Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I watch my niece and 3 nephews, ages 3 to 10, all the time. There are things they tell me they see on TV that I would not allow them to watch in my house.

As far as DVD are concerned, I do not pay any attention to the ratings. They are not allowed to watch any of my DVDs unless I have seen them first and feel they are appropriate.

Now that makes way too much sense.  What ever are you thinking? 

For what it's worth, that is how it is in my house as well.

Mine three. I don't go by ratings at all. I barely consider them a guideline, especially after watching This Film is Not Yet Rated.

Under the proposed changes, what would this one be?

IMHO, it should be Not Rated as it has been specifically marketed with that cut & the theatrical version is on the 2nd disc.

I admit that I haven't read all 18 pages of this thread, so maybe this has been brought up and shot down, but to me this seems to make sense:

Unrated
Any movie without a rating that has a rated version counterpart. This covers alternate cuts, director's cuts, ultimate cuts, whatever.

Not Rated
Any movie that has never received an official rating on any version. Be it because it was released prior to 1968 (in the U.S.) or because it's a direct-to-video movie or whatever. As long as a rating has never been publicized for any version of the movie, it'd be Not Rated.

---

From where I'm sitting it's that simple. I'm probably overlooking something though. 

Astra:

First of they are not necessarily correct definitions, easch title is a creature unto itself. And it unnecessarily probably complicates things.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:

Unrated
Any movie without a rating that has a rated version counterpart. This covers alternate cuts, director's cuts, ultimate cuts, whatever.

Not Rated
Any movie that has never received an official rating on any version. Be it because it was released prior to 1968 (in the U.S.) or because it's a direct-to-video movie or whatever. As long as a rating has never been publicized for any version of the movie, it'd be Not Rated.

This is what I'd like to see.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I admit that I haven't read all 18 pages of this thread, so maybe this has been brought up and shot down, but to me this seems to make sense:

Unrated
Any movie without a rating that has a rated version counterpart. This covers alternate cuts, director's cuts, ultimate cuts, whatever.

Not Rated
Any movie that has never received an official rating on any version. Be it because it was released prior to 1968 (in the U.S.) or because it's a direct-to-video movie or whatever. As long as a rating has never been publicized for any version of the movie, it'd be Not Rated.

---

From where I'm sitting it's that simple. I'm probably overlooking something though. 

100% agree!

Makes sense.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I admit that I haven't read all 18 pages of this thread, so maybe this has been brought up and shot down, but to me this seems to make sense:

Unrated
Any movie without a rating that has a rated version counterpart. This covers alternate cuts, director's cuts, ultimate cuts, whatever.

Not Rated
Any movie that has never received an official rating on any version. Be it because it was released prior to 1968 (in the U.S.) or because it's a direct-to-video movie or whatever. As long as a rating has never been publicized for any version of the movie, it'd be Not Rated.

---

From where I'm sitting it's that simple. I'm probably overlooking something though. 

I think that's the way Ken sees it too. It seems to match his definition in this post.

I say if it does not say Unrated or Not Rated (like Extended Cut is Not Rated) on the front or back then we go with the theatrical rating as presented on the back cover. In the case of the X-Men, could the inclusion of those deleted scenes (via seamless branching) be considered a special feature than an actual new cut? I don't have this title so I don't know what it actually says on the back...