Believe it or not - one campaigner tried to do exactly that in the UK some years ago.
Can't recall the specifics but basically anything over a PG would be banned on home video.
Personally I'd rather meet a video nasties fan in a dark alley over any nutter who seriously believes in such a deluded policy
Yes now you said that it does seem to ring a bell, someone who was part of the Mary Whitehouse brigade i think lol
The first quarter of the movie is the closest a film has come to scaring me! But I was quite young. Then it fell apart and really shows its age now. Even at the time I thought the sequel was odd, which I now see is one of the most unintentionally homosexual horrors of all time.
What were your favs back then?
seriously one of the most boring series of movies ive ever seen lol. They just got worse as they went on.
I loved stuff like Halloween, Child's play, Alien, the hills have eyes, Texas chainsaw and the exorcist. I also got introduced to really bad copies of a lot of Fulci's and bava's films.
Yes now you said that it does seem to ring a bell, someone who was part of the Mary Whitehouse brigade i think lol
seriously one of the most boring series of movies ive ever seen lol. They just got worse as they went on.
I loved stuff like Halloween, Child's play, Alien, the hills have eyes, Texas chainsaw and the exorcist. I also got introduced to really bad copies of a lot of Fulci's and bava's films.
Apart from Childs Play I have all those movies , including several from Fulci and Bava .
Of course had to get New York Ripper on Bluray from the US as it was cut in the UK - but still a far cry from the hard to believe legendary police escort it had out of the country in 1982
The C4 documentary Sex and the Censors interviews some really PC right on female examiners and they all state Ripper as the worst film they ever saw.
Apart from Childs Play I have all those movies , including several from Fulci and Bava .
Of course had to get New York Ripper on Bluray from the US as it was cut in the UK - but still a far cry from the hard to believe legendary police escort it had out of the country in 1982
The C4 documentary Sex and the Censors interviews some really PC right on female examiners and they all state Ripper as the worst film they ever saw.
How times change
I love Fulci and Bava, I think it comes from watching their films from a young age. You can't beat the signature fulci eye gouge
If ripper is the worst thing they have ever seen they really haven't watched much. The worst thing about that film was quacking lol
seriously one of the most boring series of movies ive ever seen lol. They just got worse as they went on.
I loved stuff like Halloween, Child's play, Alien, the hills have eyes, Texas chainsaw and the exorcist. I also got introduced to really bad copies of a lot of Fulci's and bava's films.
Can't disagree with that .
Texas Chainsaw will always be a fave, and I love the OTT sequel too -- one of the funniest films I've ever seen due to Moseley. Always had a soft spot for the 4th Halloween movie because it's the only one where I don't want Michael to win!
I actually got bored with The Excorcist when I first saw it! One of my faves now. Didn't really like the Child's Play sequels. Loved Argento's work and a lot of grainy 70's and 80's television movies -- movies are too glossy now.
Texas Chainsaw will always be a fave, and I love the OTT sequel too -- one of the funniest films I've ever seen due to Moseley. Always had a soft spot for the 4th Halloween movie because it's the only one where I don't want Michael to win!
I actually got bored with The Excorcist when I first saw it! One of my faves now. Didn't really like the Child's Play sequels. Loved Argento's work and a lot of grainy 70's and 80's television movies -- movies are too glossy now.
Been collecting the Fulci movies.
Chainsaw is one of the best films ever made and yes i love the second one to, Bill is a legend, I pretty much watch anything with him in.
I lost faith in the halloween films after the first three up until the last two (zombie's ) They became all very pretty teen girl running around without hair and make up out of place. Ive always hated that in movies.
Argento's Suspiria and Inferno are again on my favourite movies list .
I know what you mean about today's films being to glossy, they are way to clinical and polished, scrap the CGI and bring back proper special effects, but at least we still have one director who is still trying to keep the 70's/80's style alive :D
I watched a small bit of the first film but found it too gross to continue watching.
The sequel sounds even more pointlessly disgusting. But, as other posters have said, is probably no worse than films like the Saw franchise, which I also couldn't watch.
I found Hostel very upsetting and I assume the BBF were rather toothless nowadays in allowing such things.
Have they been ordered to tighten up their rules?
I watched a small bit of the first film but found it too gross to continue watching.
The sequel sounds even more pointlessly disgusting. But, as other posters have said, is probably no worse than films like the Saw franchise, which I also couldn't watch.
I found Hostel very upsetting and I assume the BBF were rather toothless nowadays in allowing such things.
Have they been ordered to tighten up their rules?
Saw and Hostel have no sexual elements. ie "sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the centipede" That's the difference.
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
You may be trusted but there are loads of young people out there that probably shouldn't see this sort of thing that can't be trusted
OK fair enough so far.
There are many films where a description of the content could sound disgusting but they don't get banned.
You've still not really said why you think British people need a state board to tell us what we can watch but other countries don't.
Why must the decision be taken away from us?
Why not be like other countries where the content and opinion of the board would be clearly noted - as in the US - but ultimately it is the persons right to make their own decision armed with all the info.
Quite a sweeping generalisation you have there.
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.
Don't get me wrong, quite a few of the BBFC's decisions had me headdesking, but other times, their recommendations make sense. On top of that, I trust BBFC a lot more than I trust the MPAA because the MPAA has so many conflicts of interest that it's not funny. To be fair, the MPAA does try its best but, like all boards of certification around the world including the BBFC, it can be inconsistent and flawed.
I honestly can't see how one could compare boards with each other when each board's decisions are heavily based on cultural issues and laws unique to their country.
Examples:
- The MPAA aren't keen on films that condone disrespecting certain religions, contain gratuitous nudity including showing pubic hair and erections, blah blah
- The BBFC aren't keen on films that condone violence against women and animals, gratuitous nudity, blah blah.
- Eirin (Japanese board of certification) aren't keen on films that condone pyramid schemes, violence against elderly people and positive portrayal of drug abuse, and showing detailed scenes of 'realistic' scams and blah blah.
- as far as I can see, the Netherlands aren't keen on films that condone discrimination, drug or alcohol abuse and vulgar language.
With those differences in mind, how could one compare one board with another, let alone make a claim that the UK is the only one that does this kind of thing?
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.
Both DW and LHOTL remained cut or banned on home video many years after Ferman was long gone.
Depends if you define seven years as 'many',as Death Wish was resubmitted and passed uncut for DVD release in 2006. A cut version was released on VHS (but not DVD) in 2000.
For a long time i've been vehemently anti-censorship, but i think based on some things i've experienced and some films i've seen, I do think something is needed.
When I worked in a video shop i'd invariably have parents trying to rent horror films for their kids, sometimes with the kid even there urging them to get it.
You've also got certain corners of society where teenagers think nothing of 'stabbing someone up' and appear completely desensitized to violence and horror.
I've even seen a comment on DS from someone who watched 'a serbian film' and said it wasn't very horrific. And it makes you wonder that if a person can't find baby rape horrific in any context then what exactly do they find horrific?
So i wonder if having something in place that prevents certain people from seeing certain things wouldn't be a good thing?
I have watched far more horrible stuff that this film..I saw Penance not so long ago about
this weirdo wanting to make women pure and cutting off their clitorus, and the wierdo then ran a cold icy bath, got in it and after he cut off his balls, you could see his raised hand with him holding it..
now that shouldve been banned..stupid film that was too
Believe it or not - one campaigner tried to do exactly that in the UK some years ago.
Can't recall the specifics but basically anything over a PG would be banned on home video.
Personally I'd rather meet a video nasties fan in a dark alley over any nutter who seriously believes in such a deluded policy
It was David Alton MP, the most illiberal of Liberal Democrats. Unsurprisingly, his ridiculous campaign to destroy the home video industry only gained support amongst rabid puritans.
You are aware that Denise Fergus' son, James Bulger was only a toddler when he was tortured and murdered by Thompson and Venables who were heavily influenced by the Childsplay films or are you just being ignorant and looking for a reaction?
Find me a single shred of credible evidence that Thomson and Venables ever watched Child's Play 3. It seems a bit silly of you to call others 'ignorant' when you spout an urban myth as if it's a fact.
For a long time i've been vehemently anti-censorship, but i think based on some things i've experienced and some films i've seen, I do think something is needed.
When I worked in a video shop i'd invariably have parents trying to rent horror films for their kids, sometimes with the kid even there urging them to get it.
You've also got certain corners of society where teenagers think nothing of 'stabbing someone up' and appear completely desensitized to violence and horror.
I've even seen a comment on DS from someone who watched 'a serbian film' and said it wasn't very horrific. And it makes you wonder that if a person can't find baby rape horrific in any context then what exactly do they find horrific?
So i wonder if having something in place that prevents certain people from seeing certain things wouldn't be a good thing?
The acting in A Serbian Film is so poor it is hard to take seriously while watching it, it's just that I found it stays with you.
The bbfc also downgraded Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron from 18 to 15 this week. I'm more surprised at that; that film is nasty.
I've even seen a comment on DS from someone who watched 'a serbian film' and said it wasn't very horrific. And it makes you wonder that if a person can't find baby rape horrific in any context then what exactly do they find horrific?
So i wonder if having something in place that prevents certain people from seeing certain things wouldn't be a good thing?
To be honest, i can understand why someone wouldn't find that particular scene as horrific as it should be. While the idea of the scene is undeniably horrible, the way the scene is shot makes it obvious that the "baby" is just a fake plastic dummy, making it kind of lose the impact that they were aiming for. For me, the sounds of that scene were more disturbing than the images, i actually think that scene would have had more of an impact if it had taken place entirely offscreen with only the sounds being heard.
That's the main problem with A Serbian Fillm, it was going so far out of it's way to try and shock you with images, that it just descended into OTT farce, the scene near the end where the protagonist forces his erect penis into a man's eye-socket in order to kill him made me laugh out loud because it was so daft.
To be honest, i can understand why someone wouldn't find that particular scene as horrific as it should be. While the idea of the scene is undeniably horrible, the way the scene is shot makes it obvious that the "baby" is just a fake plastic dummy, making it kind of lose the impact that they were aiming for. For me, the sounds of that scene were more disturbing than the images, i actually think that scene would have had more of an impact if it had taken place entirely offscreen with only the sounds being heard.
That's the main problem with A Serbian Fillm, it was going so far out of it's way to try and shock you with images, that it just descended into OTT farce, the scene near the end where the protagonist forces his erect penis into a man's eye-socket in order to kill him made me laugh out loud because it was so daft.
Indeed. Moral minority campaigners can make an Alice Cooper concert sound like the most depraved spectacle ever, yet the gore is so unrealistic and the violence so pantomime that it would be pretty hard for anyone who had actually seen it to take offence.
Its silly to say something should be banned just because kids might see it, like ive said before its the parents responsibility to make sure their kids don't watch anything they don't want them to see. The film industry has no responsibility for anyone's kids.
You may as well ban everything on tv and every film if that's the case because if someone is going to go out and kill/beat up/rape they could very well have got the idea from a pre watershed soap. My cousin almost jumped out of his window once because he wanted to fly like superman. Should we ban superman movies and cartoons because they but the idea in his head?
While people may dispute the reasons for banning this film, the flip side is that it's hard to think of any good reason for releasing it.[/
I watched the first film a few weeks ago when it was shown on the Syfy channel. The plot was thin, the acting rubbish and it was gross in some parts. Most people that I know that saw the fim agreed with me and wouldn't have bothered with the second film.
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.
its the parents responsibility to make sure their kids don't watch anything they don't want them to see
But some parents are utterly gormless when it comes to this issue. Because their child tells them "everyone else has seen it" they'll dutifully march down the video shop and rent it.
Some parents, equally, do take the time to look at the content of the film and/or the certificate and will make an informed decision as to whether or not the child can watch it.
Unfortunately the majority of people have to suffer because of the minority of parents who don't care.
But some parents are utterly gormless when it comes to this issue. Because their child tells them "everyone else has seen it" they'll dutifully march down the video shop and rent it.
Some parents, equally, do take the time to look at the content of the film and/or the certificate and will make an informed decision as to whether or not the child can watch it.
Unfortunately the majority of people have to suffer because of the minority of parents who don't care.
In which case, why should gormless parents be allowed to purchase alcohol and tobacco products which they might share with their kids? Surely such products will cause a more immediate hazard to the children?
[Helen Lovejoy]Won't somebody please think of the children?![/Helen Lovejoy]
Perhaps we should ban the sale of booze and **** for the sake of the children?:rolleyes:
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.
Besides if we are to make the case of desensitizing violent material adding to society's issues, then there is a bigger argument against video games, especially those made by Rockstar games. Even professional wrestling could be a bigger burden as a) it's always been aimed at kids, even when adult esque, and b) it features cartoon like violence.
I honestly belive something like Eastenders is more harmful than extreme horror, due to its grim reality, morally questionable characters and patronising view of "working class" + prime time, heavily hyped slot.
But some parents are utterly gormless when it comes to this issue. Because their child tells them "everyone else has seen it" they'll dutifully march down the video shop and rent it.
Some parents, equally, do take the time to look at the content of the film and/or the certificate and will make an informed decision as to whether or not the child can watch it.
Unfortunately the majority of people have to suffer because of the minority of parents who don't care.
In the majority of cases its not likely to affect any young person watching it anyway.
Its just people making a connection between extreme horror in film and the real horrors that some people carry out on other people.
Comments
Yes now you said that it does seem to ring a bell, someone who was part of the Mary Whitehouse brigade i think lol
seriously one of the most boring series of movies ive ever seen lol. They just got worse as they went on.
I loved stuff like Halloween, Child's play, Alien, the hills have eyes, Texas chainsaw and the exorcist. I also got introduced to really bad copies of a lot of Fulci's and bava's films.
Of course had to get New York Ripper on Bluray from the US as it was cut in the UK - but still a far cry from the hard to believe legendary police escort it had out of the country in 1982
The C4 documentary Sex and the Censors interviews some really PC right on female examiners and they all state Ripper as the worst film they ever saw.
How times change
I love Fulci and Bava, I think it comes from watching their films from a young age. You can't beat the signature fulci eye gouge
If ripper is the worst thing they have ever seen they really haven't watched much. The worst thing about that film was quacking lol
Can't disagree with that
Texas Chainsaw will always be a fave, and I love the OTT sequel too -- one of the funniest films I've ever seen due to Moseley. Always had a soft spot for the 4th Halloween movie because it's the only one where I don't want Michael to win!
I actually got bored with The Excorcist when I first saw it! One of my faves now. Didn't really like the Child's Play sequels. Loved Argento's work and a lot of grainy 70's and 80's television movies -- movies are too glossy now.
Been collecting the Fulci movies.
Chainsaw is one of the best films ever made and yes i love the second one to, Bill is a legend, I pretty much watch anything with him in.
I lost faith in the halloween films after the first three up until the last two (zombie's
Argento's Suspiria and Inferno are again on my favourite movies list .
I know what you mean about today's films being to glossy, they are way to clinical and polished, scrap the CGI and bring back proper special effects, but at least we still have one director who is still trying to keep the 70's/80's style alive
The sequel sounds even more pointlessly disgusting. But, as other posters have said, is probably no worse than films like the Saw franchise, which I also couldn't watch.
I found Hostel very upsetting and I assume the BBF were rather toothless nowadays in allowing such things.
Have they been ordered to tighten up their rules?
Saw and Hostel have no sexual elements. ie "sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the centipede" That's the difference.
You may be trusted but there are loads of young people out there that probably shouldn't see this sort of thing that can't be trusted
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.
Don't get me wrong, quite a few of the BBFC's decisions had me headdesking, but other times, their recommendations make sense. On top of that, I trust BBFC a lot more than I trust the MPAA because the MPAA has so many conflicts of interest that it's not funny. To be fair, the MPAA does try its best but, like all boards of certification around the world including the BBFC, it can be inconsistent and flawed.
I honestly can't see how one could compare boards with each other when each board's decisions are heavily based on cultural issues and laws unique to their country.
Examples:
- The MPAA aren't keen on films that condone disrespecting certain religions, contain gratuitous nudity including showing pubic hair and erections, blah blah
- The BBFC aren't keen on films that condone violence against women and animals, gratuitous nudity, blah blah.
- Eirin (Japanese board of certification) aren't keen on films that condone pyramid schemes, violence against elderly people and positive portrayal of drug abuse, and showing detailed scenes of 'realistic' scams and blah blah.
- as far as I can see, the Netherlands aren't keen on films that condone discrimination, drug or alcohol abuse and vulgar language.
With those differences in mind, how could one compare one board with another, let alone make a claim that the UK is the only one that does this kind of thing?
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.
Depends if you define seven years as 'many',as Death Wish was resubmitted and passed uncut for DVD release in 2006. A cut version was released on VHS (but not DVD) in 2000.
For a long time i've been vehemently anti-censorship, but i think based on some things i've experienced and some films i've seen, I do think something is needed.
When I worked in a video shop i'd invariably have parents trying to rent horror films for their kids, sometimes with the kid even there urging them to get it.
You've also got certain corners of society where teenagers think nothing of 'stabbing someone up' and appear completely desensitized to violence and horror.
I've even seen a comment on DS from someone who watched 'a serbian film' and said it wasn't very horrific. And it makes you wonder that if a person can't find baby rape horrific in any context then what exactly do they find horrific?
So i wonder if having something in place that prevents certain people from seeing certain things wouldn't be a good thing?
The acting in A Serbian Film is so poor it is hard to take seriously while watching it, it's just that I found it stays with you.
The bbfc also downgraded Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron from 18 to 15 this week. I'm more surprised at that; that film is nasty.
To be honest, i can understand why someone wouldn't find that particular scene as horrific as it should be. While the idea of the scene is undeniably horrible, the way the scene is shot makes it obvious that the "baby" is just a fake plastic dummy, making it kind of lose the impact that they were aiming for. For me, the sounds of that scene were more disturbing than the images, i actually think that scene would have had more of an impact if it had taken place entirely offscreen with only the sounds being heard.
That's the main problem with A Serbian Fillm, it was going so far out of it's way to try and shock you with images, that it just descended into OTT farce, the scene near the end where the protagonist forces his erect penis into a man's eye-socket in order to kill him made me laugh out loud because it was so daft.
You may as well ban everything on tv and every film if that's the case because if someone is going to go out and kill/beat up/rape they could very well have got the idea from a pre watershed soap. My cousin almost jumped out of his window once because he wanted to fly like superman. Should we ban superman movies and cartoons because they but the idea in his head?
But some parents are utterly gormless when it comes to this issue. Because their child tells them "everyone else has seen it" they'll dutifully march down the video shop and rent it.
Some parents, equally, do take the time to look at the content of the film and/or the certificate and will make an informed decision as to whether or not the child can watch it.
Unfortunately the majority of people have to suffer because of the minority of parents who don't care.
[Helen Lovejoy]Won't somebody please think of the children?![/Helen Lovejoy]
Perhaps we should ban the sale of booze and **** for the sake of the children?:rolleyes:
Besides if we are to make the case of desensitizing violent material adding to society's issues, then there is a bigger argument against video games, especially those made by Rockstar games. Even professional wrestling could be a bigger burden as a) it's always been aimed at kids, even when adult esque, and b) it features cartoon like violence.
I honestly belive something like Eastenders is more harmful than extreme horror, due to its grim reality, morally questionable characters and patronising view of "working class" + prime time, heavily hyped slot.
In the majority of cases its not likely to affect any young person watching it anyway.
Its just people making a connection between extreme horror in film and the real horrors that some people carry out on other people.