| Invelos Forums->Posts by Lithurge |
Page:
1  Previous Next
|
| Message |
Details |
You may be able to check notes this way,
Paste the view contribution notes URL into a browser window
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=contributionnotes&type=DVD&ProfileUPC=
Add the relevant UPC at the end and it should in theory show you any existing notes even for a brand new, not yet accepted, profile. I can't be 100% sure as I don't have any in that state to check it with.
It does rely on them explaining what detail they've filled out mind, so it may not be helpful in all cases. | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 2895 |  | | The other thing it seems to have done is fixed the broken online collection profiles. For example The Abyss 4K would always give me an error screen for the profile section on the old server, now it actually shows the profile. | Posted: Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 1059 | | No you can contribute alternate versions, how did you create the alternate version? e.g. did you use the create alternate function
http://www.invelos.com/dvdpro/CustomHelp/ChangeUPCGuidelines.aspx | Posted: Topic Replies: 9, Topic Views: 1145 | | It depends on the country the DVD/Blu-ray etc... is from. The UK only has one set of ratings which are the same for both film and television, so you'll only see film in the drop down when entering a UK release.
In the US they have different rating systems for film and TV so you'll get the choice when entering a US release. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 2562 | | Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Does this "reflect BBFC rating info given at the time of release"? How do we know? This is obviously something that is written by a third party, probably someone at the media company.
Whilst it's a moot point.
I know because I've followed the BBFC for a long time. Legally the companies are not allowed to supply their own wording to put on the case. It has to follow what the BBFC make available for the public if they choose to provide detail. The same way the logo has to be displayed and has to follow the BBFC's current size and design at the time of printing.
If you'd searched the BBFC's website at the time that's the advice you would have seen and is not something somebody at the company has made up, you'll find the same wording across multiple releases from multiple compmanies.
The BBFC are forever tinkering with how they rate and how they word it based on the whims of the current viewing public by doing regular surveys. You can imagine if you had wanted to update from the website we'd be continually changing the rating info every few years.
I will say I've changed my mind on adding the the totally generic wording e.g. only suitable for adults because this is included as part of the rating in Profiler anyway. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 11136 | | Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Quoting Lithurge:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
But shouldn't people already know what the generic advice is then for the rating?
What does that matter? Ultimately the rules say we should enter the details that are on the cover in the absence of other sources, so if this is what's there it is within the rules to include it. Removing it or voting no on it is not.
It matters because we don't, and have never, include(d) the rating definition in the rating details. The rating details are the descriptors for why a specific film received the rating it did and is unique to that film. The definition is just a boiler plate/generic explanation for the rating which is independent to the film.
For the US' PG-13 rating we don't add "Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13" to the rating details field.
I don't see why this would be any different for other countries.
I come back to the point that I said I was comfortable with overwriting the generic wording with the actual wording from the BBFC site where it's available. But I still don't see a particular problem where it is the only 'detail' available. Do you filter on ratings detail?
What I certainly don't agree with is overwriting it in cases where the detail is correctly provided on the sleeve of the case and in the profile from that sleeve. The BBFC have a history of changing the advice, so what's currently on the website does not necessarily reflect the advice that was given at the time a title was released.
For example:
5-039036-012348 - 28 Days Later.
What's in the current profile is correct as the advice in the boxes on the back cover reflect the way they broke it down at the time, so it should not be replaced with what is currently on the BBFC website if it differs. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 13563 | |
|
| Invelos Forums->Posts by Lithurge |
Page:
1 Previous Next
|