| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 06/28/2010 : 10:26:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
A comedy stage show, not a film.
Richard Pryor Live on the Sunset Strip could be described the same way. Yet, most people saw this as a film and not on the Sunset Strip.
They saw it as a film or they saw it at the cinema? I don't think Benj has ever said that it is a numbers game, whereby if enough people have watched something at the cinema then it must be a film. Looking up all those figures would take a lot more work.
Anyway, yes, this and this should both be considered for exclusion too. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 11:02:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Cracovian
If television documentary films are no longer allowed, can we still have short videos for children, such as this and these?
Or these?
Or these? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 16:30:11
|
| Compared to some of the things that have been deleted, can celebrity sex tapes such as this really be deemed to be films? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 17:16:15
|
Since I've seen a few profiles of/tributes to/concerts by musicians &c. listed as Un-added on my declined page, I think there are a lot of other films within the Music genre that fall into the same categories.
For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Not a musician so I checked out this one: it has a 'host'.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (I can't really tell what this is.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 &c.
N.B. I haven't looked into most of these individually: I just know what kind of titles these things have; it's possible that some of them have a different status to others. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/28/2010 : 17:32:54
|
| Since the Dieux du Stade videos have been excluded, there cannot be any rational basis for keeping these (other than the one real film in the middle). It would be completely sexist to retain these but not those. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 01:15:27
|
| What's the current ruling on "making of" documentaries that have been produced and directed but appear as DVD special features? I'm assuming that these are now no go - I ask because there are quite a lot of them on site and there's obviously an effort under way to clean out non-films following some new declines. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 01:32:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
What's the current ruling on "making of" documentaries that have been produced and directed but appear as DVD special features? I'm assuming that these are now no go - I ask because there are quite a lot of them on site and there's obviously an effort under way to clean out non-films following some new declines.
I'm assuming that they're going to go too, but it's all a bit hit and miss. When I've added films for an accolade, I have therefore still added those provisionally, rather than attempt to pre-empt Benj's judgment. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 01:39:32
|
From this thread (since it is in the wrong place and is a duplicate from the topic discussed in this one):
quote:
Originally posted by [matt]
Surely the idea should be to find a better way of screening which films get added?
Well, Benj has said that adding films is going to be limited, although any method for doing that seems too limited to me. I'd rather have the current system of adding (especially for the sake of creating accolades) and then people can use their own judgment to decide whether an entry is a reliable one to review.
Personally, I think that removing things which the I.M.D.B. classifies as films (as much as I admit theirs is an oversimplistic categorisation) should be a lower priority than any of the objective improvements that have been suggested, and certainly it should come below eliminating spelling mistakes and other outright errors.
However, since films have been being removed for a while, I want to provide every opportunity for some semblance of consistency in what is excluded, which is why I have posted things I have seen which are less film-like than examples that have gone. Unfortunately, this does not really seem to be working yet (Disney sing-along videos are evidently deemed films whereas serious television documentaries are not), but I'm trying to retain faith that it will all get evened out in the end.
I would like to see a list of removed films somewhere and/or a separate list of one's reviews rejected for that reason. I for example use accolades to record films that I have seen -- if films are removed I might not realise and will lose that info from my life. Reviews rejected on that basis include ones that were in fact already rejected so they kind of get in the way (given that we can currently only see a limited number of declines). A separate list could also include a special feature for reassigning reviews to other films, as there will often be options and that seems fairer than just having to resubmit them from scratch. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 01:47:03
|
From the same thread:
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
The down side of course was that anyone could add any old shit they felt like which was inevitably filling up site with pointless and often inappropriate titles.
This is indeed a slight down side, but of course they don't 'fill up' the site in any meaningful sense or in any real way cause a nuisance.
quote:
I was glad of the opportunity to add films quickly and cut down that extra work for the MERPs so they could concentrate on clearing the review backlog.
Well, so Benj could in fact. There was never a stage when MERPs could add films but other users could not.
quote:
My only concern now is how fervent and fastidious the cull might become as some borderline cases probably have a strong argument for remaining, not least because of quality reviews attached to some of them that are a benefit to the site.
That reminds me of another reason for my suggestion above. If all the excluded reviews were in one list, then it would be convenient were there ever a F.W.T.V.R. &c.
quote:
It would be very useful if at some point Benj could lay down a few guidelines as to what the overall plan is in regards to what can stay, what must go and what is under debate.
Yup, I've asked for this a couple of times but no luck so far. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 19:04:44
|
| This has been disallowed, but is absolutely definitely a real documentary. (It's about porn stars et al: it's not porn itself.) It wasn't made for T.V., and I cannot think of any reason for it to be excluded. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 21:05:57
|
| A lot of 'miniseries' seem to be being cut at the moment. However, it is extremely common for these to be presented in film format on occasions after the first showing, for example when broadcast in other countries or on sold on D.V.D. This is such an example. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 21:09:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Since the Dieux du Stade videos have been excluded, there cannot be any rational basis for keeping these (other than the one real film in the middle). It would be completely sexist to retain these but not those.
Unlike certain people fixated on campaigns against particular films, I don't intend to pursue the removal of many examples. However, the case here is so unequal and prejudiced that I feel obliged to reiterate it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Non-films
