 |
|
|
|
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... 5 6 7 8 9 ...13  Previous Next
|
|
Unrated, part 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Pete:
That is why I have suggested that a subset of ratings be attached to both Not rated and Unrated so that each user can determine for him/herself what rating they would want to attach to DVDS or any other Not Rated or Unrated title, but this is something for eacjh and every user to determine for themselves. Ke3n nor any user is qualified to make such judgments for my collection and my family, your collection and your family. I make those determinations, even as far as the MPAA is concerned, they are not God, they are a bunch of human beings making an evaluation, are they valuable...as a guide yes...do they make the ultimate detremination for me NO, absolutely not. Pete, I understand how much you hate the idea of having to go through each one of your titles and how much you would like to be able to just download 5the Rating info and be done, but with Not Rarted and Unrated that is simply impossible, unless you are willing to sign over the raising of your daughter to the opinions of others, based upon standards that you have no way of knowing. I have NEVER been willing to do that with my children and I am not willing to do it with my grand children.
AS for specifics related to DVDS or any other TV show of that era, or movies, that was long before there was any sort of rating system in this country or any other, for that matter, and in fact DVDS contains no rating information of ANY kind. Let alone NR or Unrated | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Pete:
That is why I have suggested that a subset of ratings be attached to both Not rated and Unrated so that each user can determine for him/herself what rating they would want to attach to DVDS or any other Not Rated or Unrated title, but this is something for eacjh and every user to determine for themselves. Ke3n nor any user is qualified to make such judgments for my collection and my family, your collection and your family. I make those determinations, even as far as the MPAA is concerned, they are not God, they are a bunch of human beings making an evaluation, are they valuable...as a guide yes...do they make the ultimate detremination for me NO, absolutely not. Pete, I understand how much you hate the idea of having to go through each one of your titles and how much you would like to be able to just download 5the Rating info and be done, but with Not Rarted and Unrated that is simply impossible, unless you are willing to sign over the raising of your daughter to the opinions of others, based upon standards that you have no way of knowing. I have NEVER been willing to do that with my children and I am not willing to do it with my grand children.
AS for specifics related to DVDS or any other TV show of that era, or movies, that was long before there was any sort of rating system in this country or any other, for that matter, and in fact DVDS contains no rating information of ANY kind. Let alone NR or Unrated I am with you on that too, a subrating in a future program change is all we need  Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | But as Ken said... he has to have a default. As I said... we know he is considering something like what you are mentioning. But there has to be a default. The fact that there was no rating at the time of those early release means nothing since we both know that the DVDs do indeed have NR on them. So that rating gets put into them.
So you all say it should be at the top for reasons you mentioned.
I believe that the default should be at the bottom for the reason I mentioned. Since in the long run with everything considered less would be wrong. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
But as Ken said... he has to have a default. As I said... we know he is considering something like what you are mentioning. But there has to be a default. The fact that there was no rating at the time of those early release means nothing since we both know that the DVDs do indeed have NR on them. So that rating gets put into them.
So you all say it should be at the top for reasons you mentioned.
I believe that the default should be at the bottom for the reason I mentioned. Since in the long run with everything considered less would be wrong. That is where we disagree One of us will be happy and one of us will be not happy with the change. Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | uh... you are confusing me... where did I mention anything about being happy? I just said...
- Ken has to have the default... he said it himself.
- The way I think it should be done there would be 1 group of titles wrong (Some Direct to video horror)
- The way You think 3 sections would be wrong (Most TV Series, Kid Shows and any movie before the '60s
and that is all my post was about. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
uh... you are confusing me... where did I mention anything about being happy? I just said...
- Ken has to have the default... he said it himself.
- The way I think it should be done there would be 1 group of titles wrong (Some Direct to video horror)
- The way You think 3 sections would be wrong (Most TV Series, Kid Shows and any movie before the '60s
and that is all my post was about. I think you pretty much misunderstood my post, I did not want to offend you in any way. Was just saying that we are on opposite sites and that the decision will be either what you want or what I want Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Don't worry Donnie... not offended at all. was just a little confused for a second. Then figured out what you were saying shortly after I posted that.  | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | But you have to remember... that is true about everything here. No rule or modification will work perfectly with every release.... and make everyone happy. The most you can hope for is to do the best you can. In my eyes keeping all those titles in those 3 groups of release right is more important then worrying about some (even if most... definitely not all) of one group of titles.
You guys feel the opposite... and that is ok. Everyone will not agree with everything all the time. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
But you have to remember... that is true about everything here. No rule or modification will work perfectly with every release.... and make everyone happy. The most you can hope for is to do the best you can. In my eyes keeping all those titles in those 3 groups of release right is more important then worrying about some (even if most... definitely not all) of one group of titles.
You guys feel the opposite... and that is ok. Everyone will not agree with everything all the time. That is true But the group of TV shows I see also a bit different than you. Tv Series like True Blood, Califonication, L-Word, Carnivale, Rome, Spartacus and many, many more , fit much better in the highest rating category than in the lowest rating category Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am sure that is true for at least some of those... but is any of those already rated as TV-MA or similar? if so they will not get NR and won't be sorted wrong. Even if not... the way I see it there is a load more regular network TV show (all the way back from when TV first came out) releases then there are premium channel shows. so that group of premium shows don't really change my mind on the subject. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
but would we really want something like classic episodes of The Dick Van Dyke Show... pretty much all kid shows and any movie made before the '60s as the highest rating? I would venture to guess the majority of people wouldn't anyway.
Do we really want to all the direct to video gore films and action films to be the lowest rating ?
Without checking, I think 10 % of my collection would go from highest rating to lowest rating if Ken changes this.
And those will be all gore, action and other direct to video releases.
There is no other way as to lockdown my data then.
Donnie NR si the lowest rating now. Thsi changes woudl moved some stuff from the lowest rating to the highest, but nothing the other way around. Personally, I'm all for just slapping unrated on anything with no rating but with nudity and gore and such in addition to what the current rule calls for. It may be subjective, but it's better than arbitrarily leaving a good chunk of adult content at NR. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
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 This may have been answered already, but the program does filter on the data. If I filter on exactly NR, I get all my NR releases. The problem is, because NR is considered the lowest rating, if I filter on one of the other options...At Least or Less Than...things get a little funky. | | | 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:
But as Ken said... he has to have a default. As I said... we know he is considering something like what you are mentioning. But there has to be a default. The fact that there was no rating at the time of those early release means nothing since we both know that the DVDs do indeed have NR on them. So that rating gets put into them.
So you all say it should be at the top for reasons you mentioned.
I believe that the default should be at the bottom for the reason I mentioned. Since in the long run with everything considered less would be wrong. This is why I support the hierarchy of: NR < G Unrated > R I do not believe I have ever seen a film or TV show that is pre-1968 with anything other than "Not Rated" (NR). There are so few pre-1968 films that should be rated higher than "R" as to be virtually non-existent (I know all about pre-code movies, so don't bother protesting about those.). The exceptions to this can be dealt with on a local level. "Unrated" is a term that is more often used for films that have alternate versions of previously rated films. Chances are good that they are "R" or higher. Exceptions to this can, again, be dealt with locally. Using "Not Rated" and "Unrated" in this manner will probably yield a correct result 80 to 90% of the time. Given that you'll never get 100%, that seems like a fairly good solution without a lot of complicated Rules and departing from the data that's actually presented to us on the DVD cover. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
3)Most of us for years have understood that NR=Unrated and that both are the highest level I am not sure why you understood it that way but, unless something has changed recently, NR has always been the lowest Profiler rating. Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
Do we really want to all the direct to video gore films and action films to be the lowest rating ?
Without checking, I think 10 % of my collection would go from highest rating to lowest rating if Ken changes this.
And those will be all gore, action and other direct to video releases. I am confused as anything with an NR rating already has the lowest rating. NR is the lowest rating so nothing in your collection will change. @ Ken, did I miss a change somewhere? Was NR the highest rating at some point in the past?  | | | 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: May 26, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | So, for those of you who believe that NR = highest rating, you would agree that the following Not Rated films:
- Frankenstein (1931)
- Rio Bravo
- The Philadelphia Story
- Yankee Doodle Dandy
Have a stronger content and deserve a higher rating than the following R rated films:
- Saw
- Watchmen
- Lust, Caution
- South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut
If so, please explain that to me. Because I don't understand. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting DarklyNoon:
Quote:
Do we really want to all the direct to video gore films and action films to be the lowest rating ?
Without checking, I think 10 % of my collection would go from highest rating to lowest rating if Ken changes this.
And those will be all gore, action and other direct to video releases.
I am confused as anything with an NR rating already has the lowest rating. NR is the lowest rating so nothing in your collection will change.
@ Ken, did I miss a change somewhere? Was NR the highest rating at some point in the past? Color me confused as well on that score. As far as that percentage goes, I have 2,223 profiles that are NR in my owned. With 3879 profiles, I think that makes 57% of my collection. The vast majority of the films in that (not the television) are films made before 1968. If NR becomes at any point the highest rating that would swap that 57% from the lowest to the highest rating. And I'm certain Francis the Talking Mule deserves it. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield | | | | Last edited: by Danae Cassandra |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 5 6 7 8 9 ...13 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |