The 88 Films Thread

[Make Them Die Slowly]

I read this comment the other day and like Boo thought it an unnecessary put down.

[Crimson Blade]

I still think that putting Deep River Savages out is a wasted opportunity when there's other great classics out there like Absurd and Beyond The Darkness. And both would probably sail through the BBFC nowadays.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Crimson Blade

I still think that putting Deep River Savages out is a wasted opportunity when there's other great classics out there like Absurd and Beyond The Darkness. And both would probably sail through the BBFC nowadays.

I agree! Especially when it will be coming out uncut from Raro soon enough.

[Crimson Blade]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

I agree! Especially when it will be coming out uncut from Raro soon enough.

And that's why i'll be buying the Raro release and not 88's 'most probably' cut version.
Not condoning the animal violence at all, but i'll always buy the uncut version if one is available.

[88 Films]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Looking through 88's Facebook page there is a facetious and un-necessary comment from them to a chap who asked if Deep River Savages was going to be uncut before he spent his hard earned on it. To wit; "If you need the animal cruelty then, yes, Man from Deep River won't be for you." 3 April.

It is not about "needing" to see the animal violence at all, it is about seeing the directors integral vision of their film the way they wanted it to be seen at the time it was made. Not cut to pieces 30 years later because attitudes have changed in the interim. If they had said that due to UK law the animal scenes were now not permissible, that answer would be better than trying to make a potential customer feel like they are a sick animal killing voyeur.

The comment is alienating and insinuating, crass, juvenile and used as an attacking defence, a tactic well below a company who should really know better. It's like saying they will cut the baby eating scene from Anthropophagus and release it cut because, "If you need to see a foetus being ripped from the womb and eaten, then Anthro is not for you."

C'mon guys, shape up, as 88 feel it necessary to put "uncut and uncensored" on the sleeves of their releases are they now going to state, "Cut to ribbons."?

The difference being the material in ANTHRO is special effects and the use of live animals, and their abuse/ slaughter, is genuine?

We were not at all being "alienating and insinuating, crass, juvenile" (and comments like this make us wonder why we bother) by stating, quite correctly, that this material alienates many viewers and comfirming that those who do wish to see it should, and will have to, look elsewhere. As for the director's 'integral vision' - a film goes through editors, producers and distributors before it ever sees the light of day. Lenzi regrets these sequences and many of the cast and crew of these films wish they were not in there. What is the 'integral vision'? Hard to know. Try asking George Lucas

[88 Films]

Originally Posted by Crimson Blade

And that's why i'll be buying the Raro release and not 88's 'most probably' cut version.
Not condoning the animal violence at all, but i'll always buy the uncut version if one is available.

We totally respect that and all we were trying to do was affirm that our release cannot contain some of the animal sequences because of the mandatory BBFC approval. Thanks!

[Crimson Blade]

Originally Posted by 88 Films

We totally respect that and all we were trying to do was affirm that our release cannot contain some of the animal sequences because of the mandatory BBFC approval. Thanks!

Fair enough. But like i said, there's loads of other great italian horrors you could have chosen instead of Deep River Savages. And until there's a change of BBFC policy, i don't see the point of releasing these titles when they're readily available uncut throughout the rest of europe and America. I appreciate that some people don't want the animal violence, but at the end of the day these are niche titles which most collectors want uncut.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by 88 Films

The difference being the material in ANTHRO is special effects and the use of live animals, and their abuse/ slaughter, is genuine?

We were not at all being "alienating and insinuating, crass, juvenile" (and comments like this make us wonder why we bother) by stating, quite correctly, that this material alienates many viewers and comfirming that those who do wish to see it should, and will have to, look elsewhere. As for the director's 'integral vision' - a film goes through editors, producers and distributors before it ever sees the light of day. Lenzi regrets these sequences and many of the cast and crew of these films wish they were not in there. What is the 'integral vision'? Hard to know. Try asking George Lucas

So the pigs slaughter in Slaughterhouse is not genuine then?

You did alienate a chap by replying and insinuating that he "needed" to see the animal violence to enjoy the movie. In doing so it was a crass attempt to make him out to be a degenerate who got enjoyment from animals suffering. That indeed is a juvenile argument deflection at best. But....perhaps I miss-interpreted your reply being a touchy bugger, myself.

As for the directors integral vision, the film had been through editors, producers and distributors to be the version that most of us have seen already.

I appreciate you might perceive that I'm having a go at you but I applaud your efforts and wish you all the best, I have some and will buy the rest of your Slasher and Italian ranges (and Post Apocalypse....??) including the Man From Deep River but Crimson Blade summed it up perfectly for me, why put out cut material- and stuff you know will never pass the BBFC - when there is a wealth of other options? Cough-Absurd-Cough!

Apologies if I make you wonder why you bother.

[Make Them Die Slowly]

That was a very measured response Boo. Did you start the valium early tonight?

[Boo Radley]

To be honest I didn't expect a response from 88 themselves....