|
Please read the topic before responding to the title. The film has been cut and given a rating, it is no longer banned. - KwarK |
On June 08 2011 08:26 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote:
ok, ok last try....
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1)
Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie.
Every right stops where it hurts another right.
Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
2) However When you ban a movie you cut the rights of the people who want to see it.
So you must weigh if the right of this group is more worth than the right of the other group, who are afraid that such movie can be dangerous.
3) in this special case i think the 2. right win.
Because even if the chance is very small that people who watch this do something dangerous,
it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems.
So if we cut the right of people to watch such movies -that let them feel good when they see people torture- it is OK in my opinion. 3. So you are okay that the German governments bans all "killerspiele" (shooters for us non-Germans^^), because many people claim that violent video games are the reason for murders & shooting sprees? And keep in mind that those people have the same "facts" backing up their statements like you do: none. Or you might enlighten a lot of us here and show a scientific study that shows that people who watch those movies have big mental problems.
Oh. thank you for the first real argument!
my answer is: YES and NO.
i think you must decide for every game and every situation.
A game where the goal is to kill other people and you mainly focus on your movement and aimskill? ALLOW
A game like call of duty where you come in a situation and he ask you: "should we burn him or shoot him" and you have all the time you want to decide and there is no other aspect.
Its just you to make this strange decision. GRAY
A game where you have to torture people or randomly kill people who walking around
BAN
this is my opinion. my line. i think there are many cases where its hard to find the line and we must discuss this for every new game and movie again.
-----------
To the last point:
Do people have the right to watching how other people suffering (in a movie) is the question we discuss.
And for me the answer is: NO as long we cant be 100% sure its not dangerous.
And you say: YES as long there is no study that shows its dangerous.
|
Lol book burnings and censorship became obsolete as soon as the internet formed.
Isn't the UK parliment worried about the streisand effect making the movie a much bigger deal there than it normally would have been? And with incredibily easy access to free movies streaming online, how exactly can it be enforced to any degree?
In conclusion not only do i think this is an aberration of people's rights, and of artistic licence, it will foolishly generate much much more hype than the movie otherwise would have garnered. Do you remember back a couple years ago when Hostel got the same treatment? How many people do you know went to go see it just to see "what the fuss was about"?
Cowardly and stupid parliment doing a cowardly and stupid thing.
|
On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote:
ok, ok last try....
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1)
Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie.
Every right stops where it hurts another right.
Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
If you don't wan't to get beat up don't compete in boxing.
The same goes for movies/books/games etc - if it might offend you, just leave it alone.
|
Lol, I remember the first one coming out and everyone I know continually made jokes about how shit it sounded.
I haven't heard of films being banned in ages, well... not films that aren't snuff and all that disturbing shit no one should see anyway. Seems unnecessary.
|
On June 08 2011 08:32 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 08:28 skeldark wrote:On June 08 2011 08:22 vyyye wrote:On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote:
it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems.
This is why no one is taking you seriously. Well, one of the reasons. Your complete logical fallacies play a part too. you guys think its fun to watch such movies? i was thinking you agree with me that its shit and just argue for the general freedom of speech. So if you really enjoy stuff like this than i total misunderstand the situation! If you feel something like fun when you look such crap than there is just nothing i have to say to you... Oh? So if my preferences in entertainment clashes with yours you are somehow superior to me?
Err, the defense of these movies is very weak.
Should fiction be allowed to portray anything? Yes. Or should it? We draw lines all the time. South Park targets people personally. These are however all public persons. Would South Park be tolerated if its creators opened a phonebook at random, checked out that persons Facebook page and made up a twisted plot where cartoon versions of that real persons family carry out despicable acts? No? Ok, so it's not ok to target non-public persons in fiction? We get all these blurry lines and gray areas.
I think the line must also be different for commercial fiction. This movie has been banned from commercial distribution, not censored - if the owners of the intellectual property wanted to, they could freely distribute the movie online. Why is this so important? Because as a consumer you are reasonably able to expect certain things when you purchase certain products. There is no label to describe this film and it wouldn't make sense to implement one so instead it's banned from commercial distribution. Say they slap an R on it - a consumer would still not be able to expect what's to come and would have legal grounds to bring the rating agency to court. Certain criteria come with each rating - some products go beyond that and therefor can't be distributed. It's not much different from banning meat products that don't state the country of origin.
"So what about artistic freedom and censorship?!" Again - there's no censorship. This could be displayed at an art gallery with no problem but it does not qualify as a commercial movie. Consumer protection =/= censorship. "But... What about SAW!?" If you've read the grounds provided by the agency for denial - you'll find the two works to be quite different.
|
The first one was hilarious, this one sounds a lot more messed up though. I'll probably watch it with friends eventually out of curiosity.
If the movie is actually pornographic it's perfectly okay to ban it from showing in theaters, but a lot of people in this thread need to get off their high horses.
|
Jesus guys. Let's get back on topic about masturbation with sandpaper.
I don't know what the fuck is wrong with some of you people, but always looking for confrontation is stupid. Let's laugh. Let's cry. Let's cringe at scat. But get off the pedestal plz.
kthx.
|
On June 08 2011 04:45 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote:
I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films. You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw? I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie.
Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife.
Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
|
On June 08 2011 08:21 Chef wrote:
In society we build rules which we are all to obey, else face consequences like prison. I take no issue with restricting freedom, as long as freedom is restricted in ways that I accept. You're not allowed to steal from people: good. You're not allowed to hit people: good. You're no allowed to sell dehumanizing, gore porn: good.
If a work doesn't have redeeming social value I don't mind that it is banned. I think people who argue for 100% freedom are silly. You have 100% freedom if you want it. It's just that you have to face the real world. If you want to live in society, then sacrifice some of your freedoms. I want to be protected.
I'm not a child and I don't want to be nannied by the state. I appreciate protection against things such as violence, foreign threats, forgeries, etc., but you should not want protection from yourself, and if you do, you shouldn't be advocating the state protect everyone from themselves. Our governments have become nanny states. They want to protect me from my own guns and knives, they want to protect me from hurting while myself volunteering to help someone who had a tornado destroy their yard so they fine me for not having a permit, they want to protect me from the decision to watch "dehumanizing, gore porn" (that isn't real and no one was hurt during production). None of this should be their place. The government should only be there to protect me against the initiation of force by others, not to protect me from myself.
|
You all care way too much about way too much
|
I liked the first movie, and I'm definitely going to see the sequel when it comes out.
Even though I enjoyed the first movie, I understand why they banned the sequel. To clear up a lot of the arguing that's been going on in this thread, a movie being grotesque in nature does not warrant a ban. The reason why this movie is banned is because the intent of the movie is to disgust people to the point that they lose faith in humanity. Since the purpose of the movie is to harm rather than to entertain, they have decided to ban it. I'm not making a claim as to whether or not they made the correct decision, I'm pointing out the misconception some people have that this movie was banned for being grotesque while other movies equally as grotesque were not banned.
|
its just a fucking movie, whatever i could care less, i thought the first one was good, also interesting, its a movie and people get all butt hurt, its good he is making a new one,s o he would show hes better then all the people who send him death threats
|
the idea of this movie is perverse to say the lease. not scary, just disgusting and definitely reprehensible much like 2g1c.. i can sit through it and not think twice about it, i'm not unbalanced easily, regardless i think the films and idea of the "human centipede" is just redundant. i doubt anyone is frightened or entertained by it. the only thing i give it credit for is glimmers of originality
|
I'm wondering how they even came up with an idea of making a sequel for Human Centipede. That's just disgusting.
|
On June 08 2011 09:44 Crue wrote:
the idea of this movie is perverse to say the lease. not scary, just disgusting and definitely reprehensible much like 2g1c.. i can sit through it and not think twice about it, i'm not unbalanced easily, regardless i think the films and idea of the "human centipede" is just redundant. i doubt anyone is frightened or entertained by it. the only thing i give it credit for is glimmers of originality
what the hell did I just read?
|
On June 08 2011 09:12 Elzar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:45 iCanada wrote:On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote:
I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films. You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw? I must have missed those scenes. No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
|
On June 08 2011 09:33 Chairman Ray wrote:
I liked the first movie, and I'm definitely going to see the sequel when it comes out.
Even though I enjoyed the first movie, I understand why they banned the sequel. To clear up a lot of the arguing that's been going on in this thread, a movie being grotesque in nature does not warrant a ban. The reason why this movie is banned is because the intent of the movie is to disgust people to the point that they lose faith in humanity. Since the purpose of the movie is to harm rather than to entertain, they have decided to ban it. I'm not making a claim as to whether or not they made the correct decision, I'm pointing out the misconception some people have that this movie was banned for being grotesque while other movies equally as grotesque were not banned.
Now you got me wanting to watch it. Lot of other movies can be depressing and make you lose faith in humanity without being disgusting. Just how bad can this one be?
|
On June 08 2011 09:47 Tatari wrote:
I'm wondering how they even came up with an idea of making a sequel for Human Centipede. That's just disgusting. $$$$$ Talks man.
|
This movie should be banned everywhere. Thank god there are no commercials for this crazy stuff, like there are for condoms. It seems whenever there's a commercial break there's going to be something about condoms. Children that don't watch the Disney channel exclusively probably have seen condom commercials. They probably won't understand that very much, but a Human Centipede commercial would scar children for life.
|
On June 08 2011 09:59 Antares777 wrote:
This movie should be banned everywhere. Thank god there are no commercials for this crazy stuff, like there are for condoms. It seems whenever there's a commercial break there's going to be something about condoms. Children that don't watch the Disney channel exclusively probably have seen condom commercials. They probably won't understand that very much, but a Human Centipede commercial would scar children for life.
Hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
