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.

[Neil]

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.