.... I think the point is that one scene leads to another ... continuity wise .. if the few frames were missed from Inferno, it would make absolutely no difference to the rest of the movie. The zombie/shark scene kinda has some relevance (although daft as nuts!) ... implying the disease is no longer isolated. Taxi Driver overhead room shots add to the claustrophobic surroundings which help in Travis' downfall.

Out of interest, no one has mentioned the scene in Inferno where the cats are clearly being thrown on screen!

;)

Can't you tell put the cats obviously loved being hurled at Leigh McCloskey?! It was probably the highlight of their lives!

Just as an aside, and on a related topic, the scene in Martin where a chicken is beheaded has passed through the censors intact, presumably because it was a quick kill that was performed by a slaughterman and filmed 'documentary style', rather than being set up and undertaken by a member of the cast.

Who gives a shit about a poxy mouse?! Cats eat mice. Mice are routinely killed everyday by humans.

The BBFC don't censor people squashing bugs, ants, cockroaches...they be Gods little creations too.

Dumb ass cut for no valid reasons whatsoever.
And ANYONE bitching about the mouse being killed but happy to see the scene of said mouse dying cut, is a ****ing whiny hypocrite anyway.
As with the 'animal cruelty free' garbage on "Cannibal Holocaust"...IF you care so much then why would you even want to own the film even if those scenes are removed?
That film still killed the critters you're weeping over, whether or not you have someone close your eyes for you during those scenes or not.

If you give a rats ass about a rodent, you would not buy the DVD at all anyway. Whether cut or uncut.
Bleat about the cheese nibbler somewhere else.

Tell you what will **** the film though, unless the cut is done very carefully (unlike the last time the scene was cut), and that's the fact that it happens during music playing...thus making it hard to avoid an annoying audio jump at least.
All for a mouse being eaten by a cat.

Dumb cut. Dumb decision.
I guess 'Arrow' were unlucky it wasn't a cockroach being eaten by the cat.
:coolblue:

I watched Inferno on tv last night (Prime) and somehow got the impression the shots of the cat eating the mouse were not staged...
I mean with so many cats running around,one is bound to stumble upon a mouse.
The lizard eating the moth looked possibly staged to me though. ;)

The cat throwing and cats in a bag scene look like worse offenders against the act if throwing and bagging are considered cruel.
I'm certain no cats were really hurt,I wonder about Daria Nicolodi though...

I'd love to know how many whiny ****ers own "Creepshow".
Makes "Cannibal Holocaust" look like a PETA approved film with the amount of cockroaches they must have killed on set.

But....but.....cockroaches are pests.

So are germ filled mice!


But...but...cockroaches are not cute.

Beauty...the...beholder...in...the...is...eye...of .



And even if it was staged. All they did was feed a cat a mouse! Something cats do anyway!

Hey, you own a big snake...you feed it mice. Just like you have to feed any pet.
Filming it while you do it does not change the basic natural fact of something eating something it eats anyway, or turn it into a crime all of a sudden.
And mice are not rare, endangered or protected either.

Move on.

Yes, it is grotesque, but it still wasn't perpetrated for the sake of entertainment. And most of the atrocities were filmed by the liberators, not by the Nazis themselves. There is a WORLD of difference between the recording of historical events and the killing of an animal for a film. Both are pretty ugly, but one of them is an immoral act in and of itself, while the other is the recording of an immoral act perpetrated by others.

I understand what you mean: You've taken my argument to an illogical extreme by saying that if the animal stuff is censored, the Holocaust material should be censored, too. But I've already explained the difference between the two examples, so I won't repeat myself.

Nope, this doesn't hold water, for all the reasons I outlined in earlier posts.

Because one is the recording of an immoral act perpetrated by the filmmakers, while the other is a record of something which happens in the natural world. Both are equally ugly, but the world is an ugly place at times, and to censor material that happens in the real world is to deny the truth of what goes on around us. For example, I've long argued that British and US news coverage is particularly spineless because they refuse to show us what it actually means when, say, a bomb goes off in a crowded Baghdad marketplace. People should see the resulting carnage (or at least some of it - there's no need to rub our noses in the gutter). Again, this is stuff that occurs naturally in the world, and there's no justification for censoring it. Argento giving a mouse to a cat and recording the 'natural' outcome (if that's what, in fact, happened) is an act of deliberate cruelty.

It is immoral when the filmmakers cause it to happen just so it can be filmed for the purposes of entertainment.

Animal abuse is also illegal in some countries. You may not want to put this kind of cruelty on a par with child abuse, but they're both equally vile and both are contenders for censorial intervention.

Sorry, you lost me there.

OK, my wording was off on that one. As I said in an earlier posting, I meant 'cruel' in the sense that the mouse clearly doesn't enjoy being eaten. Another example would be what happens when you lift up a log in the garden - those beetles and woodlice run away because they don't want to become the victims of predators. In that sense, Nature is, indeed, a cruel son of a bitch.

I have to hold up my hands at this point and say: I can't believe this is something we even need to debate. It seems so obvious to me!

We'd all like to believe we're humane and selfless people. And yet here we are, on a public forum, arguing - in all seriousness! - that our 'right' to buy an uncensored video (!!!) trumps the welfare and dignity of an animal which died in agony at the hands of irresponsible filmmakers, for no better reason than it happened 'a long time ago' and 'nobody cares'.

It's clear to me that such a position is neither humane nor selfless.

NB. Daemonia, be assured I don't aim that final bit specifically at you. My thoughts are offered purely in the spirit of debate, nothing more.

Let's keep this discussion respectful and civil please. :)

I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved in this:

However, I do pretty much agree with Libretio in that if something is staged for the camera - and involves real animal cruelty - it might be best to err on removal. Let us not forget some people do enjoy scenes of helpless animals being tortured and it's nice to know we don't ponder to such types by having an "anything goes" policy on filmed animal abuse.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/596/EN/UK/

Now would anyone argue for that to be legal and in stores? I'd hope not.

However, I also agree with Deamonia that common sense should be used in some cases and that, if it's a brief horse fall or a quick kill from an old movie (and I don't think the Apocalypse Now example really works - it's a very, very quick kill and a split second image. Also check out the Hearts of Darkness documentary for proof it wasn't staged by Coppola), it's probably worth leaving it in. To be honest, I only really draw the line at something like Cannibal Ferox or Cannibal Holocaust - which are miles removed from a cat eating a mouse in Inferno or the brief squid lunch in Old Boy!

So I err somewhere in the middle of this debate!

And as for the comment Cannibal Holocaust is comparable to Creepshow: are you seriously saying a primate or a sea turtle is comparable to an insect? Either that's centuries of zoological and philosophical research right down the toilet or you've just discovered a new kind of cockroach!

Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Anyway, let's keep things civil here methinks!) :clap:

Those 'crush' videos make me really angry. If I ever meet the ****ers who make them..:censored::chainsaw::chainsaw::chainsaw:

If someone at Arrow or the company that makes the extras can contact Argento to confirm thats what happened then the BBFC would be legally bound to leave the film uncut so its got to be worth a shot