i think the only things that the bbfc should still be censoring is actual real cruelty to persons and animals.

Honestly the BBFC's censorship decisions are ****ing terrible. For one, cutting these films only makes horror fans want to seek them out even more; I think the MPAA has the right way of going about things: films don't need to be submitted and won't be banned - however unless they are certified by the MPAA they can't be bought or viewed by anyone under 18 I believe. That just sounds like a far better and more efficient way of doing things while keeping everyone happy - the BBFC's view of themselves as some kind of guardians of morality is so outdated; who really needs to be told what they can and can't watch in 2018, especially with a thousand sites on the internet where you can literally watch actual deaths?

Like, seriously, Anthropophagous was banned until June 2015 and that's tame as shit - there's no sexual violence (the foetus scene is definitely, err, of questionable taste but it definitely isn't done in a sexual context or sexualised at all) or animal cruelty or anything that normally causes issues (and I do somewhat understand WHY the BBFC feels compelled to remove scenes of that nature, although I don't agree)

One final thing, and then I promise I'll end the rant - the censoring of animal cruelty is pointless. Yeah, hear me out. I can understand if the viewer doesn't want to see such a scene, and that's entirely down to viewer discretion (where you would think anyone who doesn't want to see it simply wouldn't watch the film) but to use Cannibal Holocaust as an example: several actual animal kills in the film were released intact as they were deemed "humane" whereas others were removed. This only further undermines the BBFC's point in the sense that the end result is the same: the animal still dies, and will remain dead whether the scene is in the movie or not. Therefore the fact that some animal deaths see release and some don't is just retarded. Surely the only reason the inhumane deaths are cut out is to avoid inspiring people to perform these acts (that's a chestnut the BBFC love to dig out when defending their censorship), so are they preaching that it's perfectly fine to kill animals for fun as long as you make it quick? (probably not but I can think of no other reason for cutting some scenes and not others :lol:)

I think the case of Cannibal Holocaust is particularly pertinent since I think that it's a historically significant film in the horror genre that should be released uncut.

Anyway, rant over. Many thanks if you actually read through this post. Am I just insane, or does anyone else agree? :lol:

tl;dr: long angry spiel about film censorship in the UK.

Completely agree with every word :nod:

Same here.

And i don't think Anthropophagous even warrants an 18 certificate nowadays.
In fact, a lot of the old nasties should be uncut at 15 in my opinion.

Not sure; it depends on the BBFC's view of the throat-biting scene and the finale. The latter scene is fairly gory, and the throat biting is as well, but I've seen 15s with a fairly large amount of gore.

And yeah, a lot of the old nasties could probably be quite easily accommodated at a 15. For example Who Saw Her Die? is rated 18 and that's a total mystery to me. Other than a couple of not too graphic sex scenes there's very little in that film that would even warrant a 15. I think a lot of the horror movies from that period, specifically the Italian ones, all kinda got tarred with the same brush when the time came to re-evaluate them.

Who Saw Her Die? is actually a 15. I think it only got an 18 due to the trailers on the disc. ;)

The BBFC are legally bound to follow the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act which prevents them from allowing a film to be released which was "organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury".

It's nothing to do with inspiring people, but a legal requirement.

I personally don't agree with the 'humane' or 'quick kill' argument as most of those would involve "the cruel infliction of pain or terror" on the unfortunate animal, but it does explain why some deaths are permitted and others are not.

Whilst I didn't know about this law, I still think that my point stands in that there must have been some need to pass a law to prevent this. Of course, it is highly probable I'm totally wrong :lol:.

After all, the British government has zero power to actually stop animal killings occurring on film sets if the films in question weren't shot in the UK.

I also think that, once the animal has died in the shooting of the film, the government forcing the cutting these scenes because of cruelty is just the definition of pointlessness.

I mean, did the government really not have more pressing issues to handle than some ****ing horror movies?

I blame Mary Whitehouse.

As we have done,by hook or by crook since the days of VHS.:nod:

I have both versions of NYR.
I'd buy an uncut UK release.:nod:

The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act was passed in 1937 and has nothing to do with Mary Whitehouse. In theory, Parliament could pass legislation which would permit animals being mistreated and killed for entertainment, but the chances are that happening would probably be slim.