EPTHuman Centipede II banned in the UK - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please read the topic before responding to the title. The film has been cut and given a rating, it is no longer banned. - KwarK | ||
|
scatmango2
United States408 Posts
| ||
|
scatmango2
United States408 Posts
| ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
Didn't make me interested in watching anything to do with it again though. | ||
|
Mauldo
United States750 Posts
This isn't a slippery slope argument, it's a legitimate question. The only thing that's changed is the medium. And if the book shouldn't be banned, then why? Because the reader makes up their own mental image of the acts, and they're not subject to the director's? Well, what makes ours better than his? What makes ours any less offensive? In my writing, I've written stories with psychopathic main characters and other touchy subject matter. The hardest scene I've ever written is one where the main character (a girl) gets raped while trying to scrounge for supplies in a post-apocalyptic world. I didn't even describe the actual rape, because she blacked in and out of the actual act. It was more her coming to intermittently and slowly realizing what was happening to her. But what if she didn't, and I described the entirety of the situation? Should that book be banned, or that specific scene redacted? Why? I think it all comes down a simple case of the "If you don't like it, don't read/watch/listen to it." If you don't like it when a shock jock yells gay jokes into the mic every two minutes, twist that dial to a new station. If you don't like sexual themes in your TV shows, change the channel. If you don't like a specific subject matter, don't read books about it. You don't see me constantly watching scat porn even though I hate the stuff and find no redeeming quality in it. | ||
|
57 Corvette
Canada5941 Posts
Actually, what is the point of horror movies in general? | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On June 08 2011 10:16 57 Corvette wrote: Why the hell do they make movies like this anyways? Actually, what is the point of horror movies in general? The same point as romantic films. See Linda Williams article. | ||
|
MechKing
United States3004 Posts
| ||
|
Raskit
579 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
| ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
On June 08 2011 07:34 PDizzle wrote: Holy shit that's one fucked up movie :O How the fuck can ppl come up with shit like that "Miloš knocks off his sunglasses and discovers that the man is missing an eye. He tries to shoot him but finds out that the gun is empty. Miloš jams his erect penis into the man's empty eye socket, killing him" LOLWUT. Jesus, this guy is just trying to be as offensive as possible and gross people out, there's no redeeming value or message here. Stop paying any attention to it and hopefully it'll run outta funding and just go away. | ||
|
Klaus1986
United States113 Posts
On June 08 2011 07:15 skeldark wrote: so we dont have to right to deny a person the right to kill someone? we dont have the right to make laws and rules? We determine whats acceptable with every law we write. we do this everyday our hole life in every social group. we make rules. this is how society works. this have nothing to do with democracy at all. one of the rules of democracy is that we everyone have the kind of the same rights. not that everyone have all rights. perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word minority. i don't mean a special group i mean the group who want to break the rule. im sorry when i dont end with a blaming. i know that for people like you this is normal and social standard. and you know what? Here you perhaps have the right to do so. I would give it to you because your right of speaking like you want is in this case more worth than my right of not being blamed. you have to weigh, every time... ;') As long as someone's freedom does not impose on another's, there should be no law preventing an someone from living the life they want. Killing someone is imposing on someone else's right. Pedophila is imposing on someone else's right. Enjoying a movie that depicts a fictional event is not imposing on anyone's rights or freedoms and therefor should be 100% allowed. You don't understand this because your knowledge of political thought is nonexistent. Just because you are in the majority does not magically mean you have absolute control over others. Hey, what if the majority decided to make it illegal to be religious? Or not religious? Or gay? Or a socialist? Think before you talk, fool. You have no right to determine what is acceptable for another person, as long as that other person is not interfering with someone else's rights. | ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
On June 08 2011 10:52 MonkSEA wrote: Am I fucked because I actually liked the first movie..? I'll probably watch the second one too just for shits and giggles. Not to insult another person's personal preference, but I don't think you're fucked, you just have no taste. 120 Days of Sodom has a lot of themes in common with the Human Centipede, but it was actually done right. I'd recommend that movie to anyone who wants to truly see human degradation, sexual fetishes, and being put against your will in an art form. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
It's a movie about forcing naked women to eat shit while raping them. If you found that in your friends internet history you'd be fucking horrified, but if you label it under fiction it becomes harmless? So yeah I can't bring myself to condemn censorship here. Maybe they should release it, then give everyone who buys a ticket a psychological examination. | ||
|
RaLakedaimon
United States1564 Posts
On June 08 2011 10:48 zobz wrote: The movie seems like just a pointless excursion into ammorality and there's no legitimate reason anybody should want to see it, let alone pay to see it. It just goes to show how wrong society is. That being said, the problems with this film being profitable are underlying, and you will not get rid of them by banning the movie. The moral code that brings anyone to enjoy this kind of film should be the center of discussion everywhere. Excellent point man and I second that, this threads kind of all over the place with the various topics including the main one about the banning in general but the fact someone would take pleasure in watching something as demented as this is frightening. Can't imagine the creators seeking money making something like this so whoevers idea it generated from is one sick puppy lol. | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On June 08 2011 11:02 The KY wrote: The first film is overtly about sexual sadism; it was made for and possibly by people who get off on humiliation. It's confirmed that the director knows this full well by the fact that the sequel is about a guy who becomes sexually obsessed with the original film. It's a movie about forcing naked women to eat shit while raping them. If you found that in your friends internet history you'd be fucking horrified, but if you label it under fiction it becomes harmless? So yeah I can't bring myself to condemn censorship here. Maybe they should release it, then give everyone who buys a ticket a psychological examination. If you think someone should be given a psych eval for watching this movie, then I think I qualify for a full-blown visit to a psych ward for the movies I've seen in my life. The intricacies that surround movies that make people avoid them ,like in this scenario, intrigues me to watch them to try and get into their minds and see what they would think or how it would offend their minds. I like movies. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On June 08 2011 11:02 The KY wrote: The first film is overtly about sexual sadism; it was made for and possibly by people who get off on humiliation. It's confirmed that the director knows this full well by the fact that the sequel is about a guy who becomes sexually obsessed with the original film. It's a movie about forcing naked women to eat shit while raping them. If you found that in your friends internet history you'd be fucking horrified, but if you label it under fiction it becomes harmless? So yeah I can't bring myself to condemn censorship here. Maybe they should release it, then give everyone who buys a ticket a psychological examination. You clearly haven't actually watched the first movie. The movie was pretty decent. There was very little horror aspect to this movie, almost zero nudity, the Saw movies alone go way further in how immoral they are. The only reason this movie has the popularity it does is because the idea behind the plot is pretty damned twisted and unique, and the doctor is absolutely nuts. | ||
|
OnceKing
United States939 Posts
On June 08 2011 07:49 jw6282000 wrote: I think I heard the Academy sound effect (the scream) at the end of the second trailer. YES. This is exactly what I thought when I heard it. "It's an academy!" | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
The first film is overtly about sexual sadism; it was made for and possibly by people who get off on humiliation. It's confirmed that the director knows this full well by the fact that the sequel is about a guy who becomes sexually obsessed with the original film. It's a movie about forcing naked women to eat shit while raping them. If you found that in your friends internet history you'd be fucking horrified, but if you label it under fiction it becomes harmless? So yeah I can't bring myself to condemn censorship here. Maybe they should release it, then give everyone who buys a ticket a psychological examination. dude you sound EXACTLY, like word for word, like Hillary Clinton and all those other people who say videogames are why people become serial killers a la Colombine. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On June 08 2011 11:13 Figgy wrote: You clearly haven't actually watched the first movie. The movie was pretty decent. There was very little horror aspect to this movie, almost zero nudity, the Saw movies alone go way further in how immoral they are. The only reason this movie has the popularity it does is because the idea behind the plot is pretty damned twisted and unique, and the doctor is absolutely nuts. I watched some of it, frankly it was boring. Understand though, I'm not actually offended. But this film, and Saw as well, is very literally just porn. But in a cinema. There doesn't have to be nudity for it to be about forced sexual humiliation. And not 'about' as in it examines and explores it or has any kind of perspective on it, it just is unapologetic forced sexual humiliation. EDIT: Oh and @stevarius, I'm not saying everyone who will see it is a pervert, just that perverts will watch it. And jerk off. Just sayin'. | ||
| ||
