#71
| |||
| |||
Quote:
|
#72
| ||||
| ||||
Paramount should have followed suit and reinstated the footage from the Friday films.
__________________ Teddy, I'm a Scotch drinker - you know that. I just have the occasional brandy when I'm not drinking. |
#73
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#74
| |||
| |||
I'm surprised that to date there's been no UK release of the restored My Bloody Valentine. At least we have the unrated prints of Return Of The Living Dead 3 and House III (via Hollywood DVD) on disc. The former also never had a BBFC problem (even with Ferman). |
#75
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
|
#76
| ||||
| ||||
The BBFC have to classify in accordance with UK law when making their decisions so that means a work that may fall foul of the OPA is likely to be cut or rejected. The BBF take their advice from the Obscene Publications Unit and also various leading QC's as to whether a work is likely to be found obscene by a court of law. The BBFC are not above the law, if they were to pass obscene material they could find themselves being prosecuted and also the dealers as well. Personally I find the OPA more disturbing than the DPA. Films that are classified under the VRA are exempt from the DPA. Not the case with the OPA. In any case (and personally speaking) the DPA which applies to extreme pornographic work has no bearing on anything I watch. It is the stuff the BBFC already cut from R18's. There is a great deal of work the BBFC are legally obliged to cut involving various legislation. I think it is the cutting of sexual violence that always gets discussed the most and after all it is (almost) the only reason a film would be rejected today. This is what the BBFC had to say: "The BBFC operates on the precautionary presumption that particular violent scenes, with the potential to cause sexual arrousal, may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification". In making these decisions "the BBFC often consults or carries out research involving experts in Psychology, Psychiatry, Law and Pornography". And of course the VRA also requires the BBFC to intervene when there is a potential for harm to the viewer. Now of course fortunately, the truth is the BBFC rarely ever cut scenes of sexual violence, the vast majority gets through without any problems, it's only really a tiny fraction that ends up getting cut. |
#77
| ||||
| ||||
Just a few things puzzle me... 1.. Films ppl have a choice of what they want to watch and if they want to watch it....if you had a dvd that u think wasnt suitable for minors or your kids then you keep it out the way...and if you didnt like it you wouldnt watch it again... you can avoid watching a film if you dont fancy it ...BUT there isnt much said about ganster, rap etc style of music that causes ppl to go round shooting and acting like ganster..after all the tone and sometimes language in these songs can be appaling because a lot do sing about killing shooting ppl etc BUT the difference this time is if you dont like these songs you cant avoid them.. you hear them on the radio in shops at work etc etc etc... 2 If some off these films are so bad then how come the ppl who censor them havent been affected by these films? after all some one must have seen loads of violence killings gore etc etc ...but have nvr gone on to harm any 1 are they trying to say they are more immune than you average person |
#78
| ||||
| ||||
They are no more immune then we are.
|
#79
| ||||
| ||||
They probably have.
|
#80
| ||||
| ||||
Probably.. but not in the sense they watched a film and gone out and done something to somebody because of what they just watched, because after all they do state that films are the cause of a lot of violence and not much say about music causing it..personaly i think rap ganster etc etc causes more than films these days hence going back to my 1st statement about avoiding films if you want but cant avoid music you hear it every where..
|
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
| |