Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
Basic Instinct (UPC 065935-206606). Just submitted corrections for it. According to the front cover, this profile is a "Special Edition: Unrated Director's Cut". And according to the back cover, this profile has a distinct Canadian home video rating of 18A: Explicit Sexual Content, Sexual Violence.

Bolding by me: that's the rating I want to track in DVD Profiler. I'm strongly against any rule that prohibits this.

Quote:
Pulse (UPC 065935-223313). Have to scan covers, then submitting. According to the front cover, this profile is an: "Unrated: Widescreen Edition". And according to the back cover, this profile has a distinct Canadian home video rating of 14A: Frightening Scenes, Not Recommended for Young Children.

Again: that's the rating I want to track in DVD Profiler. "Unrated" is a nice marketing gimmick, but often nothing more. It's nicely listed in the "Edition" field where it belongs, but it should NEVER trump the actual rating.

18A > Unrated, so 18A goes in the ratings box.  Highest rating wins.  The order can be seen in DVD Profiler just by sorting by rating, when/if the Unrated is added.

Lovely for the second example, not so great for the first one, if I've got the order right? Because 14A < Unrated (right?), so we'd lose the perfectly valid 14A rating? Again, that's what the disc is rated for the Canadian locality (despite the "Unrated"-marketing gimmick) so that's what I want to track. Why would we throw out absolutely valid, disc-specific ratings information in favor of a generic marketing gimmick?

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

I am sorry, Martian. But you just aren't wrong. The Rule does NOT indicate that NR is the lowest rating. There are a number of users, not just myself, who have always believed the NR=Unrated and they are both the hifghest level rating, aside from Adult or NC-17.

I am laughing trying to figure out where in that rule you get lowest rating from.  That's inventive I will say that, but it ain't there pal, no matter how you parse, you can't create something that flat out isn't there.

That is an ASSumption that you made. The program itself treats NR as the lowest rating. Ken himself has also told you at least 3 times that NR is, and always has been, the lowest rating.

Just because you ASSumed that NR was the highest rating, doesn't make it true. I'll take how the program itself and the author of the program's word over your ASSumptions.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Good god, I don't care what you people come up with, just give me the rating.  I sure as hell know what to do with it locally even if the community is befuddled.

That pretty much sums up my feelings at this point. It exists, even if people say it doesn't. I know what to do with it, and I'll happily keep it local. But for heaven's sake let me at least make my database a little more accurate. :

Double +1 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Lovely for the second example, not so great for the first one, if I've got the order right? Because 14A < Unrated (right?), so we'd lose the perfectly valid 14A rating? Again, that's what the disc is rated for the Canadian locality (despite the "Unrated"-marketing gimmick) so that's what I want to track.

Yes. If there is an actual rating on the thing (as opposed to two versons, one rated and one not), we should use the rating. In this case, we would consider "unrated" the US rating and "14A" the Canadian rating.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
He said it within the last three or four days, North. I NEVER saw it before then, NEVER. The Rule certainly does not back up what Ken has said the last several days. But we have FIVE years prior to the last several days. And as I said I am not alone.

He may have (and I'm not agreeing with you) only said this in the past few days, however, the program has actually treated NR as a lower rating than "G" for as long as I can remember (that is, as long as we've had ratings in the program).

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I also agree with a number of users that believe that both Not Rated and Unrated are higher than R, and have been doing so for MANY years

So you believe that any movie made under code, before 1968 - Swing Time, Arsenic and Old Lace, The Pride of the Yankees - has a higher rating and should be more restricted than a modern R rated horror film?  That IMAX documentaries like Dolphins or Destiny In Space are higher rated than an R rated film? 

That really doesn't make any sense to me at all.

All of these share the same problem - they do not have ANY rating at all.  I will agree that NR and Unrated do mean the same thing - the lack of a rating.  What having NR and Unrated as two separate options will do for us is that it will enable us to separate our films that lack ratings into two categories based on content.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to agree to any rule for contribution purposes, as far as what appears on the package.

But like mdnitoil & Alien Redrum & m.cellophane - just give me the rating!  I know how to use it locally!

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
He said it within the last three or four days, North. I NEVER saw it before then, NEVER. The Rule certainly does not back up what Ken has said the last several days. But we have FIVE years prior to the last several days. And as I said I am not alone.

He may have (and I'm not agreeing with you) only said this in the past few days, however, the program has actually treated NR as a lower rating than "G" for as long as I can remember (that is, as long as we've had ratings in the program).

Hal, as I said, I am not the only one here who had this opinion, now maybe those of us who had that do not run sort and filters on every little thing, I don't need too. Other than as a point of curiosity it does me little good to know how many R rated films I have in my collection. But like i said there are a number of us, not just a FEW, who have been saying that NR=Unrated=Highest, the Rule certainly does not say anything different, and until a few days ago (1) this was never an issue in the Forums, (2) suddenly from nowhere it is not only an issue but some ruling appears to have been made but I can't figure out why since it has never been here til a few days ago. I didn't know we had a problem but now we have a solution to no problem, just call me confused. I take something away in the knowledge that I am NOT alone, I MIGHT be the most vocal, but i am NOT alone.

Do you care enough to contribute anything except your persistent whining? There you go...