chairdriver Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) They shouldn't sensor this, just sell it with a visible "WARNING: CONTAINS THEMES WHICH WILL OFFEND" written on it. As mentioned, censoring it just means it will be pirated. Edited June 9, 2011 by chairdriver
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Just give it what you would have rated it, 18+. You should be adult enough to decide whether or not you want to buy and watch this movie at that age. Everything that really needs to be said on the matter.
chairdriver Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Everything that really needs to be said on the matter. Although, I do think if there's scenes of him wrapping barbed wire round his cock and raping someone there needs something more than a casual 18+ sign. Like a warning on the DVD disc or something.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Although, I do think if there's scenes of him wrapping barbed wire round his cock and raping someone there needs something more than a casual 18+ sign. Like a warning on the DVD disc or something. I agree. I've often thought warning labels could do with a bit more specificity (without spoiling anything, of course).
Wesley Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Although, I do think if there's scenes of him wrapping barbed wire round his cock and raping someone there needs something more than a casual 18+ sign. Like a warning on the DVD disc or something. Holy shit, really? This film sounds awesome! Reminds me of the that part in Tetsuo: The Iron Man.
Debug Mode Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Holy shit, really? This film sounds awesome! Reminds me of the that part in Tetsuo: The Iron Man. Hahaha, I was thinking the exact same thing. I don't think there needs to be something more than an 18 sign even if it did get released. It is what it is, a minimum requirement to buy the product based on what minimum age should be allowed to see it. There's no 'special exceptions' here.. then again I remember the shit storm that lead to 12a back when Spiderman came out.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Hahaha, I was thinking the exact same thing. I don't think there needs to be something more than an 18 sign even if it did get released. It is what it is, a minimum requirement to buy the product based on what minimum age should be allowed to see it. There's no 'special exceptions' here.. then again I remember the shit storm that lead to 12a back when Spiderman came out. 12a? Spider-Man? What was that about?
Wesley Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Wiki: Before Spider-Man's British theatrical release in June 2002, the BBFC gave the film a '12' certificate. Due to Spider-Man's popularity with younger children, this prompted much controversy. The BBFC defended their decision, arguing that the film could have been given a '15'. Despite this, North Norfolk and Breckland District Councils, in East Anglia, changed it to a 'PG', and Tameside council, Manchester, denoted it a 'PG-12'. The United States rated it "PG-13".[41] In late August, the BBFC relaxed their policy to '12A', leading Sony to re-release the film.[42] I barely remember that to be honest.
Jimbob Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Give it a few weeks, then this will be on our shores in the pirate form. Not that i will want to watch it, these sorts of movies sicken me.
weeyellowbloke Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 It's the actors I feel sorry for. Three years of film school, they finally get their big break raping/being raped with barbed wire and the bloody BBFC bans it. Philistines.
Goafer Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 In all fairness, anyone who buys it knows that the main part of the story revolves around people shitting in other peoples mouths. I don't think warnings are necessary really. Anyone buying/watching it knows what they are getting themselves into.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Although, I do think if there's scenes of him wrapping barbed wire round his cock and raping someone there needs something more than a casual 18+ sign. Like a warning on the DVD disc or something. No one reads the disc. Either way, that'd be a spoiler. We can't have too much of the content being given away.
MadDog Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Some of you guys really want to see someone sandpaper their nob? It hurts just typing it.
Happenstance Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 It hurts just typing it. Sandpaper round your fingers?
mcj metroid Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Either way censorship is extremely pointless. It's basic human instinct to want what you can't have. I'll bet even a lot of people on this forum will actually go see it now even if you hadn't heard of the film before. It's free advertising for the movie really.
Goafer Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 Either way censorship is extremely pointless. It's basic human instinct to want what you can't have. I'll bet even a lot of people on this forum will actually go see it now even if you hadn't heard of the film before. It's free advertising for the movie really. Free advertising that won't make anyone any money because the only way to see it is to pirate it. Sure it will make the movie famous, but it won't make any money, which hopefully will deter any other people from making this sort of film. I guess that's their aim?
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Some of you guys really want to see someone sandpaper their nob? It hurts just typing it. Saw managed to bang out a few sequels. Is it because they're not in mortal danger?
Jimbob Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Saw managed to bang out a few sequels. Is it because they're not in mortal danger? Probably because Saw is a typical movie of its genre, showing a bit of gore but not enough to warrent a ban. Which is what a lot of these types of movies are like. Where-as something like Human Centepede, is wrong. The first one got released over here because it was like the rest of the horror genre, and it used bandages as a way to make it look gory, but not gory at the same time.
Paj! Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 My first feature film is going to be about/have frequent visual references to goatse so I hope y'all (and the BBFC) are ready. There will also be homage scenes to Pink Flamingos and Antichrist, only more extreme. Possibly at the same time.
Razz Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 My first feature film is going to be about/have frequent visual references to goatse so I hope y'all (and the BBFC) are ready. There will also be homage scenes to Pink Flamingos and Antichrist, only more extreme. Possibly at the same time. Allow having her as creative consultant.
Goafer Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 Probably because Saw is a typical movie of its genre, showing a bit of gore but not enough to warrent a ban. Which is what a lot of these types of movies are like. Saw had a story line and focused on the escape of the main character. Human Centipede 2 doesn't seem to have a storyline beyond "look at this perv slam his ham over this sick shit". The first HC was about the 3 people and their attempts at escaping, which is why it got a certificate. HC2 doesn't focus on them attempting to escape, it's all about the main guys fantasies. Or at least that's what I'm getting from the BBFC's statement.
Jimbob Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Saw had a story line and focused on the escape of the main character. Human Centipede 2 doesn't seem to have a storyline beyond "look at this perv slam his ham over this sick shit". The first HC was about the 3 people and their attempts at escaping, which is why it got a certificate. HC2 doesn't focus on them attempting to escape, it's all about the main guys fantasies. Or at least that's what I'm getting from the BBFC's statement. Not that they attempted to escape once they were sewn together. If people are that interested in seeing HC-II, they will find ways to see it. The internet is the way i believe.
Goafer Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Not that they attempted to escape once they were sewn together They were trying to escape when the Japanese (?) guy killed himself. They also tried by pushing the doctor into the pool IIRC. But it's more that fact that the story revolved around their horrible experience and them coping/escaping/giving up hope of escape. The second doesn't seem to focus on the victims. It's focuses more on the main guys fetish, encouraging people to identify with him apparently. Or something like that. It's basically making the fetish the "entertainment" of the movie, not the story. Edited June 9, 2011 by Goafer
Guy Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 The first movie wasn't even enjoyably bad anyway and that's coming from someone who loves truly shitty movies. I wouldn't even consider watching a Human Centipede sequel that didn't have that doctor dude in it. He was the only good thing about that movie.
EEVILMURRAY Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 The first HC was about the 3 people and their attempts at escaping, which is why it got a certificate. HC2 doesn't focus on them attempting to escape, it's all about the main guys fantasies. Nothing wrong with one man trying to follow his dream/fulfill his fantasy. Granted it isn't the most glamourous fantasy.
Recommended Posts