The New York Ripper.... again?
 

This one is probably far fetched considering Shameless have already issued it twice, but a 2012 report by the BBFC (2012 being the year after its most recent issue by Shameless) indicated that the cut material would probably pass as acceptable after the film was used for a BBFC survey on audience reactions on sadistic and sexual violence. The report also states it was concluded "the film and its effects appeared dated and it was not particularly shocking compared to modern films. The film has not been sent back for reclassification since that time."

I know this was a long winded, roundabout explanation and again, I know it's probably too much to ask for a third issue of the film, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to potentially have an uncut version of this in the UK at long last :pray:

It's got some pretty grim scenes in it, but I agree it should pass uncut these days with some of the realistic looking stuff getting through. I have just bought the Blue Underground disc though and I definitely only need 1 copy of Howard the Duck stalks prozzies...

i have the Blue underground bluray of this film as well and i have to say that it looks very good indeed and every fan of this movie should definatly buy it. :)

Yep, me as well. :nod:

And me, no intention of buying it again either, both DVD editions and Blu Ray from Shameless are still sealed on my shelf so it’s pretty clear which copy I watch if I feel like watching some sleaze :nod:

I love it me. That's why I never entertained a UK version. And never would.
Waiting for this country to come to its senses .... is a waste of time.

New York Ripper, was one of the first Blu-rays i bought. And definitely one of Blue Underground's better transfers.
Highly recommended.

Although I have the uncut blu-ray, we have to remember that not everyone imports. We could argue though that the audience for NYR is so small amongst blu-ray buyers, that the chances are most of them are region free and do import. But it would be nice to see a domestic uncut blu-ray release.

Of course it would. It is only a film after all. You can buy any number of books about real killers in this country, with plenty of ghastly descriptions of violent ordeals, which by dint of their very nature make something like NYR pale into insignificance. Ahem.

I really don't understand the BBFC's decisions at all. They cut a few seconds of fake nipple slicing in Ripper, yet were quite happy to pass a naked woman being hung up and burnt alive in Don't Go In The House. :confused:

I'm nae going there. We'll be here all night.

Said it before, unless it’s something that requires by law to be cut, it seems to depend what side of bed the examiners get out of on a particular day as to what they want to cut or leave in.

Well move their bed against a wall then they can only get out one side hopefully the correct one :lol:

They move their goal posts so much that it's impossible to predict what they will cut.

From the BBFC website.

Basically to me this says if someone resubmitted the film it would pass uncut.

I would like to know what else was shown as part of this audience reaction business myself ;)

I Spit on Your Grave, maybe. ;)

Wonder how that would fare nowadays.

Well since there is even less FX in ISOYG, no doubt it would pass. They passed that godawful overkillfest that was the remake didn't they? Or was that trimmed?
Time and technology march on.
So obviously 36 year old prosthetics won't have the same impact as todays seamless computerised envisceration.
That's what I had against all that Saw/Hostel palaver. People flocking to see others get tortured. Whilst I spent a large part of my time defending my right to watch Daniela Dora get ... tortured (hmmm), apparently this made me odd. Not as fricking 'odd' as the civilians who clamoured to show me real deaths on their phones :confused: . That's 'normal' but watching a STORY ala Ichi or whatever made me weird. Morality. Your flexible friend ;)

Didn't rate the remake at all, and i think that was cut slightly as well. Pretty sure they cut the second one too.

Can't say i enjoy any of the modern torture porn either. I love horror and weirdness, but watching murder and torture just for the sake of it doesn't interest me at all.
That's why i like all the old classics from the 70's and 80's that had horror but style as well, combined with fantastic soundtracks too.

TBH I just like odd films. Sometimes it only seems to be me that sees this mind ;). I digress. I can only imagine the kinds of films that Greasy Strangler devotees will give us :laugh:. Too soon?? ;)

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.

That's probably to stop the films in question corrupting dogs.

So basically you're telling me I'm gonna have to be buying imports of cannibal movies all my life. They don't make it easy, do they? (although that is kinda the point)

What I'd personally do, although I'd pass absolutely any legislation just to relax movie censorship (could be worse I guess, we could be in Singapore or somewhere like that), is demand cuts only to scenes that involve domesticated animals, like dogs and cats etc. That said, whilst I obviously don't encourage animal cruelty, it does seem like a double standard that things like this are cut in films while animals are hunted for sport (and also goaded into terror/fury in events like racing). Eh, what can you do?

To be clear, I meant I blame Mary Whitehouse for the video nasty craze - though I was ignorant of her role or lack thereof in cutting animal cruelty scenes.

Damn, we were doing so well not bringing this up [emoji28]

Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

Has Shameless hinted they would submit NYR again?

Don’t think so, they’ve still got Opera to release that was announced months ago!

New York Ripper would pass by uncut, ss would other Shameless releases like House on the Edge of the Park. Whenever either of the two can pass by uncut, so will the other, as both have scenes cut which are incredibly similar.

I think the only problem scenes these days, at least in anything that's not A Serbian Film/Human Centipede 2, is the animal stuff. Practically every film from the Nasties age stands a decent chance of getting anything non-animal violence related passed I believe, even the Nazi-ploitation films. Gestapo's Last Orgy and Ilsa She Wolf of the SS, despite the subject matter, just can't be taken seriously these days. I haven't seen Beast in Heat or Love Camp 7 but I asked about them in the censorship thread and the consensus was that even they stood a fine chance of getting passed (which is great as Love Camp 7 got rejected in the early 2000's).

The one that'll interest me is I Spit on Your Grave. Its far from my favourite film but I've always taken an interest in it on account of how it used to really anger the censors. As of 2010 it got cut again (much reduced from 7 minutes to just under 3 minutes) but almost a decade on? Its not like it glorifies rape (as the BBFC claimed it has in past times, hence their reasoning for cutting it), if it did it would be a much smoother film. As it is, its rough, nasty, uncompromising and not nice to watch until she starts killing them all: Meir Zarchi set out to make a film to show exactly what women in those situations go through and it worked.

I'm going off topic though so to answer the original point: I would gladly buy NYR on Blu-ray if it got another (uncut) release, even if I own two copies of the 2012 Shameless release (I got the second one in a Shameless box set with two others I hadn't seen yet).

Imagine if Youtube was available back in the 80:s/90:s ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GbIx....be&t=1h15m23s

Just feels stupid for BBFC to cut any movie, since there are millions of other ways to easily find and watch them uncut.

Here in Sweden you can find these films, fully uncut on DVD, in the budget bins in the supermarket.
We used to have a pretty brutal censorship back in the 80:s, but since the early 90:s, during the release of films like Braindead, they just gave up on it.

I just find it hilarious, that the mutilation of the female breast, is such a big no-no, when the mutilation of the eye, or the rest of the body, is totally okey :D

i have the Gore gore girls were a breast gets cut off and that wasnt cut, so what is the differance?

The Gore Gore Girls has the realism of The X Factor though. :lol:

maybe. but my aunt was horrified by that film and went and sat in the kitchen until it was over. :)