|
| LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
| ||||
| ||||
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... Last edited by bdc; 6th June 2010 at 07:38 PM. |
#152
| |||
| |||
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. |
#153
| |||||||
| |||||||
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#154
| |||
| |||
Quote:
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!) |
#155
| ||||
| ||||
Those 'crush' videos make me really angry. If I ever meet the ****ers who make them.. |
#156
| |||
| |||
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
|
#157
| |||
| |||
We already did but as Almar said in reply to a previous comment about this - it's not that easy. Besides, Argento gets many, many requests and, obviously, doesn't have time to respond with long legal letters to them all (as well as provide proof: his word alone is not enough).
|
#158
| ||||
| ||||
I think it's time to come to terms with the fact that the decision now in the hands of the BBFC.If they come bak and say they've changed their mind then fantastic.If they come back and say that the cut still stands,then there's nothing that can be done.we'll just have to live with it and eveyone can make up their minds as to wether or not they will buy it.Seems that it's all that can be done now.
|
#159
| |||
| |||
OH well , thanks for trying anyway. Lets hope we have a pleasant surprise As the cut will be minor and there's no other release on the cards the Arrow Bluray will be one for the collection until the uncut version appears , and if the extras are as good as usual the Arrow one will be kept anyway, although as I've already got the Eye for Horror on a dvd by itself the lineup of extras is less exciting for me - unless its in HD of course |
#160
| |||
| |||
Quote:
|
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
| |