Far from being outraged, Tom Six should be delighted as if it where not for the ban, it's release would have gone unnoticed and now this peice of rubbish will probably become a cult classic.
It'd still become a cult film whether the BBFC had passed it or not. 'Cult Film' is stamped all over HC1 & HC2 with a ribbon bow on it.
Tom Six is dying to be hailed as the successor of Dario Argento and Luis Batzella. The doctor character in HC1 is strikingly similar to Udo Kier's classic take on sinister doctor roles in campy horror and exploitation films. I'm quite sure Tom Six would have kissed the ground and wept with happiness if Udo Kier was available to take the HC role. Dieter Laser is the nearest thing Tom Mix could have to Udo Kier.
Cult film? Oh yeah, that's what Tom Mix wants. Had wanted from the start. The ban is a cherry on his exploitation-soaked cake.
I respect your opinion Jason, and maybe you're right. But I just don't see the correlation between extreme horror (usually poorly done) and the social problems of escalating violence. Too many other factors such as gang mentality, lack of parenting, inner-city decay, unemployment etc. A far fethced horror movie is surely the weak link.
Of course you're right. I probably should have said I feel that extreme horror such as this plays only a small part. But, clearly, it can't touch the internet and the amount of extreme horror and violence available online - some of it real (beheadings e.t.c..)
I do still think a lot of youngsters today are desensitized to a lot of things though. Take the case of the teenager who was standing on top of a multi storey car park threatening to kill himself and the crowd below were shouting "jump".
Where does that behaviour come from ? (i'm not looking for an answer obviously as i think it's a whole other debate).
I will always be anti censorship but i'll always be pro "something" - i don't know what that is to be fair, but i think something needs to be in place.
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
It is a court that will ultimately decide. It's true that the BBFC shouldn't give a certificate to material which is illegal, but their refusal to give a certificate doesn't mean it is illegal, just that it might be. It's quite possible they didn't mention extreme porn because they had no need to; the OPA is much less controversial.
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
People have been prosecuted for animations. From The Register:
The first charge centred on an allegation that he had in his possession a clip featuring human-animal sex. This was dropped after the prosecution discovered that the animal in question – a tiger – was actually a CGI-generated spoof, modelled loosely on Tony the Tiger of Frosties fame, and that the tiger finished off his sex act by turning to camera and saying "That beats doing adverts for a living".
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
But that's not why they made their decision. Disgust isn't seen as a problem. The problem, allegedly, is that people can be damaged by watching it. Specifically, that they may come to associate violence with sexual pleasure and so become violent.
There's no hard evidence they ever saw Child's Play 3.
Blaming violent films for that is just a way to try to explain the unexplainable.
Correction. There's no evidence full stop, there never was from the outset, and one judge somewhere along the line actually denounced the hysteria that had been speciously whipped up over it. Still, useful of posters like Julie68 to be reminding us of how the perpetrators of these kinds of stories gun exactly for the gullibly reactionary mass targets they know only too well exist.
Correction. There's no evidence full stop, there never was from the outset, and one judge somewhere along the line actually denounced the hysteria that had been speciously whipped up over it. Still, useful of posters like Julie68 to be reminding us of how the perpetrators of these kinds of stories gun exactly for the gullibly reactionary mass targets they know only too well exist.
It was the same with a well publicised murder a few years ago where newspapers claimed that the murderer of a teenage boy had "trained" to kill using the game 'Manhunt', when infact it was the victim who owned a copy of the game, not the killer. That didn't stop the mother of the victim calling for the game to be banned though...:rolleyes:
Personally i think it's ridiculous to blame any form of entertainment for people committing crimes. Everytime someone has claimed that a movie/game made them do it, it's been quickly disproved as utter bullshit. If someone is going to go around committing crimes or attaching barbed wire to their penis, they aren't going to do it because of a movie/game, they're going to do it because they're messed up in the head already, a movie/game wont tip them over the edge, they'll already be over it due to much more serious and damaging influences (like bad parenting, abuse, etc...).
I don't get the whole censorship thing tbh. How do you qualify for a ban? Surely the censor would recommend cuts rather than ban a film outright.
I guess if a director refuses to comply then that results in a ban.....would this be correct?
I don't get the whole censorship thing tbh. How do you qualify for a ban? Surely the censor would recommend cuts rather than ban a film outright.
I guess if a director refuses to comply then that results in a ban.....would this be correct?
Yep, that's right. As i said about 14 pages back (i can't believe this thread is now 15 pages long, lol), the BBFC don't cut films, they reccommend cuts to the distributors to gain a particular certificate and then they can either comply with the BBFC's reccommendations, or they can go with a higher certificate, or in this case an outright rejection.
The public in every country - including the UK and the U.S. - don't get to make decisions either. After a rating is given, it's down to a producer or distributor's decision whether to distribute with or without a rating, or whether to make cuts or not.
Let's focus on the U.S. and Battle Royale. After the MPAA gave BR 'unrated', the U.S. distributor decided not to distribute it theatrically. Two years later, a home entertainment distributor bought domestic rights to BR. The media reacted poorly to this news and the MPAA again gave it a 'Unrated'. HE distributor decided to shelve it. Ten years later, it's still not available on R1 DVD or Blu-Ray, retail and rental. Americans have to buy imports or download illegal copies if they want to see it. Battle Royale is available on Netflix, but it's an imported edition (Korean, I think, with English dub and subtitles) and available online only.
Do you see anywhere here the American public was involved with the decision making where Battle Royale is concerned?
Secondly -- Contrary to what you may believe, the MPAA's Unrated or NC-17 is the kiss of death for major U.S. mainstream distributors.
Most newspapers and magazines refuse to accept advertisements of NC-17-rated films. Major rental video stores also refuse to stock NC-17-rated films. All major cinema chains tend to refuse to show 'unrated' NC-17-rated films, bearing in mind that they make money from selling drinks and snacks. Niche crowds don't buy as many drinks and snacks as families do. Furthermore, a number of research studies has found that the majority of parents trust the MPAA more than film reviewers. How much more? Almost 70%.
Producers are keenly aware of this and would do anything to avoid 'R' or, in their worst nightmare, 'NC-17' or 'Unrated'. What do they do to obtain their favourite rating: PG-13? They re-edit the film. Whether the director likes it or not. The final cut belongs producers and distributors, not director. All producers want is to have the film meet the MPAA's criterion for PG-13. The hell with the plot, continuity and all. Why else do you think so many violent and mature films with incoherent storylines have 'PG-13' rating? And why do you think there are so many director's cut editions?
Again, in this case, where and how was the public involved with all this decision-making? I don't see them taking a vote on how should a film be edited or whether the director should have the final cut.
Lastly, please please please get it right: the BBFC is not a government body. It's an independent body that answers to no one but the law and the public, like the majority of boards in the "free" world.
Battle Royale is one film.
Changes nothing - the US still has the option to release uncut and unrated.
Yes they do cut to get PG-13 and even R but while Blockbuster will only stock the R rated dvd the film will also get an uncut unrated release for general consumption
Your comments about NC17 are well out of date.
While unrated and NC17 movies were oncd thought of as commercial suicide thats no longer the case .
Basically its why the NC17 rating was introduced in the first place - to avoid the X rating which is not a commercial rating as its usually reserved for porn.
Your theory about the BBFC is imaginative even if its not accurate.
The BBFC may well run as a private business funded by fees but the director and top brass are Government appointed.
James Ferman was famously forced out by Jack Straw who took exception to Ferman passing some hardcore.
The BBFC may not need to report to the Government on a day to day basis but don't be under the illusion that it is anything except a state censor .
It was the Tory Government who gave the BBFC the task of rating home video.
I don't get the whole censorship thing tbh. How do you qualify for a ban? Surely the censor would recommend cuts rather than ban a film outright.
I guess if a director refuses to comply then that results in a ban.....would this be correct?
There's no point cutting in some cases, HC2 would presumably make no sense or be pointless with all the material the bbfc find unacceptable cut
Yep, that's right. As i said about 14 pages back (i can't believe this thread is now 15 pages long, lol), the BBFC don't cut films, they reccommend cuts to the distributors to gain a particular certificate and then they can either comply with the BBFC's reccommendations, or they can go with a higher certificate, or in this case an outright rejection.
The BBFC may not be the ones who physically cut the films but they are responsible for the cuts in any film so its fair to use the term "cut by the BBFC".
IIRC James Ferman fancied himself as a director and went to great lengths with Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer in re-editing various scenes to minimise cuts , including adding/switching footage to the home invasion scene which changes the scene completely.
There's no point cutting in some cases, HC2 would presumably make no sense or be pointless with all the material the bbfc find unacceptable cut
Apparently it's only the two scenes of sexual violence that they take exception to, I'm sure that the film would still make sense if these scenes were removed, ASF had way more stuff removed and still apparently made sense (i've only seen the uncut version so i don't know personally). I'm betting it's just a controversy building publicity stunt that the distributors are pulling. Either the BBFC will back down after the appeal, or the distributors will settle for cuts to get an 18. Whatever happens, the distributors win when the film sells way more than it originally would have done due to the controversy.
Apparently it's only the two scenes of sexual violence that they take exception to, I'm sure that the film would still make sense if these scenes were removed, ASF had way more stuff removed and still apparently made sense (i've only seen the uncut version so i don't know personally). I'm betting it's just a controversy building publicity stunt that the distributors are pulling. Either the BBFC will back down after the appeal, or the distributors will settle for cuts to get an 18. Whatever happens, the distributors win when the film sells way more than it originally would have done due to the controversy.
I doubt very much whether the BBFC would concern itself with the issue of continuity in regards to cuts - I thought their role was to outline what was/ wasn't acceptable in regards to specific ratings.
But tbh, like I said in a previous post, my nose has been twitching since I first began reading this thread and I really wouldn't be surprised if the whole BBFC ban thing was bogus.
Seriously? what has the bbfc come to when something that has passed uncensored in Australia - A country well renouned for it's excessively strict censorships - is banned in the UK?
And to top it all off, 'A Serbian Movie' was passed in the UK with very minimal cuts.
This is a movie that is claimed to be a portrayal of Serbia as a nation and a how people in power can make the people in need do unthinkable acts........... really it's about a man who is paid and drugged into brutally raping and murdering (whilst raping) and also
anally raping his young son, oh and in another scene sees a masked man deliver a new born baby and then have sex with it :eek:
i'd say that sand paper wanking and barbed wire, poop eating rape is nothing compared to that movie.
Apparently it's only the two scenes of sexual violence that they take exception to, I'm sure that the film would still make sense if these scenes were removed, ASF had way more stuff removed and still apparently made sense (i've only seen the uncut version so i don't know personally). I'm betting it's just a controversy building publicity stunt that the distributors are pulling. Either the BBFC will back down after the appeal, or the distributors will settle for cuts to get an 18. Whatever happens, the distributors win when the film sells way more than it originally would have done due to the controversy.
BBFC have said:
“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.”
“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.”
just out of interest, where was that quote taken from?
“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 words like that that are going to make a lot of people want to watch it more.
The first film was just silly and not really that graphic, I may never have bothered with the second one but now I want to know how far Six has actually pushed the envelope, I want to know how graphic it is and I want to know what special effects/prosthetics/make up is used. The S/F is what im most interested in
“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.”
The first film could have been the most amazing horror ever made. The idea was there. The story was there. The ending was there The premise was much worse than the film.
The Doctor was comical. I could barely tell the two drama student girls apart which meant I barely cared and the Japenese man shouting over most of the dialogue didn;t work and you couldn;t empthathise with him.
But it was poorly acted by all involved and there were so many missed opportunities.
the 1st was laughable and suprisely gore free
seriously it was not that bad
remember everything sounds far worse when its read out and been thought of in your mind
but when you watch the actual film HC2 i bet youll only see all this barbwire sex and sand paper jerking from the face off the victims and the guy whos doing this stuff
your imagination will be far worse than whats on film as the 1st movie proved
Just because I keep being asked, re: Human Centipede 2. The situation is often misunderstood. The BBFC have not made a decision about what the British public can and cannot see. They have made a decision (presumably an informed one) about whether the makers and distributors of HC2 - and, not incidentally, the BBFC themselves - would be liable to prosecution if the film were commercially released. I have no doubt they are under no illusions that this decision will prevent interested viewers seeing the film by other means.
Simply put, the complaints of anti-censorship libertarians (like me, like many people I know) when something is banned do not extend to taking people to court (and opening the BBFC up to a loss of its statutory powers) ... the complaints of pro-censorship media and organisations when something is passed do.
He also pointed out the Crown Prosecution Service always see shit eating as being in breach of the obscene publications act. (Which does rather raise the question of why Salo was passed; I guess the scene in HC2 must be more graphic than the one in Salo.)
Comments
It'd still become a cult film whether the BBFC had passed it or not. 'Cult Film' is stamped all over HC1 & HC2 with a ribbon bow on it.
Tom Six is dying to be hailed as the successor of Dario Argento and Luis Batzella. The doctor character in HC1 is strikingly similar to Udo Kier's classic take on sinister doctor roles in campy horror and exploitation films. I'm quite sure Tom Six would have kissed the ground and wept with happiness if Udo Kier was available to take the HC role. Dieter Laser is the nearest thing Tom Mix could have to Udo Kier.
Cult film? Oh yeah, that's what Tom Mix wants. Had wanted from the start. The ban is a cherry on his exploitation-soaked cake.
Of course you're right. I probably should have said I feel that extreme horror such as this plays only a small part. But, clearly, it can't touch the internet and the amount of extreme horror and violence available online - some of it real (beheadings e.t.c..)
I do still think a lot of youngsters today are desensitized to a lot of things though. Take the case of the teenager who was standing on top of a multi storey car park threatening to kill himself and the crowd below were shouting "jump".
Where does that behaviour come from ? (i'm not looking for an answer obviously as i think it's a whole other debate).
I will always be anti censorship but i'll always be pro "something" - i don't know what that is to be fair, but i think something needs to be in place.
People have been prosecuted for animations. From The Register:
Correction. There's no evidence full stop, there never was from the outset, and one judge somewhere along the line actually denounced the hysteria that had been speciously whipped up over it. Still, useful of posters like Julie68 to be reminding us of how the perpetrators of these kinds of stories gun exactly for the gullibly reactionary mass targets they know only too well exist.
I have no opinion of whether it should be banned.. just wish I'd never heard of it!
It was the same with a well publicised murder a few years ago where newspapers claimed that the murderer of a teenage boy had "trained" to kill using the game 'Manhunt', when infact it was the victim who owned a copy of the game, not the killer. That didn't stop the mother of the victim calling for the game to be banned though...:rolleyes:
Personally i think it's ridiculous to blame any form of entertainment for people committing crimes. Everytime someone has claimed that a movie/game made them do it, it's been quickly disproved as utter bullshit. If someone is going to go around committing crimes or attaching barbed wire to their penis, they aren't going to do it because of a movie/game, they're going to do it because they're messed up in the head already, a movie/game wont tip them over the edge, they'll already be over it due to much more serious and damaging influences (like bad parenting, abuse, etc...).
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a323888/human-centipede-2-ban-to-be-appealed.html
I guess if a director refuses to comply then that results in a ban.....would this be correct?
Yep, that's right. As i said about 14 pages back (i can't believe this thread is now 15 pages long, lol), the BBFC don't cut films, they reccommend cuts to the distributors to gain a particular certificate and then they can either comply with the BBFC's reccommendations, or they can go with a higher certificate, or in this case an outright rejection.
Is this a problem unique to young Brits then ?
Battle Royale is one film.
Changes nothing - the US still has the option to release uncut and unrated.
Yes they do cut to get PG-13 and even R but while Blockbuster will only stock the R rated dvd the film will also get an uncut unrated release for general consumption
Your comments about NC17 are well out of date.
While unrated and NC17 movies were oncd thought of as commercial suicide thats no longer the case .
Basically its why the NC17 rating was introduced in the first place - to avoid the X rating which is not a commercial rating as its usually reserved for porn.
Your theory about the BBFC is imaginative even if its not accurate.
The BBFC may well run as a private business funded by fees but the director and top brass are Government appointed.
James Ferman was famously forced out by Jack Straw who took exception to Ferman passing some hardcore.
The BBFC may not need to report to the Government on a day to day basis but don't be under the illusion that it is anything except a state censor .
It was the Tory Government who gave the BBFC the task of rating home video.
There's no point cutting in some cases, HC2 would presumably make no sense or be pointless with all the material the bbfc find unacceptable cut
The BBFC may not be the ones who physically cut the films but they are responsible for the cuts in any film so its fair to use the term "cut by the BBFC".
IIRC James Ferman fancied himself as a director and went to great lengths with Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer in re-editing various scenes to minimise cuts , including adding/switching footage to the home invasion scene which changes the scene completely.
Apparently it's only the two scenes of sexual violence that they take exception to, I'm sure that the film would still make sense if these scenes were removed, ASF had way more stuff removed and still apparently made sense (i've only seen the uncut version so i don't know personally). I'm betting it's just a controversy building publicity stunt that the distributors are pulling. Either the BBFC will back down after the appeal, or the distributors will settle for cuts to get an 18. Whatever happens, the distributors win when the film sells way more than it originally would have done due to the controversy.
I doubt very much whether the BBFC would concern itself with the issue of continuity in regards to cuts - I thought their role was to outline what was/ wasn't acceptable in regards to specific ratings.
But tbh, like I said in a previous post, my nose has been twitching since I first began reading this thread and I really wouldn't be surprised if the whole BBFC ban thing was bogus.
And to top it all off, 'A Serbian Movie' was passed in the UK with very minimal cuts.
This is a movie that is claimed to be a portrayal of Serbia as a nation and a how people in power can make the people in need do unthinkable acts........... really it's about a man who is paid and drugged into brutally raping and murdering (whilst raping) and also
i'd say that sand paper wanking and barbed wire, poop eating rape is nothing compared to that movie.
BBFC have said:
“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.”
just out of interest, where was that quote taken from?
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/
damn, I really wanted to prove this was just a publicity stunt.:p
It words like that that are going to make a lot of people want to watch it more.
The first film was just silly and not really that graphic, I may never have bothered with the second one but now I want to know how far Six has actually pushed the envelope, I want to know how graphic it is and I want to know what special effects/prosthetics/make up is used. The S/F is what im most interested in
Ah right. I stand corrected.
The Doctor was comical. I could barely tell the two drama student girls apart which meant I barely cared and the Japenese man shouting over most of the dialogue didn;t work and you couldn;t empthathise with him.
But it was poorly acted by all involved and there were so many missed opportunities.
The second movie just sounds like a horror porno.
Tom Six is so near, yet so far with his ideas!
seriously it was not that bad
remember everything sounds far worse when its read out and been thought of in your mind
but when you watch the actual film HC2 i bet youll only see all this barbwire sex and sand paper jerking from the face off the victims and the guy whos doing this stuff
your imagination will be far worse than whats on film as the 1st movie proved
He also pointed out the Crown Prosecution Service always see shit eating as being in breach of the obscene publications act. (Which does rather raise the question of why Salo was passed; I guess the scene in HC2 must be more graphic than the one in Salo.)