270+ replies! I bet if this film was passed uncut and it was a discussion on the actual movie it would get 10 posts at the most.
Personally I don't think there should be any line you can't cross when it comes to fictional film. We live in an age where info is at the ready and if you can't handle something you don't do it. If I'd had a heart attack I probably wouldn't ride a rollercoaster; If I couldn't stomach visual nastiness I wouldn't watch it. But I like being scared, shocked, disgusted etc. Like all sane people I sure as hell don't want to see anybody hurt in reality.
True. Although I don't think anyone really knows what might be classed as Extreme Pornography. It's not the BBFC's job to decide, and I suspect they wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole. The OPA is sane by comparison.
Actually it is part of the BBFC remit to decide if content falls foul of the Extreme Porn nonsense just as it is for the OPA and they're both stupid laws because they are quite vague although some things are listed in the EP legislation.
I've not seen HC1 so assuming that all the content in Part 2 is simulated then its unlikely it would fall foul of the law.
Porn that crosses the line is usually the real McCoy
The BBFC are not out right banning it. They are requesting that cuts should be made to allow it an 18 Cert rating. If the director is refusing to make the cuts then yes the BBFC will refuse to rate it, meaning it won't get a cinematic release and most likely no DVD release here. There are many films that have had cuts over the years to allow them to be given their desired rating. Many film studios aim for more family friendly ratings because it guarantees more revenue at the cinema as more people/families can watch it. Obviously most horror films are going to aim for 15/18 ratings but there should be a line that shouldn't be crossed.
I don't know where you got this idea from; the BBFC are not requesting cuts.
“The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”
It's not desperate, it's an example of how we are more lenient when compared to other countries. I am not applauding them, I am agreeing with their decision. If it's such a bloody problem then move to the US or Europe. It's hardly the end of the world..
It IS desperate to invoke China as it shows that you can't name any free country that agrees with the nannying of the UK.
I believe in no censorship for adults like the majority of the free world so I could equally tell you if its a problem then move to China.
I disagree that the state should decide what I can and cannot watch and the fact that you agree that the UK population is not intelligent enough to be able to cope with such a film shouts "Daily Mail Reader" as loud as you can .
I doubt you can explain what singles the UK out .
What is it about Brits that makes us unable to watch this type of product without society falling apart.
The same shite was said about Driller Killer , Texas Chainsaw Massacre and so many other films but now they are all out uncut and we are all still here and we're not running abour raping and pillaging.
Don't people like you learn anything from history?
Don't people like you wonder why Denmark, Holland and other free countries don't have issues ?
Unless you're admitting they turn you on that is a nonsense statement totally unproven by anyone .
And if the BBFC had even a shred of evidence to support the theory then Last House on the Left would not be uncut , it would still be censored and banned like it was for 30years when the BBFC used that very excuse , always unproven to back up their decision
270+ replies! I bet if this film was passed uncut and it was a discussion on the actual movie it would get 10 posts at the most.
Personally I don't think there should be any line you can't cross when it comes to fictional film. We live in an age where info is at the ready and if you can't handle something you don't do it. If I'd had a heart attack I probably wouldn't ride a rollercoaster; If I couldn't stomach visual nastiness I wouldn't watch it. But I like being scared, shocked, disgusted etc. Like all sane people I sure as hell don't want to see anybody hurt in reality.
I agree with all of that.
If your not into that kind of stuff then you simply stay away from it.
I am not a Daily Mail reader first off. I rather dislike you for that fact that you are a rather sad and insulting person who hides behind the computer taking shots at people for the sheer fact that they do not agree with you. Regardless of whether China is a free country or not it is still a valid example. I never brought up whether it was free or not, I was just using it to illustrate that we could be restricted a lot more but we are not. And what prey tell do you mean by people like me?
I HAVE NEVER SAID THE UK IS NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH so again I ask you to stop putting words in my mouth!!!
Unless you're admitting they turn you on that is a nonsense statement totally unproven by anyone .
And if the BBFC had even a shred of evidence to support the theory then Last House on the Left would not be uncut , it would still be censored and banned like it was for 30years when the BBFC used that very excuse , always unproven to back up their decision
I've seen weird enough shit online to suggest they do.
. And what prey tell do you mean by people like me?
I HAVE NEVER SAID THE UK IS NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH so again I ask you to stop putting words in my mouth!!!
If you can't work out that by saying you agree with the banning of the film means you don't consider the British public intelligent enough to make that decision themselves I guess you are kind of proving yourself right then.
As for " people like you ": I refer to those who agree with the nanny state making decisions that the population are more than capable of making for themselves - rather like the populations of other countries seem able to do.
I'm not surprised you don't even try to attempt to answer any of the relevant questions that might make your theory less ridiculous but then those that agree with censorship have had more than 100 years to prove it helps.
While those that disagree with it have plenty of other countries to use as evidence and even the UK remains intact despite the terror of Driller Killer being sold in Tescos
There are no laws on obscenity.
The OPA contains no specific acts or content at all - it is worded so that any content that is prosecuted with it is entirely open to interpreation.
Even the BBFC when cutting R18 porn explain that many cuts are because of " their current interpretation of the OPA"
You say there are no laws then cite the Obscene Publications Act.
So there are laws, though the shopping list of banned subject matter can be vague at times.
You say there are no laws then cite the Obscene Publications Act.
So there are laws, though the shopping list of banned subject matter can be vague at times.
The Obscene Publications Act is a law.
But there are no laws on what is obscene because there is nothing in the OPA that states that so it is impossible to say conclusively what is and what is not obscene which is why that law should have been scrapped decades ago
The BBFC will often censor R18 porn evoking "their current interpretation of the OPA".
Yet they don't back up why they think that way.
They don't explain why a closeup of a woman with 4 fingers inside her will be passed but if a thumb is added and they go past the knuckle its suddenly obscene.
They don't explain why they will pass scenes of girls with their legs open urinating uncut yet if they are urinating over someone or while they are having sex or masturbating it becomes obscene.
They don't explain why the OPA will find some content guilty in one court and not guilty in another.
I don't think the rape scenes in I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left were filmed especially in a way to empathize with the rapists. But it's been years since I watched them. Maybe they were, but I just remember them being sensationalistic, gratuitous and very badly filmed.
Sure there are people out there who get turned on sexually by scenes of female violence, but then there are people who get off to watching very innocent looking pre-teens in Disney films. Again, it's the person who gets off on stuff they shouldn't that has the problem, not the filmmaker.
You know what mllfap, I am sick of your attitude, your rudeness and your insults. You are pathetic. YES I agree with the BBFC's decision to ban the film... NO IT DOES NOT mean I support a nanny state and NO IT DOES NOT mean I regard the general public as unintelligent and unable to make the decision for themselves. I am allowed my opinion just like you are but you have no right to tell me that I am wrong because you believe otherwise. What is my theory? That we are becoming more desensitised? Well we are really when you look at what would be banned years ago is now more readily available and worse material is in circulation. It's not a theory, it's an observation. I am not saying that all horror films make people crazy. I am just saying that I think they were right with their decision... I am sorry if not wanting to see a film that has graphic scenes like that makes me in the minority... I shouldn't be made to feel like I am wrong because of it and yes I don't have to watch it but it doesn't mean I can't agree with the BBFC
You know what mllfap, I am sick of your attitude, your rudeness and your insults. You are pathetic. YES I agree with the BBFC's decision to ban the film... NO IT DOES NOT mean I support a nanny state and NO IT DOES NOT mean I regard the general public as unintelligent yada yada yada
3 contradictions in one paragraph- I like it .
I'm dubious whether you're worth wasting anymore time on but I'll have one more go.
Justify your decision of agreeing with the BBFC.
Why don't you think the citizens of the UK can make their own decision?
Why can't I be trusted to leave the film on the shelf if I don't like it?
Don't worry - I don't really expect you to be able to give answers
I don't think the rape scenes in I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left were filmed especially in a way to empathize with the rapists. But it's been years since I watched them. Maybe they were, but I just remember them being sensationalistic, gratuitous and very badly filmed.
.
They were OTT , thats a trait of the rape and revenge genre.
I think anyone who could empathise with the rapists is long past help
I justify my decision because I think that masturbation using sandpaper and penetrative sex using barbed wire is disgusting... Thats why I agree with the BBFC's decision
The citizens of the UK can make their own decisions but at the end of the day the BBFC classify films. Thats what they are there for. I don't tend to argue with them because I don't tend to think about them. I focus on other things in my life but after reading why they banned it, I had to agree with the decision
Comments
Personally I don't think there should be any line you can't cross when it comes to fictional film. We live in an age where info is at the ready and if you can't handle something you don't do it. If I'd had a heart attack I probably wouldn't ride a rollercoaster; If I couldn't stomach visual nastiness I wouldn't watch it. But I like being scared, shocked, disgusted etc. Like all sane people I sure as hell don't want to see anybody hurt in reality.
Actually it is part of the BBFC remit to decide if content falls foul of the Extreme Porn nonsense just as it is for the OPA and they're both stupid laws because they are quite vague although some things are listed in the EP legislation.
I've not seen HC1 so assuming that all the content in Part 2 is simulated then its unlikely it would fall foul of the law.
Porn that crosses the line is usually the real McCoy
Yes that was an odd one.
I've never known a film to be cut and unrated.
Nevertheless they still have the option to release it uncut.
But that film has a real setting with no pretence at the oure fantasy nonsense that HC2 is .
The BBFC usually allow obvious fantasy to get through.
I'm looking forward to finding out why this hasn't.
But I'll have to watch Part 1 first
I don't know where you got this idea from; the BBFC are not requesting cuts.
“The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”
It IS desperate to invoke China as it shows that you can't name any free country that agrees with the nannying of the UK.
I believe in no censorship for adults like the majority of the free world so I could equally tell you if its a problem then move to China.
I disagree that the state should decide what I can and cannot watch and the fact that you agree that the UK population is not intelligent enough to be able to cope with such a film shouts "Daily Mail Reader" as loud as you can .
I doubt you can explain what singles the UK out .
What is it about Brits that makes us unable to watch this type of product without society falling apart.
The same shite was said about Driller Killer , Texas Chainsaw Massacre and so many other films but now they are all out uncut and we are all still here and we're not running abour raping and pillaging.
Don't people like you learn anything from history?
Don't people like you wonder why Denmark, Holland and other free countries don't have issues ?
Unless you're admitting they turn you on that is a nonsense statement totally unproven by anyone .
And if the BBFC had even a shred of evidence to support the theory then Last House on the Left would not be uncut , it would still be censored and banned like it was for 30years when the BBFC used that very excuse , always unproven to back up their decision
I agree with all of that.
If your not into that kind of stuff then you simply stay away from it.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THE UK IS NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH so again I ask you to stop putting words in my mouth!!!
I've seen weird enough shit online to suggest they do.
If you can't work out that by saying you agree with the banning of the film means you don't consider the British public intelligent enough to make that decision themselves I guess you are kind of proving yourself right then.
As for " people like you ": I refer to those who agree with the nanny state making decisions that the population are more than capable of making for themselves - rather like the populations of other countries seem able to do.
I'm not surprised you don't even try to attempt to answer any of the relevant questions that might make your theory less ridiculous but then those that agree with censorship have had more than 100 years to prove it helps.
While those that disagree with it have plenty of other countries to use as evidence and even the UK remains intact despite the terror of Driller Killer being sold in Tescos
Oh well thats proof enough then.
Perhaps you should let the BBFC know
You say there are no laws then cite the Obscene Publications Act.
So there are laws, though the shopping list of banned subject matter can be vague at times.
The Obscene Publications Act is a law.
But there are no laws on what is obscene because there is nothing in the OPA that states that so it is impossible to say conclusively what is and what is not obscene which is why that law should have been scrapped decades ago
I think they already do.
Like I say the world is not black and white.
Yet they don't back up why they think that way.
They don't explain why a closeup of a woman with 4 fingers inside her will be passed but if a thumb is added and they go past the knuckle its suddenly obscene.
They don't explain why they will pass scenes of girls with their legs open urinating uncut yet if they are urinating over someone or while they are having sex or masturbating it becomes obscene.
They don't explain why the OPA will find some content guilty in one court and not guilty in another.
Its a stupid law and is decades out of date.
Sure there are people out there who get turned on sexually by scenes of female violence, but then there are people who get off to watching very innocent looking pre-teens in Disney films. Again, it's the person who gets off on stuff they shouldn't that has the problem, not the filmmaker.
They don't.
They used to think they did as that was the reason they cut many films like Death Wish , Last House etc.
But they've never had proof which is why these films are now uncut .
If they had one shred of evidence they would still cut the scenes.
Perhaps they realise their days are numbered as their relevance to reality dwindles
I'm dubious whether you're worth wasting anymore time on but I'll have one more go.
Justify your decision of agreeing with the BBFC.
Why don't you think the citizens of the UK can make their own decision?
Why can't I be trusted to leave the film on the shelf if I don't like it?
Don't worry - I don't really expect you to be able to give answers
They were OTT , thats a trait of the rape and revenge genre.
I think anyone who could empathise with the rapists is long past help
Nobody thinks the bbfc under James Ferman- 1975-1999- was any cop. But it's 2011 now and 75-99 really is ancient history.
Both DW and LHOTL remained cut or banned on home video many years after Ferman was long gone.
IIRC LHOTL was only passed uncut 2008/09, nearly a full decade after we bought the US dvd
The citizens of the UK can make their own decisions but at the end of the day the BBFC classify films. Thats what they are there for. I don't tend to argue with them because I don't tend to think about them. I focus on other things in my life but after reading why they banned it, I had to agree with the decision
I never said you can't be trusted