| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
 Posted - 08/11/2011 : 22:27:21
|
All my (tasteful, obviously) reviews for Ultimate Guide To Anal Sex For Women 2 (2000) have been 'unadded', aka deleted. This is on the ground that the title in question is not that of a film.
Well, I can't say that I've viewed it, which must place me at a disadvantage, but I would adduce evidence in support of my theory that it does amount to a film in the normal sense of that word.
It has a cast, albeit a list of people playing themselves (in the nicest possible way).
It has a producer and all those other people you expect to see when a film is discussed on IMDb.
And it has a run time of 140 minutes. Now that's too long for a BBC2 documentary.
It seems to have gone directly to DVD/VHS, so maybe a purist would argue that it was not shown in cinemas.
But its deletion is surely purism gone mad. |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/14/2011 : 04:29:41
|
I guess virtually all the titles in Toilet Graffiti must be living on borrowed time then.  |
 |
|
|
Please Kill Me Now 
"Need my dopamine fix!"
|
Posted - 08/14/2011 : 23:49:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
All my (tasteful, obviously) reviews for Ultimate Guide To Anal Sex For Women 2 (2000) have been 'unadded', aka deleted. This is on the ground that the title in question is not that of a film.
Well, I can't say that I've viewed it, which must place me at a disadvantage, but I would adduce evidence in support of my theory that it does amount to a film in the normal sense of that word.
It has a cast, albeit a list of people playing themselves (in the nicest possible way).
It has a producer and all those other people you expect to see when a film is discussed on IMDb.
And it has a run time of 140 minutes. Now that's too long for a BBC2 documentary.
It seems to have gone directly to DVD/VHS, so maybe a purist would argue that it was not shown in cinemas.
But its deletion is surely purism gone mad.
Tasty avatar you've got there, Koli! Where is it from?
|
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 08/16/2011 : 00:20:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Please Kill Me Now
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
All my (tasteful, obviously) reviews for Ultimate Guide To Anal Sex For Women 2 (2000) have been 'unadded', aka deleted. This is on the ground that the title in question is not that of a film.
Well, I can't say that I've viewed it, which must place me at a disadvantage, but I would adduce evidence in support of my theory that it does amount to a film in the normal sense of that word.
It has a cast, albeit a list of people playing themselves (in the nicest possible way).
It has a producer and all those other people you expect to see when a film is discussed on IMDb.
And it has a run time of 140 minutes. Now that's too long for a BBC2 documentary.
It seems to have gone directly to DVD/VHS, so maybe a purist would argue that it was not shown in cinemas.
But its deletion is surely purism gone mad.
Tasty avatar you've got there, Koli! Where is it from?
I'd like to put my Sicilian move on her. 
|
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 11:44:24
|
Anybody know why this film was unadded? Anybody care? benj? |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 00:02:29
|
Does anybody know why this film was unadded?
Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
benj, do you even look at the fourum anymore? |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 16:50:02
|
The link between the two seems to be that they are marked on IMDB as video titles (or straight-to-video as we'd probably call it). What I don't get is how a film that does end up being released to video rather than get a cinema run is somehow not considered a film. We're not judging what deserves to be on the site by the quality of the film are we? In that case can I make a request for the output of Michael Bay to be removed instantly?  I can (sort of) understand the argument for TV movies, but isn't this a step too far? |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 17:31:41
|
| I fully agree with everything you said, demonic. And, while it's upsetting to see these films removed, what's even more disappointing is benj's apparent reluctance to weigh in on the subject. |
Edited by - Larry on 08/23/2011 17:32:22 |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 09/05/2011 : 03:57:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Anybody know why this film was unadded? Anybody care? benj?
Like the films I referred to, it appears to have all the necessary attributes and I can't see any reason not to add it to the library. |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 09/05/2011 : 04:14:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Does anybody know why this film was unadded?
Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
benj, do you even look at the fourum anymore?
Again, all the usual attributes, and a MPAA 'R' rating, which presumably means it wasn't made for TV (should that be relevant).
Presumably this was 'unadded' in the same sense as the one I highlighted: put on the system only to be deleted at a later date. I'd make a distinction between films that have not yet been added and those that were approved and have since been deleted. If a film is in a queue the reason might be a larger-then-normal backlog, whereas in the instances I'm concerned about the items were on the system and someone took the decision to remove them.
The only explanation so far is a rather terse 'not a film', and, like Larry, I am disappointed that the person who made the decision (Benj?) has not contributed to the debate in order to explain the decision and perhaps put our minds at rest.
I am the first to acknowledge that this is Benj's site and so ultimately he makes the rules. But I think we're entitled to an explanation.
I for one would like an explanation we can all understand. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 09/05/2011 : 12:16:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
I'd make a distinction between films that have not yet been added and those that were approved and have since been deleted. If a film is in a queue the reason might be a larger-then-normal backlog, whereas in the instances I'm concerned about the items were on the system and someone took the decision to remove them.
Not sure what you mean by 'queue' and 'backlog', koli
Aren't films 'user-added' by us by typing the imdb URL into the film name box when submitting a review for a film not yet on the site?
Or do I not understand you correctly? |
|
|
|
Larry
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 09/05/2011 : 12:40:19
|
Just to muddy the waters, here is another film of mine that was de-added without explanation. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 09/05/2011 : 18:34:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Just to muddy the waters, here is another film of mine that was de-added without explanation.
This has to be an error. It is definitely a film and there are others in the series on the site. This is enough to get one in a dither.
Hope we can get an explanation soon. |
Edited by - lemmycaution on 09/05/2011 18:35:14 |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 09/05/2011 : 18:36:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
I'd make a distinction between films that have not yet been added and those that were approved and have since been deleted. If a film is in a queue the reason might be a larger-then-normal backlog, whereas in the instances I'm concerned about the items were on the system and someone took the decision to remove them.
Not sure what you mean by 'queue' and 'backlog', koli
Aren't films 'user-added' by us by typing the imdb URL into the film name box when submitting a review for a film not yet on the site?
Or do I not understand you correctly?
I expect you're right, my old China. It's a while since I did it. ;-) |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 12:03:38
|
Still no response. Disappointing. People who make decisions should be prepared to explain their reasoning.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 09/10/2011 : 17:29:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
Still no response. Disappointing. People who make decisions should be prepared to explain their reasoning.
Well, as much as I agree that he should offer an explanation, he should offer one for the many older cases here first. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Not a film?
