Cult Labs

Cult Labs (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/)
-   Current and Upcoming Shameless Titles (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=105)
-   -   New Shameless Releases Coming Very Soon! (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/current-upcoming-shameless-titles/9169-new-shameless-releases-coming-very-soon.html)

Demoncrat 22nd May 2018 05:25 PM

Ferox??? WHY :lol:

Still ... would buy this. The animal cruelty lasts longer than 30 bloody seconds ....

Cut away. It adds nothing to the history of cinema does this. The fact there are extras should be cause for celebration regardless surely? :laugh:

Boo Radley 22nd May 2018 06:55 PM

The animals killed on screen argument has been done to the nth degree and the bottom line is you either want it as that is how the film was originally released, or you don't. The implication is always that if you want it in then you are a less moral, enlightened human than those who prefer these scenes removed, or censorship as it is known. This argument is always used for the less tasteful exploitation films but totally ignored when utilized in more high brow entertainment, Wake in Fright, Apocalypse Now, etc. The fact that you can see a mongoose and snake fight on the Discovery channel or horses breaking legs on Channel 4's racing and numerous other animals ripping each other to shreds on a multitude of animal documentaries on TV never disturb people who are all to ready to throw their arms up loudly proclaiming that these same scenes must be excised from cheap exploitation films. These facts also totally destroy the inane assumption and ridiculous argument that the BBFC are only following "The Law" and have to remove them. If it was "The Law" then these scenes would not be allowed in the aforementioned films and on TV. Full stop. It's either against the law or it isn't. You can cite the Animals Act all you like as proof but try telling that to the turtle from Cannibal Holocaust. The Act didn't seem to work for him.

The same double standard has raised it's ugly head lately on directors and actors as people are accused as womanizers, paedophiles or sex predators. This is the latest trend and in vogue at the moment. Again, this depends on who they are and if their artistic output is deemed important or not. Polanski...? Oh, no, I mean he was a great director so we can ignore he liked to fiddle with kiddies.
Woody Allen...? The man's a genius so it's okay if he dribbled his caffeine ridden sperm into under age girls.
Victor Salva....? Oh my GOD!!! Paedophile! Scum! Will NEVER watch one of his movies again!!
The hypocrisy is treacle thick and the deeper one delves into it, you will find is more based on class issues, as the great unwashed are deemed far too inferior to grasp such concepts than the more educated upper classes. A very British superiority complex that pervades every aspect of our society.

These attitudes and vocal outbursts are more to do with whoever posts them and not really about the things done. It's a way of saying that I am a superior being and my values and morals are higher than yours because I don't need to see things that you obviously do to enjoy something. The implication, never vocally raised but implicit once again, is that if you want to see an exploitation film in all its uncut glory then somehow you are a deviant who gets sexual gratification from it and therefore morally reprehensible. A superiority complex in its purest form.
Cannibal Ferox...? I don't want to see poor animals killed, it's terrible!
Wake in Fright....well, it's an important film and it's artistic merit somehow magically negates all animal violence into social commentary.

Bottom line is; It's a choice. Your personal preference. You might not want to see animal violence for a multitude of reasons and that is your prerogative. Someone else might want the scenes included because that is how the film was released. It matters not, especially in todays society where by the click of a mouse either will drop through your door in a matter of days. No one is right or morally superior by their decision and no one is wrong. Any argument is redundant as it is only personal opinions, not a fact. Because I remember only too clearly the Draconian censorship of the '80's, 90's and into this next century, which continues today but by more insidious methods, I will always opt for uncensored material. If anyone disagrees then that is their opinion and in the great scheme of things, means about as much as my opinion. In other words, nothing.

Rik 22nd May 2018 07:07 PM

Well said :nod:

Demdike@Cult Labs 22nd May 2018 07:09 PM

I just want Lenzi to say in the doc that Ferox isn't cheap exploitative tat and is actually a meaningful social commentary.

For the record i prefer Ferox to Holocaust.

I'll close the door on the way out.

Demoncrat 22nd May 2018 08:37 PM

Phew, for a minute there I thought that 'virtue signalling' was rearing it's ugly head :lol:

Crimson Blade 23rd May 2018 11:57 AM

I've always preferred Ferox, as well. :biggrin:
Animal killings aside, it's a much more fun movie to watch. And i like the cast a lot more as well.
Holocaust, is the better made out the two, though. And i love the haunting score.

Demoncrat 23rd May 2018 04:40 PM

But I have Ferox in the house already Boo. Much like the editions of Holocaust and New York Ripper, they came from outwith these shores, as I do not see how my viewing should be curtailed by mere legislation :laugh:. Yes, I am sort of glad that CF finally makes it here in the shiny new format.

PS Allen didn't sleep with "underage" girls. Polanski did. Just saying ....

Tombsy666 23rd May 2018 05:40 PM

Cannibal ferox
 
I will be buying the shameless release of Ferox minus the animal scenes, this is my personal choice as I used to skip past them on my grindhouse release anyway, i too however do prefer my films uncut as intended but do sway when it comes to the killing of animals, not my kind of entertainment, however i agree that each to their own preferred choice.

Boo Radley 23rd May 2018 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demoncrat (Post 576246)

PS Allen didn't sleep with "underage" girls. Polanski did. Just saying ....

True...but according to Mia Farrow he did sexually assault their 7 year old daughter....which the daughter confirms.... but that's okay, right? Right?:lol::lol:

Demoncrat 23rd May 2018 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo Radley (Post 576255)
True...but according to Mia Farrow he did sexually assault their 7 year old daughter....which the daughter confirms.... but that's okay, right? Right?:lol::lol:

Well all I can say about that is that I was once accused of burglary ... for merely putting a plastic bottle into a bin. So it's all about perception I find. Weren't they going through a rather rancorous divorce at the time?
If it's true .... I put my hands up as pederasty isn't a favourite hobby of mine. I like real animal culls to brighten my day ... :nod::pound:

NEXT


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.