Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: meh.

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: meh. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: meh. - 7/6/2011 5:04:02 AM   
Schnorbitz

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 18/2/2008
I've been up far too late reading about all this.

I'm off to bed with some sandpaper.

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 151
RE: Banned? -_- (sigh) get a grip. - 7/6/2011 7:24:49 AM   
The_Grin

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 7/6/2011
From: Lanark, Scotland


< Message edited by The_Grin -- 7/6/2011 7:43:19 AM >
Post #: 152
RE: Banned? -_- (sigh) get a grip. - 7/6/2011 8:11:42 AM   
TrendMeUp


Posts: 984
Joined: 11/10/2005
I don't tend to agree with censorship, but I do think the BBFC do a pretty excellent job. It is exceptionally rare that they refuse to give a certificate to something, and when they do it's because they feel that the film invites the audience to either cause harm or to get off on violent acts. HC2 would seem to fall into the latter category. Judging from the BBFC's statement, the film presents extreme sexual violence as something to enjoy and get off on. Hey, I might be wrong, but that's what it sounds like. That's been something that will get your film refused a certificate for many years, and I think there's good reasoning behind that.

Would people prefer we had no film censorship system at all?


_____________________________

http://thatgumyoulikeblog.wordpress.com - a film blog

(in reply to The_Grin)
Post #: 153
RE: meh. - 7/6/2011 11:22:15 AM   
littlemoog

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 14/1/2009
I realise that my opinion will not be a popular one, but I totally agree with censorship and in this case the banning of this film. Whilst I don't believe that watching violent and graphic films creates serial killers and rapists, I do think that our society it becoming more and more desensitised to violent and sexual imagery. Films such as this are being made as entertainment or art- What does that say about our society's moral standing? This isnt about freedom of speech it is just not right.
Post #: 154
RE: - 7/6/2011 11:43:01 AM   
tattoodobby

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 7/6/2011
Im a big horror fan but the mere thought of Human Centipede First Sequence made my stomach turn and by reading about the details of this sequel I dont understand how you can class it as entertaining to watch this level of depravity....we all know that things like this go on and that there are some very sick individuals out there but I dont believe that it has a place within the realms of entertainment....it is taking the genre too far....Horror doesnt need to have this level of brutality!
Post #: 155
Tom Six IS a fucking idiot. - 7/6/2011 11:43:56 AM   
Macavity


Posts: 472
Joined: 14/4/2006
"My dear people it is a f****cking MOVIE." Tom Six

Silly man. 'Fucking' censored only has two stars.
Post #: 156
RE: The Human Centipede II Rejected By BBFC - 7/6/2011 11:58:09 AM   
MoBiUGeArSkIn


Posts: 385
Joined: 3/10/2005
I'll watch anything once... but reading that made me feel a bit sick.

_____________________________

You're not going crazy, Arthur. You're going sane in a crazy world!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 157
RE: meh. - 7/6/2011 12:04:16 PM   
Rawbeard

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 4/8/2008
I don't agree with censorship BUT the description of the stuff in Human Centipede 2 just boggles my mind as to why anyone would want to watch this shit? and to the prick of a Director claiming it's art! Fuck Off, you didn't film this as "art" you just tried to come up with the sickest thing you could think off and filmed it, to stir up controversy and then pull the "but it's art" bullshit.

I haven't watched A Serbian Film, and have no intention to do so because I can't see why anyone would want to watch this

Post #: 158
RE: Forced Defecation?? - 7/6/2011 12:04:20 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: benskelly


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

Is it actually illegal to own these films in the UK, or is it just illegal for them to be sold/distributed/broadcast? It seems a bit unlikely you'd get fined or go to jail for owning a piece of fiction.


Also, lol at the notion of America being a paragon of liberalism. My mum was there a couple of weeks ago and it was illegal to buy a beer on a Sunday in the state she was in. I'll take fractionally stricter movie censorship over that shit any day



Your Mom must have been in the deep South, my friend.

Where I think they just buy their beers on every other day of the week...and then DRINK them on Sunday.

But you're right it's exactly the same kind of censorship.


She was - it was Georgia. And I don't recall stating it was exactly the same kind of censorship.

(in reply to benskelly)
Post #: 159
RE: Who funded this? - 7/6/2011 1:42:44 PM   
waltham1979


Posts: 1221
Joined: 18/3/2008
From: San-Diago, which is German for 'Whales virgina'...
Can't believe my post got deleated and you kept most of the other off topic shite in?! took me fookin ages!!

Bastards!!

Anyway my point was along the lines of glad they've banned the film. Bad taste for the sake of bad taste; the director thinks it's 'art'?! He needs therapy!! When are we gonna draw the line with movies...!? Who finds this shit entertaining?? more concerned about how de-censorised as a civilized society we are becoming when bollocks like this is even argued as something people wanna watch?!

_____________________________

I just wish stuff like, I don't know, the slow & systemic CRATERING of this country could inspire the same call-to-arms as Batman casting
Post #: 160
RE: - 7/6/2011 2:32:17 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 2/9/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulmitchell

Hang on a fucking minute winkle, the film is an 18 cert. I am 43 going on 12,I will make my own mind up whether to watch this shite or not,I am responsible enough to know right from wrong,sometimes.please disagree with me someone


Totally agree with this...

Post #: 161
Let's not get carried away - 7/6/2011 3:18:44 PM   
ChudMonkey


Posts: 130
Joined: 29/7/2007
From: London
for a start no-one on here has actually seen the film so all this hyperventilating over how sick and depraved it is is a moot point - you really can't criticise something until you've seen it. If I remember correctly there was a lot of ho-ha about the first film by the way it was described in the press but as many people have stated on here once you actually watch the movie it's not actually that graphic (much like Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Child's Play, Hostel, Saw etc aren't nearly as repulsive as the likes of the Daily Mail would have your believe).

It seems to me people are getting their knickers in a twist over a handful of scenes picked out by the BBFC - who's to say the whole movie isn't the next Reservoir Dogs (another film that on paper appeared more violent than it actually was). I doubt it but you get my point - I'll reserve judgement until I actually see it.

I for one would love to see both movies (just waiting for HMV to knock the price down on HC1) and A Serbian Film (although that's quite cheap now...must get round to picking it up). Having seen the very close-up female castration scene in Antichrist I really can't imagine anything is more nasty than that (and for the most part that film was really quite dull).



_____________________________

Top 10 of 2013 so far:
1. Mud
2. Philomena
3. Before Midnight
4. The Way Way Back
5. Spring Breakers
6. In The House
7. Django Unchained
8. Only God Forgives
9. Tattoo Nation
10. Iron Man 3
Post #: 162
RE: Let's not get carried away - 7/6/2011 3:28:48 PM   
Ulmaceae


Posts: 100
Joined: 2/2/2007
From: Bristol
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChudMonkey
It seems to me people are getting their knickers in a twist over a handful of scenes picked out by the BBFC - who's to say the whole movie isn't the next Reservoir Dogs


If it were a "handful of scenes", the BBFC would have identified these to the Director for them to be amended, allowing Tom Six to to get a certificate to distribute.

From the BBFC's statement, it seems to be more than a "handful of scenes"

_____________________________

Andy, Bristol
Thankyou for not mentioning Dutch Elm disease

(in reply to ChudMonkey)
Post #: 163
RE: - 7/6/2011 3:41:18 PM   
Ulmaceae


Posts: 100
Joined: 2/2/2007
From: Bristol
quote:

ORIGINAL: kpenga

why did he use 4 stars to cover just 1 letter?


Because it's the only time he'll get 4 stars for a film?

I'll get me coat


_____________________________

Andy, Bristol
Thankyou for not mentioning Dutch Elm disease
Post #: 164
RE: - 7/6/2011 3:44:25 PM   
skeletonjack


Posts: 1299
Joined: 30/9/2005
Basically I agree with all Tom Six says. Whilst the subject matter may not be my cup of tea, I'd much rather decide for myself if it's suitable for me to watch.
From the BBFC spoilers I probably wouldn't have watched this, but as it is a work of pure fiction I shouldn't be told that I can't view it.
The first film (which I have seen) was nowhere near as graphic or sick as some will claim, presumably people who haven't actually seen it, much in the same way that people condemning this latest film wont have seen it.
Whilst it seems only a small minority of people would want to watch it they should be able to. If you don't want to watch something simply don't watch it, but don't force your views onto others.
Post #: 165
RE: - 7/6/2011 4:01:35 PM   
sillitoechris

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 24/2/2008
It is art?

Funny how people can claim anything as art ...

To be fair to the BBFC and as the article states - they dont do this very often anymore - and seeing as none of us have seen the movie we can only assume it must be apretty unpleasant f+-king film to warrant this ban .. so good on em!

To say a horror films only redeeming factor is that it needs to be horrific? and deserves to be seen? Ridiciulous! - this is not a documentrya where horrific images can be classed as inofrmative - its a movie wallowing in horrific sexual and abusive imagery as a means of entertainment. I hate this kinda crap!

Reminds me of those face of death movies thaht were out in the nineties which were banned and only grubby teenage boys wanted to watch them becuase they were trying to show off how tough they were - when everyone knows these movies arent to be enjoyed, but rather endured as a spectacle of how horrific a movie can be without being banned - and looks like theyve succeeded with this release ....

i remember watching the trailer for Human centipede 1 and thinking 'who would finance this shit - yet alone who would bother to watch it! (and heaven forbid enjpy it)

show some class people avoid shit like this ....and good riddance to bad rubbish in the form of human centipede 2....
Post #: 166
RE: RE: - 7/6/2011 4:07:05 PM   
sillitoechris

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 24/2/2008
Chudmonkey

I for one would love to see both movies (just waiting for HMV to knock the price down on HC1) and A Serbian Film (although that's quite cheap now...must get round to picking it up).




Party at Chudmonkeys later?

(in reply to sillitoechris)
Post #: 167
RE: Tom Six IS a fucking idiot. - 7/6/2011 4:20:05 PM   
nutteronabus


Posts: 646
Joined: 27/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macavity

"My dear people it is a f****cking MOVIE." Tom Six

Silly man. 'Fucking' censored only has two stars.



I'm more shocked by his BLATANT CENSORSHIP.

_____________________________

“You think you’re so cultured because you’ve gone to see Cats? You pampered upper-class drug-taking bitch!”

(in reply to Macavity)
Post #: 168
RE: Original not very good anyway - 7/6/2011 5:07:39 PM   
sillitoechris

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 24/2/2008
Im not sure if the argument about - 'let us decide' is completely watertight....

can we honestly believe taht just having anything out there in teh public domain is acceptable - people may say 'they can see it on the internet' but were not talking about the internet - were talking about having this on shelves in dvd rental shops and peoples shelves at home.....

by condoning these sorts of movies and putting them in the open we are supporting their production and encouraging people to continue to make them. People who crave this sort of thing will seek it out from any source they can - even if it is banned, but by making it freely available it doesnt take a genius to see that itll be easier to buy and therefore more likely to be seen by people - people who it will offend, make sick and leave them thinking 'what kind of world are we living in when you can release whatever sick sit you like on a dvd and claim its entertainment'.

People who make these movies deserve to earn their living from adult subscription only websites and seedy imported dvd shops in the grimy corner of every city (just as every other sadist pornographer does) ... NOT on the shelves of our highstreet stores.





Post #: 169
RE: unbelievable - 7/6/2011 5:27:07 PM  1 votes
Notmyrealusername

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 26/3/2011
people keep saying "they cant decide for me what I can watch" and "i dont believe in censorship"

Such broad statements can only work in a black and white world. And are as pointless and naive as the polar opposite view where all violent and sexual acts are banned.

But the world isnt black and white, its murky shades of grey.

Obviously the extreme example would be a film consisting entirely of actual rape footage with no artisitic merit and designed purely for the sexual titilation of those who want to see it.

Should that be "banned?" of course it should. But when you start banning the extremes then a line has to be drawn. And thats what the BBFC has done.

In consultation with the police and with the latest information regarding the influence of watching violence and sex, theyve drawn a line in the sand with clear and set guidelines. This way film makers know before hand what the criteria is for a release in this country.

The government has a duty and responsibility to protect its citizens from the perverse and obscene. The BBFC is the tool it uses to enforce that. Theyre not a group of old women stuck in the 1950s, theyre a serious bunch of dedicated and smart people trying to balance that hard line between freedom of speech and protecting the people of this country from obscene and disgusting material.





Post #: 170
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 5:40:20 PM   
skinfreak

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 10/8/2008
No. The is not art. Art should provoke, certainly, and yes offend in many cases. But what is the rationale for this? What sort of statement is this supposed to make? Is this the social commentary of our day? That our lives are so monotonous that we have to seek glorification in sexual torture and murder?

Horror films are not my cup of tea and I have no intention of seeing this or the original, but Jesus there are some things that as a society we should draw a line at. If he can argue his case then fine, but he cannot. It is merely a "movie" as he puts it. Well that makes it even sicker if the idea you can put as much depravity on the screen is ok just because you can. Just because you can does not mean you should.

Well done BBFC. And this Director should be ashamed of himself.
Post #: 171
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 5:57:33 PM   
sillitoechris

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 24/2/2008
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha!

is varkko seriously defending The Human Centipede 2 as art?

LMFAO!

'Dont judge me with 'your definition of normal' whilst I jerk off to a woman being raped with barbwire' - get a life mate

(in reply to skinfreak)
Post #: 172
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 6:02:56 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
Just reading some of the above you would think the Daily Mail readership had hijacked this thread.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to sillitoechris)
Post #: 173
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 6:09:12 PM   
sillitoechris

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 24/2/2008
doesnt it just? I am totally not a daily mail reader

but jesus - when the description of a movie is enough to turn your stomach and then defended as art by the jerkoff director and every knob who likes seeing people raped and tortured for fun-times.....

well screw me for getting my back up!

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 174
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 6:09:26 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
Just reading some of the above you would think the Daily Mail readership had hijacked this thread

Entertaining though.

< Message edited by superdan -- 7/6/2011 6:10:35 PM >

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 175
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 6:30:41 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18296
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
I personally don't care, that said I have learnt some interesting things about what sort of porn is available now having read this thread.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 176
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 7:07:00 PM   
Notmyrealusername

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 26/3/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

Just reading some of the above you would think the Daily Mail readership had hijacked this thread.


wow, what an oversimplified generic statement. but then it is much easier to belittle those who agree with the BBFC decision by insinuating theyre conservative prudes.

From what the BBFC said it didnt just not meet their guidelines, they actually think it may be obscene.

Yes thats right....a film that can be classified as obscene in 2011. This coming from the BBFC who have passed such titles as "anal latex whores" "puke and dump on me" and "leather bound dykes from hell"

And the art question is also nonsense. They intentionally made the most disgusting movie they could think of, with no artistic intent or purpose greater than a calculated attempt to make as much money as possible from the depiction of graphic sustained sexual violence. And to think people will defend this bullshit as his right to make art is so retarded it makes me want to vomit. If hes truly dedicated to his "art" then make sure all the worldwide profits from the film go to charites that help those affected by sexual violence. Oh no he wont do that because the guys an ass and those that defend his right to make such rubbish because its "art" are asses too

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 177
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 7:41:23 PM   
Rockin Ricky Rialto


Posts: 424
Joined: 18/6/2007

"leather bound dykes from hell"

http://pichaus.com/dick-van-dyke-mary-@cd056bb98f97d43178c464077c2bdd88/


< Message edited by Rockin Ricky Rialto -- 7/6/2011 7:42:41 PM >


_____________________________

"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? "

"Hanging Lady: Nervous?
Ted Striker: Yes.
Hanging Lady: First time?
Ted Striker: No, I've been nervous lots of times. "

(in reply to Notmyrealusername)
Post #: 178
RE: Banned? -_- pffft! - 7/6/2011 7:56:48 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Notmyrealusername


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

Just reading some of the above you would think the Daily Mail readership had hijacked this thread.


wow, what an oversimplified generic statement. but then it is much easier to belittle those who agree with the BBFC decision by insinuating theyre conservative prudes.

From what the BBFC said it didnt just not meet their guidelines, they actually think it may be obscene.

Yes thats right....a film that can be classified as obscene in 2011. This coming from the BBFC who have passed such titles as "anal latex whores" "puke and dump on me" and "leather bound dykes from hell"

And the art question is also nonsense. They intentionally made the most disgusting movie they could think of, with no artistic intent or purpose greater than a calculated attempt to make as much money as possible from the depiction of graphic sustained sexual violence. And to think people will defend this bullshit as his right to make art is so retarded it makes me want to vomit. If hes truly dedicated to his "art" then make sure all the worldwide profits from the film go to charites that help those affected by sexual violence. Oh no he wont do that because the guys an ass and those that defend his right to make such rubbish because its "art" are asses too


Say hi to Quentin Letts for me.


_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Notmyrealusername)
Post #: 179
RE: - 7/6/2011 8:38:38 PM   
Schimchs


Posts: 135
Joined: 22/8/2010
On a personal level, the film doesn't appeal to me - but then I'm not much of a horror fan anyway (not sure I'd want to see that sandpaper scene either )

On a more objective level ,whilst I don't necessarily agree with the decision (banning a film on subjective / taste grounds), I think not certifying the film was probably all that the BBFC could do. I guess they have guidelines that they have to follow, and when something comes along like this, I'm not sure they were left with much choice. Whether or not the film is in 'bad taste' is a purely subjective thing, and I guess it must be hard to objectively categorize any film.

As others have pointed out, in this digital age, folks are still going to find a way to get hold of a copy of this, even if it's not released here. So the 'ban' isn't really going to be that enforceable. (Unless Big Brother is watching us )


At the risk of getting flamed, I think the BBFC serves an important role - if we didn't have an agency reviewing material, then we'd end up with all sorts of stuff getting released here - and I'm not just talking about films with dodgy use of sandpaper.

I've always thought that classifying films purely on age groups is a bit odd - like most other age ratings - but I guess it helps us get a general idea about a film. Perhaps we need another classification above 18 - which would indicate that the film might be upsetting to some folks. Something like 18a ? For 18 years and over, but with the caveat that viewers should "be advised".

This may well have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread - so apologies if I'm repeating other comments / ideas.

Going back to my corner now.

_____________________________

"When we get to twenty tell me, I'm gonna throw up"
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: meh. Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141