At the risk of a ban I have to say that comment is total bollocks.
Just because you are easily pleased by censored films don't tar those of us who want films as they were made as sadists.

I could use an equally unflattering term for someone willing to pay good money to save them the time of using the FF keys on their remote.

Changing movies decades after they were made is a practice done by idiots but actually appreciated by even bigger ones.

You mean idiots like Ridley Scott and Francis Ford Coppola?

You can disagree with someone without saying their post is bollocks and saying in a not so subtle way that they are idiots. Please refrain from talking to other members like this.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easily pleased by censored films: nope. hate em. hate censorship.
Also hate animal cruelty..id like a professional (not hold my hands over my eyes or fast forward) to freely alter his/her artwork ie: cannibal holocaust as they see fit with professional tools. Rather than have me never to have access to something because only a sadistic film is available.

Idiot: yes i guess i am. im probably some sort of idiot who watches this kind of film. yes, ive just checked with my alter ego 'the monkey who actually gives a f**k' and he says i watch everything the world throws at me like it was some kinda 'entertainment zoo'. yep, thats me. i really can see quite a bit of horror.

Shall we all club together and put out a contract on the Star Wars man, oh whats his name..Lucas. He and Deodato are so very much alike. Perhaps shoot at old Herzog cos i i can't stand his films. No, that would be like, i dunno, overacting, to a provocative OPINION...my opinion counts in the great scheme of everywhere but this forum, m'lud, for as much as yours. naught. :pound::decision::eek:

I think we can all agree to disagree. If someone is happy to watch a cut film, good luck to them. If someone refuses to watch something unless it's uncut, then good luck to them as well. As Jack Nicholson says in Mars Attacks...can't we all just get along? :cool:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

indian love call
 

yeah! cue: slim whitman, increase volume. fade to black. :popcorn::pop2::shocked:

:lol: ack ack ack


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.....and George Lucas and Spielberg too

Anyone who likes to refer to people who want an uncut film as sadists can expect to be insulted back.

Paying good money for a copy of CH with all the animal killings removed is plain stupid in my opinion when an uncut version is available elsewhere .

But it's nice to see that nothing changes and some forum members do approve of censorship but only when it suits them and what they personally find offensive.

As for saying that the comment that only sadists would want to watch the uncut movie is a bollocks comment- I did have an alternative word but there would have been asterisks instead.
My comment was spot on and seemed far more accurate than telling him he was "in error"

When and where can we pre-order it on blu ray??

one last shot across the bows
 

If you could actually quote me verbatim, or even paraphrase would be a start. clearly my comment refers to my opinion as to animal cruelty, not uncut films per se or any other source of inflammation you're suffering from. i correlate the two: cruelty and sadism. that is quite a common assertion.

i own a vast amount of films, i never buy cut films if theres an option. i do however 'draw the line' at what i consider real sadistic cruelty. as you will also note in my other responses, i prefer being given the option to view a version that has been altered to remove a set of scenarios that in the consensus of opinion ie:concerning animal cruelty, is repellent. you are actually censoring & recutting my text/opinion if you can understand that..you are a censor. well done. ttfn.:pound: