Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
O.K., here's a fun one.

Ali Dircetor's Cut - UPC 043396090569

Case clearly says Unrated on back.
Then before the film plays, there's the blue rating card which says R for Some Language and Brief Violence.
Checked movieratings.com, and both versions are rated R for the same reasons.

So, does the cover win this for rating or do we go by reality like with runtimes and disc info/web info win?

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Unfortunately the rules as written don't give us the lee-way that we have with runtime etc.
If it has "unrated" on the cover then it gets "unrated" regardless of anything else. 

That pretty much sums up my feelings about this rule... Here we have some perfect valid, specific rating details for the film, and yet the rules forbid us to enter them, and force us to keep the field empty instead (except, luckily, in my local, of course). I have to wonder: who gains anything with this? 

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Thanks. I got turned on by Last House on the Left so time for an update*


*may not be true

This was the funniest shiitake mushroom I've read all week. I even did one of those annoying and embarassing high pitched giggles to it. 

My only question... the original or the remake? 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I have to wonder: who gains anything with this? 

It's true that we're finding some weird exceptions.  But I'd gladly deal with those on a case by case basis.

You're ignoring the fact that many, many movies are fitting into this new rule quite well.  Those of us who wanted the change seem to be liking it.  And the rest simply don't have to accept the changes.

It was known from day 1 that this wouldn't cover every movie.  I don't think a rule could be written that would cover every movie out there and get 100% support. But I do think Ken did the best he could without a program update. Even with a program update, I can't imagine things getting much better without making this a local only option.

Let's not focus on a few exceptions and call the entire thing a failure just yet.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I know this is not going to be popular. but thank you, Ken. You make a very narrowly focused change and it may not sound like very much to most of you, but when you are tracking nearly 10,000 titles in total and our friend Srethims is tracking even more than I, then you are pushing a major investment in time for a little gain. Pleas Ken in the future let's not do these anymore, this narrowly focused and single-mided changes which cause a flood of mindless updates do very little good.

Do the math people, voting, verifying an update and so forth...somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes minimum per title times 10,000 titles. And no I will not accept an update blindly.

All 10,000 of the profiles in your collection were rated Film-NR and require an update???

Wow...what are the odds of that happening? 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I know this is not going to be popular. but thank you, Ken. You make a very narrowly focused change and it may not sound like very much to most of you, but when you are tracking nearly 10,000 titles in total and our friend Srethims is tracking even more than I, then you are pushing a major investment in time for a little gain. Pleas Ken in the future let's not do these anymore, this narrowly focused and single-mided changes which cause a flood of mindless updates do very little good.

Do the math people, voting, verifying an update and so forth...somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes minimum per title times 10,000 titles. And no I will not accept an update blindly.

All 10,000 of the profiles in your collection were rated Film-NR and require an update???

Wow...what are the odds of that happening? 

Again, Hal, you are more interested in being nasty than i showing any sign of comprehension of the point being made.

Hal, I never said 10,000 that's my total, Forum Moderator: Removed. Evemn if I have only 1/3 NR that still 3,000 titles, now you can do math I presume, although at the moment ...who knows. That still between 9,000 and 15,000 minutes of work, or  150 to 250 hours worth of work on my part...for a very negligible return. Forum Moderator: Removed I wasn't scoring a point, I was making a point.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Again, Hal, you are more interested in being nasty than i showing any sign of comprehension of the point being made.

Hal, I never said 10,000 that's my total, that's your stupid reading. Evemn if I have only 1/3 NR that still 3,000 titles, now you can do math I presume, although at the moment ...who knows. That still between 9,000 and 15,000 minutes of work, or  150 to 250 hours worth of work on my part...for a very negligible return. It;s really too bad that EVERYTHING has to be spelled out for you because all you want to do is play dumb and try and score your point. I wasn't scoring a point, I was making a point.

Even 1/3 is unrealistic. It appears 50 out of 1870 titles (and about twice that many profiles) are affected in my collection. Also, no one is forcing you to work on this. You can always lock down your ratings and just ignore these updates.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I have to wonder: who gains anything with this? 

It's true that we're finding some weird exceptions.  But I'd gladly deal with those on a case by case basis.

You're ignoring the fact that many, many movies are fitting into this new rule quite well.  Those of us who wanted the change seem to be liking it.  And the rest simply don't have to accept the changes.

It was known from day 1 that this wouldn't cover every movie.  I don't think a rule could be written that would cover every movie out there and get 100% support. But I do think Ken did the best he could without a program update. Even with a program update, I can't imagine things getting much better without making this a local only option.

Let's not focus on a few exceptions and call the entire thing a failure just yet.

Well said.

All well and good, Alien. but this is not the first time that these minimalist changes have been made. We've seen it before, and it wasn't pretty then and now here we go again.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I know this is not going to be popular. but thank you, Ken. You make a very narrowly focused change and it may not sound like very much to most of you, but when you are tracking nearly 10,000 titles in total and our friend Srethims is tracking even more than I, then you are pushing a major investment in time for a little gain. Pleas Ken in the future let's not do these anymore, this narrowly focused and single-mided changes which cause a flood of mindless updates do very little good.

Do the math people, voting, verifying an update and so forth...somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes minimum per title times 10,000 titles. And no I will not accept an update blindly.

I'll let you do the math since you know how you handling things like voting.  Maybe it will take a long time for you.  That's too bad.  I mean that.

Still put yourself in Ken's shoes for a moment.  A change like this might have a bad effect on people with very large collections.  But that's got to be a fairly small percentage of overall users.  I expect he pleased that percentage many times over.

So even if it's putting you out as much as you claim, I still think it makes sense to please many rather than a few.  I realize that sucks for you.  Sorry.