|
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 10:12 Mauldo wrote:
Would this be banned if it were a book? If we ban the movie version of this crazy ass film, what's to say a book depicting the exact same thing isn't or is ban worthy?
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.
did she get raped by a man who gets off on the fact he has barbed wire on his bellend?
I didn't watch the first thing, i really don't get the horror genre, if you wanna see disgusting things, go to liverpool or mancherster.. (derp)
But on a serious note, i'm usually not for the banning of anything, but this just really does not in any way bring anything for us, it has no value, even in an entertainment sense. Apparently it's not even bad enough to be funny-bad its just an average shit film with a twisted ridiculous side, created from the mind of perverts. The "It's only fiction" defence has a line, and i think realistic and graphic portrayals of sexual gratification due to the torture and degradation of others.. is a very good place to draw that line, especially with little (or in this case no) attempt at exploring anything to do with the human condition.
Now if i was a standard poster i'd end with "lul if u wnt to c dis u need ur hed checked!!11!" but really.. meh it's just shit lol.
|
Honestly, the dude is insane. But still, as disgusting as the movie is, there is no harm done. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. Censoring things is not the solution. Who gets to decide what is obscene and what isn't? Obscenity is a personal opinion.
|
On June 08 2011 11:25 Belial88 wrote:Awesome. Show nested quote +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.
I'm not approaching it from a 'think of the children!!' perspective. I'm not saying it's going to increase sex offence rates or is a symptom of the moral decay of society. I'm just saying that it's at worst particularly twisted rape pornography, and at best a shitty film made by an attention seeking hack. Is that not a reasonable opinion?
I mean, if it wasn't banned I still wouldn't give a fuck.
|
This isn't censorship. This is consumer protection. Protecting people from wasting their mone yon watching what is clearly a ridiculous and disgusting movie.
|
This is so sick omg this movie is... possibly the only movie I will never ever ever ever want to watch.
|
I saw the first one and ya know what... it was rather tame. I found Hostel to be much more gruesome. Sure the idea behind it is disgusting, but after having viewed it - there was virtually nothing on screen that was sickening. Everything was covered up, done off screen or implied - nothing shown. I'd wager there was more blood & guts in a Die Hard-type action movie.
All in all, myself & friends who viewed it found ourselves laughing throughout the movie instead of disgusted by it.
|
Good, movies should rely on quality and not shock value to attract an audience.
|
So sad that banning it will probably attract more attention and viewers than otherwise. Not much appreciation for these "sick" movies...
Hostel was alright, altough borderline. It had a kind of story attached to it. A Serbian film was a total POS, I have no interest in watching THC or its sequel, the preview alone told enough of the story.
|
On June 08 2011 05:17 GinDo wrote: -_- I don't blame the UK. I really regret clicking on the preview. I could have lived my whole life without this idea evercrossing my mind. I think this deserves a NSFW. I'm a go puke now.
i made the mistake of eating dinner right before watching the trailers : (
|
Sick, saw the first one and don't wish to see the second...
|
On June 08 2011 11:46 KevinIX wrote:
Honestly, the dude is insane. But still, as disgusting as the movie is, there is no harm done. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. Censoring things is not the solution. Who gets to decide what is obscene and what isn't? Obscenity is a personal opinion.
I get your point, but everything is a personal opinion to a degree. You have to set a bar somewhere.
|
Yea i accedently saw this movie when i walked in on my roomates watching it....
It ranks on my top 5 worst movies list, up there with The Room and Troll 2.
|
The trailer and the idea of the human centipede is incredibly revolting. On the topic of the ban, I think it's stupid. If someone really wants to watch the movie they'll find a way. Stop censoring stuff when all it really accomplishes is make it inconvenient.
|
I watched the first trailer and what the fuck
I will never understand people who enjoy torture movies...
|
On June 08 2011 11:49 Gummy wrote:
This isn't censorship. This is consumer protection. Protecting people from wasting their mone yon watching what is clearly a ridiculous and disgusting movie.
There is no need for a consumer protection system that protects people from buying a can of food without reading the lable when they were perfectly capable of doing so. Anybody who's going to fork over money to watch this movie should at least realize that it's a horror movie about people sewn together ass-to-face, enough said.
On June 08 2011 13:05 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 11:46 KevinIX wrote:
Honestly, the dude is insane. But still, as disgusting as the movie is, there is no harm done. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. Censoring things is not the solution. Who gets to decide what is obscene and what isn't? Obscenity is a personal opinion. I get your point, but everything is a personal opinion to a degree. You have to set a bar somewhere.
People are perfectly capable of setting the bar themselves. You have the right to attempt to persuade someone that they should not watch the movie, and I urge you to exercise that right in this case, but you do not have the right to physically force them not to watch it and neither does the government. There are people in the world who would like to watch this movie, and the degree of prominance of their ideas in society is a threat to society. There are better ways of dealing with those ideas than giving the government the right to tell people how to entertain themselves. Until someone actually commits the acts depicted in the film, they have not violated anyone else's rights, and they have therefore not committed a crime. The same goes for the film makers.
|
ugh that movie was awful... the acting was miserable and you really don't even see anything. Idn the doctor was creepy as fuck though I'll give him that. But after the explanation and the reveal are the highlights. The build up and follow up are miserable.
As far as the second one... stinks for UK but i doubt there missing much :-/
|
I don't know, banning on grounds of obscenity always seems so arbitrary to me. Even if you are a judge, it takes an awfully large amount of hubris to become convinced that your definition of obscenity should speak on behalf of an entire nation of people. I suppose that's why it isn't done very often. Given what I read about the other banned films becoming cult classics though, well, you'd really think they would have learned their lesson by now. Especially now that we have the internet. Oh well, whatever, I don't think it will practically change much anyway for people who really want to see it.
|
There's plenty of really fucked up exploitation movies that don't get censored (Guinea Pig series, Men Behind the Sun, etc), not really sure why they're singling this one out. You can't stop people from seeing movies they wanna see these days anyway.
|
I watched the South Park episode a while ago and thought it was kinda funny but didnt understand why everyone thought it was hilarious until now. This is some fucked up shit
|
Gonna have to side with UK's decision on this one, not because I believe in censorship, but I'm all for keeping people safe from seeing shitty movies. Imagine if someone would of spared us all from seeing Indiana Jones and 'the crystal skull'. The world would really be a better place. My .02c
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
