| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 90 |
| | Posted: | | | | Who is allowing the changes to the profiles without checking them? I recieved an update for Watchmen: ultimate cut, and the ratings were changed to unrated. It is clearly marked on the back of the box that the movie is rated R, under the hood is PG, And the watchmen motion comic is NOT RATED. This is not the first time something like this has happenned. I know were are not perfect, but c'mon it is right there in the picture, How hard is it to check? | | | | The artist formerly known as TylerDurden_73 |
|
| Registered: September 18, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | Did you vote no to the change to bring it to the screeners attention? |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | Basically you have to blame yourself. The screeners don't own the DVDs and Blu-rays in the database. So the only thing they can do is to check whether the contribution appears to be in order and they check what the voters had to say. All updates that are sent in by users can be seen & voted upon here: http://www.invelos.com/Database.aspxSo if you check that link regularily you can see what changes are currently being processed and you can veto on it.  | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Actually... if this is the back cover to what you got... per The Rules I believe Unrated would be correct....  The overview says... Quote:
The Version Never Seen In Theaters
Intergrating The Animated Tales Of The Black Freighter Into The Director's Cut of the film for a more in-depth experience... And the Rules state... Quote:
# For localities which offer it as a choice, enter "Unrated" for DVDs which:
* Contain an alternate version of a film which received a theatrical rating, and which have no rating or are marked "NR" or "Not Rated"
* OR include "Unrated" on the front or back cover of the case Since it is a version never seen in theaters... it seems Unrated would be correct per the current rules. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Off-topic, but since we're wondering "who the heck checks these things?": I just stumbled upon a profile for 0-000000-000000, and I just have to wonder how that got past the screeners. Not only is it obviously a fake UPC and the contribution notes even acknowledge that, the notes also stipulate that cast and crew were taken from IMDb. Despite all that, it was happily accepted into the database...  |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 824 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
And the Rules state...
Quote:
# For localities which offer it as a choice, enter "Unrated" for DVDs which:
* Contain an alternate version of a film which received a theatrical rating, and which have no rating or are marked "NR" or "Not Rated"
* OR include "Unrated" on the front or back cover of the case
Since it is a version never seen in theaters... it seems Unrated would be correct per the current rules. You gotta love this. A nice big clear "R" rating printed on the back of the cover, yet this guy thinks it should be Unrated... because it was "never seen in theaters." Then he quotes a rule that does not in any way, shape, or form say to enter "Unrated" for a film "never seen in theaters." Awesome!     | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | First of all I never said it should be one way or another. I said it seems going by what it says on the case and what the rules say. Second... what the rules say is if it is a version of the film other then the version that went to the rated version that is in the theater to use Unrated. And that still seems like the case as they took the director's cut (which is a cut not shown in the theater) and they added to even that.
So at the very least... it is not as simple as the OP made it sound. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,440 |
| | Posted: | | | | Pete,
This version does not match the rule you quoted because it was assigned a rating. It is rated R per the back cover and www.filmratings.com
Title Year Rating Rating Reason Company Other Previous Rating
Watchmen 2008 R Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Warner Bros. Pictures
Watchmen: Director's Cut 2009 R Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Warner Home Video Edited Version
Ultimate Watchmen 2009 R Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Warner Home Video Edited Version | | | | Registered: February 10, 2002 |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes, that rule applies only if there is no rating on the hoem video version. Thsi was re-rated and clearly says so on the cover. It would be against MPAA rules to list a rating for a different version of the film. | | | | Last edited: by Ace_of_Sevens |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting greyghost: Quote:
Pete,
This version does not match the rule you quoted because it was assigned a rating. It is rated R per the back cover and www.filmratings.com
Title Year Rating Rating Reason Company Other Previous Rating
Watchmen 2008 R Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Warner Bros. Pictures
Watchmen: Director's Cut 2009 R Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Warner Home Video Edited Version
Ultimate Watchmen 2009 R Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Warner Home Video Edited Version Thanks for the heads up. As I was saying.. I was only going by what I could see by the rear cover image (I do not have this version).... But what I was trying to show (which apparently I did a bad job of) is that it wasn't necessarily as simple as the OP made it sound. Going strictly by the scan and what the rules say... I can see how there could be confusion... causing the ping-pong that is being seen... and can see how the screeners can't be sure seeing just the cover scan. Because lets face it... they do not (and should not have to) research every contribution. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | My point was they can be sure just by seeing the cover scan. The cover isn't going to say it's rated R if some other version of the movie were rated R. The cover refers specifically to the contents of that release. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
My point was they can be sure just by seeing the cover scan. The cover isn't going to say it's rated R if some other version of the movie were rated R. The cover refers specifically to the contents of that release. I am sorry but, if I understand what you are saying, that simply isn't true. I have a few releases that have an R rating printed on the cover but also include an unrated version. What I mean it, the front of the case will say 'Unrated', or 'Includes unrated version' is printed as a feature, yet the 'R' rating is clearly printed on the back of the case. | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | That's what I'm saying. If it also included an unrated version, it would say so next to the rating. The MPAA has rules about this because they don't want companies implying ratings they don't have. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ace_of_Sevens: Quote:
That's what I'm saying. If it also included an unrated version, it would say so next to the rating. The MPAA has rules about this because they don't want companies implying ratings they don't have. Again, unless I am misunderstanding you here, that isn't always the case. I have a few where it doesn't say anything next to the rating. It might be on the front of the case, or listed in the special features, but not next to the rating...the first one in my collection that doesnt, is American Gangster (025193228024). | | | 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: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Glad Martian gets what I was trying to say. Titles don't always have Unrated rating next to the rated version. That is why it is said to take it from anywhere on the case. And don't even have to say unrated... as long as there is an alternate version to the rated version. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DJ Doena: Quote:
Basically you have to blame yourself.
The screeners don't own the DVDs and Blu-rays in the database. So the only thing they can do is to check whether the contribution appears to be in order and they check what the voters had to say.
All updates that are sent in by users can be seen & voted upon here: http://www.invelos.com/Database.aspx
So if you check that link regularily you can see what changes are currently being processed and you can veto on it. That's not exactly true, the veto-part I mean. You can vote no with your comments, but that's about it. Often it's a lottery, or it comes down to who is the most vocal. We probably all know examples of false data getting into the online despite valid NO-votes. (Don't we T!M?  ) |
|