Rypro 525

I just noticed that quite a few softcore pron dvd reviews have just started poping up. I'm more concerned, that someone will walk in, when one of the titles in the review section would be "erotic gallary"

PixyJunket

As I browse the forum 90% at work.. this would be a concern of mine as well..

Wizdar

I’m curious, assuming there is no objection to the content, how that would be a concern.

G. Noel Gross

I agree on titles such as "Playboy Casting Calls." Although, would resist a similar policy for "The Real Cancun," "SpiderBabe," "Nude on the Moon" or other such fringe titles with more cinematic value than apparent spank reels like "Erotic Gallery."

Maybe it's more of an issue of title and cover art?

Rogue588

Yeah, i'm thinking Rypro's talking about these small cover pics under the "New Review" banners to the left of the DVD Talk Headlines..

bboisvert

This one in particular:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=9063

keeps show up constantly on the banners. Even the review itself makes it clear that this is a porn release, just without the penetration. I don't think this title (or any Playboy/Penthouse-type stuff) belongs in the main forum.

I thought that's why we had the other mature areas... for stuff like this?

G. Noel Gross

I'd understand having a problem with these ...


Don't have a real problem with these ...


Again, content and cover imagery.

Adam Tyner

Aside from having the word "lesbian" in the title, I don't know what about it could be possibly be construed as offensive. The movie itself is very tame...so much so that to call it 'softcore' would be a gross exaggeration. The cover doesn't show any skin at all.

Not a fan of the way the Playboy cover, which makes it look kinda bargain-basement Girls Gone Wild-ish, but the other covers don't look any racier -- arguably less racy, even -- than the cover of a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

Houstondon

This topic came up with the true adult covers recently too. I don't review the softcore stuff, for me it's all or nothing, but I'm not a fan of taking a cover out of circulation because it "might" offend some people. After all, given the size of the website and how many members it has, there will be covers of all sorts that offend someone and pandering to the narrowest of audiences doesn't seem to be a good way to go.

As far as content vs cover goes, you have a point Noel, and so do they. If they're at work, they're not likely to click on a suggestive cover to find out how adult the content is; they'll avoid it when they see it. Each of the covers you posted would offend someone or other, which is why G! needs to be careful as to what path he takes with such a decision (I'm in favor of leaving things as they are but will to compromise).

As a compromise, maybe G! can add an adult content filter to the upcoming premium service. That way, all the listed mature titles can be excluded for those who contribute to the website. An alternative would be that any suggestive title or cover could be marked under "mature" (one of the genre choices for us reviewers) and only shown at later hours.

Back to recovering from the flu...

Adam Tyner

The last time this came up, I added the ability in the administrative portion of the software to easily allow covers to be taken out of circulation.

Rogue588

Regarding the lesbian cover...it was just a thought. I, personally, don't have a problem with any covers. Perhaps Rypro will clarify.

Quote:

Originally posted by Houstondon
Back to recovering from the flu...

I know the feeling...

Of course, you probably caught something from your recent journey to Sodom & Gomorrah.

I do have a question regarding the Adult reviews. I realize the age limit for a member is around 14, right? So, if someone registers who's not yet 18, are the Adult reviews filtered?

I'm just curious and I didn't know how it worked..

Adam Tyner

Gotcha.

There's no filtering by age or anything. Adult review covershots are only displayed in the Mature forum and when browsing adult reviews, but the reviews themselves are accessible to anyone with a web browser.

bboisvert

I definitely understand that it can be difficult to determine which covers may/may not be appropriate.

I guess my main point is that a title like Playboy/Penthouse/Erotic Gallery has no business being in the main forum in the first place (just my opinion, obviously).

From the review of Erotic Gallery: "Peach DVD is the softcore branch of Vivid Pictures, one of the biggest producers of couples-friendly hardcore in the world. Erotic Gallery is one of the latest releases from Peach, and while you won’t get any hardcore action here…you will get the next best thing: beautiful women in sexy outfits who eventually strip down to nothing and show everything. For those interested in porn that want to test the waters before they dive into some serious sexual action, these Peach releases make the perfect introductory discs."


Why wouldn't something like this be placed in with the Adult reviews to begin with? Granted, the title isn't 'rated X' and hardcore. But it's clearly catering to the same crowd.

Moving these titles OUT of the main area and INTO the adult area is going to solve 99% of the problems right there. Then on the rare occasion when there is a truely raunchy cover on a non-adult title, Geoff/Whoever can deal with it case-by-case. (As I recall, a few months ago there was a pretty graphic cover for a foreign film that had a naked couple screwing in a hammock. Geoff blurred out the majority of the 'action' for the image that displayed.)

das Monkey

Let's get to the real issue: who buys this crap (the soft, not the schlock), and why are you reviewing it?

das

bboisvert

Apparently "those interested in porn that want to test the waters before they dive into some serious sexual action".

Rogue588

Thanks for the info Adam I was curious about that.

das Monkey

OK, that covers <b>Rypro 525</b>. Who else?

das

bboisvert

Wizdar

Is there no one who will answer my most seriously intended question?

Are there folks who believe that every little image will be analyzed, and those not meeting certain moral standards will set off an alarm in the boss's office?

The site is already listed by Websense (and I assume others) as a pr0n site. Just being in this thread should be enough to get one fired, yes?

Rypro 525

my main concern is that some people would want to have a review for a movie called "erotic gallery" or "playboy's casting calls" while they are at work or school.

GeoffK

I'll remove the playboy casting calls and the 2 peach dvds from rotation, the others I'm going to leave up.

Adam Tyner

So the problem some people are having is 100% with the titles? I wouldn't think it would be the cover art...I mean, there weren't multiple threads complaining about the image on the right, and there are a number of reviews with similar covers:

<img src="http://www.dvdtalk.com/covers/B0000A4GAI.jpg">&nbsp;<img src="http://www.dvdtalk.com/covers/mtvswim.jpg">

Personally, I would just scroll past the image, but maybe that's not a viable solution for some...? No idea.

Josh H

It's viable for those that are simply personally offended by them.

But it does no good for those of us at work, as they are clearly visible when someone walks buy as the page first loads up.

BTW it's the titles and the images of the review covers that I don't like popping up while at work.

PixyJunket

I don't think it's a matter of somebody being offended by the images, but they are very *iffy* images to have pop up on your screen while at work. I have reported a few of these covers before here.

DodgingCars

Not that it bothers me.. but this may fit in too: