Arrow Video - Inferno - The Archive

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

Presumably the probable cuts to I Spit On Your Grave will provoke the same reaction?

I would imagine so. If the BBFC are ridiculous enough to cut I Spit On Your Grave then they deserve to be hear from people who object. If they are rational over it and pass it uncut they should be congratulated for their sense.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Calum

Worth remembering that if Inferno was coming out from certain other UK companies you'd be getting naff all with it

This to me more than compensates for losing 5 secs of a cat chewing a live mouse. The length of which is roughly equal to the length of time it takes to read this post incidentally.

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by Calum

Worth remembering that if Inferno was coming out from certain other UK companies you'd be getting naff all with it (And from their recent record who knows if BU will invest in new goodies to accompany the feature). I hope others will consider this when Inferno hits the shelves in glorious HD! (And, yes, before anyone brings it up - of course I'm close to these releases: which is why I get so bummed when something like Cannibal Apocalypse is announced and there's nothing on the DVD but the movie...)

Certainly valid, but I suspect I am not the only person who is not that bothered by extras. I would rather a high quality, uncut barebones release. I can't help but think that extras often take up valuable data space on a disk better utilised in "Ultrabit" encoding.

I'd sacrifice all the trailer, featurettes, posters and fancy sleeves for the ultimate presentation of the film itself.

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

This to me more than compensates for losing 5 secs of a cat chewing a live mouse. The length of which is roughly equal to the length of time it takes to read this post incidentally.

This is surely irrelevant? The director - for whatever reason - deemed the scene worthy of inclusion. Its length has nothing to do with anything.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Certainly valid, but I suspect I am not the only person who is not that bothered by extras. I would rather a high quality, uncut barebones release. I can't help but think that extras often take up valuable data space on a disk better utilised in "Ultrabit" encoding.

I'd sacrifice all the trailer, featurettes, posters and fancy sleeves for the ultimate presentation of the film itself.

Must admit I feel exactly the opposite.

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Hardly. It takes mere seconds and lets them know what people think. I don't think anyone writing to them expects the decision to be reversed, but it is important that the BBFC are told what people think.

If they are stupid, they must be told they are stupid. Similarly they should be congratulated in events such as the seeing of sanity over such things as Salo or Caligula. They must be held accountable and hear opinion.

I agree. They should know how the public feel about this.

Originally Posted by Philleh

I agree, people started to complain about violence in movies - look what happened. If we all finally start to bitch about art being censored then maybe something can be done?

You know I didn't think censorship was such a big deal any more. I was surprised to see that the BBFC was against animal cruelty in films and actually cut it. I have no problem watching that short of stuff if it's animal killing animal or people killing animals to eat. When it's pure cruelty such as some of the stuff shown on Faces of Death, then it becomes hard to watch for me.

[Almar@Cult Labs]

Ok folks - well we can debate the merits of how the BBFC will react and the unlikeliness that they will change anything but if we don't ever say something then we can't complain that nothing moves forward.

Based on the efforts on here of everyone writing in Arrow have decided they have to try too and are sending in a letter as well. If you feel strongly please do so as well. It should be polite and we have to assume the decision will remain but in any democracy if you feel strongly about something - let the government body responsible know about it!

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Certainly valid, but I suspect I am not the only person who is not that bothered by extras. I would rather a high quality, uncut barebones release. I can't help but think that extras often take up valuable data space on a disk better utilised in "Ultrabit" encoding.

I'd sacrifice all the trailer, featurettes, posters and fancy sleeves for the ultimate presentation of the film itself.

Whilst I respect your opinion it makes me want to bash my head very hard against a wall.

I hope you are the minority. The vast minority. For me, extra features are part of the appeal of ANY purchase and if someone is selling me a movie with nothing else on the disc I feel pretty fricking ripped off.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Calum

For me, extra features are part of the appeal of ANY purchase and if someone is selling me a movie with nothing else on the disc I feel pretty fricking ripped off.

Same here.

[buggenhagen]

I don't really see the point in complaining to the BBFC about it either. As Vincenzo already said their hands are tied by the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 which they have absolutely no power to change. I'm sure that some of the examiners would sympathise to some extent with fans being upset but it's a matter of law so what can they do? It certainly won't hurt for them to know that people are displeased but they'll just have to issue their standard response - which no-one can argue with.

If you really wanted to get things changed then the way to do it would be to contact your MP. Only through an amendment to the law will this be resolved - and the fact that the UK passed a law on the matter way back in 1937 shows how strongly people in this country care about animal welfare. Personally I'd love to see older films uncut and I don't have a problem with the cat & mouse scene for example (infact I think it's daft to cut such sections from films that were made in different times or with different considerations) but I can see why people do have a problem with it and why the law exists. I think that the best that could be expected would be some sort of amendment to exempt films over a certain age (maybe from before films were properly monitored or something) unless there was evidence of exceptional and sustained cruelty - even then I think such a change would be extremely unlikely.