 |
|
|
|
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... 24 25 26 27  Previous Next
|
 Ratings - Rated vs. Unrated on Same Disc (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: August 23, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
What should be done with titles which are not rated but deal with "more mature themes" and may include "some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity". If rated those would get a PG-13. But they are definitely not recommended for age 1 and also not mega-violent. NR (as defined by Invelos) and Unrated (as defined by Invelos) would both be wrong. I don't quite understand what you mean when you put "(as defined by Invelos)", as these two -- NR and Unrated -- have more-or-less been defined by the Entertainment industry. Quote:
My conclusion: In order to be safe for parental control the default age for non rated films has to be the highest with the option to be overridden locally. I can agree to that. Honestly, I'm perplexed by the Dora/Death Race debate. Would these be NR under the current system anyway? What would really be changing? (I mean aside from the proper use of NR and Unrated, should Ken add unrated.) | | | 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: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Alien:
Let me try and explain it for you. Up to now Unrated and NR were treated the same. So now we want to split Unrated and NR, on the surface this sounds fine. A little arbitrary perhaps but OK, and further evidently Unrated Edition becomes Rating data, not just Edition data. Ok so we have film that is listed as Unrated Edition, but the back also contains specific Rating information an R Rating and a Not Rated, so we have all three pieces of data represented on one title. I would think the ACTUAL rating data would take precedence over the Edition, which would make the title NOT RATED, but now that throws it into the same place with Dora, Barney, Captain Kangaroo, etc. I follow data, and because of that this has me a tad confused, I understand the premise, but it's not going to be a clean and pretty picture. There is no real rating called NOT RATED or UNRATED, they are both merely marketing terms and because of that typically neither term when used is accompanied by any sort of additional advisory information. So on the one hand I see the issue, o the other hand it seems to put us in the position of creating our own data, which i believe is a dangerous road once we start going down it. Again for example in the title given the ACTUAL data for rating would Not Rated, that is the real data pertaining to rating and would be higher than R, but we are making NR the lower value, which means either it becomes effectively the same as Dora OR we ig nore the ACTUAL ratings data that appears on the back cover and bring the Edition data (Unrated) into the game since it is now the higher value, even though it is not really Ratings information but is Edition data.
I know that is i a bit confusing perhaps, I tried to make it as clear as I could. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Alien Redrum: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
What should be done with titles which are not rated but deal with "more mature themes" and may include "some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity". If rated those would get a PG-13. But they are definitely not recommended for age 1 and also not mega-violent. NR (as defined by Invelos) and Unrated (as defined by Invelos) would both be wrong.
I don't quite understand what you mean when you put "(as defined by Invelos)", as these two -- NR and Unrated -- have more-or-less been defined by the Entertainment industry.
Quote:
My conclusion: In order to be safe for parental control the default age for non rated films has to be the highest with the option to be overridden locally.
I can agree to that.
Honestly, I'm perplexed by the Dora/Death Race debate. Would these be NR under the current system anyway? What would really be changing? (I mean aside from the proper use of NR and Unrated, should Ken add unrated.) There is a huge change. DR2 would be seperated from Doomsday: Unrated, that is what i do not like to see. Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
There is no real rating called NOT RATED or UNRATED, they are both merely marketing terms and because of that typically neither term when used is accompanied by any sort of additional advisory information. But, in reality, the ratings by the MPAA are merely marketing terms as well since they are not required by law, and films use them in order to get their movies into more theaters (or, rather, the majority of theaters). Not Rated is a marketing term as much as PG-13. (Although I'll give you that Unrated is more of a ploy than anything.) The bottom line, though, is both have validity and should be in the system since they represent two separate things. Quote:
DR2 would be seperated from Doomsday: Unrated, that is what i do not like to see. I can understand that completely, but a simple change in your local will fix that. It's always irked me that NR is a label, but Unrated was never an option. If the goal is to submit data from the DVD as accurately as possible, IMO choosing NR for an Unrated movie is not accurate. I honestly don't care what the age group would be for NR, and I can see the dilema behind it. But IMO, adding the Unrated field is fantastic as it makes for a more accurate database regarding ratings. | | | 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: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | We have two types of unrated films, unrated cuts of a previously rated film and films that were never rated. The new 'Unrated' Profiler rating applies to the former and the old NR applies to the latter.
Pitch Black, with the 'Not Rated' and 'R' rating on the back, would fall into the 'Unrated' category because it is an unrated cut of a previously rated film. It would not fall into the 'NR' Dora category.
While this is not perfect, because any film that was never rated falls into the 'NR' category, it is accurate to the release...which is all I ever wanted.
Edit: I see that Alien dude had the same idea. | | | 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: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
While this is not perfect, because any film that was never rated falls into the 'NR' category, it is accurate to the release...which is all I ever wanted. Thank you. This nails my feelings better than I could have explained.  I agree it's not perfect, but at least it's more accurate. | | | 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: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Martian: So you are suggesting that the Edition data actually oVerrides the rating data from the back cover.  When there is REAL ratings data, that seem fictional to me. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
I'm inclined at the moment to add an Unrated rating, for use when the DVD is marked on the cover as Unrated, via "Unrated", "Director's Unrated Cut", or similar. I give up... Another imaginary thing created when the solution is already there and simple... You have the edition field and the features section for that... it's a chance that no real competition exist  Why loose time for something trivial like that when they are so much important thing to do like make a better online version? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am glad to see that I am not the only one who is confused by all of this. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
I'm inclined at the moment to add an Unrated rating, for use when the DVD is marked on the cover as Unrated, via "Unrated", "Director's Unrated Cut", or similar.
I give up... Another imaginary thing created when the solution is already there and simple... You have the edition field and the features section for that... it's a chance that no real competition exist
Why loose time for something trivial like that when they are so much important thing to do like make a better online version? I will definitely agree that the online version needs work, and I'll take that over this any day of the week, but if Ken's going to fix this now, I'll get behind it. I understand if you feel that there are more pressing matters, and hell, I even agree to an extent, but Unrated is a very far cry from being imaginary, considering how much the 'rating' is used on releases. | | | 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: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Alien:
It's imaginary while it purports to fix a problem, and causes more problems which is what i see. Based on data, I really believe that the correct answer is to Unrated and NR as they are right now AND add a new local field that will allow users to further refine that data for their own use, now whether that is age, or some more lengthy dataset I guess is open and I have no thoughts on that. But this seems arbitrary and will inevitably clash with ACTUAL data at some point. Then we will have Donnie talking about Doomsday and DR2, or we will have users screaming about why all of a sudden DR2 is rated just like Dora. @Ken I am not trying to disagree with you I am trying to explain where I see the problems. I do see an answer, but not in the short run, and to anyone who seems to believe that this an emergency, that needs to be addressed immediately...the Program is 10 years old, nothing is an emergency, I would prefer to see Ken address it properly in the next version, than to slap a band aid on it for right now and wind up causing even more troubles as a result. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
Why loose time for something trivial like that when they are so much important thing to do like make a better online version? While I can get behind this line of reasoning, there's also a matter of "low hanging fruit." For this particular change, the time commitment on Ken's part is very minor and does not require a program upgrade. All it requires is the addition of another rating to the online db, which is then downloaded to users next time they update. As well as a one paragraph rule change. So, while I do share the sentiment that some upgrades should be put on the backburner in favour of the big updates like DPO+ (or whatever the acronym is, I forget) I think its perfectly understandable to make minor changes like this. Not only for a change of pace for Ken, I know how tiring it can be to be working on the same project day-in and day-out, but also to give users something new and shiny to play with while we wait for the next big update. | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. | | | | Last edited: by Astrakan |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Skip: Quote:
It's imaginary while it purports to fix a problem, and causes more problems which is what i see. Based on data, I really believe that the correct answer is to Unrated and NR as they are right now AND add a new local field that will allow users to further refine that data for their own use, now whether that is age, or some more lengthy dataset I guess is open and I have no thoughts on that. But this seems arbitrary and will inevitably clash with ACTUAL data at some point. Then we will have Donnie talking about Doomsday and DR2, or we will have users screaming about why all of a sudden DR2 is rated just like Dora. @Ken I am not trying to disagree with you I am trying to explain where I see the problems. I do see an answer, but not in the short run, and to anyone who seems to believe that this an emergency, that needs to be addressed immediately...the Program is 10 years old, nothing is an emergency, I would prefer to see Ken address it properly in the next version, than to slap a band aid on it for right now and wind up causing even more troubles as a result. Whether or not you consider it imaginary is a moot point. I see it as inaccurate data being put into the database, as Unrated and Not Rated are not the same thing. I understand the argument against it, but if we want an accurate database, this is necessary. Then, if someone wants to change it from "Not Rated" to "Unrated" in their local, that option is there. Win win. | | | 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: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
I'm inclined at the moment to add an Unrated rating, for use when the DVD is marked on the cover as Unrated, via "Unrated", "Director's Unrated Cut", or similar.
I give up... Another imaginary thing created when the solution is already there and simple... You have the edition field and the features section for that... it's a chance that no real competition exist
Why loose time for something trivial like that when they are so much important thing to do like make a better online version? Green arrow from me, I absolutely agree, as i said earlier "Never change a winning team". And a nicer online version would be so great to have  Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | But. Alien, I could make exactly same argument using exactly the same language. You obviously have a very different view of Accurate than I do. It is not ACCURATE to try a cfreate an arbitrary definiiton that IS going to cause problems. It is not accurate to represent Edition data as Ratings data, particularly when there IS ratings data. I don't know what your basis for accurate is, mine is based upon hard data. So when you speak of accurate, you can only speak for you, not me and i won't pretend to speak for you. I don't even understand what your accurate is based upon, I do know that it is not based on hard data. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
But. Alien, I could make exactly same argument using exactly the same language. You obviously have a very different view of Accurate than I do. It is not ACCURATE to try a cfreate an arbitrary definiiton that IS going to cause problems. It is not accurate to represent Edition data as Ratings data, particularly when there IS ratings data. I don't know what your basis for accurate is, mine is based upon hard data. So when you speak of accurate, you can only speak for you, not me and i won't pretend to speak for you. I don't even understand what your accurate is based upon, I do know that it is not based on hard data. But it is accurate to represent edition data as ratings data. If the only edition is the Un rated edition (on a previously rated) movie, then the rating is Un rated. If the movie is Not Rated, the rating is Not Rated. I honestly think you don't understand the difference. Making a Not Rated movie as Unrated is not accurate, no matter which way you look at it. | | | 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 |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 24 25 26 27 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |