Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Cult Labels > Official Shameless Fan Forum > The Shameless Collection > New York Ripper

Like Tree7Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 26th May 2008, 06:44 AM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vipco View Post
As it was banned outright the time of the new censorship bill was being discussed, do you think this was just the BBFC flexing their muscles to show their still up to the job.?

The murder scenes i've seen from it aren't nothing we haven't seen before. I think the BBFC were just looking for a scrape goat and MSP fitted the bill perfectly.
It was just a coincidence MSP being rejected at the time the censorship bill was being discussed, there was never any chance of this film getting through here...the content goes well beyond what will ever be acceptable to the BBFC. It was surprising they submitted it in the first place. The BBFC did at least make an attempt to cut the film but gave up, which surprises me not in the least. Cutting this film would be a nightmare. And in any case the sheer amount of cuts would have made any release pointless. The BBFC would never ban a film just to flex their muscles, they take their guidelines very seriously. People who know the BBFC very well would know if they did something like that ie this film is clearly not in breach of their guidelines/UK law but they banned it anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 26th May 2008, 09:31 AM
Cult Acolyte
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3,735
Default

I know it stood no chance of getting past the BBFC with out heavy cutting atleast.
What I ment was the BBFC 'delayed' classifying this film until the reading of the bill for their own reasons.
To say it was pure timing is like saying LH Oswald shot JFK, or Roswell is just an Airforce base with no alien's in it.
IMO the film was delayed then banned at the right time.
Any reason for a delay is easily covered by the 'we're trying to cut it'excuse then the papers get to hear about it (i wonder how ?) and report how are moral gardians are apt at doing the job in hand.

Please dont take this as me ranting, or having ago at your post Angel, Im just saying my own beliefs and am in no way dissing yours.

What is the big deal about the BBFC with naked people, they allow them to do dirty things to each other on film and thats ok, but as soon as somebody kills one it becomes a problem.
Maybe if they weren't nude they wouldn't get killed in the first place.

Last edited by vipco; 26th May 2008 at 09:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26th May 2008, 10:01 AM
dougal's Avatar
Cultist
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel View Post
How does cutting footage make the scene appear nastier?
It's possible for different editing of a scene to change it's impact, tone or completely hangine it's perceived meaning - editing a scene out for censorship reasons is no different. See Straw Dogs as a case in point - reputedly the BBFC asked for the rape scene to be cut but the way it was done actually made it seem nastier by appearing to change the nature of the rape.
__________________
Dougal - Sheffield United, Born and Bred.

"I'm saving your soul you ungrateful bitch!"
Night of the Demon
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 26th May 2008, 11:43 AM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vipco View Post
I know it stood no chance of getting past the BBFC with out heavy cutting atleast.
What I ment was the BBFC 'delayed' classifying this film until the reading of the bill for their own reasons.
To say it was pure timing is like saying LH Oswald shot JFK, or Roswell is just an Airforce base with no alien's in it.
IMO the film was delayed then banned at the right time.
Any reason for a delay is easily covered by the 'we're trying to cut it'excuse then the papers get to hear about it (i wonder how ?) and report how are moral gardians are apt at doing the job in hand.

Please dont take this as me ranting, or having ago at your post Angel, Im just saying my own beliefs and am in no way dissing yours.

What is the big deal about the BBFC with naked people, they allow them to do dirty things to each other on film and thats ok, but as soon as somebody kills one it becomes a problem.
Maybe if they weren't nude they wouldn't get killed in the first place.
There's no evidence that the BBFC ever delayed their decision regarding MSP, the reason why it took so long to classify/reject was because it was a very difficult film. Every film has to be examined very carefully, a lot of discussions will be held amongst senior examiners in regards to the possibilty of cuts. I can imagine this part especially would have taken a long time regarding this film. If this films classification was delayed it would suggest that after making their decision the BBFC then waited for the right time to ban the film in question. I very much doubt that was the case but only the BBFC can possibly answer this question. The BBFC would have nothing to gain by waiting for this Bill and then banning it. Parliament already knows exactly where the BBFC stand as their Annual Reports are submitted to them every year and they can see that the BBFC ban films from time to time. So this would have been no big deal.


The BBFC often cut rape scenes or scenes of sexualised violence because of the lingering focus on nudity which can cause a "harmful" response in some viewers eg I Spit on Your Grave, Tombs of the Blind Dead, Ichi the Killer, House on the Edge of the Park, Scrapbook etc. Cuts required under the VRA.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 26th May 2008, 01:15 PM
Cult Acolyte
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3,735
Default

Ach Angel, are you telling me you believe that, c'mon.

The BBFC aren't gonna publish all their buiness.
Do you think that a firm that denies a nation access to films only after they've approved them or removed bits wouldn't pull a stunt like that when their structure is threatened .?

MSP was the BBFC's 'patsy' or 'sacrifical lamb' to keep things sweet to ensure their survival.

If I e mailed them and asked them that do you think i'd get a truthful answer.?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 26th May 2008, 01:48 PM
Cult Addict
Senior Moderator Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vipco View Post
Ach Angel, are you telling me you believe that, c'mon.

The BBFC aren't gonna publish all their buiness.
Do you think that a firm that denies a nation access to films only after they've approved them or removed bits wouldn't pull a stunt like that when their structure is threatened .?

MSP was the BBFC's 'patsy' or 'sacrifical lamb' to keep things sweet to ensure their survival.

If I e mailed them and asked them that do you think i'd get a truthful answer.?

I couldn't see MSP passing in any form whether the BBFC had been told to delay the decision or not.

Maniac was also originally rejected for cinema back in the 80's after spending what seemed like a small lifetime at the BBFC, and Ferman rejected it again for video in 1998 (even under the new Labour government).
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 26th May 2008, 01:48 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vipco View Post
If I e mailed them and asked them that do you think i'd get a truthful answer.?
Yes. The BBFC always tell the truth whatever the consequences
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26th May 2008, 01:51 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,799
Default

Yes that's right Vince, MSP would have been banned no matter what the political situation at the time was. There is simply no way a film like this could be passed in the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 26th May 2008, 04:29 PM
Cult Acolyte
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3,735
Default

Dont get me wrong, im not sticking up for MSP but I think the announcement of the ban came at a very convenient time from the BBFC.
I acknowledge that yourself and Vince have far superior information and knowledge of the BBFC than I could ever hope to atain, and I do appreciate you both taking time to explain sometimes what can be a silly enquiry to me.
I know your more than likely right about the announcement being coincidental but surely the BBFC would have thought that people would have came to the same conclusion as me, particularly as the full film was submitted, not the R version , or so im told, and with the films owner believing it should cause little problems with the censor, and released the news at a different time.

Thankyou both for the input.

Anyone else having problems signing in today.?
I've been signed out twice and the page froze twice

Last edited by vipco; 26th May 2008 at 04:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 26th May 2008, 07:17 PM
The Reaper Man@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Master
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 27,963
Default

Alright,now that that's all sorted,what about the shameless release of NEW YORK RIPPER?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/new-york-ripper/64-sham001-new-york-ripper.html
Posted By For Type Date
Fulci's Box Of Terror - The AV Maniacs - Forum This thread Refback 7th October 2010 12:26 PM


Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.