#741
| ||||
| ||||
Tv has a different censoring than films being put forward to be censored bbfc so if the channel wants to put a scene in that's been censored on DVD then they are entitled to .
|
#742
| |||
| |||
So the dvd of WW&TCF is cut then? Have never seen apart fae on tv etc. Can't imagine that looking good as it's in the background of the scene as it is!!
__________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] [B] "... the days ahead will be filled with struggle ... and coated in marzipan ... "[/B] |
#743
| ||||
| ||||
I was just talking in general terms of films and not ww&tcf .
|
#744
| |||
| |||
Quote:
The ratings board sole purpose is to keep parents informed about making choices about what their kids can see in the theater or buy on DVD. Since its being reworked it obviously failed in its purpose since a large percentage of the British population can't recite the differences between 12 and 12A ratings. As far as the censorship thing, yeah that does suck, but in all honesty, living in a town that has several theaters mainstream and inde based, I have never once seen a movie released as "unrated" in my country. I'm not saying that our rating system is better, because its not. Look at our R rating that covers such a broad audience (anyone under 17 must have a parent, ANYONE can see it if they have a parent or guardian!!) and NC-17 (no one 17 and under is permitted). You almost never see the later even though it should be the most common rating, imo. NC-17 is often confused here (probably because its used the least, since it replaced the older 'X' rating) as a porn movie, which its not. The whole Unrated thing came about as a selling tactic for DVD releases. Similarly to Directors Cut versions people are attracted to anything more than what was offered in the theaters, which in some cases is minimal. Reports on test consumers showed that people were 87% more likely to purchase an "unrated" cut of a movie than the theatrical one. In the U.S. "R" rating covers a hell of a lot of things from mild explicit language to borderline pornography. How are movies like The Matrix and Prometheus rated the same as A Serbian Film? How is Evil Dead (1981) rated more harshly than I Spit on Your Grave (2010)? There needs to be a more complex system on rating levels since it obviously sends a pretty vague message about actual movie content. I think both movie-goers and production companies would benefit a lot more from a more complex rating system since so many companies fight to get a lower rating for a larger demographic (look at the fuss the new RoboCop movie rating is making), but there are worlds of difference between ratings that movies suffer the most when its never meant to be a child-friendly experience in the first place. We end up with butchered content in the theater so DVD releases can "double-dip" consumers later who buy both theatrical version and extended or uncut versions. All movies should be "Directors Cut" all the time, dont change a vision to pocket more money at the expense of the consumer, its lame. /end rant Last edited by Smagmata; 6th February 2014 at 12:34 PM. |
#745
| |||
| |||
Quote:
|
#746
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
|
#747
| |||
| |||
One last point I would like to make regarding censorship is the fact that censorship as an idea just doesn't really work, at least not as it is intended to. I'll give an example: Prohibition. Alcohol was banned in America around the 30's to stop people from drinking for a variety of reasons, namely moral reasons. Did it keep people from drinking? Hell no, it birthed a level of organized crime at a level the U.S. had never seen before, thus defeating the morality issue in the first place. At one point it was believed that there were MORE Speakeasy's than legal public drinking areas BEFORE Prohibition leading to evidence that MORE people drank during prohibition than before it. (the same argument can be used against gun violence in the US, as our government leadership tries to make it harder for citizens to remain armed gun sales sky-rocket because people are afraid they wont always be able to buy a new gun. a school shooting mentioned the use of an AR-15 Hunting Rifle which tripled the price of the weapon because demand as so high for fear it would be banned from public markets, which in turn really funds the bad guys when buyers turn to "black markets" to buy their weapons instead. So again, when the government oversteps to police morality of the citizens its a natural instinct to do the opposite) I know its kind of a bizarre example because it doesnt relate to the censorship topic at hand but if you look at what Thatcherism has done for "video-nasties" it does relate in a certain way. If you ask yourself "has my country's censorship laws stopped me from seeing content i want to see anyway?" The answer is probably No. By compiling a mostly arbitrary list of movies deemed inappropriate to citizens by the government it only made seeking out the material that much easier. Might as well make a BillBoard ad. Video Nasties earned levels of infamy and fame and created a sort of Bounty List for the curious-natured film fan. All they had to do is research the exact movie listed banned and import it from another country. As a general consensus I'd say its fair to say most horror movie collectors own a fairly large portion (maybe not all) of the video nasties before they branch off to personal tastes. Would The Burning be as popular as it is now if it wasnt banned, I dont think so, it would have been filed away as a cheap Jason knock off. Bottom line is: by trying to keep "bad" movies out of the hands of the public they did the exact opposite, and more people sought them out. Censorship... really? |
#748
| ||||
| ||||
The chances are if a film just got released no matter cut or uncut and nothing was said about it in the news papers etc then it would just be another film that a lot off ppl wouldn't care about or in some cases wouldnt even bother watching , and people on thread like this would just give their opinion of if they liked it or not. But as soon as a film is in the paper news etc for no matter what reason then they are automatically fuelling people interest , and if it was banned or heavily censored then the interest becomes even greater so people can actually say they seen it uncut , and it some cases people would want it for the sole purpose because they aren't suppose to even if its the most god damn awful crappest film ever made. I mean after all look at how many people have collected all the original 72 films that was on the list . but in all honestly chances are you would only own half or less if it wasn't for the sole purpose of they was on the taken off the shelf or banned list. So in reality complaining about a film and banning it is actually doing the reverse affect of what the are suppose to be doing and stopping people from watching it they are actually making more people watch than they would if they just said nothing and released it with no fuss at all. |
#749
| |||
| |||
Well the people who are practically seizing control of the net with these filters seem to be pleasant enough (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)... This is why you can't trust a Tory, no matter what issue it involves. No 10 aide arrested over child porn: Police quiz man who advised Cameron on web filters | Mail Online |
#750
| ||||
| ||||
i know we are against cencorship.. and some films get cut because the scene might be to gory / graphic / violent etc. but i really cant understand extremely pointless cuts . sometimes i compare the cuts on video cencorship on the net and some cuts are just a waste of time and pointless. and the amount of time money and effort to make these cuts are also time wasting..example instead of 3 squirts of blood from a killing scene u see 2 squirts. or you see someone get killed but they cut out 3 seconds of them falling to the floor... do you not think that these cuts are just a pure waste of time and pointless..and for what reason do they do this ? |
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
| |