|
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 October 23 2011 23:34 Teliko wrote:
Clearly they banned it because the guy in the movie replicates the human centipede after being inspired by the first movie and they're afraid that the public might start going around making human centipedes everywhere.
That I can understand. If people started making human centipedes left and right, society would have a really hard time adjusting. Our public transit system for example is not equipped to accomodate strings of individuals longer than 2.
|
On June 08 2011 05:07 iamho wrote:
It makes me sad that there are human beings who would enjoy watching this. Good for the UK. IMO this is on the same level of things like bestiality or child pornography - they exceed normal human standards of decency so far that they really should be banned.
No, you're just wrong.
A fictional work, no matter how horrible it may appear is clearly not on the same level as actually forcing minors to have sexual intercouse on camera.
Thats quite a disgusting comparison, I must say.
|
I feel like this movie is in some sort a way a look into the human psyche. It goes into the deepest and most evil parts of our imaginations. The human centipede to me was a good movie for my brain to analyze, and compare it with my own morals and thoughts. To me its thought provoking, and that's what you try to achieve with art.
|
Wow didn't know the director is dutch.. I'm pretty ashamed T.T.
|
|
|
Real shame really, this is his artistic direction, it should be for the people to decide whether or not to see this work and determine its artistic merit. What the BBFC has achieved with its ban is completely the opposite of its intentions: with far more publicity, people that would have never heard about the sequel or thought about watching it, doing so.
|
On October 23 2011 23:51 perestain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 05:07 iamho wrote:
It makes me sad that there are human beings who would enjoy watching this. Good for the UK. IMO this is on the same level of things like bestiality or child pornography - they exceed normal human standards of decency so far that they really should be banned. No, you're just wrong. A fictional work, no matter how horrible it may appear is clearly not on the same level as actually forcing minors to have sexual intercouse on camera. Thats quite a disgusting comparison, I must say.
I agree with the guy who replied.
Just putting a ban on things because they upset your beliefs (like bestiality, or porn, or extremely graphic horror movies) shouldn't be something that society does.
|
The first film was an abomination.
Had some hilarious scenes though, like when the Japanese guy yells out "you are making a mistake. Us Japanese are very fierce when cornered!!!"
|
On October 24 2011 00:12 TymerA wrote:
I feel like this movie is in some sort a way a look into the human psyche. It goes into the deepest and most evil parts of our imaginations. The human centipede to me was a good movie for my brain to analyze, and compare it with my own morals and thoughts. To me its thought provoking, and that's what you try to achieve with art.
I feel like this movie was just trying to be mindlessly vulgar. It's like someone just made a list of vulgarities and taboos then made a movie about it. The story wasn't compelling at all. There is little to no character development, no real plot, zero explanation of motives. Just a giant literal shitfest.
EDIT : If you want to check out an extremely visceral movie that manages to be compelling and makes you think (and boy will it make you think well after watching it) check out Philosophy of the Knife. It is inspired by actual events, and has relevant IRL footage.
|
I think people should make more of these movies. It is a fantastic revenge against all these censorship comitees, as they will have to watch it 
|
On June 08 2011 04:34 rickybobby wrote:
i dont even have the balls to watch the trailer it just looks fucking gross, and i didnt even mind saw or 2girls one cup, if a movie should be banned this is the one
this is exactly why it shouldn't be banned. you didnt even watch it but you definitely think it should be banned? the first movie was meh. yeah its sick but its so obviously fictional. the movie starts with two hot girls getting lost on vacation in the woods and taken in buy a creepy modern dr. frankenstein. the movie didnt even contain much gore "compared to other horror/slasher or war movies". have you seen; final destination, saw, hostel, house of 1000 corpses, saving private ryan, alien vs predator? probably not since the previews would make you wet your pants. obviously i cant comment on the next movie but to say you want it banned because it looks gross is just plan retarded imo.
|
Just noticed this showing at the theater out in the richmond district of SF the other night. Go SF?
|
On October 24 2011 02:38 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 23:51 perestain wrote:On June 08 2011 05:07 iamho wrote:
It makes me sad that there are human beings who would enjoy watching this. Good for the UK. IMO this is on the same level of things like bestiality or child pornography - they exceed normal human standards of decency so far that they really should be banned. No, you're just wrong. A fictional work, no matter how horrible it may appear is clearly not on the same level as actually forcing minors to have sexual intercouse on camera. Thats quite a disgusting comparison, I must say. I agree with the guy who replied. Just putting a ban on things because they upset your beliefs (like bestiality, or porn, or extremely graphic horror movies) shouldn't be something that society does.
So, in keeping with the replies you're quoting, are you saying that you think child porn or beastiality should be legal strictly because banning it is based on those acts upsetting people's beliefs? Ultimately, that's pretty much the only reason they are banned - we believe as a society that those things are unhealthy for people/animals (and probably society in general).
I can see why people would want this sort of thing banned. I get the whole "freedom of speech" angle everyone is taking but I can't help but wonder: if we continually let the most absolutely depraved images flood our society, what exactly would our society turn into?
Granted, such images aren't "flooding" us - but the powers that be may think this is the start of a more extreme trend; totally gratuitous, unnecessary violence and torture for the sole purpose of seeing how disgusting and offensive a film can be. Seems like a giant troll of a film, to be honest; the kind that a forum admin would have no qualms about censoring (yes, I get that is different, and it isn't my point).
|
On October 24 2011 03:33 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 02:38 reneg wrote:On October 23 2011 23:51 perestain wrote:On June 08 2011 05:07 iamho wrote:
It makes me sad that there are human beings who would enjoy watching this. Good for the UK. IMO this is on the same level of things like bestiality or child pornography - they exceed normal human standards of decency so far that they really should be banned. No, you're just wrong. A fictional work, no matter how horrible it may appear is clearly not on the same level as actually forcing minors to have sexual intercouse on camera. Thats quite a disgusting comparison, I must say. I agree with the guy who replied. Just putting a ban on things because they upset your beliefs (like bestiality, or porn, or extremely graphic horror movies) shouldn't be something that society does. So, in keeping with the replies you're quoting, are you saying that you think child porn or beastiality should be legal strictly because banning it is based on those acts upsetting people's beliefs? Ultimately, that's pretty much the only reason they are banned - we believe as a society that those things are unhealthy for people/animals (and probably society in general). I can see why people would want this sort of thing banned. I get the whole "freedom of speech" angle everyone is taking but I can't help but wonder: if we continually let the most absolutely depraved images flood our society, what exactly would our society turn into? Granted, such images aren't "flooding" us - but the powers that be may think this is the start of a more extreme trend; totally gratuitous, unnecessary violence and torture for the sole purpose of seeing how disgusting and offensive a film can be. Seems like a giant troll of a film, to be honest; the kind that a forum admin would have no qualms about censoring (yes, I get that is different, and it isn't my point).
I don't think chlid porn or beastiality should be banned because they upset your beliefs. They should be banned because children and animals get abused. Even if you get turned into something by watching films doesn't mean others do. Sensitive people should just stick to their mylittleponies and stop telling me what I can or cannot watch.
|
On October 24 2011 18:50 BadBinky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 03:33 Mjolnir wrote:On October 24 2011 02:38 reneg wrote:On October 23 2011 23:51 perestain wrote:On June 08 2011 05:07 iamho wrote:
It makes me sad that there are human beings who would enjoy watching this. Good for the UK. IMO this is on the same level of things like bestiality or child pornography - they exceed normal human standards of decency so far that they really should be banned. No, you're just wrong. A fictional work, no matter how horrible it may appear is clearly not on the same level as actually forcing minors to have sexual intercouse on camera. Thats quite a disgusting comparison, I must say. I agree with the guy who replied. Just putting a ban on things because they upset your beliefs (like bestiality, or porn, or extremely graphic horror movies) shouldn't be something that society does. So, in keeping with the replies you're quoting, are you saying that you think child porn or beastiality should be legal strictly because banning it is based on those acts upsetting people's beliefs? Ultimately, that's pretty much the only reason they are banned - we believe as a society that those things are unhealthy for people/animals (and probably society in general). I can see why people would want this sort of thing banned. I get the whole "freedom of speech" angle everyone is taking but I can't help but wonder: if we continually let the most absolutely depraved images flood our society, what exactly would our society turn into? Granted, such images aren't "flooding" us - but the powers that be may think this is the start of a more extreme trend; totally gratuitous, unnecessary violence and torture for the sole purpose of seeing how disgusting and offensive a film can be. Seems like a giant troll of a film, to be honest; the kind that a forum admin would have no qualms about censoring (yes, I get that is different, and it isn't my point). I don't think chlid porn or beastiality should be banned because they upset your beliefs. They should be banned because children and animals get abused. Even if you get turned into something by watching films doesn't mean others do. Sensitive people should just stick to their mylittleponies and stop telling me what I can or cannot watch.
I like those that stick to their beliefs. Bravo. Everything's free to those that want to pay to see it/read it or it's okay ban whatever you want / majority wants / vocal majority wants.
How much do you value free speech, anyways?
It all seems well and good with overthrowing religious censorship (only bedroom scenes with fully clothed married couples allowed!), Down with the Censors! ... ...
Then this comes out, and challenges the 'logical opinion'. Are people hurt? No ... they're actors ... on film. Are the participants minors, can children watch it? No ... the ratings on the film ... the actors are over 18. And you have to sit back and realize. You are simply moving the line on what's acceptable to your personal preference, identical (gasp) to those that banned books for content. Caterwaul all you want, THIS is too far, THIS is more dangerous. No, no, you have sexual liberation, you threw off banned books as far back as 1930s, but now you've fixed your line on content. What can be shown in theatres. What is acceptable to society! Better to admit, even to support, bans for political AND moral reasons! We are the 'ewww sex, can't have that' of our times, the yardstick has just gone a little farther down whatever moral yardstick you use.
Adding on an EDIT here that it was forced to be changed, or edited in itself to be displayed. Free speech suffered a loss here. Really does continue to prompt good discussion. It wasn't the censors changing their mind, it was forced revisions. Regarding above--Film "X" I commission and direct is accepted by theaters to be shown, but people in power disagree, or powerful interest groups unite to stop it. The theaters are not allowed to show it, the people never given a chance to choose to attend or not attend. I'm given a list of the objectionable sections with the State's assurances that if these are removed, I'm given the go ahead. Triumph of tyranny? Prompts it.
|
I am against absolute censorship of any kind. But if people REALLY want to see this kind of stuff, they can still find it on the internet if they look around. They are doing exactly what they should do to overly disturbing content: making it hard to find and out of sight of the general public who have no wish to see it.
I'm just hoping that they don't get overzealous about internet content however. Damn politicians.
|
Hahaha what the fuck.
I thought the South Park episode were something that they've come up with themselves. This is the must wierd movie-idea I have ever seen.
|
So this thread was necroed only for the trailer? Sigh...
I thought the movie was banned only from cinema in the UK right? What's the big deal.
|
On October 24 2011 03:33 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 02:38 reneg wrote:On October 23 2011 23:51 perestain wrote:On June 08 2011 05:07 iamho wrote:
It makes me sad that there are human beings who would enjoy watching this. Good for the UK. IMO this is on the same level of things like bestiality or child pornography - they exceed normal human standards of decency so far that they really should be banned. No, you're just wrong. A fictional work, no matter how horrible it may appear is clearly not on the same level as actually forcing minors to have sexual intercouse on camera. Thats quite a disgusting comparison, I must say. I agree with the guy who replied. Just putting a ban on things because they upset your beliefs (like bestiality, or porn, or extremely graphic horror movies) shouldn't be something that society does. So, in keeping with the replies you're quoting, are you saying that you think child porn or beastiality should be legal strictly because banning it is based on those acts upsetting people's beliefs? Ultimately, that's pretty much the only reason they are banned - we believe as a society that those things are unhealthy for people/animals (and probably society in general). I can see why people would want this sort of thing banned. I get the whole "freedom of speech" angle everyone is taking but I can't help but wonder: if we continually let the most absolutely depraved images flood our society, what exactly would our society turn into? Granted, such images aren't "flooding" us - but the powers that be may think this is the start of a more extreme trend; totally gratuitous, unnecessary violence and torture for the sole purpose of seeing how disgusting and offensive a film can be. Seems like a giant troll of a film, to be honest; the kind that a forum admin would have no qualms about censoring (yes, I get that is different, and it isn't my point).
I agree w you mjonlnr. The basis of the ban is because these children are being sexually abused, what if a bunch of 15 year olds consented making a porno. Since no one is being abused or hurt, and everyone's get what they want it shouldn't be banned right? You might say that 15 year olds have no idea what they're doing and they're too immature to make their own decision, therefore making a porno would be abusing their immaturity. But if a child's willing to do at 15, how likely is it that in 3 years *when the child become 18 or "mature" enough) that this child will change their mind?
|
I'd like to think it was the UK government's way of saying "stop making these crappy (teeheehee) movies already before it ends up like the freakin' Saw series".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
