Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2018 January 28

= January 28 =

Film ratings: unrated (UR) versus not rated (NR)
What is the difference between a film rating of "UR" (unrated) versus "NR" (not rated)? I am specifically asking in the context of films listed at Netflix. I can't seem to find a distinction. I have read the Wikipedia article on Motion Picture Association of America film rating system. And I have scoured the Netflix website. At the Netflix website, all I get is this:


 * Ratings: UR - Unrated. This movie has not been rated by the MPAA. and
 * Ratings: NR - Not rated. This movie has not been rated by the MPAA.. Thanks.     32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Google has a lot of stuff. Here are some opinions: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I had already seen all of that.   32.209.55.38 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I believe the post by "MLutthans" is correct: "not rated" (or "not yet rated") means exactly that: it hasn't been submitted for rating, while "unrated" more usually refers to a film that's been uncensored to include the stuff they had to cut out of it to procure the rating the film company wanted. Example. Matt Deres (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. That (somewhat) makes sense.  Thanks.   32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To the OP: you're User:Joseph A. Spadaro, aren't you? Just wondering why you're not posting from your WP account. Your block has expired now. There's no reason why you have to use your account, I know. Just curious. --Viennese Waltz 09:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, it's me.  Yes, I know that my block expired quite some time ago.  There is no "real reason" that I am posting from this "anonymous" IP address account, as opposed to my "real" account.  Right now, I am not really contributing to or editing any article content.  And I just had a few quick questions to ask on the Reference Desks.  But, basically, no real reason.  I didn't really want to be "bothered", since I am not editing articles.  And only had a few quick reference questions that had popped up in my mind.  Thanks.   32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks (?) for telling us where you live. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome? (?) Addresses are not public information?    32.209.55.38 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not your street address, just your city. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Untrue. Property records -- which are indeed public -- contain full street address, etc.  Not to mention a telephone book, which also does.  Not to mention, voter registration records, etc., etc., etc.  Correct?   32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think those records would contain your IP address. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Now, we are "talking over" one another. We were talking about "street addresses".  In an above reply, you stated: Not your street address, just your city.  I was responding to the availability of "street addresses" via public records such as property records, telephone records, voter registration records, etc.  Then, you changed the topic to "IP addresses", for some reason.  In any event, this is the point that I am making:  an individual's "street address" is publicly available via many sources.  For example, property records, telephone records, and voting registration records.  I am talking about "street addresses".  I have no idea about IP addresses.  And how all of that works.  However, I can only assume that an IP address is less specific, not more specific, than an individual's street address.  I could be wrong about that.  I have no idea.  Perhaps an IP address can and does pinpoint an individual's location to, say, for example, "1234 Main Street, Fifth Floor, Apartment 502-J".  But, I doubt that.  My understanding was that an IP address gave some general and vague "range" of a person's physical location.  Thanks.  32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is a Reference Desk question about this very topic: Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 July 10. Posted by me, over ten years ago.  Thanks.   32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. My point being, by using your IP, you reveal (possibly) the city you live in. Not your specific street address. Maybe you don't care if the world knows what city you (possibly) live in. But if you edit while logged in, they won't know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks.   32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The confusion likely comes from marketing use. When a movie is rated, an "unrated" version is commonly released. It has become rather commonplace. On Netflix, you will see some unrated movies. If you look at Amazon or Vudu, you will see both the rated and unrated versions of the movies. You can look at the runtime to see how much is added. Overall the "unrated" marketing has replaced the "director's cut" marketing. It isn't nearly as popular to see a director's cut movie anymore, which would be an unrated movie if the studio doesn't submit the director's cut for a rating. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference in marketing is that "unrated" generally means "more tits and blood and curse words" whereas directors cut doesn't necessarily. -- Jayron 32 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the probably non RS pointed out that a proper director's cut may also have scenes removed. In fact, theoretically it could solely be scenes removed. Potentially theoretically these could push a rating higher, but generally that has little to do with it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, famously one of the Director's Cuts (there have been several) of Blade Runner actually removed more than it added. -- Jayron 32 17:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I searched a bit more yesterday and came to a similar conclusion. However I'd note that since these don't seem to really be official terms (unlike the MPAA ratings), I'm not sure if there's anything stopping someone using them differently. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Your post made me think of another question. Who, exactly, places the rating on the film?  The film producer?  In the case of "NR" and "UR", the MPAA has nothing to do with the film, I assume.  So, the producer is the one who places whatever ratings label he feels like placing on the film?  Is that how it works?  Thanks.    32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The producer gets the film produced. Then, it goes to distribution. Technically, there is one distribution company in charge of movie theater distribution. Then, another is in charge of home-media. Even after that, there are distribution companies that live off of buying distribution rights from other distributors so they can package multiple movies into one case. Anyway, the point is that the distributor has marketing in charge of packaging and advertisements. Someone in marketing makes the decision, "If we add one more curse word and slap UNRATED on the cover, we might sell 10% more copies!" So, by that time, it is well outside the producer's hands. It is possible that the producer and distributor is the same, but that isn't common. Even for an extremely large company like Disney, they have multiple owned production companies, but fewer distribution companies. The public rarely sees anything about the distribution companies. Back in the days of physical media, if you watched your tape or DVD to the very very very end of the closing credits, there would be a brief "distributed by XXXXX" clip. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)