HOLY CRAP :-o

Some ones (or people) have been working over time on these!!!!

Once I get emule set up and sorted will be link clicking like crazy on these!

Just hope their shared.

But will help with the ones that I get and keep em on share.

But won't be clicking for a while!!!

Need to get back online and start releaseing and catching up on lost downloading

Why CUT? There is some dialogue missing, but all the gore is intact.

Missing dialogue means cut also, but it should be meantioned that the gore is intact!

Aha, but missing dialogue is editing, not cutting.

I assume this isn't from the UK or US DVD then? They are both cut. I wasn't aware of this one being released uncut anywhere with that title, although I agree with New-9 on this one.

It's the German Astro release, which is uncut gore-wise. It's the only instance of the movie released uncut with the Grim Reaper title.

I think Iconoclast labelled this CUT due to one of my posts where I said the UK and US DVD's with that title are both cut and I'm not aware of any others with that title. I would say this is one to discuss with Iconoclast on his return, but I wouldn't hold out on it being changed as he believes, rightly imo, that uncut means 100% uncut as opposed to uncensored. Maybe there should be another category, say "edited but uncensored", then everyone's happy (me being Mr Diplomat, whatever next! )

It doesn't bother me too much, just wanted to make people aware that it isn't missing anything that they'd want to see.

And I still believe there's a difference between editing, and cutting.

I think that's the problem with taking one person's word that something is cut, IMHO some research into the release should be done before labeelling it cut with nothing to back it up.

No offense meant to anybody with that, I just think it's a little insulting to the rippers concerned when they bend over backwards to find the best quality UNCUT rip they can, just for someone to say "oh under that title it's cut" when it ISN'T and they haven't seen the rip in question.

IMHO audio missing / insertion is editing NOT cutting.

I don't think I was being unreasonable here, note the use of the phrases "possible cut" and "to my knowledge". I never said this was gospel.

I don't have a problem with things being labelled as cut or uncut and my beef isn't with you George, Iconoclast shouldn't label anything as cut or uncut unless the rip HAS BEEN SEEN and reported to be cut / uncut.

The problem lies with taking what you said as gospel, which should never have happened as I'm sure you would agree.

As a matter of interest, what would happen in a situation like that of Kill Bill, where it's optically censored ON RELEASE? The US dvd is uncut, but IS censored, wheras the Japanese DVD is uncut and uncensored, but this is NOT how the film was released (at least not in the west)

uncut refers to censorship or editing out scenes that would have been there any way. ie. against the director's intentions.

Kill Bill is cut because mr Tarantino wanted that scene as it was in the Japanese version.

methinks thats the best way to think about it.

However, many sites do take it as in cinema release:
http://www.dvdcompare.net for example.
However, I think its very difficult. For example witchfinder general had its script censored before they even started shooting

Exactly my point, so going around arbitrarily labelling rips as cut or uncut WITHOUT SEEING THEM based on one person's knowledge of releases and titles strikes me as a dangerous thing to do if you're trying to compile a definative VN list.

Expansion:
It is an "uncut Video Nasty" if it is the same version submitted to the censors originally, ie the running times match and the content is the same. If it misses anything from that submission it can not be stated as uncut, however if it contains the same material that the censors refuse to classify, then it is uncut.

If it was censored before submission, and then refused print, the pre-censored version is infact an "uncut Video Nasty" , as the BBFC's cuts were revoked

Whether or not it has all the intended material in shouldn't change the fact that it is the same identical version submitted to the censors originally, and therefore as a Video Nasty and in regards to the BBFC it is uncut.

But you are right in saying uncut can not be used unless stating who you are referring to doing the cutting. I would say cut refers to censorship, some people have got it into their noggins that cut means extra material. It doesn't, for example Dawn of The Dead: Director's Cut is an extended edition... not an uncut edition.

Regardless, its useless arguing your case for the use of cut in this thread atm, this since iconoclaust isn't even here to choose how he wants his thread to be organized

Yeah, that's true, I'll ask him when he comes back

Anthropophagous the Beast was released uncut in the UK on the VFP label and cut on the Video Shack label (which ironically is the rarest edition). In the case of Nightmares In A Damaged Brain for example the WOV2000 release was cut, therefore in my original thread I stated that as I guess Black Thrash did his rip from the pre-cert he sold on e-bay then although this version is strictly speaking cut, from the point of view of a VN collection it could maybe be considered uncut. Confusing as hell but it was this post that opened a can of worms. Maybe Spud can issue guidelines as to what can be labelled cut or uncut on this site.

Ironically, PC-A, I have since heard that the UK DVD of NIADB is the same as the pre-cert so if this is the case then by the same standards your rip could be labelled uncut. However the Dark Side said the DVD in no way replaces the old nasties tape; I can't comment as I have never seen the pre-cert, the one I saw all those years ago was a Dutch VHS on Video For Pleasure, most definitely uncut lasting 99 mins but I don't have it anymore

This is why the Bent Bastard Federation of Cunts needs to keep detailed list of all cuts and a reference to a guideline that justifies the cut. Infact they should store a copy of the negative submitted.

Bastards!

delirium added

I'd like to mention that Terror Eyes has no sources, and that Madhouse is a cut version. Can anyone help with these?

I think it's worth pointing out that although Expose is listed as cut, this is the pre-cert Intervision version and not the cut 18 version. I had a chat with Iconoclast about this one before he went away and we found several conflicting websites, some saying the pre-cert was cut and others saying it is uncut. What we do know is that it was cut by the BBFC in 1975 for a cinema X certificate. The pre-cert starts with a BBFC X but it wasn't unknown for pre-cert videos to show a certificate when in fact it was an uncertified version of the film.

Whatever if you want to see the banned version then grab it anyway as that's the one