On June 09 2011 17:35 Manit0u wrote: Guys, have you even read the OP? This movie is going to be fake (but still real-looking I suppose) version of 2 Gils 1 Cup and 1 Guy 1 Jar combined. I don't mind horrors, I understand freedom of speech, but there are things that should not be shown or viewed. And I believe that there's quite a few people who'll go to this movie without knowing what it is or will be tricked by their friends or something. I say that british government's move here is justified. Saving even 3 people from trauma of being exposed to this garbage on accident or through lack of knowledge is worth thousands of people disappointed that they're not going to see it in the cinema or blurting about free speech left and right. Free speech should have its limits, especially when it's not trying to convey anything of value. And the "thought crime" argument... Please, coming up with an idea for such a movie already IS a crime in my opinion. I have absolutely no idea how on earth this movie got its funding...
Only if the movie itself violates the rights of others, which is near impossible as long as no one is forced to watch it and no actually harm came to anyone during the making of the film.
There is a limit to free speech...it ends where another person's rights begin. Again it's often hard to cross that line with speech as long as there isn't a captive audience.
There will always be a little gray area on what is considered a "captive audience" but as it stands, the line is drawn to allow maximum freedom without hurting anyone.
It's a very simple concept and I'm surprised at the amount of people in this thread that don't get it.
edit:To elaborate, the problem with banning something because it "doesn't convey anything of value" is that it is open to each person's subjective interpretation and definitely blurs the line for all cases of censorship and freedom of speech.
While not perfect, the rule that freedom ends where another person's rights begin is the least subjective and surprisingly clear cut in most cases. Many people just don't get it though.
You believe it ends where the rights of others start... In paper, seems fine. In real life applications, not so much. What do you mean by others rights? Are these rights always the same for all countries, and eternally true? (Do you subscribe to a form of relativism?) Say we admit that each countries have differents laws, and that we recognize these countries as rule of law, then shouldn't we also accept that the freedom of speech (that is limited by others rights) may more or less be restricted, depending on how we conceive it? I get really frustrated by these easy claims... Sure, freedom of speech should be defended, but not at all cost. Sometimes, i fear we want things to always fit nicely into a paradigm, into a theory. But real life isn't theory. Theories should guide us, but in the end, we have to make the choices, EVEN if subjective. If a theory seems to be against everything we stand for, then perhaps there can be an exception.
I 6:30 am and not really in the mood of doing philosophy. Besides, English is not my first lenguage so I don't want to ridicule myself
ps : I haven't really read about this movie, so I don't know if I support the ban or not. Watched the first trailer, and its definately something I'm not into. Does it warrant a ban? Ask the British folks. Its their nation, so let them decide for. As for me, I have no idea. I tend to believe that bad movies, provocative bad movies, will be ignored. We may be already giving too much credit to it by speaking of it. themselves what is better. And perhaps, like some said, we are doing this guy a huge favour. For all I know, most forums believe in free speech, but will actively ban the trolls. This director could actually be a big cinema troll...
Its like the mein kamft ban all over again... It really depends on how you view things. Some may prefer to stick with the rule (deontologist?) of freedom of speech, some may prefer to stick with the consequences... and some, like myself (or as I think I am) try to be inbetween ^^ I hate being in one category...
I personally wouldn't mind seeing racist/hate movies being banned. I however, have no clue on this one. And don't really want to read more about it -.- Like I said, i think we are giving this guy too much media attention
Haha the funny thing is that I just watched the humancentipad south park episode yesterday and had no clue where the writers got that kind of sick humor from..
And then this thread showed up :p.. TL is an awesome source of information..
On June 09 2011 12:26 Talack wrote: 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
You compare it to child porn, and another person compared it to snuff films.
Can't you see what's wrong with those comparisons?
The only thing I like about these movies, having never seen them, is that they apparently provoke people to support the notion of "thought-crimes". No one was actually hurt in the making of these movies, you can't claim otherwise. It's a bad enactment of the most twisted imagining, but it is just an enactment.
They're gross and pointless. I would agree with anyone who would want to not see these films. Other horror films are more intriguing, better written, better made. Sure. But it doesn't matter, what your tastes are or what your intellectual level is. Everyone should be allowed to have their entertainment if it doesn't hurt anyone else. No one is forced to watch this. If it doesn't have a place in your quasi-capitalist society, it will quickly just go away.
Does it matter? You can have a 4 hour marathon of faked child porn where the actresses are actually 18, or maybe fake snuff films and just pile 'em up. The thing is the movie's idea is simply too fucking bad to be allowed to show on cinema. If you show this you might as well put up anything, and I've always seen cinema as something somewhat classy. There's a line to be drawn on what should be shown there. If it's too disgusting without a purpose or reason and isn't well made, I don't see the point in showing it there. You can still find it on the internet if you want to see it. Truth be told not every film ever made has been showed on british cinema. I don't see the big deal.
These arguments are totally ludicrous, because I would argue that there is a lot of content broadcast on TV and produced by Hollywood/popular recording artists that contributes far more to the downfall of our society than a small cult film like The Human Centipede. We don't ban terrible romantic comedies nor shitty Youtube channels for making people dumber, nor do we ban music with graphically explicit lyrics. It's not the government's job to decide "Well, this media is okay for our society and this one isn't". Britney Spears' slutty music can influence girls at a very young age and ruin their self-esteem by giving them unrealistic expectations, but I don't see anyone calling for a ban on that. This movie will, at worst, cause a couple of people to vomit.
On June 09 2011 17:35 Manit0u wrote: Guys, have you even read the OP? This movie is going to be fake (but still real-looking I suppose) version of 2 Gils 1 Cup and 1 Guy 1 Jar combined. I don't mind horrors, I understand freedom of speech, but there are things that should not be shown or viewed. And I believe that there's quite a few people who'll go to this movie without knowing what it is or will be tricked by their friends or something. I say that british government's move here is justified. Saving even 3 people from trauma of being exposed to this garbage on accident or through lack of knowledge is worth thousands of people disappointed that they're not going to see it in the cinema or blurting about free speech left and right. Free speech should have its limits, especially when it's not trying to convey anything of value. And the "thought crime" argument... Please, coming up with an idea for such a movie already IS a crime in my opinion. I have absolutely no idea how on earth this movie got its funding...
If you have actually seen the first movie you would know just how "real-looking" they are, it's laughably pathetic. Normal mainstream horror movies like Hostel and Saw were much gorier and morbid.
This movie being garbage is your opinion, if someone gets tricked into watching this movie and in return suffer some kind of trauma, that's not the movies fault, that's either A) them being a dumbass B) their friends being assholes. If i hear about a movie that includes people getting shat in their mouths, raped with a barbed wired dick etc. and i think to myself "hmm this might be disturbing enough to make me sick" right about that time is where i decide to leave that movie to people who want to see it and get the fuck out, i'm not gonna go on some moral crusade and try to ban the movie just because it might make me or someone else nauseous.
In my opinion the Justin Bieber 3D movie is complete trash, but i'm not advocating a ban on it just because i consider it trash, if there are people out there who wants to see the movie and the movie in itself is not breaking any laws it should not be banned, simple as that.
The government shouldn't decide what i can and can not see, if it's illigal obviously they should be allowed to ban it, however if it's not, they should just let me watch whatever i want.
Its clearly a "proactive strike" against something that would cause more legal and moral debate and problems if it wasn't banned.
The Film council has 2 options:
1) Ban it, get flak for "freedom of speech/expression" but nobody cares THAT MUCH because the content is actually pretty horrendous. Nobody in the media is going to argue for such a depraved film.
2) Don't ban it, defend the artistic expression - get a metric ton of complaints from people over 18 who watched it and were disgusted, get weeks of abuse from protective and sensationalist newspapers and a huge campaign against the validity of the organization.
Number 2 causes thousands of times more media/legal issues and problems - and lasts much longer.
Its no suprise they picked option 1.
Id also like to point out that unless you understand how the UK media works, there is little point arguing for or against this without a contextual understanding of the paradigms we work by.
On June 09 2011 21:06 resilve wrote: Its clearly a "proactive strike" against something that would cause more legal and moral debate and problems if it wasn't banned.
The Film council has 2 options:
1) Ban it, get flak for "freedom of speech/expression" but nobody cares THAT MUCH because the content is actually pretty horrendous. Nobody in the media is going to argue for such a depraved film.
2) Don't ban it, defend the artistic expression - get a metric ton of complaints from people over 18 who watched it and were disgusted, get weeks of abuse from protective and sensationalist newspapers and a huge campaign against the validity of the organization.
Number 2 causes thousands of times more media/legal issues and problems - and lasts much longer.
Its no suprise they picked option 1.
Id also like to point out that unless you understand how the UK media works, there is little point arguing for or against this without a contextual understanding of the paradigms we work by.
Afaik nothing happened even when shit like pokemon gave kids all over the world epileptic seisures, doubt any1 would care about some fools complaint about what he paid to see. If you watch something you don't like walk out and shut up. As countless other people said that movie doesn;t even contain that much real gore, it's just particularily disgusting if you're the squeemish type, in which case don't watch a gory horror movie ?_?
On June 09 2011 17:35 Manit0u wrote: Saving even 3 people from trauma of being exposed to this garbage
The trauma of images? Perhaps people who find certain images traumatising shouldn't go and see this movie, they are adults, they should be able to work it out for themselves.
On June 09 2011 19:42 XenOmega wrote: I get really frustrated by these easy claims... Sure, freedom of speech should be defended, but not at all cost.
I agree, there are sensible restructions for free speach that are pretty well established, here are some restrictions which are not sensible:
-I didn't like it -It will corrupt others who are -by implication- weaker than me -It will destroy our societies moral fibre
No image is like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. (Perhaps the closest thing to that might be say... drawing the prophet mohammed as a suicide bomber in a danish paper, i.e. shouting blasphemy in a crazy world, how many here were for censorship of that image?) All images should be publishable, some images should be kept away from children.
On June 09 2011 07:40 Gnial wrote: 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.
Not sure what kind of image you have of Holland (the preferred English name for our country is The Netherlands btw, Holland only describes the 2 most populated provinces), but those things are definitely not allowed here. Consented sex is only legal from age 16.
When I arrived in Amsterdam, my hotel room had a tourist guide book in it that said the age of consent was in the process of being changed to 12.
We were somewhat taken aback.
I'm glad you've correct me though. I just googled it and it appears to be a few other people with the same misconception as me. I don't know if the misconception comes from this:
On June 09 2011 13:23 anycolourfloyd wrote: just why..
why film this.. why would somebody watch this. humankind fail.
They reason people watch most horror movies is to feel scared or even grossed out, but the movie shouldn't be judge by the vast amount of people as bad or stupid for the solo reason of it's content even if you don't enjoy a movie doesn't mean it's bad I've watched several horror films and been completely grossed out and would never watch them again, but that doesn't mean i thought the movies were bad some of them are really well done with a good (but sick) story the directing has really been out standing and made me go wow, just because i didn't enjoy the movie based on it's contents doesn't mean it's any worse than the next movie.
I don't believe this movie should be banned seems rather over the top there are plenty of movies that sound rather on scale with this movie in being brutal and disgusting,(i haven't watched it but i have read a fair bit about it) it comes down to my belief that people can simply not watch it, no one was hurt making this movie and if anyone hurts someone over a movie they must have something really wrong with them to start with, not watching this movie wouldn't stop a person so ill from acting out something would sooner or later make them act in a similar way.
well yeah i kinda don't really get why people watch horror movies full stop. i mean sure, not all movies have to make you "happy", in fact it seems that most often god literature is not uplifting stuff, but stuff that actually makes you think about and look at things from a different perspective
i just cannot really fathom why people want to be grossed out..
On June 09 2011 07:40 Gnial wrote: 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.
Not sure what kind of image you have of Holland (the preferred English name for our country is The Netherlands btw, Holland only describes the 2 most populated provinces), but those things are definitely not allowed here. Consented sex is only legal from age 16.
When I arrived in Amsterdam, my hotel room had a tourist guide book in it that said the age of consent was in the process of being changed to 12.
We were somewhat taken aback.
I'm glad you've correct me though. I just googled it and it appears to be a few other people with the same misconception as me. I don't know if the misconception comes from this:
yeah that tourist book is either very old or just full of bullshit. There was/is a political party that advocates lowering the age of consent but they can't even get near the amount of votes needed to even be considered for one seat in 'congress'
They have now actually "unbanned" it and given it an 18 rating over here, but only after the director cut 32 scenes I think it was. Either way it's just given extra PR to what essentially just looks like a shit shock movie.
EPT
