! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Conversely, Mark, are you really going to be confused by seeing Dora with an NR rating or do you know that it's a kid's show. Come on , now Of course not. But as a parent, I have a large collection of kid friend stuff. If I want to look for something that isn't kid friendly, of course I'm intelligent enough to know Dora isn't a candidate after filtering on rating. Of course the program currently does the opposite. I don't see the kid stuff. The problem is the things I'm interested in are filtered out along with the kid stuff. Let say you only have time to watch something 90 minutes or under. Wouldn't you be upset if you filtered on time and still got things included that are 2-3 hours long? Of course you're also intelligent enough to see Titanic and realize that it doesn't fit your criteria. Wouldn't you be upset if some 75 minute long movies didn't show up? What if things less than an hour only appeared with things more than 3 hours long. Again, you're smart, you'd figure it out. And there are other solutions to the problem like Tags for example. But wouldn't you prefer the filtering to work correctly? | | | 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: | | | | Yes, I agree, but unfortunately Hollywood doesn't. Sometimes they will list such a film as Unrated and sometimes they will list it as Not Rated. There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to it, or any sort of industry standard, we are simply provided data and it is not for us relative to the Online to change it.
Part of this is caused by Ken evidently setting up sorting based on some sort hierarchy he deigned. Instead of simply sorting on the data, or the rating itself, had he done this we would not be having this discussion. If you could sort on Not Rated. well guess what you wouild get a list of Not Rated, and if you sort on Unrated you would get a list of Unrated movies. This is what happens when the data is not followed. Sorry, Ken
Then we COULD be having the discussion about Dora being mixed in with Aliens or whatever and how that could be done. Were I ken the FIRST thing I would do is eliminate this strange hierarchial system which he has created and simply sort on the ratings (the data), it's always about the data. That's the first thing that i would do. The next thing I would is to include an instruction to use either the Genre or the tag system to be able to break a Dora from an Alien. In the meantime I think my next version, would include a set of fields that would allow the users on an individual basis to more easily break a Dora from an Alien, but it would purely a local option. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would support a rule to enter unrated if there's a previous theatrically-rated version or if it says unrated, parental advisory, etc. This should get pretty much everything. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Conversely, Mark, are you really going to be confused by seeing Dora with an NR rating or do you know that it's a kid's show. Come on , now
Of course not. But as a parent, I have a large collection of kid friend stuff. If I want to look for something that isn't kid friendly, of course I'm intelligent enough to know Dora isn't a candidate after filtering on rating. Of course the program currently does the opposite. I don't see the kid stuff. The problem is the things I'm interested in are filtered out along with the kid stuff.
Let say you only have time to watch something 90 minutes or under. Wouldn't you be upset if you filtered on time and still got things included that are 2-3 hours long? Of course you're also intelligent enough to see Titanic and realize that it doesn't fit your criteria. Wouldn't you be upset if some 75 minute long movies didn't show up? What if things less than an hour only appeared with things more than 3 hours long. Again, you're smart, you'd figure it out. And there are other solutions to the problem like Tags for example. But wouldn't you prefer the filtering to work correctly? Obviously the filtering should work correctly, Mark. And there are resaons it doesn't as I have explained. But in a case that you described and given the same circumstances...being that we are in between versions...I would be telling to use the tags in the interim. And then I would investigate what the problem was and fix it in the next version. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I think what would cover at least the most of what the majority wants (no such thing as a perfect rule) would be to have the listing as Unrated and then out of your choices...
"- By the cover or a modified version of a theatrical release"
I think from there for the ones that don't seem to fit right it would be easy to change locally.
That is going by what it seemed like to me the majority of the other thread was wanting if I understood it correctly. I'm going to agree with Pete here. I like the idea under discussion, but I don't like the "NR (Modified)" choice. Unrated is the language that is used in the home entertainment industry, its the word people are using, it should be the word that is used here. As far as what films go into the new category, again, I'm with Pete here. I'd like to see modified versions of theatrical releases or anything that indicates Unrated on the cover to go into the new category. I could live with 'by cover' but I think the other way will capture more films as people want them. ... I did have an alternate idea, but it's only half-formed. What about a new rating category? We have film & television, would it be worth to add direct-to-video? We'd still have to have all the same ratings, but it might be easier to determine where something belonged? At that point, film would become the rating for theatrical releases. With this idea, it would look like: NR = any film released theatrically before 1968 or afterward if not submitted to the MPAA Unrated = any film rated for theatrical release but distributed on DVD/BD in an alternate/Unrated/Not Rated cut. Direct-to-video could go strictly by the cover. Unrated would be chosen if the package says 'unrated' somewhere on it. Like I said, this is a half-formed idea, but does anyone think it has any merit? Or is it complete hooey? Or Ken could shoot it down as not do-able at all. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't wish to cause this to be another massively long thread, so I've said my bit and will bow out now. But one final note for Ken. I voted that I can live with it only because I'm not fond of the term "NR (Modified)". I find that much, much more confusing than Unrated. Less for me and more for anyone who hasn't followed the discussion (likely 99% of the users out there). Thanks for listening to us. And thank everyone else for the lively debate. Even those I've disagreed with.  | | | 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: | | | | Quoting Mark Harrison: Quote:
I don't wish to cause this to be another massively long thread, so I've said my bit and will bow out now.
But one final note for Ken. I voted that I can live with it only because I'm not fond of the term "NR (Modified)". I find that much, much more confusing than Unrated. Less for me and more for anyone who hasn't followed the discussion (likely 99% of the users out there).
Thanks for listening to us. And thank everyone else for the lively debate. Even those I've disagreed with. Agreed 100%. Just follow the data. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Danae Cassandra: Quote:
I did have an alternate idea, but it's only half-formed. What about a new rating category? We have film & television, would it be worth to add direct-to-video? We'd still have to have all the same ratings, but it might be easier to determine where something belonged?
At that point, film would become the rating for theatrical releases. With this idea, it would look like:
NR = any film released theatrically before 1968 or afterward if not submitted to the MPAA
Unrated = any film rated for theatrical release but distributed on DVD/BD in an alternate/Unrated/Not Rated cut.
Direct-to-video could go strictly by the cover. Unrated would be chosen if the package says 'unrated' somewhere on it.
Like I said, this is a half-formed idea, but does anyone think it has any merit? Or is it complete hooey? Or Ken could shoot it down as not do-able at all. Only Ken could say for sure, but I'm almost positive this would work fine and could be included in the daily download just as the new rating could. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how this helps. Some direct to video stuff is easily R rated material and some is quite literally Disney material. Still, a green arrow for thinking outside the box!  | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | That was my thoughts too... While I don't mind a direct to video rating category... just don't understand how it helps as it will just move the same problem to another category. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | We'll do another poll with that option to gauge support, after this one has run it's course. | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
| | Registered: January 11, 2008 | | Posts: 168 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken's idea of adding an Unrated to the drop down is a good one. It would work good to filter out most films PG-13 and up, as I have never seen a film that has G rated content with a Unrated logo or title. I don't think anyone would want to buy a Unrated version of a kids film. NR is the lowest rating as it stands now, and covers a lot of TV films and films made before there was a rating system. So Unrated films are higher rated as I have never seen a G film released as Unrated.
To solve the filtering of films for kids, the only way to fix this so people don't freak, would be to add a tic to Personalize that covers films that only have NR on the cover and no theatrical rating at all.
Ken I like Unrated not the NR Mod.... Thanks for the time. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
I've modified the first post to hopefully help those who were confused. Instead of "Unrated", the proposal is to name it "NR (Modified)" I would have been a mucho with unrated, but I'm a meh with NR (Modified). | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't think I seen a single person yet say they liked NR (Modified) Thank God! | | | | Pete |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...13 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |