SHAM031/SHAM201 - Cannibal Holocaust: The BBFC Advice & Decision - Page 30

hallo37 · #**291** 27th May 2011, 04:02 PM

Its sounds great! The headline from the daily mail will probably be something like 'SADIST VIDEO BROUGHT IN BY ASYLUM SEEKERS'

Nosferatu@Cult Labs · #**292** 27th May 2011, 04:05 PM

Either that or they'll classify Ruggero Deodato as a gypsy!

Bringer Of Funerals · #**293** 27th May 2011, 05:05 PM

Daily Mail: Today we have a release by a studio who goes by the name Shameless who release a lot of films for sickos who have no right to be let out of the insane asylum.

This release is Cannibal Holocaust that is made by a gypsy called Ruggero Deodato and we have ran into his film before. Where we made it banned because gypsy's have no right in the film industry - it should be ran by posh people who watch foreign art films and not this horrible filth.

Anyway Shameless have decided to show us an exclusive look at the film and get our judgement on this film.

1hr 40 mins later

Daily Mail: Oh my god what have we just seen...... ban this film, hunt down the sickos who are going to buy it and burn the heads of the BBFC for allowing this depraved film to be released.

I guess that is how the Daily Mail could react lol

nekromantik · #**294** 28th May 2011, 01:52 AM

I would love to see the discussion panel footage on this release!!
Even though its more to do with Edge of the Park

cannibal360 · #**295** 8th July 2011, 08:25 PM

the runtime of your version is 92 mins 06 secs when i read that the film is actually 96 mins, dont get me wrong its great news its coming out. i just want to get the best version of the film, if only 14 seconds is missing im happy. can u just clarify the runtime issue. thanks.

Pete · #**296** 8th July 2011, 08:36 PM

96 Minutes is the uncut runtime in NTSC format. The uncut version in the PAL format is 92 minutes. The difference in runtime is due to the fact that PAL runs faster frame rate than NTSC. (I think, someone else will be able to give a more detailed (and probably more correct) answer)

cannibal360 · #**297** 8th July 2011, 09:26 PM

thanks dude i will be researching this, i have never seen this movie but been a fan of these kinds of films ive heard a lot about it looks amazing.

Nosferatu@Cult Labs · #**298** 8th July 2011, 10:01 PM

NTSC DVDs (and BDs) show films at 24 frames per second whereas PAL DVDs (for some reason) show them at 25fps, which means they are 4% faster over the running time and therefore have a lower runtime than their NTSC counterparts.

nekromantik · #**299** 8th July 2011, 11:33 PM

All BDs should be 1080P/24 but some European titles are 1080i/50.
With Blu there is no NTSC or PAL

I remember the whole discussion on the [rec] bluray being 1080i because it was shot that way.

SilverGunnar Hansen · #**300** 9th July 2011, 04:10 PM

Looking forward to finally seeing it, the animal snuff was the main reason I'd avoided it before. Just wondering, I know this is a sorta found footage film - is it visually strong enough to look much better as a Blu Ray? Stupid question no doubt . . .