I wish I unsee that. I would like 88 Films to progress with the release without the animal violence, but that's just me.

If I'd been on board at 88 I wouldn't even have asked that question. The comments section is predictably full of the same old well trodden rhetoric about the bbfc and censorship.

Yaaawn!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are people really that desperate to see a wild boar suffering? I don't have the figures, but I imagine the Shameless release of Cannibal Holocaust without the worst of the animal violence sold pretty well.

i think lots of people will cancel amazon order. 88 films seems to be also not happy at bbfc

it is not 88 films fault that the film is cut but lots of people on forums give 88 films bad time

Cut is Cut,i do not buy censored/revisionist versions of films

i agree

My thoughts exactly, Nos. I find it really hard to understand the whole "I want my animal cruelty left in" arguement. I guess that there are a lot of cold-hearted sickos (to be polite) out there.

i think it is a difficult one for a film collector. while i certainly don't advocate animal violence, i'm also against cultural revisionism - the movies were after all made at a moment in time and by a country with different attitudes towards animal welfare than ours. times have changed and even in Italy you would be hard pressed to find a film like this made now. the question is by buying an uncut version of the movie are you advocating cruelty to animals or simply being true to the art form as it was meant to be seen? by accepting a cut version are you simply pandering to (in the internet age) unenforceable censorship? simply you pays your money and you make your choices. i don't think there is a right and wrong answer here as both sides of the argument appear equally valid.

Well put, Rob. All I can say is that I know I can live with a jump cut or two if it means that I don't have to see the local wildlife getting butchered.