| Message |
Details |
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
If you make sure that "Automatically lock all changed items" is checked at the bottom of the Edit window, your data should be safe.
See, I thought it was. Think what happened was, a year or so ago, I had to re-install DVDP and that option was unchecked and I never thought about it.
I'll probably sit down and re-do the cast/crew later today.   | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2320 |
 |
So I spent quite a bit of time doing the cast and crew for Furiosa and I went to upload and got an "Application Error". So I closed out the tab and went back into DVDP to resubmit and accidentally clicked the refresh profile option and of course it completely removed all that work I did, though I thought whenever I made changes, those parts automatically locked. Guess not. I might give it another go tomorrow but hopefully someone else can do it, I'm just beside myself because it took a long time to do this with how odd the credits were (ie the three stars are only credited in the opening, others are listed during the end credits while the rest are in group headers in the end credits scroll). Doesn't help my eyesight isn't what it was and the TV is a bit aways from my computer (have to use the player as this release only includes the 4K UHD disc, so can't use my disc drive.
Sorry for the long rant, just had to release my frustration. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 2320 |
|
| Decided to edit this. Same person voted no on this. Don't understand why he/they don't want the back scan or at least submit their own scans if they have a problem with mine... | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 3132 |
|
| Which is basically what I did which was the reds in the current front cover. But what gets me is that in the screener declining, they also declined the back cover (which currently is just the front cover). I actually provided a scan of the back as well. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 3132 |
|
So almost a month ago I submitted the front and back scans for the Criterion Collection release of Bound. Based on one no vote, this was declined even though the current one has no back cover and the front does not represent the current one (i.e. the red is too red). I don't know if someone actually looked at it or what, but the other submissions I made were accepted, it was only the image part declined.
Also, I had edited my submission to counter the singular no vote (vs. 12 yes votes). And I did PM the no vote a couple weeks back but even though they read it, they failed to reply.
Sorry for the rant, but it's just ridiculous. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 3132 |
|
| Yep. That worked for me as well. | Posted: Topic Replies: 11, Topic Views: 6969 |
|
| Nevermind. Found it. | Posted: Topic Replies: 0, Topic Views: 1521 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
Quoting The Movieman:
Quote:
So I was wondering, if the rating on the back is Not Rated but going to filmratings.com (where they have a database of ratings, and is the site recommended by the MPA) has something different (in the case of Barbarella, PG), which do we go with? Just to note, the new 4K release does not have a different cut while the older Blu-ray does have the PG rating on the back.
In the past, like for the profile on The Art of War where it says PG-13 but the actual rating was R, we went with the latter. Would the same go here or do we go with Not Rated?
Barbarella was initially released in the USA on 10-Oct-1968, whilst the MPAA (now MPA) introduced the motion picture rating system on 01-Nov-1968. So, the film on initial release was unrated.
The CARA "PG" rating for Barbarella refers to the 1977 re-issue (https://www.filmratings.com/Search?filmTitle=barbarella). It was marketed as "Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy".
The 4K disc release was based on a 4K scan of the original camera negatives, not the 1977 re-issue print.
As per CARA rules, a rating certified by CARA for a motion picture may not be used in connection with the exhibition (theatrical) or distribution (home media) of any different version of that motion picture."
As per Invelos rules, Not Rated with blank rating descriptor in the 4K profile. Hope that helps.
Thanks for the explanation  | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5922 |
|
So I was wondering, if the rating on the back is Not Rated but going to filmratings.com (where they have a database of ratings, and is the site recommended by the MPA) has something different (in the case of Barbarella, PG), which do we go with? Just to note, the new 4K release does not have a different cut while the older Blu-ray does have the PG rating on the back.
In the past, like for the profile on The Art of War where it says PG-13 but the actual rating was R, we went with the latter. Would the same go here or do we go with Not Rated? | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 5922 |
|
| That one profile from the 10th still has not been approved while others submitted way later have. Tempted to resubmit, maybe it just got lost in the shuffle. | Posted: Topic Replies: 102, Topic Views: 16816 |
|
Happening again. While one contribution only took 5 days to be approved and released, another is still sitting there from November 10th. Nothing major being submitted (like new BY, credits) and it has 5 yes votes, 0 no votes. Not sure what gives.
Edit: In fact, the one approved 5 days later had MORE info being submitted than the other which only were features, overview and cover scans. | Posted: Topic Replies: 102, Topic Views: 16816 |
|