Bbfc

[horrormad]

How much of you hate the bbfc? well I myself hate them over here In the uk all the classic films are cut to pieces because of them we have to import movies there Is no point In watching a film example Cannibal holocaust the vipco version It has been cut by 12 minute waste of money.

What do you think of the bbfc?

This Is what I think them.

——————/´ ¯/)
—————--/—-/
—————-/—-/
———--/´¯/'--'/´¯`·_
———-/'/--/—-/—--/¨¯\
——--('(———- ¯~/'--')
———\————-'—--/
———-'\'————_-·´
————\———--(
————-\———--\

[Neil]

The BBFC are fine these days IMHO... TBH I think now for example, we have a more liberal system than the states in many ways...


The BBFC now, is not the BBFC of 10-15yrs ago...

[horrormad]

The BBFC now, is not the BBFC of 10-15yrs ago...


Yes that Is true but Im talking about the old films that they still wont let them be realsed uncut.

[MinionZombie]

One of the reasons Cannibal Holocaust is cut in the UK, is because it features real animals being killed, which is against BBFC guidelines.

The BBFC are really only fussed about, other than real animal killing, sexual violence.

The BBFC are waaaaaaaaaaaaay more liberal than they used to be. The major change came in 1999 when a new dude took over.

Now, compare the BBFC to the MPAA. The BBFC are very public and open about all aspects of their business - from how and why they examine films, to who they employ and how they employ.

The MPAA on the other hand, are incredibly secretive and seem to be very arsey, not to mention that the MPAA have a right stick up their arse about sex, hence why Kevin Smith is having to appeal against the NC-17 rating they slapped on "Zack & Miri Make A Porno".

One other thing though, apparently the BBFC could do with shaking up how they charge for certificates, because it charges separately for DVD extras, and indie productions really suffer the costs.

Also, if you want to SELL your movie in the UK, you HAVE to have a BBFC rating, unlike in America where they have the whole "unrated" thing.

[horrormad]

One of the reasons Cannibal Holocaust is cut in the UK, is because it features real animals being killed, which is against BBFC guidelines.




But that stupid cutting animal cruelty from a jungle movie If you are out In the amazon jungle you have to kill animals to survive the turtle death In holocaust was fast and not painful alot of people thought that the turtle was being tortured but It wasnt.

[SymphonicX]

But that stupid cutting animal cruelty from a jungle movie If you are out In the amazon jungle you have to kill animals to survive the turtle death In holocaust was fast and not painful alot of people thought that the turtle was being tortured but It wasnt.

What are you talking about? It wasn't a nature documentary. The animal was killed for the movie...there's no justifying that and it shouldn't be in there. If this was a documentary and the killing of the turtle was necessary for survival then it might have some weight to staying in. How do you know it wasn't painful? How do you know that turtle deserved to die? You do realise they're also an endangered species? A fake turtle could've been used. If we don't allow real human deaths to be put in movies then we shouldn't allow real animal deaths unless it was simply nature taking its course.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, and the turtle *was* indeed killed by a *real* tribe who later used said turtle for food or ritual...but I very much doubt that.

As for the BBFC, I seriously don't see your gripe. 12 years ago we wouldn't even have seen Cannibal Holocaust in this country, now they're entertaining the release of many old films, either with small cuts or nothing cut out at all. 15 years ago we hadn't even had an uncut Dawn of the Dead on video and as soon as the new guy took over we had the BMG version. Then it came on TV, albeit a little cut down but still much longer than previous releases. We've also seen The Exorcist uncut and Texas Chainsaw Massacre uncut, previously these titles were banned from general release. Video Nasties, as they were called, rarely exist now...very little is ever banned and those movies which are cut down have the details of what was cut out on the BBFC website, and it's not hard to circumvent these cuttings and get uncut movies off the internet if you're desperate to see all the gore.

They are SO much better than they used to be, so to be honest I have no gripes at all. It isn't anything likethe MPAA or the Australian censorship board who rape and pillage people's work under the guise of public morality.

[horrormad]

What are you talking about? It wasn't a nature documentary. The animal was killed for the movie...there's no justifying that and it shouldn't be in there. If this was a documentary and the killing of the turtle was necessary for survival then it might have some weight to staying in. How do you know it wasn't painful? How do you know that turtle deserved to die? You do realise they're also an endangered species? A fake turtle could've been used. If we don't allow real human deaths to be put in movies then we shouldn't allow real animal deaths unless it was simply nature taking its course.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, and the turtle *was* indeed killed by a *real* tribe who later used said turtle for food or ritual...but I very much doubt that.

As for the BBFC, I seriously don't see your gripe. 12 years ago we wouldn't even have seen Cannibal Holocaust in this country, now they're entertaining the release of many old films, either with small cuts or nothing cut out at all. 15 years ago we hadn't even had an uncut Dawn of the Dead on video and as soon as the new guy took over we had the BMG version. Then it came on TV, albeit a little cut down but still much longer than previous releases. We've also seen The Exorcist uncut and Texas Chainsaw Massacre uncut, previously these titles were banned from general release. Video Nasties, as they were called, rarely exist now...very little is ever banned and those movies which are cut down have the details of what was cut out on the BBFC website, and it's not hard to circumvent these cuttings and get uncut movies off the internet if you're desperate to see all the gore.

They are SO much better than they used to be, so to be honest I have no gripes at all. It isn't anything likethe MPAA or the Australian censorship board who rape and pillage people's work under the guise of public morality.

I know what I am talking about yes the turtle was real but It didnt die a painful death the blade went through his neck making It a instant death the turtle was killed to be food and to be a scene In the movie It been over 20 years since that has happend know anyways and deodato got his punishment for It.

[Neil]

I concur... The BBFC have a difficult job (they won't make everyone happy), but these days seem pretty spot on IMHO...

[SymphonicX]

I know what I am talking about yes the turtle was real but It didnt die a painful death the blade went through his neck making It a instant death the turtle was killed to be food and to be a scene In the movie It been over 20 years since that has happend know anyways and deodato got his punishment for It.


"killed for food and to be a scene in the movie"....sorry, not good enough. And by your reasoning, if I made a r*pe video and was arrested for it, after I'd served my time it'd be OK to post it on youtube? Of course not. An illegal act is an illegal act, and it's illegal to show the death of an animal purely for entertainment. Deodato, whilst a genius, was very misguided for including that scene, it popped out of nowhere and brought nothing to the movie, whilst all of the gore and carnage remained in the Vipco release, personally I don't see why you're complaining, we have it much better than other nations.

Seems your issue is with censorship, I'd half agree that censorship is a bad thing, but just because someone puts footage of an endangered species being slayed in a movie doesn't mean it's OK to send out the message that animals can be treated like that because it's been approved for general release.

[horrormad]

"killed for food and to be a scene in the movie"....sorry, not good enough. And by your reasoning, if I made a r*pe video and was arrested for it, after I'd served my time it'd be OK to post it on youtube? Of course not. An illegal act is an illegal act, and it's illegal to show the death of an animal purely for entertainment. Deodato, whilst a genius, was very misguided for including that scene, it popped out of nowhere and brought nothing to the movie, whilst all of the gore and carnage remained in the Vipco release, personally I don't see why you're complaining, we have it much better than other nations.

Seems your issue is with censorship, I'd half agree that censorship is a bad thing, but just because someone puts footage of an endangered species being slayed in a movie doesn't mean it's OK to send out the message that animals can be treated like that because it's been approved for general release.


Listen this thread was originally about the bbfc and second of all what does rape have to do with that?

Everyone has there own opinion and you know what mine Is.

[Neil]

Listen this thread was originally about the bbfc and second of all what does rape have to do with that?

Everyone has there own opinion and you know what mine Is.

SymphonicX was making a perfectly reasonable comment about the BBFC...

This is a discussion forum, so chances are if you make a post, people will discuss it... If you're going to sit there and not take onboard what other people's opinions are, with your fingers in your ears going la-la-la, then what's the point of posting in the first place...?

You never know, you might find other people have something interesting/valid to say.

[horrormad]

SymphonicX was making a perfectly reasonable comment about the BBFC...

This is a discussion forum, so chances are if you make a post, people will discuss it... If you're going to sit there and not take onboard what other people's opinions are, with your fingers in your ears going la-la-la, then what's the point of posting in the first place...?

You never know, you might find other people have something interesting/valid to say.


:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Neil]

:mad::mad::mad::mad:
:rockbrow::rockbrow::rockbrow::rockbrow:

Someone makes a perfectly logical comment/point, and you get angry? Hmmm...

[Danny]

if thats true then your not very knowledgeable on the way films are actually rated, try going on there website and reading it, there so much more lenient than the states are.

[MinionZombie]

As for the animal killing - the animal was only killed so it could be included in the movie. There was not just the turtle either, there were another one or two animal killings if I remember correctly.

A nature documentary is one thing, it's a crew watching animals go about their business in a natural way.

In Cannibal Holocaust, the turtle was captured, killed and filmed by the cast and crew for a fictional movie, i.e. entertainment.

And that's something the BBFC doesn't allow, and I'm fine with that. I didn't find the scene particularly disturbing myself, but I fully understand why it was cut out, and I say fair play.

If the scene was really of importance, why not make a fake turtle? Why does it have to be a real turtle, killed in it's own habitat, for purely entertainment purposes - even if it was eaten during filming - it was filmed and the footage used in the movie, as part of the intention to entertain the audience.

That's the crux of the matter - if they killed the turtle to eat it after they'd finished filming for the day, or what have you, then that's fine. But it's the issue of filming it, and then using said footage as part of entertainment - it's not necessary, or if it is - make a fake turtle.

If you can fool the Italian government to think you really skewered a tribeswoman on a pole, then you can muster a fake turtle.

Ultimately, it's an ethical issue.

As for the BBFC and cutting, the vast, vast majority of any cutting or banning done today is for R18 dvds - i.e. porn.

Again, this is usually down to matters of sexual violence, or perceived distress (like gag/messy BJ videos, or strangulation) - I was reading about that on the Melon Farmers website.

The BBFC aren't completely perfect, but they're vastly improved and advanced and liberal in comparison to:

1) What the BBFC was pre-1999.
2) What the MPAA are today.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Tricky]

I didnt know about that turtle scene,which they clearly shouldnt have done by the sounds of it!but at the same time how come that scene in apocalypse now where they slaughter that bull near the end isnt cut?because that was real too!

[MinionZombie]

Was the bull that got hacked really real?

Sure it wasn't a real one, then cut away, then replace with a fake one, then there you go?

If it was real, it's a bit double-standards like ... possibly down to the genres each film are in, as well as the 'class of director' behind each one, you know?

Or maybe the BBFC's take on real animal killing in fictional movies is different to what I've previously understood it as, I duno, I'm not an expert on their methods.

[DubiousComforts]

But that stupid cutting animal cruelty from a jungle movie If you are out In the amazon jungle you have to kill animals to survive
But it was completely unnecessary to film the process for "entertainment," even if attempting to make a point. In this case, animal slaughter was only used for exploitative purposes and nothing more. The goal was for the film to become "banned" and thereby gain notoriety.

[Dillinger]

Anything with the letters B B C usually sucks in one way or another.

[Neil]

Anything with the letters B B C usually sucks in one way or another.

What poppycock!

[Tricky]

Anything with the letters B B C usually sucks in one way or another.

i caught a bit of "the one show" on BBC earlier & john lydon was on it (johnny rotten of the sex pistols for those who dont know) and he burst into a live rant about the media & all that,swearing the lot!i bet the BBC were soiling their strides & frantically waving at him to shut up behind the scenes! :lol::lol:

[SymphonicX]

Listen this thread was originally about the bbfc and second of all what does rape have to do with that?

Everyone has there own opinion and you know what mine Is.

Sorry dude if you re-read it you may understand it better. I'm not going to argue with you because you can't understand my post, it was perfectly reasonable and made a point clearly which you've failed to grasp.

[Skippy911sc]

That movie made me sick...and still haunts me. I can see why they cut it...I am sure that the us censures would have cut it or given it an X or NC-17 Rating without question. The movie stunk in my opinion and was a waste of an hour plus of my time. BTW what is the BBFC??? I am only assunming it is similar to the US standards board.

[Neil]

I am only assunming it is similar to the US standards board.Basically yes...

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

The British Board of Film Classification is an independent, non-governmental body, which has classified cinema films since it was set up in 1912, and videos since the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984.
Cinema

The British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912 by the film industry as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally.

Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.
Video

In 1984 Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act. This act stated that, subject to certain exemptions, video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK must be classified by an authority designated by the Secretary of State. The President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC were so designated, and charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home'. At this point the Board's title was changed to British Board of Film Classification to reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than censorship.

[horrormad]

BTW what is the BBFC???

British board film classification.

[Neil]

On an interesting note, this is from wikipedia:-


Many of the censorship issues with Cannibal Holocaust concern the on screen killings of animals, which remains a major issue today. Seven animals were killed during the film's production, six of which are seen onscreen:

* A coatimundi (mistaken as a muskrat in the film) is stabbed multiple times in the neck by an actor.
* A large turtle (about three feet long) is captured in the water and dragged to shore, where it is then decapitated and its limbs and shell removed. The actors proceed to cook and eat the turtle.
* A large spider is killed with a machete.
* A snake is killed with a machete.
* A squirrel monkey has its face cut off with a machete.
* A pig is kicked and then shot with a rifle.

Many condemn this as animal cruelty for the purpose of mere sensationalism and only to attract controversy, and it has also been called "animal torture." Deodato himself has condemned his past actions, saying "it was stupid to introduce animals."

[SymphonicX]

Nice post Neil, great info. It says everything I iterated about why the film needed the cuts. Cutting a Squirrel Monkey's face off? That's just heartless and cruel, I never want to see that on film or in real life...and I praise the BBFC for leaving this out.

[Neil]

More interesting stuff... He was actually up on murder charges :D


The original controversy surrounding the film's release was the belief that Cannibal Holocaust was an actual snuff film, or that the actors were murdered in order to film their deaths for the movie. The film was confiscated ten days after premiering in Milan and Deodato was arrested. The courts believed not only that the four actors portraying the missing film crew were killed for the camera, but that the actress in the impalement scene was actually skewered in such a manner. To make matters worse for Deodato, the actors had signed contracts with him and the producers ensuring that they would not appear in any type of media, motion pictures or commercials for one year after the film's release in order to promote the idea that the film was truly the recovered footage of missing documentarians. Thus, when Deodato claimed that he had not killed the group, questions arose as to why the actors were in no other media if they were alive.

Eventually, Deodato was able to prove that the violence was staged. He contacted Luca Barbareschi and told him to gather the other three actors. After voiding the contracts in order to avoid life in prison, Deodato brought the foursome onto the set of an Italian television show, which satisfied the courts. He still faced the challenge, however, of proving that the impalement scene was merely special effects. In court, he explained how the effect was achieved: a bicycle seat was attached to the end of an iron pole, upon which the actress sat. She then took a short length of balsa wood and held it in her mouth and looked skyward, thus making it look like she had been impaled. Also, Deodato provided pictures of the girl interacting with the crew after the scene had been filmed. After being presented with this evidence, the courts dropped all murder charges against Deodato.

Despite Deodato being exonerated for murder, the courts still wished to ban the film because of its extreme nature. The decision was made to ban Cannibal Holocaust because of the genuine animal slayings, citing animal cruelty laws. Due to this ruling, Deodato, the producers, screenwriter, and the United Artists representative each received a four month suspended sentence after being convicted of obscenity and violence. Deodato spent three additional years fighting in the courts to get his film unbanned. Finally, in 1984, the courts ruled in favor of Deodato, and Cannibal Holocaust was granted a rating certificate of VM18 for a cut print (it would later be re-released uncut).



I've got the film on VHS somewhere, but I have no idea if it's the cut or uncut version... All I do know is I only bothered watching a bit of it, and gave up...

[SymphonicX]

it's actually very watchable and highly enjoyable I reckon....don't own it though, but rented it years ago and loved it!

Beats Mountain of the Cannibal God too...

[horrormad]

More interesting stuff... He was actually up on murder charges :D

indent]



I've got the film on VHS somewhere, but I have no idea if it's the cut or uncut version... All I do know is I only bothered watching a bit of it, and gave up...

If you have the vhs In uncut would you trade It with me?

[MinionZombie]

A mate gave me a copy of it, but he never watched it - and vowed to not watch it after I told him real animals were killed in it (he's got a real bugbear with animal killing on screen).

It was surprisingly good for an exploitation flick, although the animal killing I still find to be pointless and merely used for sensationalising.

[Skippy911sc]

The version I had, had the animal killings in it. I remember very vividly the Tutle scene, as well as the girl on the spike. They also had a scene in which a guy was killed and eaten (one of the film crew) and they cut his penis off and started to eat it...horrible stuff!

[Neil]

If you have the vhs In uncut would you trade It with me?Nope...