|
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 09 2011 01:09 howerpower wrote:
If this movie is banned why isn't saw banned? That shit is sick too.
btw, I don't think they should be banned. I understand that some people like them.
Imo it should be up to the cinema and not to the government, but honestly I don't care that much.
To me it's kind of surprising how many people are defending this film. To me it just seems to be where the line's drawn on what to be viewed in a public media.
It's not like they're doing a China and stop all internet traffic to the film.
You might as well be upset there's no snuff porn films on BBC on prime time -.-
|
On June 09 2011 02:29 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 01:09 howerpower wrote:
If this movie is banned why isn't saw banned? That shit is sick too.
btw, I don't think they should be banned. I understand that some people like them. Imo it should be up to the cinema and not to the government, but honestly I don't care that much. To me it's kind of surprising how many people are defending this film. To me it just seems to be where the line's drawn on what to be viewed in a public media. It's not like they're doing a China and stop all internet traffic to the film. You might as well be upset there's no snuff porn films on BBC on prime time -.-
What do you mean by "public media"? I guess you mean media available to individuals who are part of the "public". The movie is watched in private, by consent. There is no line to draw about what can be done in private by consent. If you see someone watching this movie are you going to presume to tackle them to the ground and steal their copy of the movie and burn it? It's their right to own and watch it, someone else's to sell it. Use your words.
|
I'm glad nanny government can step in and tell me what i can and can't watch.
God knows i couldn't handle whats in this movie.
|
Im not sure if i d want to watch this... dont see how a movie could acually make money on something like this...
i mean...
what in the fuck man...
|
On June 09 2011 07:05 zobz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 02:29 Euronyme wrote:On June 09 2011 01:09 howerpower wrote:
If this movie is banned why isn't saw banned? That shit is sick too.
btw, I don't think they should be banned. I understand that some people like them. Imo it should be up to the cinema and not to the government, but honestly I don't care that much. To me it's kind of surprising how many people are defending this film. To me it just seems to be where the line's drawn on what to be viewed in a public media. It's not like they're doing a China and stop all internet traffic to the film. You might as well be upset there's no snuff porn films on BBC on prime time -.- What do you mean by "public media"? I guess you mean media available to individuals who are part of the "public". The movie is watched in private, by consent. There is no line to draw about what can be done in private by consent. If you see someone watching this movie are you going to presume to tackle them to the ground and steal their copy of the movie and burn it? It's their right to own and watch it, someone else's to sell it. Use your words.
Oh how wrong you are.
There are all kinds of things you can't do in private even if you have a hundred signed contracts vouching for their consent. Lets just see what comes off the top of my head...
You can't have sex with a 12 year old that consented. (unless you live in Holland) Or watch a video of a 12 year old having sex that consented. (once again, Holland) Or have sex with animals even if Spot gives you the nod and a tail wag. Or assisted suicide. Or watch snuff films. Or... the list goes on.
There is no right to do stuff in your home in private. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that you can't even do sexual things to ANYONE, even your wife, husband or boyfriend, when they are asleep, even if they consented beforehand! (No fun wake-up surprises because you could end up in prison)
So this notion of having a free-standing right to all types of media, and in the privacy of your home and all that...probably misplaced.
|
On June 09 2011 07:40 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 07:05 zobz wrote:On June 09 2011 02:29 Euronyme wrote:On June 09 2011 01:09 howerpower wrote:
If this movie is banned why isn't saw banned? That shit is sick too.
btw, I don't think they should be banned. I understand that some people like them. Imo it should be up to the cinema and not to the government, but honestly I don't care that much. To me it's kind of surprising how many people are defending this film. To me it just seems to be where the line's drawn on what to be viewed in a public media. It's not like they're doing a China and stop all internet traffic to the film. You might as well be upset there's no snuff porn films on BBC on prime time -.- What do you mean by "public media"? I guess you mean media available to individuals who are part of the "public". The movie is watched in private, by consent. There is no line to draw about what can be done in private by consent. If you see someone watching this movie are you going to presume to tackle them to the ground and steal their copy of the movie and burn it? It's their right to own and watch it, someone else's to sell it. Use your words. Oh how wrong you are. There are all kinds of things you can't do in private even if you have a hundred signed contracts vouching for their consent. Lets just see what comes off the top of my head... You can't have sex with a 12 year old that consented. (unless you live in Holland) Or watch a video of a 12 year old having sex that consented. (once again, Holland) Or h ave sex with animals even if Spot gives you the nod and a tail wag. Or assisted suicide. Or watch snuff films. Or... the list goes on.
Actually that is legal in Sweden, just thought you should know. Your argument was very well written and formulated otherwise and i agree wholeheartedly. Carry on
|
I won't deny this movie is sick, but this is nothing compared to the outrage when The Exorcist was released. It was banned, people were disgusted, people went running and screaming to their priests hoping it couldn't really happen..yet how trivial do we find The Exorcist today? (And for me it stands as an iconic horror film) The Human Centipede works as a horror film if you are so moved as to not even watch it or say 'yes, ban it now!' because a true horror film should be challenging. The best ones chill you to your core. It's actually more worrying how pop culture most horror has become. We can consider it a fun night out going to watch a film about people being butchered. I've seen horrors where many many people die in gory ways..but as long as it doesn't 'feel' real its ok? If I choose to watch a 'horror' film, I don't mind it actually horrifying me because as an adult, I made that choice and I'm healthy enough to not let it warp my mind because its just acting ..and slightly facile point I know, but many of us here want this movie banned..but at least its not real..Mugabe and other real monsters slaughter thousands and we allow it everyday!
|
On June 09 2011 07:40 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 07:05 zobz wrote:On June 09 2011 02:29 Euronyme wrote:On June 09 2011 01:09 howerpower wrote:
If this movie is banned why isn't saw banned? That shit is sick too.
btw, I don't think they should be banned. I understand that some people like them. Imo it should be up to the cinema and not to the government, but honestly I don't care that much. To me it's kind of surprising how many people are defending this film. To me it just seems to be where the line's drawn on what to be viewed in a public media. It's not like they're doing a China and stop all internet traffic to the film. You might as well be upset there's no snuff porn films on BBC on prime time -.- What do you mean by "public media"? I guess you mean media available to individuals who are part of the "public". The movie is watched in private, by consent. There is no line to draw about what can be done in private by consent. If you see someone watching this movie are you going to presume to tackle them to the ground and steal their copy of the movie and burn it? It's their right to own and watch it, someone else's to sell it. Use your words. Oh how wrong you are. There are all kinds of things you can't do in private even if you have a hundred signed contracts vouching for their consent. Lets just see what comes off the top of my head... You can't have sex with a 12 year old that consented. (unless you live in Holland) Or watch a video of a 12 year old having sex that consented. (once again, Holland) Or have sex with animals even if Spot gives you the nod and a tail wag. Or assisted suicide. Or watch snuff films. Or... the list goes on. There is no right to do stuff in your home in private. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that you can't even do sexual things to ANYONE, even your wife, husband or boyfriend, when they are asleep, even if they consented beforehand! (No fun wake-up surprises because you could end up in prison) So this notion of having a free-standing right to all types of media, and in the privacy of your home and all that...probably misplaced.
So... did you notice your own red thread? These are all things involving others being used or hurt, directly or indirectly.
+ Show Spoiler +That makes your argument invalid
|
I'm kind of torn on this. I don't like the idea of censorship but I fail to see any redeeming quality in this movie that would lead me to believe the world will be enriched by it's existence.
About the only thing its done is reopen the debate on the merits of censorship.
|
saw isint nearly as sick as this is....
|
These movies are trash. They appeal to knuckle draggers who love them some campy gore. I wish I could ban 90% of the schlock that comes out at the megaplex. But folks don't want to be challenged, they want to be entertained or forget.
That was a pretty curmudgeonly response but I feel it was warranted.
|
Being honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this director was formally an estate agent until the housing market took a nose dive and he had to use his "selling skills" in a new way because he movie making skills are a pile of shit.
glad its banned, the first film was terrible, storyline needed a huge amount of work, acting stank, plot made no sense and the characters had no substance to their actions. In the end it felt like the movie solely relied on the repulsion and horror factor to sell it.
The director submits himself to sensationalism and clearly wishes to test the boundaries of grossness, Glad the UK has some sense. The claim 100% medically accurate is a lame marketing slogan, attaching a machine to a persons body is also 100% medically accurate. Anyone that pays this guy tribute for pushing the boundaries of censorship is doing free speech an injustice and insulting heros like MLK
|
Uwe Boll..You're off the hook, buddy
|
Everytime a movie or whatever else is banned/censored, we're taking a step backward. As far as i know, nobody was harmed in the making of this movie. So if it doesn't hurt anyone, i have no problem with it since it's just a matter of opinions (some people like it and some people don't).
The only problem i have is with people imposing their beleif on others: ''I don't like it, therefore nobody should like it''. If you're not into this kind of stuff, great, but stfu about it and let these guys enjoy this movie.
|
i don't really get how this can be banned but not a ton of the other disgusting horror movies, and i also don't get the people in this thread that can somehow draw the line between this and something like saw. i don't like these types of horror films, so i rarely watch them, but i do every once in a while, so i'll try to make a comparison. i think it was saw 4 or something, where someone's dick got chopped off and fed to dogs in front of the guy. if you're not crossing the line there, or even well before that, then to me, there's pretty much no line.
there is a type of sub-genre in horror that people watch intending to be disgusted, not far off from watching with the intention of being scared. i don't see what's such a problem with the former if there is none with the latter. it seems completely hypocritical from my point of view.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2011 10:08 Herculix wrote:
i don't really get how this can be banned but not a ton of the other disgusting horror movies, and i also don't get the people in this thread that can somehow draw the line between this and something like saw. i don't like these types of horror films, so i rarely watch them, but i do every once in a while, so i'll try to make a comparison. i think it was saw 4 or something, where someone's dick got chopped off and fed to dogs in front of the guy. if you're not crossing the line there, or even well before that, then to me, there's pretty much no line.
there is a type of sub-genre in horror that people watch intending to be disgusted, not far off from watching with the intention of being scared. i don't see what's such a problem with the former if there is none with the latter. it seems completely hypocritical from my point of view.
This. I think this movie is totally disgusting, but to think that NO ONE should be able to watch it because it is gross and disgusting isn't right. If it were to be opened like any other movie, it still would have gotten few viewers, and not a lot of attention. It wouldn't hurt the world as a whole, if some crazed psychopath enjoys this movie, then by all means let him, he could be watching other disgusting movies that aren't banned or actually committing an act himself.
|
Nasty! I had no desire to watch the first one and just as little interest in the second one.
What would be interesting to me is watching a few video clips of them trying to pitch this movie premise to investors... now there's gotta be some comedy in that.
|
|
|
On June 09 2011 07:40 Gnial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 07:05 zobz wrote:On June 09 2011 02:29 Euronyme wrote:On June 09 2011 01:09 howerpower wrote:
If this movie is banned why isn't saw banned? That shit is sick too.
btw, I don't think they should be banned. I understand that some people like them. Imo it should be up to the cinema and not to the government, but honestly I don't care that much. To me it's kind of surprising how many people are defending this film. To me it just seems to be where the line's drawn on what to be viewed in a public media. It's not like they're doing a China and stop all internet traffic to the film. You might as well be upset there's no snuff porn films on BBC on prime time -.- What do you mean by "public media"? I guess you mean media available to individuals who are part of the "public". The movie is watched in private, by consent. There is no line to draw about what can be done in private by consent. If you see someone watching this movie are you going to presume to tackle them to the ground and steal their copy of the movie and burn it? It's their right to own and watch it, someone else's to sell it. Use your words. Oh how wrong you are. There are all kinds of things you can't do in private even if you have a hundred signed contracts vouching for their consent. Lets just see what comes off the top of my head... You can't have sex with a 12 year old that consented. (unless you live in Holland) Or watch a video of a 12 year old having sex that consented. (once again, Holland) Or have sex with animals even if Spot gives you the nod and a tail wag. Or assisted suicide. Or watch snuff films. Or... the list goes on. There is no right to do stuff in your home in private. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that you can't even do sexual things to ANYONE, even your wife, husband or boyfriend, when they are asleep, even if they consented beforehand! (No fun wake-up surprises because you could end up in prison) So this notion of having a free-standing right to all types of media, and in the privacy of your home and all that...probably misplaced.
I was speaking morally, not legally. And note that the central argument for every legal exception you listed is a claim to the consent in those cases being, not unessential, but invalid. Either that it's impossible for consent in that case to be reliably communicated, or that the act in question could only be enabled by a prior act which took place without the necessary valid consent, or that the person involved is not a fully recognized citizen and thus does not have all of the usual rights or responsibilities including consent.
Very many people are not comfortable with the notion of letting children have as much control over their own lives as adults, and this is understandable as children are a complex issue in many ways. I find it far less reasonable though to limit the control adults have over their own lives to any extent whatsoever.
|
Alot of people in this thread didn't read why they banned it.
It should be banned. There should be a line drawn somewhere where you're not just making a movie that's disgusting and violent for only that sake. The first film was a clever idea and a new twist on mad-scientist scenario, the second one is just disgusting sounding. It's just 3 people being mutilated and tortured while a guy jerks off while mutilating himself and performing some really sick sexual acts.
I guess people will stick up for anything even if it doesn't deserve to be stuck up for...It's like advocating child porn is free-speech even though it's absolutley horrible and has no place in society 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
