Has the BBFC decision changed your opinion of Cannibal Holocaust?
 

With the BBFC only requesting 15 secs of cuts, will this change your view of the film? The approval of a certificate to this version of the film, only missing the killing of the muskrat, means that the rest of the film doesn't contravene any UK laws and, more importantly, says that there was no cruelty to the animals.

So what do you think - have the BBFC lost their marbles or is there now going to be a wider accepting of the idea that, although animals are killed, no cruelty was employed? Are you more inclined to watch the rough stuff in light of the recent ruling of the BBFC or do you still think the animal footage is unacceptable?

Let's hear your thoughts!

(and can a Mod correct my spelling in the thread title, please? LOL! Thanks.)

Im 50/50

On 1 hand i'm glad they have passed it almost uncut because the UK was always the country left behind with this film and it gets to be seen by a wider audience of horror lovers (the chav's who buy crap from HMV) and hopefully it might bring Deodato more (belated) fame so i'm all for it.

But on the other hand I will still see it as a video nasty and I still think the animal cruelty will be hard to watch and i'm sure papers etc will kick up a storm again and try to ban it again.

Overall I think the BBFC have made a hard choice and let's see what backlash the film will get again

But....the BBFC have concluded that the scenes of animal death in the movie contained no cruelty. So can we still class that footage in this film as 'animal cruelty', when clearly it's not? Well, not according to the BBFC, anyway. If it was cruel, they'd be bound by law to cut it.

That's a hard 1 really, the BBFC don't see it as animal cruelty hence why most of it is uncut yet other people that just buy the film in general without hearing about it (as it was a vid nasty) will think it is animal cruelty so the general public will be split.

I see it as animal cruelty because they are inflicting some pain on animals - pig, muskat but others they kill out right hence that isn't because they need to survive and they eat it. So i'm sat on the fence but I think others (general public and especially news papers) will see it as animal cruelty and it wouldn't matter how polite the BBFC word it

The BBFC now call it 'animal slaughter' which isn't illegal, it is a different view from what they said 10 years ago (cuts were required to scenes involving real animal cruelty and eroticised sexual violence is how they put it back in 2001). I think some of the right wing press and one or two 'honourable' members of parliament may complain. I think the current government has too much on its plate to worry about a 30year old film, but on the other hand the VRA was introduced as scapegoat around the time of the mess the Thatcher government made in the 80's, to deflect the publics attention so who knows

From a censorship point of view, I think it is a step forward. I believe anyone over the age of 18 - and therefore an adult - should have the right to watch whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land, in this case cruelty to animals (as far as the 'sexual violance' goes, imho you can see much more disturbing things in perfectly legal p*rn readily available just a click of a mouse button away*).

Now, personally, it still doesn't change the fact that I do not wish to see animals being killed, humanely or otherwise. Sorry, but that's just me. I just don't find it entertaining. I Just won't be able to ignore the fact that that is a fellow sentiant beings life ending; it's the same reason I don't want to watch videos of beheadings and suicides on the 'net (although I know a few people who do). Maybe I'm being over sensitive, but hey, that's just me :) . I'll be quite happy to have an option to watch without the animal killings, but otherwise uncut. As far as the BBFC is concerned, well they have been showing animals being killed on TV 'reality' shows for years. I watched one of those 'survivor' type shows years ago and they were quite merrily lopping the heads of chickens, and I don't remember anyone kicking up a stink about then, no matter how repellent I thought it was.

*People tell me.

ps

Ive always fast forwarded through the turtle scene, the other i find disturbing (although not real) is the abortion.....yuk

Corrected! ;)

I'm gonna say let's take it while we can.

When you look at the clowns that are in charge of the country just now,who need to get back in the 'popular' stakes,and could appeal to the 'moral do-gooders' crowd to do so,then I say bring it on while the going is good.

By the way,in Scotland,a clegg is a blood-sucking beastie which gives you a nasty bite,and leaves a filthy mark......:pound:

I doubt that anyone will think no animals were harmed cause BBFC didnt think so.

I for one still think what deadato did was cruel and not needed and nothing will change my views on that.

I don't understand how any decisions made by the BBFC could change my opinions of Cannibal Holocaust.

It can certainly change my opinions of the BBFC, but not of any film they have classified.

Cannibal Holocaust is, and always was, a technical masterpiece. I've always had a great deal of respect for Deodato's work.

The BBFC on the other hand.....