Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Cult Labels > Official Shameless Fan Forum > Why Don't Shameless Release...?

Like Tree54Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11th July 2018, 11:41 AM
Paul Zombie's Avatar
Seasoned Cultist
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Southport
Posts: 789
Default

i think the only things that the bbfc should still be censoring is actual real cruelty to persons and animals.
__________________
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/beyond-the-1981-001-cinzia-monreale-and-dickie.jpg?itok=GxC4psdz
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 16th July 2018, 06:35 PM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Default

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doing things while keeping everyone happy - the BBFC's view of themselves as some kind of guardians of morality is so outdated; who really needs to be told what they can and can't watch in 2018, especially with a thousand sites on the internet where you can literally watch actual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 )

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?

tl;dr: long angry spiel about film censorship in the UK.
Rik and Crimson Blade like this.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 16th July 2018, 06:57 PM
Rik's Avatar
Rik Rik is offline
Cult Veteran
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax,UK
Posts: 17,612
Default

Completely agree with every word
__________________
If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the ****ing car!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 16th July 2018, 07:10 PM
Crimson Blade's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,664
Default

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.
Anthrophagous likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 16th July 2018, 07:25 PM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Blade View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 16th July 2018, 08:21 PM
Crimson Blade's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,664
Default

Who Saw Her Die? is actually a 15. I think it only got an 18 due to the trailers on the disc.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 17th July 2018, 09:24 AM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Master
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Cave of Caerbannog
Posts: 29,030
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrophagous View Post
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 )
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 17th July 2018, 08:44 PM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 7
Default

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 .

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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 17th July 2018, 08:51 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: 29,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrophagous View Post
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;

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

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

Teddy, I'm a Scotch drinker - you know that. I just have the occasional brandy when I'm not drinking.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 17th July 2018, 09:44 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Master
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Cave of Caerbannog
Posts: 29,030
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrophagous View Post
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 .

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.
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.
Demdike@Cult Labs likes this.
__________________
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



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 - 2020, 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.