The Movie Database palaikymas

The TMDB scraper in Kodi retrieves the very first line (earliest release in the user-specified country) for a movie, and grabs the certification from that line. The "Premiere" line seems to often have no certification entry, thus leading to incorrect information. Perhaps the scraper should grab the "Theatrical" or "Theatrical (limited)" release line, but that opens up another can of worms for the scraper programmers.

Regardless, "Premiere" showings almost always have ratings attached to them, since the content is usually identical to that in the "Theatrical" release. So, the "Premiere" releases should have certifications in the data here.

19 atsakė (on page 1 iš 2)

Jump to last post

Kitas puslapisPaskutinis puslapis

Regardless, "Premiere" showings almost always have ratings attached to them, since the content is usually identical to that in the "Theatrical" release. So, the "Premiere" releases should have certifications in the data here.

You need to look at the festival websites to see if that's the case. From my experience it's actually very, very rare. I know Toronto (TIFF) has had Canadian ratings over the last few years, but that's pretty much it. Many festivals may go with a general minimum age though, but that is not a rating.

In conclusion, the fact that most new movies with festival premieres does not have a Premiere rating seems to be correct. Adding incorrect premiere data (I've seen this a few times this year, probably for the reason you described above) to fix a scraper problem is the wrong way to go.

Kodi should change the way they display stuff i Guess.

@lineker said: You need to look at the festival websites to see if that's the case. From my experience it's actually very, very rare. I know Toronto (TIFF) has had Canadian ratings over the last few years, but that's pretty much it. Many festivals may go with a general minimum age though, but that is not a rating.

Lack of display of ratings on the marquee/tickets/ads or even the film itself (where the rating info is often either spliced in or either a completely separate piece of film/digital data) does not mean the material wasn't rated. For movies that premiered long before general theatrical release, there may not be a rating, but many of the premieres without rating here happened less than a week before the general theatrical release. It just isn't possible that the movie had not yet been rated at that point, since ads for the general release have already been printed by that point.

For an example, see Twister

Also, leaving the entry blank when the material was specifically not yet rated is not correct. In the US version, anyway, there is an "NR" entry for "Not Rated". Then, too, there are all the older movies that didn't have MPAA ratings, but were "rated" in some way (Hays code approval, etc.), and there is no way to enter that data here. IMDB tracks it, so it should be tracked here. This also applies to newer "movies" that never received a theatrical release, like A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Thor's Hammer which is specifically listed as "Not Rated" on the Captain America: The First Avenger Blu-Ray packaging. Likewise, Norman Television, first released on Blu-Ray as an unrated extra.

Last, we have things like A Charlie Brown Christmas, which is rated TV-G, but there is no way to enter that information.

Adding incorrect premiere data (I've seen this a few times this year, probably for the reason you described above) to fix a scraper problem is the wrong way to go.

This problem is compound by other incorrect information, like for Lava. If the releases at 4 film festivals were really "Theatrical", then they must be rated. Otherwise, they should be listed as "Premiere" (which is meant to indicate "before general theatrical release", not "only use the first time the movie is shown"). And, the actual general theatrical release for Lava was rated G, and that's not indicated anywhere.

Sure, some of what I listed is just plain mistakes, but a lot can be cleaned up at least somewhat with a database check to set all "Premiere" releases with no certification to "NR".

Hi, yes in your Twister example the rating should probably be added (if it can be proved). But please note that, for example, the movie Eighth Grade recently had unrated screenings even with an official R-rating. That was to get kids to see the movie, but it also shows that a rating is something that must be enforced by the venue for it to be in place. So, you should probably try to find evidence that the early Twister screening was a rated screening. It's highly likely that that was the case, but we like to know for sure on TMDb. :snail:

@lineker said:

But please note that, for example, the movie Eighth Grade recently had unrated screenings even with an official R-rating.

That was a marketing stunt. The movie was the exact same R-rated version that was approved by the MPAA. Theaters merely chose not to enforce the completely voluntary "under 17 must be accompanied by an adult" recommendation that goes with the rating. And, the TMDB entry agrees with me...it doesn't show any special "NR" release, since there wasn't one. What matters is not the marquee/ticket/etc. but the actual cut of the film being shown.

So, you should probably try to find evidence that the early Twister screening was a rated screening.

You really are using the term "rated screening" incorrectly. There is no law that says any movie theater (in the US, anyway) has to enforce ratings. The correct thing to want to know is if it was the same film as seen 3 days later by millions of people, and the answer there is obvious. Again, what matters is not the marquee/ticket/etc. but the actual cut of the film being shown.

The real problem here is the complete lack of data for the entry. We don't know if it was not rated (unlikely), the original entry just didn't have a rating picked (likely), or if it really should be the same "PG-13" as the "Theater" release (very likely). Perhaps requiring a "note" entry on anything that is marked as "Premiere" would help.

Also, since TMDb doesn't track various versions of movies, it's just wrong to have the rating on one "Release" be listed as different from a different "Release". Otherwise, every movie with an "unrated" cut on home media needs to have an additional entry duplicating the existing physical release, but with "NR" as the rating.

Then, too, if you want "Premieres" to have no rating unless you are sure, a movie like Midnight Cowboy needs to be fixed, as it lists the initial release as rated "R", which it was not, as the note even says. You can't have it both ways. Either those need to be fixed to not be rated "R", or it's OK to list a "Premiere" as the same rating as the movie was eventually rated.

After all, we like to be accurate on TMDb. :wink:

Again, what matters is not the marquee/ticket/etc. but the actual cut of the film being shown.

That's what matters to you... for TMDb its exactly what Lineker said. If there isn't anywhere a rating comminuted, don't add it (also not add NR, only if it's actually comminuted, like one some Amazon DVDs and such)

Then, too, if you want "Premieres" to have no rating unless you are sure, a movie like Midnight Cowboy needs to be fixed

Just because some entries are wrong, doesn't mean everything should be entered wrong. I mean, there's also lots of content which probably had the wrong Original and Spoken Languages, because of how they were imported. Doesn't mean everything should be set to English.

It's just that it hasn't been spotted and fixed yet, or people sabotaged the data. We can't lock release date info. Also, X-rated is fine to add as R. That's pretty much the only exception.

I just removed the "Language: English" from the release dates, because it's already English.. should only be added if it was shown for countries like Switzerland where they have French, German and English releases, and when stuff is dubbed (not for Physical releases most of the time, because it usually has multiple tracks, including original)

it's just wrong to have the rating on one "Release" be listed as different from a different "Release". Otherwise, every movie with an "unrated" cut on home media needs to have an additional entry duplicating the existing physical release, but with "NR" as the rating.

What do you mean by that? A movie can have a theatrical "PG-13" and Physical "R" or "NR" or whatever. Ratings don't have to be the same across release dates. Digitasl (Netflix for example) could also have another rating.

That was a marketing stunt. The movie was the exact same R-rated version that was approved by the MPAA.

Yes, but the extra screenings were Unrated. This matters a lot to those working at a theater and to those going to see the movie.

Otherwise, every movie with an "unrated" cut on home media needs to have an additional entry duplicating the existing physical release, but with "NR" as the rating.

We don't support multiple versions of the same movie yet, but we do support multiple release dates. However, it's true that we normally don't add such variations. My point about Eighth Grade was to explain how we view ratings on TMDb. There are also a handful of examples of movies getting a NC-17 rating but with the film team choosing to ignore that and release the movie unrated. You are saying we should ignore how such a movie was released and add the theoretical rating instead? If so, that is incorrect.

@alltimemarr

It's just that it hasn't been spotted and fixed yet, or people sabotaged the data. We can't lock release date info.

And we don't support historical ratings, but the Midnight Cowboy "rated X" release dates should probably be added as NC-17 (the rating that replaced X eventually). A somewhat unique and tricky case I would say. (Edit: But perhaps R is fine too as Marr wrote. :smile_cat: )

And we don't support historical ratings, but the Midnight Cowboy "rated X" release dates should probably be added as NC-17 (the rating that replaced X eventually). A somewhat unique and tricky case I would say.

AH That's what it was. I remember something in the bible about "X-rated" can be added as ... something else, I just figured it was "R" #fail. Did you already correct that?

I have not corrected it. We have nothing about it in the bible, which is why I was unsure about it. :thinking:

@lineker said:

I have not corrected it. We have nothing about it in the bible, which is why I was unsure about it. :thinking:

Isn't it this little thing here:

Even if that is not quite correct, the NC-17 rating can be used for adult entries.

adult entries = X-rated, right? (or, the other way around haha)

Ah yes, that part exists, but I meant that there is nothing about historical ratings for regular movies being rated X due to moral panic. :grin: Midnight Cowboy is not an adult entry. Well, those who rated it thought it was, but yeah it's a tricky one.

Anyhow, NC-17 is the way to go?

Ah yes, that part exists, but I mean that there is nothing about historical ratings for regular movies being rated X due to moral panic. Midnight Cowboy is not an adult entry. Well, those who rated it thought it was, but yeah it's a tricky one.

Ah, didn't know this was a case of historical ratings, then they should be removed, except the re-release! Maybe the note can stay/be rewritten to include something about the panic/historical part of it? (I'm not really in the know about this, as you can see :face_palm: )

// EDIT:

I found this, maybe remove the rating and add a note "Self X-Rated"?

John Schlesinger's Midnight Cowboy, starring Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, is famous for being the only X-rated film to win the Oscar for best picture. The movie, about a down-and-out hustler who moves to New York and pairs with a con man, was the second film released with the X rating, which was only six months old when United Artists opened Cowboy in theaters May 25, 1969 -- the height of the counterculture movement. The film, with its explicit sex scenes, including gay sex, caught fire. What's not as well known is that UA never even brought the film to the Classification and Rating Administration. That's according to David Picker, who was then president of production at the studio and oversaw Cowboy. "We didn't even submit it. I rated it X. We didn't want to go through the exercise since we weren't prepared to change the movie," says Picker, who is writing a book about that time. "I committed to John that the film would be distributed exactly the way he made it. If theaters don't want to play it, they won't play it. But a lot of theaters did play it, though we opened Midnight Cowboy very slowly, as was the custom in those days." Two years later -- also without UA ever asking -- the ratings board reclassified the best picture-winning Cowboy with an R rating.

I don't know what the last scentence means though. Did the MPAA decide to rate something on their own?

There were actually quite a few X-rated mainstream movies so it's something we should address in the Bible. A Clockwork Orange, Last Tango in Paris and The Evil Dead are some notable examples (that I just looked up). :snail:

I'll write a note about it now in the main internal topic.

P.S. I moved this thread away from content issues to general. Since it's not an actual content report, but more a........... request/policy discussion/question, yaknow.

@lineker said:

Yes, but the extra screenings were Unrated.

No, they weren't. The screened film was rated "R" by the MPAA. The theaters merely chose not to enforce that rating in any way. Theaters everywhere do this all the time, it's just not announced so loudly.

There are also a handful of examples of movies getting a NC-17 rating but with the film team choosing to ignore that and release the movie unrated. You are saying we should ignore how such a movie was released and add the theoretical rating instead?

Those movies were never shown with an NC-17 rating, so, no, that shouldn't be in the data. A movie with any MPAA rating will have that rating on the movie somewhere (at least the seal with the certificate number). A movie released without an MPAA certificate is obviously "Not Rated". This is completely different from your Eighth Grade example, where the "unrated" screenings were actually of a movie with an MPAA certification seal on the projected film.

That's really what it comes down to (at least in the US). Any movie that has the MPAA certification seal on the projected film is rated in some way.

Global

s focus the search bar
p open profile menu
esc close an open window
? open keyboard shortcut window

On media pages

b go back (or to parent when applicable)
e go to edit page

On TV season pages

(right arrow) go to next season
(left arrow) go to previous season

On TV episode pages

(right arrow) go to next episode
(left arrow) go to previous episode

On all image pages

a open add image window

On all edit pages

t open translation selector
ctrl+ s submit form

On discussion pages

n create new discussion
w toggle watching status
p toggle public/private
c toggle close/open
a open activity
r reply to discussion
l go to last reply
ctrl+ enter submit your message
(right arrow) next page
(left arrow) previous page