Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

Geoff,

I keep getting this ad when in the Movie and TV areas. Is that right? At first glance I think it's an adult title with a well placed arm and drink.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/covers/ts1081784667.jpg

I thought maybe this ad slipped out of its "show-after-9-PM" slot.

Just wondering.

Nope, just a Schlocky one reviewed in this week's <a href="http://dvdtalk.com/cineschlock/light3/index.html">CineSchlock-O-Rama</a>

Just curious, but if that picture or something similar was posted in Other, it'd be moved to Mature post-haste, correct?

This topic comes up every few months:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=342133

I really would love to see some way that these 'questionable' covers could be prevented from coming up while you're surfing the forums. I personally spend quite a bit of time here, but things like the image above are just not appropriate to be displayed in the workplace or, honestly, around several of my family members.

It just seems to me that there is an inconsistency in what we are allowed to show/discuss in the forums and what the reviews on this site are allowed to show/discuss.

I mentioned in another thread that some of the screenshots in the reviews are getting a bit risque for my taste (see Wild Things). I know a lot of people disagree, but I used to feel comfortable opening pretty much any thread or review here (at work or anywhere). Now I have to think twice.

[Not that I have a problem with boobies. I just like knowing when they are about to show up on my screen.]

I have to agree. I browse only from work (gave up having home internet access) and I share a small office with a female. I don't like having stuff like that pop up on my screen.

And I agree about the inconsistency. It really needs to be all or nothing. You can't limit pics like that to be posted by members only in the mature area, and then have review pics like that popping up everywhere.

It comes across as very hypocritical, which is unfortunate as I've been here a long time and never known Geoff to be a hypocrit.

This topic has actually been discussed before at legnth:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...ghlight=mature

The policy I came up with then is the same I'm using now. We'll disply the covers for 'R' Rated movies reviewed including ones which are 'sexy' as long as they aren't simply soft-core porn (which we now don't really even cover).

wouldnt it make more sense to block covers taht wouldnt be allowed to be posted in a thread in Other?


i just saw a cover for bumshots.com or something

When I went to CineSchlock (following a semi-tame cover) I get a fairly large picture of a girl behind a bar cupping her naked breasts. This is definitely not a work-safe picture, yeah there is no nips but geez, luckily no one was around me at the time.

Talemyn gets told to link the Britney spears pic in Otter earlier and this (below) picture is shown on the regular site with no warning?

NOT WORK SAFE: http://dvdtalk.com/cineschlock/light...ess_promo2.jpg

These are some pics that are in the Wild Things review (that was linked with an article from the DVDTalk main page):

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1080267545.jpg
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1080267581.jpg
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1080251130.jpg
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1080251114.jpg

When I commented about these last month, pretty much everyone responded with 'give me a break' and 'hey that's no big deal'. But my general point was that I no longer feel comfortable reading DVDTalk in a public area (with co-workers or family around).

People (reviewers, etc.) seem to feel that if there are no nipples showing, the images are fine. But I don't feel that's the case.

Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

It always surprises me that people will get concerned about:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/covers/ts1081784667.jpg

But not:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/covers/B00008V2UT.jpg

DVD Talk is a site which covers 'R' Rated movies, both violent and sexy. We do our best to keep it Safe For Work, but by the very nature of covering R rated DVDs we may have covers and content on the site which should not be viewed at work

What Geoff said.

Perhaps people should start actually working while at work....it isn't dvdtalks responsibility to make the site rated G to make it safe for you to waste your employers time and money....it is however, their responsibility to try and include as much coverage of dvdland as possible - including R-rated sexy and violent films with sexy and violent covers. If that causes problems, then don't surf at work - problem solved.

I guess I've made my point clear and it appears obvious that Geoff disagrees... so I just make one final comment and be done with it.

I find it very hard to take the above statement at face value when reviewers are allowed to include images like this

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1080251130.jpg http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1080251114.jpg

in their reviews. Was it not possible to include only screenshots like this one

http://dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/re...1080267518.jpg

that give a sense of the movie?

I guess I just don't see this as an either-or type of situation. I think it is possible to review 'violent' and 'sexy' R-rated material on a web site without sprinkling the screen with images that will raise eyebrows if someone glances at a monitor. Most of the other DVD review sites seem to pull this off nicely.

In fairness, I don't think anyone interested in Wild Things wants to pick it up for the scene where Neve Campbell and Denise Richards listen in on a phone call. :D

I'm more concerned that the reviewer didn't resize their images to the proper aspect ratio. :tsk tsk:

Look I criticized the site for reviewing and puting porn titles in rotation (the soft-core ones that just cut out penetration shots) but bashing Wild Things is just out of control. You are at work, so I assume you are an adult. As an adult you should know better that Wild Things review will have some sexual content in it. If it bothered you so bad, once you saw the first photo listed in the review, you can leave. All of the photos weren't at the top, so if you saw an objectionalbe photo, its real easy to click out of the thread.

I am interested in seeing if "Topless Bartending" is rated. I doubt it, so there is a bit of credibility gap there on "R rated movies) But I don't find the small thumbnail ot "Topless' to be an issue.

I was more concerned about the soft-core porn movies that showed graphic sex (without penetration) had found their way into the mainstream reviews...so I guess you can call me a bit of a hypocrite.

I'm more concerned with dvdtalk reviewing shitty movies.

I too clicked on the Wild Things review at work and was shocked by the lewd pictures.

I couldn't believe Maurice Sendak would sell out like that! :(

Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

i can't really tell what's going on in the 2nd picture so it doesnt bother me. plus to be fair, you know how american society is. if my boss so a breat on my computer he'd be more offended than if he saw a sawed off hand.


I dont think its too much to just take the "offensive" covers off rotation from the ads.

I agree that Geoff can run his site however he wants but a huge percentage of the traffic comes from people at work and I doubt he wants to lose that.

Re: Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

The second picture has some kind of bird eating the eye of a decapited(?) and very surprised head, with a trail of blood...

okay, i see it now

I think it'd be wonderful if the paid member service had the option of turning off the reviews section - not that I don't appreciate the work put in writing the reviews. I'm just sayin'.

Clicking on a Cineschlock review and being surprised at finding lewd pictures in the review is like walking into the "steam room" of your local used book store and being surprised at being surrounded by porn.

"Wild Things"? "Topless Academy"? If you're that concerned about what people might see you looking at on your PC at work, why are you clicking on these titles in the first place? And those thumbnails are small enough to give you plenty of time to scroll the screen down before anyone could see them.

Geoff does his best to make this place work safe, but I think we have to take some responsibility for ourselves too and put some thought into the links we click on.

I'm moved, Blade. I may just send that quote to my sainted mother. Drop me an email! I'd like to send you a DVD from my Gunnysack of Goodies as a small token of appreciation.

I agree. An option to have these review photo's not displayed (along with all ads which is already in the current plan) and the mature forum taken out of the drop down menu's would be the only reason's I consider paying up.

You can surf the net at work while not wasting your employer's time or money. Like now, I'm surfing on my lunch break as I bring lunch and eat at my desk most days. I also stick around afterwork sometimes to use the net to do some research for my grad school studies, or to just surf some as I don't have internet access at home.

And what about those who have complained here about not wanting those covers popping up at home when their kids, wives, and other family members might walk by, notice it and be upset?

Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

Come on, you know we live in America where most people are uptight about sex, but not violence. I"m not personally offended by either, but no most people around my office (as well as family members) would be more upset by the sexual content if they walked by and noticed it.

The second argument is just plain BS IMO. Newspapers and other media sources review/cover R rated movies all the time with out displaying any content that "should not be viewed at work." The images aren't a requirement of reviewing the movies.

Doug Christie? :hscratch:

Re: Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

Neither are any pictures at all, hyperlinks, formatted text, paragraph breaks...but those are present to make the reviews more appealing. If you want to ensure that no big potentially offensive pictures appear while you're at work or in front of small, impressionable children, either:

1) don't view reviews of Wild Things or titles with the word "topless" in the title
2) hold off on viewing those sorts of titles when you're not at work or no longer in front of the tykes

I think it would be a shame to sacrifice something that would make a review more appealing to a large percentage of the readership to satisfy a small percentage.

1a. The point is, there was no way of knowing that there would be images like that in the review when you first click on it. Maybe I just haven't noticed it, but I don't recall seeing a ton of screenshots in previous reviews here. (And a quick scan of some recent reviews found none.) And I cannot find a single other DVD site that reviewed Wild Things (either the original release or the new one) that opted to include such inappropriate images.

To imply that I should have "expected" those pictures (as several posters have) doesn't wash...

1b. As mentioned, you are faced with that topless photo on the main page of Cineshlock, which you can get to many different ways without clicking a "topless" link. Someone looking for R. Lee Ermey's Mail Call surely isn't expecting topless pics. (At least I hope not!)

2. The point that I think some people are making is that these images are showing up in unexpected places. Should I really have to wait until I'm home and the kids are in bed before looking at DVDTalk (like some dirty old man)? Isn't a more reasonable solution is to ask reviewers to stop peppering their pages with boobie shots? Or at least place them on a separate link that you have to actively click, and know what is on the other side (as I've seen G. Noel Gross do on several occasions)?


To reiterate what Josh and I have said -- it is very easy to review/discuss R-rated violent/sexy films without filling the screen up with this stuff. Other sites and media outlets have been doing it for years... including this one, until recently.

I don't expect DVDTalk to become some G-rated, Disneyfied environment. But I don't think that topless photos and 'just barely hiding the nipple' sex images belong anywhere outside of the mature forum. And the fact that they seem to be showing up more often just means that I'll may be visiting less (as I mentioned above... at night... when no one's around.)

Two of the five most recent reviews have screenshots, including The Gene Krupa Story, the most recently added. I almost always incorporate them into my reviews, and Aaron Beierle uses some for dressing as well. Dunno much of anyone else who does here, though.

DVD Town opens with a photo of Denise Richards in a bathing suit similar to the first one you cited in your complaint. DVD Debate has a couple of similar shots, with the nipples Photoshopped out. If you move outside of strictly R1, DVD Fever has a caps more explicit than anything you cited from DVD Talk.

The vast majority of the reviews listed on DVD Basen didn't use any screenshots at all, offensive or no. I have to admit that I don't see "well, no one else is doing it" as a compelling reason to follow suit. What's the fun of being like everyone else? :)

Not that you should necessarily have expected those pictures, but...well, you'll have the word "TOPLESS" in big, bold letters on your screen. Maybe you don't want pictures of two girls kissing, even if there's nothing approximating nudity on the screen. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there'll be some lurid content -- even if it's just plain, normal-sized text -- in a review about a lurid DVD.

The picture on the main Cineschlock page has two fully-clothed girls exposing some mid-riff and a little cleavage, but nothing excessive. From the main page, you have to click into that graphic (or text in a couple of places below the image) to see the covered-topless picture. The news link and the note on the front page expressly mention the "...Topless..." title, so I wouldn't count that in the same way. The only really 'tricky' way is if you were reading just the main reviews section, clicked on a title like Mail Call, and then clicked on the Cineschlock link.

I guess my line of thinking is -- when I write a review of a zombie movie, I usually incorporate a screenshot of someone gutting munched on. When I write a review about a concert DVD, I put up a screenshot of the band performing. If I were writing a review for a DVD on how to bake a cake, I'd probably have a shot of a nicely-decorated cake somewhere on there. I don't think anyone here is going out of their way to incorporate nudity into their reviews, but people interested in reading about Wild Things or Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending are more than likely watching those movies for their more lurid aspects. Writing a review that appeals to those sensibilities is in keeping with the material.

Ditto what Adam wrote. The "topless bartending" photos are not in the main review, they are off on a link on their own with heavy suggestions (in the Cine-0-Schlok manner)

The Wild Thing photos are in the main review. But if you saw the first one, you can get out of the review quick and not be subjected to the rest.

Inappropiate to what? And to whom? To work? To a family gathring of sitting around the computer and reading DVDTalk reviews of Wild Things? Give me a break.

How about not opening Yahoo at work or at home during family hours because all kinds of photos pass through the wires unexpectantly. You see plenty of boobage on a normal day on Yahoo News Photos or Most Popular

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

I agree to an extent. But the problem I have is with the review cover pictures that just randomly pop up in all forums. There's no way to avoid the "topless" review cover when it just randomly pops up in sports talk, video game talk, etc.

I still don't think those pictures add anything to the reviews. But then again I'm not the typical net geek that can't get laid either (not implying that anyone here is, but I don't see why anyone else would like a review better with those pics than without).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

But it's 100 pixels wide -- any boobies would be be at most, what, 20 pixels? They also don't appear in an area with any forum text, so they'd almost certainly be scrolled past and wouldn't linger on the screen for any length of time. It's not even really topless. To use an example from a response of mine from a previous tirade of yours, the title in question is really no worse than a shot of a cover from a Sports Illustrated swimsuit DVD.

Screenshots add a little flair to a review that would otherwise be just text.

I don't think most people who are interested in reading about Wild Things, a movie whose appeal revolves entirely around sex, nudity, and cleavage, would be offended by the presence of sex, nudity, or cleavage in a review of it.

Right.........

I am offended!
 

This thread needs more Peep!

* * *

For the record, I don't have internet access at work but if I did I doubt I'd log on to surf DVD Talk even during my lunchbreak: I prefer to take time away from the computer screen.

Obviously the pressure is off, but when I am at home I scarcely notice the cover shots. I do register slightly when it is "adult" time in the USA and some of the racier shots are in rotation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

Which would also be totally inappropriate at work.

Sure, but like the other poster suggested, it doesn't have to be sexual picutures.

And many, myself included, have said we aren't personally offended by that stuff, but worry about others at work or in our family being offended by it.

To play Devil's Advocate, maybe someones at work and wants to read the Wild Things review to see how good the DVD is (A/V quality extra's etc.). I'd argue that's what most read the reviews for, other than the people that just blind buy films they haven't seen. Thus, these people were just wanting to read some reviews of the technical aspects of the DVD, and all of a sudden have near nudity and lesbian-themed content on their screen.

What can I say, you have to be cautious when expressing the truth here.

Re: I am offended!
 

Which is why I don't have internet access at home, and a lot of times not even a computer as I use my laptop at work and usually just leave it in my office when I leave.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ad question: Topless Academy's Guide to Bartending
 

Where is the line drawn? If it's acceptable to have on display on a newsstand or in a grocery store, I wouldn't think it's inappropriate for this site. If it can be shown on network television, I wouldn't think it's inappropriate for the site. You don't even want material that would be rated PG in these reviews.

...but your "other than..." encompasses an overwhelming percentage of the readership. Even the smaller, independent, under-the-radar titles reviewed at DVD Talk amass a decent number of page views. There are other, stronger motivations that compel people to click on DVD Talk's reviews than strictly a search for technical information. Peeking at the stats, I think a lot of people use DVD Talk a resource to learn about titles they wouldn't have heard about otherwise.

OK, as before I think this topic has been well discussed. Thanks for raising the issue we'll do our best to be sensative to it.