 |
|
|
|
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 ...12  Previous Next
|
|
Unrated, part 3 (the final chapter?) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 10, 2007 |  Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
This looks like it's getting a lot of support. Not a good thing.
What happens if it's a film that has NEVER been rated, but says "Unrated" somewhere on the cover? Contradictory and confusing. As in the first post in this thread, if it has Unrated on the cover, it is Unrated. We'll make the precedence order very clear in the actual rule. | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative | | | | Last edited: by Ken Cole |
| | Registered: September 18, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | Will you actually post any new rule in the rules or just in the forum expecting all users to have read and remembered it? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting zappman: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Quoting zappman:
Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:
Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
Quoting zappman:
Quote:
- Get rid of the confusing "NR" and replace it with "NONE", none would mean the movie has not been rated.
Why not keep it simple?
Yes. That would be a lot easier to understand. Good idea.
I personally disagree. Why make up our own names? A lot of titles show NR or Not Rated.
That would be like those of us in the UK asking Exempt to be renamed "Not Rated by the BBFC".
Nope, I am not making anything up.
Go to http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means.
It lists the ratings as G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17.
That is all of the MPAA ratings, there no others.
If the movie does not have one of those five ratings, it has "NONE".
The "NR" is what is made up, it is not an MPAA rating, and its use is confusing.
YOU are indeed creating fiction, zapp. The ACTUAL data on nearly every title is either NOT RATED or it is YNRATED, there has never been a a title with NONE as the data printed on the package, NEVER. So you are creating FICTION.
A Film or a TV show either has a rating or it does not.
The words "Not Rated" on box provides no information about the content of the material in the box.
The point I was trying to make was that the Letters "NR" are not a rating.
When I give the someone the URL of my online collection and they see "NR" just what does that Mean?
I think that the "None" in the rating box or "Not Rated" spelled out in the rating box out is much more accurate and descriptive than the totally made up, fictional rating of "NR".
Show me Skip, where the Letters "NR" are a rating.
Please send me I link, I am always eager to learn.
The real problem with the words "Not Rated" on a box is that it tells you nothing about how appropriate the material is to be watched by anyone.
It is like the "Ace" in a deck of cards sometimes it is high and some times it is low. Zapp: Every point in your post has already been addressed, I don't need to go tghrough it all again. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: September 6, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 124 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Quoting zappman:
Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Quoting zappman:
Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:
Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
Quoting zappman:
Quote:
- Get rid of the confusing "NR" and replace it with "NONE", none would mean the movie has not been rated.
Why not keep it simple?
Yes. That would be a lot easier to understand. Good idea.
I personally disagree. Why make up our own names? A lot of titles show NR or Not Rated.
That would be like those of us in the UK asking Exempt to be renamed "Not Rated by the BBFC".
Nope, I am not making anything up.
Go to http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means.
It lists the ratings as G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17.
That is all of the MPAA ratings, there no others.
If the movie does not have one of those five ratings, it has "NONE".
The "NR" is what is made up, it is not an MPAA rating, and its use is confusing.
YOU are indeed creating fiction, zapp. The ACTUAL data on nearly every title is either NOT RATED or it is YNRATED, there has never been a a title with NONE as the data printed on the package, NEVER. So you are creating FICTION.
A Film or a TV show either has a rating or it does not.
The words "Not Rated" on box provides no information about the content of the material in the box.
The point I was trying to make was that the Letters "NR" are not a rating.
When I give the someone the URL of my online collection and they see "NR" just what does that Mean?
I think that the "None" in the rating box or "Not Rated" spelled out in the rating box out is much more accurate and descriptive than the totally made up, fictional rating of "NR".
Show me Skip, where the Letters "NR" are a rating.
Please send me I link, I am always eager to learn.
The real problem with the words "Not Rated" on a box is that it tells you nothing about how appropriate the material is to be watched by anyone.
It is like the "Ace" in a deck of cards sometimes it is high and some times it is low.
Zapp:
Every point in your post has already been addressed, I don't need to go tghrough it all again. Cheers |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Does Canada have any releases that are actually Unrated? I thought this was just a US thing. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
Does Canada have any releases that are actually Unrated? I thought this was just a US thing. Astrakan asked for it on this page. According to Wikipedia, the Canadian system is voluntary, so technically a DVD could be unrated. However I agree with T!m, if a Canadian release has been rated we should be profiling that, even if the cover says "Unrated", as the Canadians seem to rate the DVD, not just the film. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Only thing I will say since I don't care since my last post in the second thread... Thanks to force fed another imaginary rating on me when many others way to achieve what a couple of users had asked at first were possible to use... Hope I won't forget to not update DVDP anymore to keep a minimum of non-sense in it  |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Imaginary implies that "Unrated" does not exist.
It does, in fact, exist. I can provide you with pictures of covers where it states "Unrated" on the cover. That is not my imagination.
Is it an official rating of the MPAA? No. That doesn't mean it does not exist.
Since the MPAA rating is not required by any law, are their ratings imaginary, too? I would think not. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. | | | | Last edited: by Alien Redrum |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Or imaginary could be setiing NR as the lowest, Alien. There are lots of possibilities, but I agree with AESP | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Good god, I don't care what you people come up with, just give me the rating. I sure as hell know what to do with it locally even if the community is befuddled. |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Or imaginary could be setiing NR as the lowest, Alien. There are lots of possibilities, but I agree with AESP Yes, whatever age we set it to is made up to some degree. So what? We still have to set it to some age and allowing two different ages lets us squeeze some useful data out of this. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Or imaginary could be setiing NR as the lowest, Alien. There are lots of possibilities, but I agree with AESP
Yes, whatever age we set it to is made up to some degree. So what? We still have to set it to some age and allowing two different ages lets us squeeze some useful data out of this. As long as you or any other user including myself does not have the ability to impose his opinions relative to age restrictions upon ANYone else, that's fine, Ace. But don't even pretend that whatever arbitrary age restrictions you apply in your own house has ANY applicability anywhere else. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
Good god, I don't care what you people come up with, just give me the rating. I sure as hell know what to do with it locally even if the community is befuddled.  That pretty much sums up my feelings at this point. It exists, even if people say it doesn't. I know what to do with it, and I'll happily keep it local. But for heaven's sake let me at least make my database a little more accurate. Quoting Ace: Quote:
Yes, whatever age we set it to is made up to some degree. So what? We still have to set it to some age and allowing two different ages lets us squeeze some useful data out of this.  I truly do not care what you do for ages. I just want the damn rating. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
As long as you or any other user including myself does not have the ability to impose his opinions relative to age restrictions upon ANYone else, that's fine, Ace. But don't even pretend that whatever arbitrary age restrictions you apply in your own house has ANY applicability anywhere else. This has nothing to do with me or any other user. I've pointed this out numerous times. Please address it if you are going to object in principle. The question is what we can do without a program update. Under the current system, all ratings, even if the program calls them NR, Unrated or what-have-you must correspond to an age. There is no way to change this without a program update. No matter what happens, everything is going to have some age suggestion on it. We can argue over what the age on material that isn't rated by the MPAA should be and whether it's useful to split this into two categories and how we should determine what goes into what category if we do split it, but if you are objecting to material with no official rating being assigned an age at all, that ship already sailed several versions ago. You are attempting to have a different conversation than the rest of us are having, one that should take place in feature requests if it is to take place at all. If you have something to contribute to the conversation we are actually having, by all means, proceed. | | | | Last edited: by Ace_of_Sevens |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | There is no argument over the data, Ace, that is FACT. There IS Unrated and there IS Not Rated. Unlesas you are suggesting that the data be ignored, which i won't do. I agree with the user that Unrated and Not Rated mean virtually the same thing, BUT I still would not ignore the data. I also agree with a number of users that believe that both Not Rated and Unrated are higher than R, and have been doing so for MANY years, and now all of a sudden two or three days ago this was suddenly changed, after many years.<shrugs and throws up my hands>, this was done amidst claims of an issue, but an issue which many of us have repeatedly said was never seen here in the forums. Which leads me to believe that it wasn't a major issue, if it was brought to Ken by PM or Tech Support ticket or some other means...how many of them were there, I have a probable number in mind and it is not very big.
But there is obviously nothing I can do about it. I can only try and explain how illogical it seems to me, but in the end it's Ken's programs and he will do what he wishes. Ken very clearly made up his made despite the number of users who objected<shrugs> What are you going to do, you do what you think is right and stand on your principles, that's all I can do anyway. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
I also agree with a number of users that believe that both Not Rated and Unrated are higher than R, and have been doing so for MANY years, and now all of a sudden two or three days ago this was suddenly changed, after many years.<shrugs and throws up my hands>, I have to say, yet again, that this simply isn't true. NR has always been the lowest rating so I am not sure where you got the idea that it was higher than R. Here is the original rule for ratings: "Use the Rating shown on the DVD cover. When there is no rating, or an unrated version of the film on the disc, use the NR rating."You will note that it does not say to use the highest rating, it simply says to use NR when there is no rating or an unrated version on the disc. The wording of this rule is all that was "suddenly changed." | | | 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 |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |