A few quick excepts for your reading pleasure, and lulz:
Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis.
he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’.
Trailer for the original
I guess this is a teaser or something for the sequel
I've seen as much fucked up shit as the next guy on the internets, with your 2girls1cups and goatses, and this just... I'm at a loss for words. What in the fuck.
Also, use this thread to discuss this fantastic piece of cinema! /sarcasm
EDIT: OP's note. I have never seen, nor desire to see, the first film. I merely pointed this out since I thought it was interesting censorship.
Does it really matter if they ban it? I mean who is gonna watch:
he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’.
??
I dont mind the ban, people can just watch it on the internet if they really want (which i doubt anyone will).
Methinks he's just really desperate for attention. I mean, how could be possibly be surprised that a country banned his movie? It's probably what he was aiming for, to cause some drama.
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
Dude I cant wait. I saw the first one and was underwhelmed by how lame it was especially after the first 45 minutes. I want to have nightmares and be scarred from this one!
Saw in one thing -> people getting cut up and hurt, but no one (hopefully) is 'giving themselves a treat' whilst watching it. The fact that this film is displaying (albeit fictional) connection between horrific violence and degredation of human beings and sexual arousal I'm fine with this film being banned. First I read of it my first response was "Fuck you BBFC I have the internet" then I read WHY they'd done it and decided that I didn't want to see it just to sticks V's up to the man...
I'm not a huge fan of censorship over things in entertainment but who in the fuck would want to watch that in the first place...if people that make stuff like this didn't have this outing to do so I wonder what they would be doing with a mindset like that. Few things make someone that's used to the internet (all the weird shit out there etc.) feel truly awkward and uncomfortable and that did it for me so ban it everywhere imo.
On June 08 2011 04:38 RaLakedaimon wrote: ...if people that stuff like this didn't have this outing to do so I wonder what the would be doing with a mindset like that.
Dude.... you REALLY need to proofread your posts. But I've read this 5 times now just to have a good laugh so you get points for that!
I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
I look forward to it, the more sick the better, I hope it makes me feel horrible inside, though it's more likely to make me enjoy it for it being bad and therefore entertaining for all the wrong reasons.
Theres a line between torture for the sake of torture (saw) and torture for the sake of sexual arouosal/gratification. I won't watch either of these because I just don't see a reason to, and its not that surprising that it got banned in britain. Hell, I doubt many theaters in the US will even play it.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
On June 08 2011 04:29 Deadlyfish wrote: Does it really matter if they ban it? I mean who is gonna watch:
he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’.
??
I dont mind the ban, people can just watch it on the internet if they really want (which i doubt anyone will).
Thats kinda the point. No one wants to watch it but I don't want them banning filth just for filths sake. Its an unnecessary use of power.
Actions have both seen and unseen consequences and if you stop one controversial movie then you could stop another and then why would you make one at all? Then we've altered more than just whether people can see a strange movie about sewing people together.
On June 08 2011 04:29 Deadlyfish wrote: Does it really matter if they ban it? I mean who is gonna watch:
he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’.
??
I dont mind the ban, people can just watch it on the internet if they really want (which i doubt anyone will).
You really have to be pretty insane to even think of such a scenario...
I only watched some of it and I felt like my life was wasted. I could care less if they ban it. A more pertinent question is why in the world would someone make that to begin with. Let alone a second one.
I watched the first part. It is still slightly disgusting for a person who's been on the internet for some years. Plus, it's really bad from a critic's point of view - by that I mean it's neither funny nor really scary or exciting as a thriller. It's like a really bad saw movie with a very disgusting touch.
on topic: I don't really care if this film gets banned or not. It's not gonna be something that has any cultural value and for child protection's sake (not everyone has the stomach for this) I'm fine with the ban.
Some people watched part 1 thinking it was meant to be a horror/super-thriller style movie.
It's not, it's much more of a black comedy when you really watch it - and whilst I didn't love it, it wasn't bad to watch. Part 2 could be too, if you watch it from the correct perspective.
On June 08 2011 04:53 zOula... wrote: I liked the first one and will probably watch the second one. I mean, why not? It's a movie.
lol, that logic. Can't argue with that! "Why not? It's a movie!" ok, go watch Hobgoblins, or Crazy Fat Ethel. They're just movies, right? Who cares if you're wasting your time watching them.
the ban is wrong but this shouldn't have been funded. i hate gore in movies i even closed my eyes at one point in oldboy when someone was getting something cut off.
Couldn't even finish the trailer for the first one, wow that was disgusting.. There is just something really gross and alarming about an insane person with as much knowledge as a surgeon...
On June 08 2011 05:01 staplestf2 wrote: the ban is wrong but this shouldn't have been funded. i hate gore in movies i even closed my eyes at one point in oldboy when someone was getting something cut off.
"This shouldn't have been funded because I dislike it".
The fuck? Clearly there is an audience, else this wouldn't have gotten made.
On June 08 2011 05:02 Endymion wrote: Couldn't even finish the trailer for the first one, wow that was disgusting.. There is just something really gross and alarming about an insane person with as much knowledge as a surgeon...
I agree! And if you look at 2:12 seconds of the first trailer where it shows the credits it says that it's '100% Medically Accurate' so this is something we need to legitimately be worried about.
On June 08 2011 04:53 zOula... wrote: I liked the first one and will probably watch the second one. I mean, why not? It's a movie.
lol, that logic. Can't argue with that! "Why not? It's a movie!" ok, go watch Hobgoblins, or Crazy Fat Ethel. They're just movies, right? Who cares if you're wasting your time watching them.
A waste of time is well...a matter of opinion, I could say you wasted your time typing this or i'm wasting my time typing to you, but in the end it's a personal choice of how you wanna spend your time, no need to get all fussy over it. -_-
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.
On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
The BBFC has only ever banned 11 films in it's almost 100 year history - a ban is the exception rather than the rule. The UK's censorship is hardly over the top, it's not like we're approaching China.
Far worse than the human centipede. Also, there is an audience for this sort of thing. I'm not a fan of it myself, but part of the aspect of the movie is the psychological terror that ensues from being placed into a situation like that. This isn't just "some movie meant to be fucked up", there is actually thought behind why they wrote it.
Yes, it's fucked up and offensive to most people, but that doesn't mean it should be outright banned. I hate when things like this are banned just because they may be offensive. Let the audience watch it, and let those who are offended not watch it, simple as that. There's no reason this should be banned, and every time something like this is banned, it undermines the freedom of speech that most western countries claim to uphold.
Wait... is this movie going to just be a grossly put together scat film? =( I really enjoyed the first Human Centipede... mostly for the Evil german doctor actor and feeling of sorrow/suspense throughout. Will be sad if all that is gone.
I am opposed to film censorship - people should be able to watch exactly whatever they please (70)
44%
A ban seems justified in this circumstance (57)
36%
I couldn't care less (24)
15%
I do NOT think a ban is justified in this circumstance (9)
6%
160 total votes
Your vote: How do you feel about the banning?
(Vote): A ban seems justified in this circumstance (Vote): I couldn't care less (Vote): I do NOT think a ban is justified in this circumstance (Vote): I am opposed to film censorship - people should be able to watch exactly whatever they please
Far worse than the human centipede. Also, there is an audience for this sort of thing. I'm not a fan of it myself, but part of the aspect of the movie is the psychological terror that ensues from being placed into a situation like that. This isn't just "some movie meant to be fucked up", there is actually thought behind why they wrote it.
Yes, it's fucked up and offensive to most people, but that doesn't mean it should be outright banned. I hate when things like this are banned just because they may be offensive. Let the audience watch it, and let those who are offended not watch it, simple as that. There's no reason this should be banned, and every time something like this is banned, it undermines the freedom of speech that most western countries claim to uphold.
Whoa. WHOA. Well, it's safe to say that I'll never be watching that, holy shit. What kind of sick state of mind do you have to be in to make this :S
The people that come up with this filth should be monitored. I have no problem with corprophagic, torture porn being banned if it has no merit beyond shock value.
-_- 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.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
I hope people conserve more of their moral integrity and sanity putting their time to better use than expressing boring extremist nihilism and misanthropy.
I've never seen one of the saw movies, but isn't the appeal of this human centipede movie rather similar to the appeal of the saw movies for a lot of people? Just more extreme, but the same basic stuff? "fucked up shit" ?
On June 08 2011 05:20 Sated wrote: I don't really agree with things being banned because it should come down to user discretion at the end of the day. However, I wouldn't want this movie to go on general release because it has no merit beyond the gore and shock factors, which basically means it is a snuff film. As such, it should be the kind of thing that you have to go into a porn store for. Certainly shouldn't be in cinemas.
Why not? If it's so obscene, not many people will go watch it anyway. Let it get released, who cares.
Does the UK have a rating system like the us?? That's certainly... an odd scene, but that would at worst get an NC17 rating, which is more or less a kiss of death that forces changes while not actually being censorship such as this.
repusive and digusting is only 2 wrods I can give to this.
Why the hell would someone auctally think of this idea. what kind of sick person would do this. this is not art. This is beyond horror. honestly the writer and director of these movies should be carefully monitored incase they try to act out their movies
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
The human race isn't doomed because of ignorance or conscience, we're behind the curve.
I don't really understand that people are OK with censorship simply because it aligns with their personal opinion. There is a reason we don't allow censorship.
On June 08 2011 05:20 Sated wrote: I don't really agree with things being banned because it should come down to user discretion at the end of the day. However, I wouldn't want this movie to go on general release because it has no merit beyond the gore and shock factors, which basically means it is a snuff film. As such, it should be the kind of thing that you have to go into a porn store for. Certainly shouldn't be in cinemas.
Why not? If it's so obscene, not many people will go watch it anyway. Let it get released, who cares.
Censorship is never right.
I want it to be censored everywhere, even the internet. FOAD Tom Six...
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
Doomed really? Because we won't let people watch The Human Centipede II?
On June 08 2011 05:20 travis wrote: I've never seen one of the saw movies, but isn't the appeal of this human centipede movie rather similar to the appeal of the saw movies for a lot of people? Just more extreme, but the same basic stuff? "fucked up shit" ?
pretty much, same fucked up shit. if you don't enjoy saw you're probably not gonna enjoy human centipede.
but some people like saw but don't like human centipede, probably because its not gory its just associated with feces and eating them, vomiting etc
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
Doomed really? Because we won't let people watch The Human Centipede II?
Bigger picture. Because you allow censoring. Feel free to distance yourself from the actual movie and see the issue for what it is.
OK, this somewhat redeems the south park episode. My girlfriend was visibly ill from the south park episode and I thought it was a really messed up idea for an episode.
While the pun is kind of funny, I find the idea of oral defecation gross even if it is just a cartoon. Definitely not watching the real thing.
I hope I never have this thought of this movie in my head ever again. The first one was completely awful and I saw a review of it on Tosh.o one night (lol)...from what I just read about the second one, I want to keel over and die.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
Doomed really? Because we won't let people watch The Human Centipede II?
Bigger picture. Because you allow censoring. Feel free to distance yourself from the actual movie and see the issue for what it is.
its just a generic shock/psychological horror movie that seeks to capitalise on the free advertising from the controversy the content will probably cause, and is being pretty successful in that regard. nothing more, nothing less.
Just to make it clear, a ban only prevents the movie from being sold in a store, it doesn't make it illegal for people to own the movie, ergo, it often gets a sale bump via the internet.
There are plenty of movies that aim for a UK ban because that is exactly what they want. These gore-only movies are just that, shock value and nothing gives them more gore-cred then getting banned by a cabal of dinosaurs.
I wouldn't mind if this movie was never produced to begin with but i ain't a fan of banning either. You shouldn't take the UK movie commision to seriously though. They occasionally ban a movie like this to pretend like they have a right to exist and nobody gives a shit because they don't give a shit about this movie.
If this commision of world war 1 veterans ever bans any movie that can even slightly be considered in the gray area they are all going to get tossed onto the street. They know they have to walk a fine line in keeping their stupid meaningless jobs and pretending they still have a right to exist.
Truth be told i wouldn't be suprised if some of them members are allready taking bribes to ban these movies on purpose for marketing purposes.
So it's a stupid movie but let's not pretend this commision actually has the power to ban anything beyond these gore-fest movies.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
Doomed really? Because we won't let people watch The Human Centipede II?
Bigger picture. Because you allow censoring. Feel free to distance yourself from the actual movie and see the issue for what it is.
its just a generic shock/psychological horror movie that seeks to capitalise on the free advertising from the controversy the content will probably cause, and is being pretty successful in that regard. nothing more, nothing less.
I agree. HellRoxYa seems to be implying slippery slope, which, as we all know, is informally a logical fallacy. This movie is nothing more than an exploitation film with, to be as objective as possible, depictions of humans violating other humans.
On June 08 2011 05:29 Gnial wrote: OK, this somewhat redeems the south park episode. My girlfriend was visibly ill from the south park episode and I thought it was a really messed up idea for an episode.
While the pun is kind of funny, I find the idea of oral defecation gross even if it is just a cartoon. Definitely not watching the real thing.
I dunno, I laughed pretty hard in Tsst when the nanny went crazy and ate her own feces.
I would never want my country deciding what I should and shouldn't view. With that said I recently watched the first movie, and trust me, I wouldn't be missing the sequel if it was banned.
You guys aren't going to be missing much. The first Human Centipede movie had the potential to be one of those disgusting omg movies that everyone watches and well being considered disgusting it would be praised as a good horror movie. The first one was not that. It was disgusting sure, but absolutely retarded. Half the time I spent watching it was spent laughing at how terrible it is, and maybe a good 5% of the time I thought oh well thats pretty gross.
So I mean, I'd only recommend it to people that have a fetish of defecation into others mouths, or like to watch pretty terrible horror movies. From the sounds of it, the 2nd one might be even more stupid.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
It's not like censoring will zap it from existence. People who want to see it will have their methods of doing so.
I applaud this censorship because it's like a warning: "Don't waste your time filming stupid shit in which its only artistic/cultural value is the look on a woman's face when she gets another's shit forced into her mouth." I mean, it doesn't even have to be a censorship, they could "fine" the producers 1 million in order to release it. I wouldn't care. Of course they can't do this, so I understand why they banned it.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
Doomed really? Because we won't let people watch The Human Centipede II?
Bigger picture. Because you allow censoring. Feel free to distance yourself from the actual movie and see the issue for what it is.
its just a generic shock/psychological horror movie that seeks to capitalise on the free advertising from the controversy the content will probably cause, and is being pretty successful in that regard. nothing more, nothing less.
I agree. HellRoxYa seems to be implying slippery slope, which, as we all know, is informally a logical fallacy. This movie is nothing more than an exploitation film with, to be as objective as possible, depictions of humans violating other humans.
That's what some people say about death metal. "It's just an excuse to write about fucked up stuff while slamming your guitar on the ground for teens to pretend they like it". I never felt much for gore movies but I know there are plenty of people who get really torn up by gore movies, and the whole point of horror is that you should be scared, horrified or disgusted. This one obviously fulfills that purpose.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
Doomed really? Because we won't let people watch The Human Centipede II?
Bigger picture. Because you allow censoring. Feel free to distance yourself from the actual movie and see the issue for what it is.
I can see the issue, but this individual movie being censored will not precipitate the end of the free world or the censorship of any movie that contains a shred of artistic merit.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
It's not like censoring will zap it from existence. People who want to see it will have their methods of doing so.
I applaud this censorship because it's like a warning: "Don't waste your time filming stupid shit in which its only artistic/cultural value is the look on a woman's face when she gets another's shit forced into her mouth." I mean, it doesn't even have to be a censorship, they could "fine" the producers 1 million in order to release it. I wouldn't care. Of course they can't do this, so I understand why they banned it.
But that's the inherent problem with censorship, government shouldn't warn the people of what it believes is or isn't artistic or cultural value.
On June 08 2011 05:29 Gnial wrote: OK, this somewhat redeems the south park episode. My girlfriend was visibly ill from the south park episode and I thought it was a really messed up idea for an episode.
While the pun is kind of funny, I find the idea of oral defecation gross even if it is just a cartoon. Definitely not watching the real thing.
I dunno, I laughed pretty hard in Tsst when the nanny went crazy and ate her own feces.
Touche, haha. That was a good one.
Now I don't know why, but the centipad episode just felt gross to me. Probably something to do with the concept as a whole.
A couple years ago, my buddy was working at a movie rental/tobacco shop (canada's fucking weird) and there was a regular who would always come in looking for gore movies, so my buddy recommended him Saw and the Hills have eyes and all that... Guy was always a little slow and weird but my buddy just assumed he had mental health issues.
Anyways, 6 months later this guy rapes and butchers a 20 year old girl who worked at a Care home for the elderly (my other friend worked with her). He stalked her on her way home from work and left her body in his closet for 2 weeks...
I'm not saying the movies were the cause of the murder, but ones gotta think that these kind of movies are at least somewhat fueling the desires of the sickest people on the planet.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
The first few saw films were works of art(in my opinion). It wasnt about the violence but the plot line. I do feel that saw has an amazing plot line and keeps you guessing. Although it did get known for its gore and violence but really there wasnt a whole lot till about the 4th one. I did see the human centipede and it was honestly dull, wierd/messed up and uninteresting as a whole and I still think ill of the movie. The point im trying to say in my opinion saw is at least 20 times better then human centipede in terms of plot line and story telling while human centipede is 20 more fucked up and lame when compared to saw. Just my 2 cents on saw movies vs human centipede
I'm more amused by the fact that my sister has 7 mutual friends with the middle part of the centipede since she is also an actress in NYC and went to a near by film school.
Lol the movie looks fucked up but now that I think about it's just an eat feces + rape horror movie. The only difference is that the victims are surgically connected. People pay to watch others eat feces on the net anyway and I'm sure some people will want to see this. I don't see any reason to censor it.
Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
The first human centipede movie was awesome. A few of my friends and I still call someone who is being a dick "center-worthy". Overall, the movie is crap (*giggle*), but has moments of hilarity and just raw sickness that make it worthy. I will see the second one for sure.
... And I think that overall, the UK has just made this film a cult classic. PR like this is priceless.
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
An NSFW tag would also do it.
I would be surprised if 25% of young people know what NSFW even is....
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
So if your friend came up to you one day and said he wanted to make a film where 3 people get captured, their mouth's and anus' get stitched together because the main guy wants to see them shit in each others mouth's (which is basically all the film is), You wouldn't think he was weird?
The director should be locked up in a nuthouse to be honest.
God, this is disgusting and unworthy of cinema. There should be some class imho. Put this on a porn theater or whatever, but I would not want to see '16:30 The new Indiana Jones movie' '18:00 Human Centipede II' '20:00 Finding Nemo II'
God damn. Just plain disgusting. Who comes up with this crap?
On June 08 2011 05:09 Maliris wrote: You know, more people are gonna watch it now because of this ban... streisand effect ftw
On June 08 2011 05:04 ampson wrote:
On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why was he banned? In other threads you see so many posts that insult america in worse ways than he did the UK, and they get off free.
probably because its inflammatory and derails the thread? hes trying to start some EU vs NA bullshit for no reason.
When is EU vs NA ever acceptable, in any circumstance?
USA kills bin laden.
EU bashes "The united states of stupid." And doesn't get banned.
Seems fair to me.
Feel free to point out instances where this has occured.
Siphyo Netherlands. June 01 2011 20:32. Posts 13 PM Profile Report Quote # Hey look a person's skin and a piece of candy have about the same color, and they're actually acknowledging that! Let's get to work and pull a racism claim out of that.
In the united states of stupid (no offense), this sure is racist.
I don't care if this is banned. It's a disgusting movie and I don't see how anyone can enjoy it. I also say the same thing about Saw, but that one is a little less disgusting. Overall I will never, ever, see the human centipede.
But all that being said, I won't bag on the guys and girls who have the stomach to actually watch the movie. Although I do question their sanity.
On June 08 2011 04:46 poundcakes wrote: I've watched the first human centipede, it's mostly just bad, sometimes hilariously bad.
I agree, and belive me, i'm not hater , i watched numerous horror movies, and i can count on my fingers how many i disliked, i have high tollerance. Thing with this movie is, they had really high budget for horror movie, and story that was unused by now (which is obv considering how weird it is) and they could make much more, instead they just made movie with some disturbing scenes , and story that is very very shallow, characters are not developed, story is not developed, every part of movie is rushed, and it's not even fun , its just disturbing and somewhat boring, and when its over you really feel like wasting time watching it.
Gotta say, just from reading it sounds really fucked up.... don't know how I feel about censorship though. People should be asking who the fucked up person who is making this is instead.
I understand freedom of speech, but this just seems like a child kicking someone in the balls for the hell of it. This movie isn't art. No one will appreciate it. No one will be more educated after watching it. No one shall be enlightened by its intelligent, universally applied themes. Why release it?
Far worse than the human centipede. Also, there is an audience for this sort of thing. I'm not a fan of it myself, but part of the aspect of the movie is the psychological terror that ensues from being placed into a situation like that. This isn't just "some movie meant to be fucked up", there is actually thought behind why they wrote it.
Yes, it's fucked up and offensive to most people, but that doesn't mean it should be outright banned. I hate when things like this are banned just because they may be offensive. Let the audience watch it, and let those who are offended not watch it, simple as that. There's no reason this should be banned, and every time something like this is banned, it undermines the freedom of speech that most western countries claim to uphold.
This film is ALOT more mainstream than that. Ichi the Killer is another crazy one, but it's not mainstream so nobody cares.
On June 08 2011 05:44 mesohawny wrote: heres some food for thought
A couple years ago, my buddy was working at a movie rental/tobacco shop (canada's fucking weird) and there was a regular who would always come in looking for gore movies, so my buddy recommended him Saw and the Hills have eyes and all that... Guy was always a little slow and weird but my buddy just assumed he had mental health issues.
Anyways, 6 months later this guy rapes and butchers a 20 year old girl who worked at a Care home for the elderly (my other friend worked with her). He stalked her on her way home from work and left her body in his closet for 2 weeks...
I'm not saying the movies were the cause of the murder, but ones gotta think that these kind of movies are at least somewhat fueling the desires of the sickest people on the planet.
Or you turn it around. A sick person that has such tendencies will seek out material that fits his fantasies.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that people who enjoy this stuff are all suddenly sicko serial killers who can't wait to bathe in blood.
I remember watching Hostel when i was younger with friends from school. Truth be told it's just the film version of a rollercoaster. You all get in because it's scary. You watch this stuff because it's so ridiculously disturbing. Pushing boundaries.
I don't waste my time with those tortureporn/gore-fest movies anymore. Some people might enjoy that but i don't think it's fair to suggest they make you into a murderer. I think it's fair to assume that sick people do seek out this stuff.
I'm not really for all kinds of censorship and such, but this kind of movie is something that really disturbs me.
I can't handle any movie that has to do with someone holding people against their will and doing things to them. (torture and such, and especially rape.) It disturbs me on a level that follows me around for a while after I see it or hear about it. Just reading about this will kinda haunt me for a few days, I regret clicking the thread, haha.
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
Do you really want to make Hot_Bid have to deal with lawsuits against Team Liquid because some kid stumbled into a thread regarding a film out of his age group?
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
And how sad is that. Regardless this is NSFW for sure, and it would please me if the OP would spoiler tag the images. This is just disgusting.
On June 08 2011 05:02 Endymion wrote: Couldn't even finish the trailer for the first one, wow that was disgusting.. There is just something really gross and alarming about an insane person with as much knowledge as a surgeon...
I agree! And if you look at 2:12 seconds of the first trailer where it shows the credits it says that it's '100% Medically Accurate' so this is something we need to legitimately be worried about.
That line was 100% bullshit
It's a shitty movie that banks on the "shock factor" to make money, banning something like that from cashing in is probably good use of censorship.
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
Do you really want to make Hot_Bid have to deal with lawsuits against Team Liquid because some kid stumbled into a thread regarding a film out of his age group?
No I wouldn't want that, but I doubt that would be a realistic scenario. I mean, in my country you've probably only have to be 15 to see the movie, so I don't think the age requirements of movies apply to the content discussed on a website with readers from all over the world? I mean I don't now for sure, but that would seem a bit silly to me
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
And how sad is that. Regardless this is NSFW for sure, and it would please me if the OP would spoiler tag the images. This is just disgusting.
What, that young people get exposed to naughty stuff?
If you can't deal with it, don't judge it. The movie might not be for you (it certainly isn't for me either), but that doesn't mean you should prohibit others from watching it.
Or you turn it around. A sick person that has such tendencies will seek out material that fits his fantasies.
Which begets the question, "should we be providing material to fit his fantasies?"
It's very debatable as to whether someone predisposed to rape, for example, either vicariously plays out his fantasies by watching rape porn so he doesn't go out and rape, or if watching rape porn stokes to go out and rape. I'd say most of the time, no, it doesn't, but sometimes it does, and we should think about how far we want to go. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I don't think it's fair to suggest that people who enjoy this stuff are all suddenly sicko serial killers who can't wait to bathe in blood.
He didn't say that... in fact he said he wasn't saying that.
On June 08 2011 04:38 ManusCelerDei wrote: Saw in one thing -> people getting cut up and hurt, but no one (hopefully) is 'giving themselves a treat' whilst watching it.
I know a woman who has, sorry to burst your bubble
Also, these "shock" movies are nothing more than big games playing on our brains. We see some sick shit, we get a little jolt of adrenaline. On the conscious level we're disgusted by it, but at the subconscious level we're like "yeah, we're ready for action now!" which our body likes so we want more. It's usually only later that we maybe start to feel really bad about it.
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
And how sad is that. Regardless this is NSFW for sure, and it would please me if the OP would spoiler tag the images. This is just disgusting.
What, that young people get exposed to naughty stuff?
Yeah it's my opinion that there are more useful things to do for kids than to watch people being sewed together and raped with barbed wire. Kids don't know what they can handle in many circumstances. Imo it's a good thing this isn't showed on mainstream cinema. If you wanna watch it over the internet and wank off to it, be my guest.
Or you turn it around. A sick person that has such tendencies will seek out material that fits his fantasies.
Which begets the question, "should we be providing material to fit his fantasies?"
It's very debatable as to whether someone predisposed to rape, for example, either vicariously plays out his fantasies by watching rape porn so he doesn't go out and rape, or if watching rape porn stokes to go out and rape. I'd say most of the time, no, it doesn't, but sometimes it does, and we should think about how far we want to go. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
But wouldnt that same logic work in the case of "violent/gory" media and murder? i.e. violent video games would lead to murder, therefore we should ban those video games?
Overall I think we should worry more about censorship concerning news (where are the bin Laden pictures^^) and not what is "ok" in entertainment (movies, games) by certain standards. Make sure only adults have legal access (ignoring internet) and it is fine by me.
TL;DR: People take this too seriously. Yeah it's premise is weird beyond belief, but it was made to be weird and shocking. It pokes fun at itself throughout the movie, roll with it. There's worse movies out there.
THC wasn't at all as bad as I thought it was going to be. After wanting to see it for about a year (I couldn't justify watching that movie by myself.) I finally convinced two friends to watch it with me. It laughed more than I winced, granted I have a HIGHER tolerance for that kind of stuff than other people, but I don't believe I have a super high fear/gore threshold.
It was definitely made for the WTF factor. It's underacted and underacted on purpose. There's parts that are really cliche and those are in there on purpose. There's a scene + Show Spoiler +
where the girls' car breaks down. Instead of following the road, they decide to walk into the dark forest. Kind of playing on how in scary films people seem to make the dumbest survival choices.
Another part that seems to go against common sense is when + Show Spoiler +
the girls are in the doctor's house. He is the creepiest host ever and all the signs are there for you to GTFO, but they stay and it doesn't cross their minds to leave until their drugs are kicking in.
.
There's a lot of shock factor but I actually found it aesthetically pleasing. (lol) Great cinematography. I loved the ending. + Show Spoiler +
About ten minutes before it ends you get a feel for how it might end up and you are begging for it to end differently, but then it ends how you hoped it wouldn't and you loved it.
I also believe people to make it WORSE than it is. Yeah, the idea is disgusting and overly ridiculous but that's the POINT! This movie doesn't take itself too seriously and you shouldn't either. This movie pokes fun at itself in parts, there's a lot of tongue in cheek humor. It's over and under-acted in parts with the intention of over and under-acting. Also, the 100% medically accurate thing is a joke. + Show Spoiler +
This is funny because during the Doctor's "powerpoint presentation" about the surgery, his diagram shows the outline of three humans with a long tube connecting them.
, hardly accurate.
EDIT: Felt the need to add this: I was watching it at like 3 AM with two buddies, one of them can't handle scary movies so he went to bed. About halfway through the movie he came back and watched it with us because he heard us laughing and he ended up loving it. While I am not implying that this movie is a light-hearted, happy-go-lucky film, I am saying that if you watch it in good company, there's a good chance you'll be laughing more than crying.
I don't get why people want to ban something because they feels it's disgusting or wrong or something. A film doesn't hurt people, there are no plannings for a public debut show (as far as I am aware). Why not let people make and watch it, and mind your own business if it's not your thing?
Interesting that there are people shocked by this who've been on the internet for more than 3 weeks. The amount of butthurt in this thread is disturbing.
On June 08 2011 05:19 HellRoxYa wrote: Look, go read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.
If you still applaud film censorship (regardless of however disgusting or uninterested you are personally in the movie) then I guess the human race really is doomed.
It's not like censoring will zap it from existence. People who want to see it will have their methods of doing so.
I applaud this censorship because it's like a warning: "Don't waste your time filming stupid shit in which its only artistic/cultural value is the look on a woman's face when she gets another's shit forced into her mouth." I mean, it doesn't even have to be a censorship, they could "fine" the producers 1 million in order to release it. I wouldn't care. Of course they can't do this, so I understand why they banned it.
So basically the state is allowed to dictate what should be produced (and, by extention, watched)?
This is none of the states business. What happens when they want to ban something you want to see? There are people who want to see this movie and it's not wrong of them to want to. It just isn't. Nor is it wrong on the side of the director for producing a movie which there is a market for, or a movie he would like to make. What does it even matter to you anyway?
On June 08 2011 06:23 poundcakes wrote: I don't get why people want to ban something because they feels it's disgusting or wrong or something. A film doesn't hurt people, there are no plannings for a public debut show (as far as I am aware). Why not let people make and watch it, and mind your own business if it's not your thing?
The ban has nothing to do with public opinion. AFAIK it's about keeping cinema to a sertain class and standard. It's the same reason they don't show vile porn movies on the regular cinema either (atleast not in my country). I don't mind the ban whatsoever. How many people watch these kinds of movies on a cinema anyway? Don't people generally watch these kinds of stuff at home?
I don't understand people. Why are you more concerned about a film you don't have to watch, than with the state having the arbitrary power to ban something? Your thoughts honestly baffle me. I have no freaking idea whats going on inside your head. I'm not insulting any of you, I'm not suggesting you're stupid, I just don't get it. Your thought process is just completely alien to me.
I don't think I really wanna see the film anyway (didn't see first one either) but I still think it's retarded to ban a film, like clockwork orange it will only increase notoriety/popularity.
On June 08 2011 05:47 mangomango wrote: Is there any way to put an 18+ age required link on this? I'm not in favor of censorship but I'm sure a lot of young people visit this site. Perhaps there should be a section of TL that is only accessible with proof of age. Viewers have been critical of Gretorp and NASL for sexual allusions. As someone with two children that frequent this site I would like to believe that TL (though not tame) is a "safe place" on the internet. This blows right past that.
18+, really? Don't underestimate what young people can handle. Most 15(14?13?) -17 year old's have probably already seen way worse stuff, I'm sure they won't get a crooked mind from reading about obscene movie on TL. Which I'm of course gonna watch at some point with some friends and go "Eeeeew gross!"
And how sad is that. Regardless this is NSFW for sure, and it would please me if the OP would spoiler tag the images. This is just disgusting.
What, that young people get exposed to naughty stuff?
Yeah it's my opinion that there are more useful things to do for kids than to watch people being sewed together and raped with barbed wire. Kids don't know what they can handle in many circumstances. Imo it's a good thing this isn't showed on mainstream cinema. If you wanna watch it over the internet and wank off to it, be my guest.
Yeah wasn't really my point, but okay buddy, I will do that for sure!
On June 08 2011 06:23 poundcakes wrote: I don't get why people want to ban something because they feels it's disgusting or wrong or something. A film doesn't hurt people, there are no plannings for a public debut show (as far as I am aware). Why not let people make and watch it, and mind your own business if it's not your thing?
The ban has nothing to do with public opinion. AFAIK it's about keeping cinema to a sertain class and standard. It's the same reason they don't show vile porn movies on the regular cinema either (atleast not in my country). I don't mind the ban whatsoever. How many people watch these kinds of movies on a cinema anyway? Don't people generally watch these kinds of stuff at home?
A certain class and standard? Have you seen movies and music these days? On a more serious note you missed the point entirely, it doesn't matter if no one would even go to see it. The government should not be able to censor and ban movies and other media in such a way, if a film maker wants to make the most retarded vapid ass shit ever he has the right to do so. You don't see anyone making laws banning Justin Bieber music do you?
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
also kind of scarry that many people in this thread say something like: "and what?" comone this stuff is normal. if such things are normal for you than normal is fucking ill for me...
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
On June 08 2011 04:38 RaLakedaimon wrote: ...if people that stuff like this didn't have this outing to do so I wonder what the would be doing with a mindset like that.
Dude.... you REALLY need to proofread your posts. But I've read this 5 times now just to have a good laugh so you get points for that!
Wasn't thoroughly paying attention to how I worded my first post after watching that freaky shit but I went back and fixed it just for you.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
No, you're just severely misinformed and should stop using the term as you obviously don't know what it means.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
What a sheltered life you have
what a sad life you have that you think don't like evil things means you never saw evil things...
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
Tbqh Human Centipede 1 was quite boring because it didn't realy show anything...i can't be bothered by just a concept...they show the centipede but it doesn't really get me
On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post.
Uh.. The US has the power to kidnap someone without giving him or anyone neither the reason nor a trial, and then keep him locked away indefinitely.
Start there, and then work your way to governments being able to ban movies from cinema. American television is by the way highly censored with blurred middle fingers, peep sounds in songs etc. I'm not responding to this post because I want to come off as a dick, but rather because there are many posts in the thread describing the same thing but with somewhat rosier language. There are far worse dangers to democracy to be bothered with.
The cinema is in my opinion not an important news medium, and therefor I don't think the censorships are important in a political point of view. I don't understand all the slipperly slope talk. I guess we just don't have the same opinion on that matter. It's imo a long walk from censoring movies to censoring news or election information.
I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
Well they didn't ban A Serbian Film(Haven't watched it). At least not everywhere.
On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote: Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post.
Uh.. The US has the power to kidnap someone without giving him or anyone neither the reason nor a trial, and then keep him locked away indefinitely.
Start there, and then work your way to governments being able to ban movies from cinema. American television is by the way highly censored with blurred middle fingers, peep sounds in songs etc. I'm not responding to this post because I want to come off as a dick, but rather because there are many posts in the thread describing the same thing but with somewhat rosier language. There are far worse dangers to democracy to be bothered with.
The cinema is in my opinion not an important news medium, and therefor I don't think the censorships are important in a political point of view. I don't understand all the slipperly slope talk. I guess we just don't have the same opinion on that matter. It's imo a long walk from censoring movies to censoring news or election information.
Don't think that everyone in America is ok with the examples you listed. In fact I would wager that the majority are quite disappointed. There are many, many who are against illegal detention as well as the Federal Communications Commission's arbitrary rule-setting.
You may be right that there are far worse dangers, but this itself is still a danger. Censorship is nothing more than another person who you don't know, telling you what is safe/healthy/right/moral for you to watch or listen to.
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
That's because the production of child pornography has to involve a child actress, which is fucking wrong and I don't think anyone who doesn't have a screw lose would disagree with that. Same way gore movies would be wrong if they had to torture their actors/actresses.
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
Well they didn't ban A Serbian Film(Haven't watched it). At least not everywhere.
Well i dont know what they actually showed in the movie, but if they show children getting raped i think it should be banned. Some things are just too far out.
Honestly, I find it semi-amusing. I wouldn't watch it, personally, but censorship is unneeded. If you don't want to see the film, don't watch it. It's that simple.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
I thought it was gross on Southpark personally let alone a hole movie!@
however banning in a country seems ridiculous, I think people are smart enough to make there own decision if they want to see it or not... not the government telling them they can or cannot.
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
That's because the production of child pornography has to involve a child actress, which is fucking wrong and I don't think anyone who doesn't have a screw lose would disagree with that. Same way gore movies would be wrong if they had to torture their actors/actresses.
Well, let's just hypothetically say that they showed child porn but nobody was hurt under the filming, nothing was illegal about it.
Would showing it be OK?
I might be playing the devils advocate a little bit here, just curious though
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
Pedophile movies harm another person, in this case a minor. Do you know the difference between licentiousness and freedom to do what you want?
A lot of people arguing that this movie shouldn't be banned seem to be Americans who come from a country where the right to freedom of expression is absolute and enshrined in law. There is no equivalent in Europe that I know if other than in France possibly; it is why it is illegal to be a neo-nazi in Germany and why the UK has banned many public figures especially from America which the foreign office have deemed guilty of hate speech. It is why the BNP, the party closest ideologically to the tea party, in England has almost no support and has almost been banned many times as a hate organization. You cannot impose the American value of unqualified freedom of speech onto a country to which it does not apply.
There is no libertarian streak in European politics and governments are generally are expected to legislate or be involved in people's lives to a much greater extent that America. This isn't to say that Europe is against freedom of expression it just has a limit on what can be expressed. We trust our politicians to be liberal where as Americans seem to fear that their politicians will act like fascists.
By the sounds of what the BBFC has said the only difference between this and a snuff film is that it is fictional so I don't have a problem with it being banned. I mean seriously linking the rape of a woman with barbed wire to sexual arousal is too far. If you look at the BBFC past rulings they are actually very fair in regards to how they rate movies and ban very few.
On June 08 2011 06:55 Nashtak wrote: I don't care if it really is the sickest thing ever recorded, banning movies, or any other sort of entertainment products, based on the opinion of a stuck-up minority is unacceptable.
Well that's not true is it? Everyone has a limit to how far they'll go.
Banning pedophile movies seems acceptable to me, wouldnt you agree?
That's because the production of child pornography has to involve a child actress, which is fucking wrong and I don't think anyone who doesn't have a screw lose would disagree with that. Same way gore movies would be wrong if they had to torture their actors/actresses.
Well, let's just hypothetically say that they showed child porn but nobody was hurt under the filming, nothing was illegal about it.
Would showing it be OK?
I might be playing the devils advocate a little bit here, just curious though
No, you can't fake child porn. There doesn't have to be physical pain for the process to be damaging mentally, there's a reason it's illegal. If the child was a robot (lol) or perfect CGI I wouldn't really give two shits about it though. Like I think anyone enjoying the Japanese cartoon child porn is a fucking creep, it isn't really hurting anyone and it's better for him to watch cartoons than for him to support the fuckheads producing child porn.
But I'll be honest to my hypocrisy. If they banned (or is it already banned?) child porn made with CGI and with no actual children I can't say I'd enter threads about it opposing the censorship.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
The MPAA is fairly good at censoring movies, which is a whole different topic than censoring television. I remember reading an interview where the guys from South Park when they were making the movie they would actually make the scenes far more disgusting and disturbing than what they actually wanted, that way whenever the MPAA would tell them "no you cant get an R rating with this, you will get an NC17(aka a death sentence since most theaters will not show it)", then they would send them the actual scene and it would go through no problem due to comparison. Who decides the system? You can say F*** this many times a minute, but more than this many times isn't allowed.
oddly enough I had zero interest in watching these movies til after this thread, now I gotta watch them just to see what all the fuss is about cause from the trailers it doesn't seem like anything to get all up in arms about
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
Okay I seriously to took the time to read your post through, and I tried very hard to understand it - and failed. But I think you should use time to reflect on your premise, does watching a movie depicting horrible stuff, make you a disturbed person? I believe that debate is getting relatively old, and I think people(not kids ofc) are rational and can make their own choices.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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... ;')
There is no libertarian streak in European politics and governments are generally are expected to legislate or be involved in people's lives to a much greater extent that America. .
Hey, speak for yourself, we are allowed to draw some OFFENSIVE cartoons!
I had actually never heard about this movie, and banning something is basicly begging people to watch it. Sounds like it could be interesting, yet it also sounds like it's the worst movie story and concept I have ever heard of, but meh. That's what you got to do to top the whole hostel and saw industry.
This thankfully explains my confusion surrounding the south park episode and how the hell they managed to come up with their centipad. It's all so much clearer now, but I haven't quite decided if I prefered to live in ignorance or in bliss yet.
On June 08 2011 07:20 kaztah wrote: I had actually never heard about this movie, and banning something is basicly begging people to watch it. Sounds like it could be interesting, yet it also sounds like it's the worst movie story and concept I have ever heard of, but meh. That's what you got to do to top the whole hostel and saw industry.
This thankfully explains my confusion surrounding the south park episode and how the hell they managed to come up with their centipad. It's all so much clearer now, but I haven't quite decided if I prefered to live in ignorance or in bliss yet.
You know, the way you worded that makes it sound like you're blissful now that you've discovered the joys of this film, right?
But yeah, I was wondering when something like this would come out. Stuff like saw and hostel would eventually lead to stuff like this. Not that I really care that it did, I was just wondering how long it would take for someone to actually go "You know what saw needs? More people eating feces.". I was betting on 10 years, and I guess I was wrong!
On June 08 2011 06:54 Euronyme wrote: The cinema is in my opinion not an important news medium, and therefor I don't think the censorships are important in a political point of view. I don't understand all the slipperly slope talk. I guess we just don't have the same opinion on that matter. It's imo a long walk from censoring movies to censoring news or election information.
That's fine. However, it's still the government restricting freedom. It doesn't have to "progress to anything else", they shouldn't have any say in the matter to begin with.
many countries have "obscenity laws" that can make just about anything illegal if it gets the right attention. iirc watersports porn is banned (in usa?) as an example of this. lolicon and goru probably fall under the same law if you're caught with them.
i think Eden Lake is probably more disturbing than this kinda movie. i fear watching eden lake again hahaha
Hmmm...I am against censorship of entertainment but who would go out of their way to have the ban lifted? From what I saw in the trailer, it almost looks like torture porn.
On June 08 2011 07:26 FFGenerations wrote: many countries have "obscenity laws" that can make just about anything illegal if it gets the right attention. iirc watersports porn is banned (in usa?) as an example of this. lolicon and goru probably fall under the same law if you're caught with them.
i think Eden Lake is probably more disturbing than this kinda movie. i fear watching eden lake again hahaha
If watersports porn is banned in the USA it isn't enforced at all because there is a lot of it out there. Mild urine fetishes are pretty common actually, e.g. being peed on.
In an email to Empire magazine, Six accused the BBFC of posting spoilers of his new film by revealing plot details in the course of explaining its decision
Oh man, that's ridiculous. Of course plot details have to be considered in those ratings, and of course such ratings have to be public in order to make sure that no arbitrariness happens. Really, where's the problem?
By the way I don't have the slightest problem with banning such, even though I have the opinion that art has to have a lot of freedom. This is no art, and if he says it was, then it's only on a very shallow level. Works of real artistic level usually always pass, no matter what content they have.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
The concept is just disgusting, but the movie gains attention because of the human fascination with the grim and gory, which draws out some bizarre erotic urges in the best of us. The censorship is understandable, but this movie is fundamentally just another horror film, so I really don't see why it needed to be banned.
instead of banning it, they should restrict it so you have to fill out an application form in order to view it in which you automatically oblige to have psychotherapy sessions...
In an email to Empire magazine, Six accused the BBFC of posting spoilers of his new film by revealing plot details in the course of explaining its decision
Oh man, that's ridiculous. Of course plot details have to be considered in those ratings, and of course such ratings have to be public in order to make sure that no arbitrariness happens. Really, where's the problem?
Ratings are entirely arbitrary. If they aren't, then there's guidelines, and they can just release which ones they've stepped on to cause the film to be banned. They can do it without spoilers; ala the varying video game ratings boards that are out there.
Honestly, it's entirely counterproductive. The human centipede wasn't exactly known, and neither was the director, but now; tons of people are going to watch it because they found out about it.
Nobody should watch this piece of shit movie. If it was free, good for a laugh? You still have a fucked up sense of humour but maybe. But paying people to make this film is total injustice. This movie actually deserves not to be seen and no one should have to ban it to accomplish that, aside from the private theatres who just decide not to run it. Absurd trash merely being thrown out there doesn't justify free speech violations.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
1. looks like you are form that group that learned to start your post with a blaming. you should team up with the other guy who comes from the "end a post with a blaming" group. 2. give this man 100 points. btw you can check by just looking at the header of a post.... strange that you didnt find this out yet after 500 posts. 3. i dont talk over a right in terms of law. how can i talk over right in terms of law when i talk over right to make a law?
4. your right. my english is to bad to discuss such a complicated thing and this forum is totally the wrong place to discuss such complicated things too.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
This. Though I can understand what he tries to bring across because of the fairly German structure and phrases he uses, I can however assure you that his train of thought is in no way more tolerable than it must seem to a native speaker. It's pants on head retarded.
Talk about freedom of speech.
Movies/art should be censored hard cause u sicko!!!
On June 08 2011 07:20 kaztah wrote: I had actually never heard about this movie, and banning something is basicly begging people to watch it. Sounds like it could be interesting, yet it also sounds like it's the worst movie story and concept I have ever heard of, but meh. That's what you got to do to top the whole hostel and saw industry.
This thankfully explains my confusion surrounding the south park episode and how the hell they managed to come up with their centipad. It's all so much clearer now, but I haven't quite decided if I prefered to live in ignorance or in bliss yet.
You know, the way you worded that makes it sound like you're blissful now that you've discovered the joys of this film, right?
But yeah, I was wondering when something like this would come out. Stuff like saw and hostel would eventually lead to stuff like this. Not that I really care that it did, I was just wondering how long it would take for someone to actually go "You know what saw needs? More people eating feces.". I was betting on 10 years, and I guess I was wrong!
Oops, I guess saying that I'm happier of the fact that I now know what the episode was actually about is a more accurate statement!
The most interesting about this is wondering what they'll do next to top this trend again. I'm glad I don't know the answer >_<
On June 08 2011 07:37 zobz wrote: Nobody should watch this piece of shit movie. If it was free, good for a laugh? You still have a fucked up sense of humour but maybe. But paying people to make this film is total injustice. This movie actually deserves not to be seen and no one should have to ban it to accomplish that, aside from the private theatres who just decide not to run it. Absurd trash merely being thrown out there doesn't justify free speech violations.
In an email to Empire magazine, Six accused the BBFC of posting spoilers of his new film by revealing plot details in the course of explaining its decision
Oh man, that's ridiculous. Of course plot details have to be considered in those ratings, and of course such ratings have to be public in order to make sure that no arbitrariness happens. Really, where's the problem?
Ratings are entirely arbitrary. If they aren't, then there's guidelines, and they can just release which ones they've stepped on to cause the film to be banned. They can do it without spoilers; ala the varying video game ratings boards that are out there.
Honestly, it's entirely counterproductive. The human centipede wasn't exactly known, and neither was the director, but now; tons of people are going to watch it because they found out about it.
It's called mainstream media. They've been bringing attention to shit that doesn't matter for centuries. The people that are the best at it reside at Fox News.
On June 08 2011 06:39 Olinim wrote: [quote] You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
1. looks like you are form that group that learned to start your post with a blaming. you should team up with the other guy who comes from the "end a post with a blaming" group. 2. give this man 100 points. btw you can check by just looking at the header of a post.... strange that you didnt find this out yet after 500 posts. 3. i dont talk over a right in terms of law. how can i talk over right in terms of law when i talk over right to make a law?
Sorry if english isn't your first language and you're a bit handicapped, but take the extra time you need to make a post that's actually comprehensible will you? I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.
Banning doesn't always means it will get tons of views. Do you remember a movie called Grotesque? Probably not, and it was just recently banned in the UK as well. And still no one knows about it. Banned movies are common, not all of them gets attention. This one is just better at marketing as shown in the second video on the OP. It's getting some attention because of their marketing, not just because it's getting banned.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
1. looks like you are form that group that learned to start your post with a blaming. you should team up with the other guy who comes from the "end a post with a blaming" group. 2. give this man 100 points. btw you can check by just looking at the header of a post.... strange that you didnt find this out yet after 500 posts. 3. i dont talk over a right in terms of law. how can i talk over right in terms of law when i talk over right to make a law?
Sorry if english isn't your first language and you're a bit handicapped, but take the extra time you need to make a post that's actually comprehensible will you? I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.
Why are you sorry for that? im not sorry for you that English is your first language. if you dont understand nr 3, it have nothing to do with language^^
Anyways i wanted to give some arguments why its not a violence of freedom of speach or art if you ban this movie. I have the feeling my english is just to bad to make my points clear.
And i have the feeling most of the guys here are to young and to be honest just not able to make such a discussion. it was a mistake to start it. TL is not the place for stuff like this. So sorry for my interruption. go on with "yeah freedom of speech" "shit movie".....
On June 08 2011 07:46 Bleak wrote: Sounds like good material for Cannibal Corpse to write a new song.
True! I wonder why their music haven't been banned, if you follow the logic of the people who agree with the ban on the movie. http://www.darklyrics.com/c/cannibalcorpse.html awesome stuff.
On June 08 2011 07:46 Bleak wrote: Sounds like good material for Cannibal Corpse to write a new song.
True! I wonder why their music haven't been banned, if you follow the logic of the people who agree with the ban on the movie. http://www.darklyrics.com/c/cannibalcorpse.html awesome stuff.
Their lyrics are almost as good as their music. Quality writing right there.
On June 08 2011 07:45 Manit0u wrote: If it'd be up to me. I'd rather ban the making of movies like HC.
I totally agree. I mean... this, just the concept makes me sick. How sick you must have be to think of something so horrible. And then film it. Want to make money that way. It's disgusting!
Damn i don't remember a film being banned since The Exorcist...... this must be some heavy shit if it got banned in the UK... we have pretty liberal film ratings these days, films that were 18's when the were released 15 years ago are now 12's lol
On June 08 2011 07:46 Bleak wrote: Sounds like good material for Cannibal Corpse to write a new song.
True! I wonder why their music haven't been banned, if you follow the logic of the people who agree with the ban on the movie. http://www.darklyrics.com/c/cannibalcorpse.html awesome stuff.
Their lyrics are almost as good as their music. Quality writing right there.
I'm so happy that people here acknowledge the greatness of Cannibal Corpse!
On June 08 2011 06:42 Sindsygafnatur wrote: [quote]
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
1. looks like you are form that group that learned to start your post with a blaming. you should team up with the other guy who comes from the "end a post with a blaming" group. 2. give this man 100 points. btw you can check by just looking at the header of a post.... strange that you didnt find this out yet after 500 posts. 3. i dont talk over a right in terms of law. how can i talk over right in terms of law when i talk over right to make a law?
Sorry if english isn't your first language and you're a bit handicapped, but take the extra time you need to make a post that's actually comprehensible will you? I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.
Why are you sorry for that? im not sorry for you that English is your first language. if you dont understand nr 3, it have nothing to do with language^^
Anyways i wanted to give some arguments why its not a violence of freedom of speach or art if you ban this movie. I have the feeling my english is just to bad to make my points clear.
And i have the feeling most of the guys here are to young and to be honest just not able to make such a discussion. it was a mistake to start it. TL is not the place for stuff like this. So sorry for my interruption. go on with "yeah freedom of speech" "shit movie".....
Ok I'm not gonna call you dumb but your english is clearly lacking cause some of your posts are incomprehensible. I don't think its just me since everyone else seems to be clueless about what you're trying to communicate like I am.
And secondly you obviously have no idea how civil rights works. Or what tyranny of majority is if you think majority has rights to deny minority rights.
On June 08 2011 06:42 Sindsygafnatur wrote: [quote]
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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 you 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... ;')
1. Your posts are unbelievably stupid. 2. I don't believe English is your first language, though on account of 1 it's not impossible. 3. You don't understand what a "right" is at least in terms of law. Either that or your comprehension of the English language is so abysmal you can't properly articulate a single thought.
1. looks like you are form that group that learned to start your post with a blaming. you should team up with the other guy who comes from the "end a post with a blaming" group. 2. give this man 100 points. btw you can check by just looking at the header of a post.... strange that you didnt find this out yet after 500 posts. 3. i dont talk over a right in terms of law. how can i talk over right in terms of law when i talk over right to make a law?
Sorry if english isn't your first language and you're a bit handicapped, but take the extra time you need to make a post that's actually comprehensible will you? I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.
Why are you sorry for that? im not sorry for you that English is your first language. if you dont understand nr 3, it have nothing to do with language^^
Anyways i wanted to give some arguments why its not a violence of freedom of speach or art if you ban this movie. I have the feeling my english is just to bad to make my points clear.
And i have the feeling most of the guys here are to young and to be honest just not able to make such a discussion. it was a mistake to start it. TL is not the place for stuff like this. So sorry for my interruption. go on with "yeah freedom of speech" "shit movie".....
Actually the age ad hominem does work against you. Fairly sure most of the people argueing against your point are older than you and that is not a coincidence . You've yet to make the required experience to understand how ignorant your statement is, essentially starting in the fact that you've yet to see the movie. Baffling.
On June 08 2011 08:08 Deekin[ wrote: ah this film, I look forward to it, I love the saw film with alot of gore and phsycological stuff. Might even be worth going to the cinema.
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1) Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie. Every right stops where it hurts another right. Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
2) However When you ban a movie you cut the rights of the people who want to see it. So you must weigh if the right of this group is more worth than the right of the other group, who are afraid that such movie can be dangerous.
3) in this special case i think the 2. right win. Because even if the chance is very small that people who watch this do something dangerous, it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems. So if we cut the right of people to watch such movies -that let them feel good when they see people torture- it is OK in my opinion.
In society we build rules which we are all to obey, else face consequences like prison. I take no issue with restricting freedom, as long as freedom is restricted in ways that I accept. You're not allowed to steal from people: good. You're not allowed to hit people: good. You're no allowed to sell dehumanizing, gore porn: good.
If a work doesn't have redeeming social value I don't mind that it is banned. I think people who argue for 100% freedom are silly. You have 100% freedom if you want it. It's just that you have to face the real world. If you want to live in society, then sacrifice some of your freedoms. I want to be protected.
On June 08 2011 08:01 emythrel wrote: Damn i don't remember a film being banned since The Exorcist...... this must be some heavy shit if it got banned in the UK... we have pretty liberal film ratings these days, films that were 18's when the were released 15 years ago are now 12's lol
only Three Remained Banned: Visions of Ecstacy (for religious crimes) Mikey (A Child murders people) Grotesque (Japanese)
I don't really care. I hate all forms of horror movies. But freedom of speech seems kinda important, even though this would inspire some fucked up shit.
On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote: ok, ok last try....
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1) Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie. Every right stops where it hurts another right. Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
2) However When you ban a movie you cut the rights of the people who want to see it. So you must weigh if the right of this group is more worth than the right of the other group, who are afraid that such movie can be dangerous.
3) in this special case i think the 2. right win. Because even if the chance is very small that people who watch this do something dangerous, it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems. So if we cut the right of people to watch such movies -that let them feel good when they see people torture- it is OK in my opinion.
3. So you are okay that the German governments bans all "killerspiele" (shooters for us non-Germans^^), because many people claim that violent video games are the reason for murders & shooting sprees? And keep in mind that those people have the same "facts" backing up their statements like you do: none. Or you might enlighten a lot of us here and show a scientific study that shows that people who watch those movies have big mental problems.
it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems.
This is why no one is taking you seriously. Well, one of the reasons. Your complete logical fallacies play a part too.
you guys think its fun to watch such movies? i was thinking you agree with me that its shit and just argue for the general freedom of speech. So if you really enjoy stuff like this than i total misunderstand the situation! If you feel something like fun when you look such crap than there is just nothing i have to say to you...
I don't think I'll ever understand why this or even other milder horror films are created.
I'm just glad its extreme violence that they are banning a movie for, rather than things like pornography, language, or political message. I think our priorities in censorship are at least getting more on track.
On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote: ok, ok last try....
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1) Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie. Every right stops where it hurts another right. Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
2) However When you ban a movie you cut the rights of the people who want to see it. So you must weigh if the right of this group is more worth than the right of the other group, who are afraid that such movie can be dangerous.
3) in this special case i think the 2. right win. Because even if the chance is very small that people who watch this do something dangerous, it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems. So if we cut the right of people to watch such movies -that let them feel good when they see people torture- it is OK in my opinion.
First of all, no, it's not obvious at all. In fact, you're just wrong.
Then there's this other issue of why is it wrong for them to enjoy such movies just because you don't? Are you the moral authority of mankind? (You're not) Just like there's people who enjoy scat sex (that's sex where poo is involved) there are people who enjoy these movies. All you have to do is not get involved and it wont bother or disturb your life in the slightest. Just move along. <insert obligatory deal-with-it pic here>
it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems.
This is why no one is taking you seriously. Well, one of the reasons. Your complete logical fallacies play a part too.
you guys think its fun to watch such movies? i was thinking you agree with me that its shit and just argue for the general freedom of speech. So if you really enjoy stuff like this than i total misunderstand the situation! If you feel something like fun when you look such crap than there is just nothing i have to say to you...
Oh? So if my preferences in entertainment clashes with yours you are somehow superior to me?
But it is not as disgusting as what people might think. In fact, I find it very boring because I dont understand anything at all.
When I noe this movie from friend, It make me want to watch because I want to know how 3 people joined up to form a centipede, what is the story behind, what kind of difficulties they have to face to go back to normal life. I expect alot alot from the movie.
But when I watch, they are just joined up by using the cloth used to wrap mummies with, and wrap 1 face to another backside. 2 times. To form a human centipede with 3 people.
The story behind it, some guy want to have human centipede as pet.
If u wan me summary the whole plot, it is "Life of the centipede and it's master" for 2 hours. So u noe how boring it is?
When I start to feel dissapointing, I somehow predict what kind of scary thing or disgusting thing the movie is trying to do to scare me. I predict it quite accurate so when it happens, I just feel "..."
Ah...Don't feel sad if it got ban, because I feel the sequel, they make it look interesting so u will go watch but when u watch, u will feel dissapointed.
On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote: ok, ok last try....
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1) Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie. Every right stops where it hurts another right. Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
2) However When you ban a movie you cut the rights of the people who want to see it. So you must weigh if the right of this group is more worth than the right of the other group, who are afraid that such movie can be dangerous.
3) in this special case i think the 2. right win. Because even if the chance is very small that people who watch this do something dangerous, it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems. So if we cut the right of people to watch such movies -that let them feel good when they see people torture- it is OK in my opinion.
3. So you are okay that the German governments bans all "killerspiele" (shooters for us non-Germans^^), because many people claim that violent video games are the reason for murders & shooting sprees? And keep in mind that those people have the same "facts" backing up their statements like you do: none. Or you might enlighten a lot of us here and show a scientific study that shows that people who watch those movies have big mental problems.
Oh. thank you for the first real argument!
my answer is: YES and NO. i think you must decide for every game and every situation. A game where the goal is to kill other people and you mainly focus on your movement and aimskill? ALLOW
A game like call of duty where you come in a situation and he ask you: "should we burn him or shoot him" and you have all the time you want to decide and there is no other aspect. Its just you to make this strange decision. GRAY
A game where you have to torture people or randomly kill people who walking around BAN
this is my opinion. my line. i think there are many cases where its hard to find the line and we must discuss this for every new game and movie again.
----------- To the last point:
Do people have the right to watching how other people suffering (in a movie) is the question we discuss. And for me the answer is: NO as long we cant be 100% sure its not dangerous. And you say: YES as long there is no study that shows its dangerous.
Lol book burnings and censorship became obsolete as soon as the internet formed.
Isn't the UK parliment worried about the streisand effect making the movie a much bigger deal there than it normally would have been? And with incredibily easy access to free movies streaming online, how exactly can it be enforced to any degree?
In conclusion not only do i think this is an aberration of people's rights, and of artistic licence, it will foolishly generate much much more hype than the movie otherwise would have garnered. Do you remember back a couple years ago when Hostel got the same treatment? How many people do you know went to go see it just to see "what the fuss was about"?
Cowardly and stupid parliment doing a cowardly and stupid thing.
On June 08 2011 08:19 skeldark wrote: ok, ok last try....
I used some word that you guys misunderstand. and perhaps your right i just misused them.
1) Even in a society that have the main right of freedom of speech it can be ok to ban a movie. Every right stops where it hurts another right. Its just to easy and simple to say banning is always bad and we need total freedom of speech.
If you don't wan't to get beat up don't compete in boxing. The same goes for movies/books/games etc - if it might offend you, just leave it alone.
Lol, I remember the first one coming out and everyone I know continually made jokes about how shit it sounded. I haven't heard of films being banned in ages, well... not films that aren't snuff and all that disturbing shit no one should see anyway. Seems unnecessary.
it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems.
This is why no one is taking you seriously. Well, one of the reasons. Your complete logical fallacies play a part too.
you guys think its fun to watch such movies? i was thinking you agree with me that its shit and just argue for the general freedom of speech. So if you really enjoy stuff like this than i total misunderstand the situation! If you feel something like fun when you look such crap than there is just nothing i have to say to you...
Oh? So if my preferences in entertainment clashes with yours you are somehow superior to me?
Err, the defense of these movies is very weak.
Should fiction be allowed to portray anything? Yes. Or should it? We draw lines all the time. South Park targets people personally. These are however all public persons. Would South Park be tolerated if its creators opened a phonebook at random, checked out that persons Facebook page and made up a twisted plot where cartoon versions of that real persons family carry out despicable acts? No? Ok, so it's not ok to target non-public persons in fiction? We get all these blurry lines and gray areas.
I think the line must also be different for commercial fiction. This movie has been banned from commercial distribution, not censored - if the owners of the intellectual property wanted to, they could freely distribute the movie online. Why is this so important? Because as a consumer you are reasonably able to expect certain things when you purchase certain products. There is no label to describe this film and it wouldn't make sense to implement one so instead it's banned from commercial distribution. Say they slap an R on it - a consumer would still not be able to expect what's to come and would have legal grounds to bring the rating agency to court. Certain criteria come with each rating - some products go beyond that and therefor can't be distributed. It's not much different from banning meat products that don't state the country of origin.
"So what about artistic freedom and censorship?!" Again - there's no censorship. This could be displayed at an art gallery with no problem but it does not qualify as a commercial movie. Consumer protection =/= censorship. "But... What about SAW!?" If you've read the grounds provided by the agency for denial - you'll find the two works to be quite different.
The first one was hilarious, this one sounds a lot more messed up though. I'll probably watch it with friends eventually out of curiosity.
If the movie is actually pornographic it's perfectly okay to ban it from showing in theaters, but a lot of people in this thread need to get off their high horses.
Jesus guys. Let's get back on topic about masturbation with sandpaper.
I don't know what the fuck is wrong with some of you people, but always looking for confrontation is stupid. Let's laugh. Let's cry. Let's cringe at scat. But get off the pedestal plz.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
On June 08 2011 08:21 Chef wrote: In society we build rules which we are all to obey, else face consequences like prison. I take no issue with restricting freedom, as long as freedom is restricted in ways that I accept. You're not allowed to steal from people: good. You're not allowed to hit people: good. You're no allowed to sell dehumanizing, gore porn: good.
If a work doesn't have redeeming social value I don't mind that it is banned. I think people who argue for 100% freedom are silly. You have 100% freedom if you want it. It's just that you have to face the real world. If you want to live in society, then sacrifice some of your freedoms. I want to be protected.
I'm not a child and I don't want to be nannied by the state. I appreciate protection against things such as violence, foreign threats, forgeries, etc., but you should not want protection from yourself, and if you do, you shouldn't be advocating the state protect everyone from themselves. Our governments have become nanny states. They want to protect me from my own guns and knives, they want to protect me from hurting while myself volunteering to help someone who had a tornado destroy their yard so they fine me for not having a permit, they want to protect me from the decision to watch "dehumanizing, gore porn" (that isn't real and no one was hurt during production). None of this should be their place. The government should only be there to protect me against the initiation of force by others, not to protect me from myself.
I liked the first movie, and I'm definitely going to see the sequel when it comes out.
Even though I enjoyed the first movie, I understand why they banned the sequel. To clear up a lot of the arguing that's been going on in this thread, a movie being grotesque in nature does not warrant a ban. The reason why this movie is banned is because the intent of the movie is to disgust people to the point that they lose faith in humanity. Since the purpose of the movie is to harm rather than to entertain, they have decided to ban it. I'm not making a claim as to whether or not they made the correct decision, I'm pointing out the misconception some people have that this movie was banned for being grotesque while other movies equally as grotesque were not banned.
its just a fucking movie, whatever i could care less, i thought the first one was good, also interesting, its a movie and people get all butt hurt, its good he is making a new one,s o he would show hes better then all the people who send him death threats
the idea of this movie is perverse to say the lease. not scary, just disgusting and definitely reprehensible much like 2g1c.. i can sit through it and not think twice about it, i'm not unbalanced easily, regardless i think the films and idea of the "human centipede" is just redundant. i doubt anyone is frightened or entertained by it. the only thing i give it credit for is glimmers of originality
On June 08 2011 09:44 Crue wrote: the idea of this movie is perverse to say the lease. not scary, just disgusting and definitely reprehensible much like 2g1c.. i can sit through it and not think twice about it, i'm not unbalanced easily, regardless i think the films and idea of the "human centipede" is just redundant. i doubt anyone is frightened or entertained by it. the only thing i give it credit for is glimmers of originality
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
On June 08 2011 09:33 Chairman Ray wrote: I liked the first movie, and I'm definitely going to see the sequel when it comes out.
Even though I enjoyed the first movie, I understand why they banned the sequel. To clear up a lot of the arguing that's been going on in this thread, a movie being grotesque in nature does not warrant a ban. The reason why this movie is banned is because the intent of the movie is to disgust people to the point that they lose faith in humanity. Since the purpose of the movie is to harm rather than to entertain, they have decided to ban it. I'm not making a claim as to whether or not they made the correct decision, I'm pointing out the misconception some people have that this movie was banned for being grotesque while other movies equally as grotesque were not banned.
Now you got me wanting to watch it. Lot of other movies can be depressing and make you lose faith in humanity without being disgusting. Just how bad can this one be?
This movie should be banned everywhere. Thank god there are no commercials for this crazy stuff, like there are for condoms. It seems whenever there's a commercial break there's going to be something about condoms. Children that don't watch the Disney channel exclusively probably have seen condom commercials. They probably won't understand that very much, but a Human Centipede commercial would scar children for life.
On June 08 2011 09:59 Antares777 wrote: This movie should be banned everywhere. Thank god there are no commercials for this crazy stuff, like there are for condoms. It seems whenever there's a commercial break there's going to be something about condoms. Children that don't watch the Disney channel exclusively probably have seen condom commercials. They probably won't understand that very much, but a Human Centipede commercial would scar children for life.
I saw the trailer. looked the first movie up on netflix, started streaming it, fast-forwarded throughout 4/5 of the movie and was fucking disgusted ( and not in an entertaining way either.)
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.
These films are so lame. The creators seem to think producing "the sickest movie ever" is some kind of intellectual achievement or something to get a boner over.
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.
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.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
This may be the dumbest post I have ever read in my entire life. The majority have absolutely no right to determine what is acceptable to a minority and indeed is one of the founding aspects of democracy everywhere. To protect minority rights is paramount.
You are a dunce.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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 : (
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.
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 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
But wouldnt that same logic work in the case of "violent/gory" media and murder? i.e. violent video games would lead to murder, therefore we should ban those video games?
I think the distinction should be made between getting pleasure from "accomplishing" something like headshotting that snotnosed little shit who keeps screaming obscenities into the mic in his pre-pubescent screechvoice on Modern Warfare, and getting sexual pleasure from it. Those are two different beasts.
Most serial killers (and obviously rapists) get sexual pleasure from dominating and causing terror and humiliation in their victims, it's conceivable that they could be urged on by viewing violent material or depictions of sexual violence. I don't think it's a big enough concern that we should be toning down violence to pre-Easy Rider levels and depictions in media, but coarsening the culture and possibly giving inspiration to some whacko should be something we think about if we're going to write a book or make a movie that is incredibly, awfully, graphically violent and "disturbing."
There's nothing wrong with discretion. As long as its not enforced by a jackboot in the face.
But wouldnt that same logic work in the case of "violent/gory" media and murder? i.e. violent video games would lead to murder, therefore we should ban those video games?
...
There's nothing wrong with discretion. As long as its not enforced by a jackboot in the face.
No, as long as the majority and you agree that the discretion is in order, and as long as the government gives you the chance to cooperate willingly before they fine or handcuff you, and only under the threat of shooting you if you don't consent to being handcuffed/fined, as long as it's not a jackboot in the face.
On June 08 2011 08:01 emythrel wrote: Damn i don't remember a film being banned since The Exorcist...... this must be some heavy shit if it got banned in the UK... we have pretty liberal film ratings these days, films that were 18's when the were released 15 years ago are now 12's lol
only Three Remained Banned: Visions of Ecstacy (for religious crimes) Mikey (A Child murders people) Grotesque (Japanese)
I don't really care. I hate all forms of horror movies. But freedom of speech seems kinda important, even though this would inspire some fucked up shit.
I watched Grotesque out of curiosity since I like these types of movies and I realized I can't stomach it the way I used to be able to only like a year or 2 ago, I feel pretty nauseous right now as a result.
No, as long as the majority and you agree that the discretion is in order, and as long as the government gives you the chance to cooperate willingly before they fine or handcuff you, and only under the threat of shooting you if you don't consent to being handcuffed/fined, as long as it's not a jackboot in the face.
That's a nice little fantasy you have there.
Be careful, Big Brother is always watching.
Right?
It's very selfish and entitled to think you should be able to do or say what you want and if people don't like it or, God forbid, don't want their children to know about it, well, they are just a bunch of fascists. Bravo, you've put out a work that degrades the humanity of the characters in the most disgusting ways you can think of! You are such a free spirit! If we don't approve, why, free speech is at risk!
No, as long as the majority and you agree that the discretion is in order, and as long as the government gives you the chance to cooperate willingly before they fine or handcuff you, and only under the threat of shooting you if you don't consent to being handcuffed/fined, as long as it's not a jackboot in the face.
That's a nice little fantasy you have there.
Be careful, Big Brother is always watching.
Right?
I don't understand. I described the way law enforcement works. What about it do you find fantastical? Big brother is a cooky sci-fi depiction of a very real idea. Giving the government unnecessary control over our lives is a good thing, right? Could you maybe be more elaborate?
It's very selfish and entitled to think you should be able to do or say what you want and if people don't like it or, God forbid, don't want their children to know about it, well, they are just a bunch of fascists. Bravo, you've put out a work that degrades the humanity of the characters in the most disgusting ways you can think of! You are such a free spirit! If we don't approve, why, free speech is at risk!
Free speech is not put at risk by you not approving, it's put at risk by you physically forcing people not to speak, which is more or less what you're suggesting. The people who made that movie are not free spirits, they're idiots. I never said otherwise and I'd appretiate it if you didn't simply invent things about me for you not to like.
The law's only reason for existing is to protect individual rights. Any action that does not violate the rights of others is a right, and to inhibit such actions by law is fascism. The production and even the sale of a disgusting dehumanizing movie does not inherently violate anyone's rights. If you don't like it being offered then you should refrain from going to the places where it's offered. People will not offer it in places where those uninterested in the offer don't frequent, and should be easy enough to avoid. You can control either your child's access to such things, or the way he/she interprets such things. Keep in mind I'm not telling you how to be a parent, I'm telling you how to not be a fascist.
So the whole purpose of this movie is to be as disgusting as possible? I am normaly against any kind of censorship since it normaly gets circumvented or gives the shit promotion, but yes i can understand why they banned it and i can't realy disagree...
banning movie is just s statement again the filmmakers,it doesnt prevent anyone from watching the movie obviously cuz of the internet.They are just adding to the publicity of the movie by banning it.Im sure a lot of people would had not even noticed that this kinda movie was coming. So as a conclusion its a stupid thing to do to ban it
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
On June 08 2011 16:47 Revolt wrote: imo, im pretty sure the people who came up with the idea to create this movie had this kind of controversy in mind.
why not ban it? youre giving them what they wanted =)
Of course they had this kind of controversy in mind, but they certainly didnt want the movie to get banned. You can't earn money with movies that are banned everywhere.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
They should pay for their stupidity. The alternative is that someone else pays to protect them from the results of their own stupidity, and often without the consent of either the payer or the 'benefactor'.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
Mind what you say about artists in relation to proclivities. If clean sound minds made all the worlds art, museums would look like the ubiquitous hallways in government buildings.
Also, Jap is still a racial slur the last time I checked. Please don't.
On June 08 2011 04:42 zakmaa wrote: I've some friends who watched it and described it as being "weird." Honestly, I don't think it's all that fucked up. The concept of the movie seems somewhat interesting, maybe I'll watch it. Imo it doesn't seem to be near as bad as any of the Saw films.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
If you guys think Human Centipede is sick, you are obviously a virgin to the genre.
Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is. When I watch movies like this, I feel disgusted. When I ride a roller coaster, I feel scared. When I watch a good drama, I feel sad. All of these are negative emotions which are welcomed in the context of a safe environment. I guess it might be kind of deranged if you watch gore movies and get off to them, but for the majority of viewers, that is not the case.
so there is no question if you should ban such shit because only really dangerous and ill people would watch is anyway. but i think its really scary that there is a bigger market for such films and that there are so many mental ill people around.
You're mentally ill if you think watching a movie means you're dangerous.
not watching it makes you dangerous! but that you WANT to watch such shit means you ARE dangerous!
I heard about this movie...where someone kills another person, just because he's evil and mean. Have you seen it?
you dont get the difference about a movie where someone shot someone and a movie where they show how people are tortured in detail?
Okay so movies involving torture should be banned because they make people dangerous. Are there other unpleasant things we should be sheltered from? How about people being mean to each other? People who don't wash their hands after they pee? God they make me wanna blow shit up!
I never say it makes you dangerous. a child perhaps... if you want to watch this you are allready dangerous.
The majority have the right to deny rights. that why we make laws. To deny rights of minority to the better good of all. Only because there is a law dont mean it must be good. we should ask ourself every time if our rules are good or if we need new rules. But there is no overall problem on denying something, our society base on this.
So i say the right of many to live secure is more worth than the right of few who likes to watch how people get torture.
The danger that this ill people will harm someone more likely because they see such movies is small but still big enough to deny them this right.
I can understand that people want to give them the right to watch this. even if they are dangerous watching this movie must not mean the start to act like this. But i think the little chance is enough.
Do you REALLY believe just because the majority agrees on something that it is their right to impose upon the minority? I think it's absurd that you think this movie would jeopardize "the right of many to live secure" anywhere. Do you really believe that this movie is going to be the reason someone goes out and murders/kidnaps/whatever another person? I doubt the movie is going to be the final push for someone who's already sick enough to do any of those things to actually go and do them.
You mean they rape a girl with a barbed wire dildo in Saw?
I must have missed those scenes.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
No you were just watching the wrong movie. Check out Seven, where Kevin Spacey forced this one guy to fuck a hooker with a strapon knife. Maybe someone should inform the BBFC to ban this movie.
they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
On June 08 2011 09:50 WniO wrote: [quote] they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 09:50 WniO wrote: [quote] they talked about that scene they didnt show it or glorify it
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
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.
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
This movie is more of a crap comedy then a disgusting horror movie if it's anything like the first, duno how any1 can take it seriousily and be "disturbed" by it 0o. House of wax is a masterpiece compared to this shit.
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
[quote]
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
[quote]
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
[quote]
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
What about Antichrist where the woman jerks off her husband and he comes blood? Sure, they dont glorify it, but are they doing this in Human Centipede II?
I mean the guy in this movie is clearly one sick bastard, it's not like they portray him as an hero or am i wrong there?
[quote]
Because we're all dumb and can't decide for ourselfs what we spend our money on.
Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
You're totally missing the point there.
I think it's disgusting, so it should be illegal. Eating spiders, come one. You could get the protein from any other animal. Why spiders? Spiders are gross. I demand a ban on all spiders and people who eat spiders should be fined because i think spiders are disgusting, therefor all of you have to respect and enforce my opinion.
On June 08 2011 16:51 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:56 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:51 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
On June 08 2011 16:51 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:56 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:51 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Anybody who paid money to watch a line of people shit in each other's mouths is probably too dumb to decide what to spend their money on.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
You're totally missing the point there.
I think it's disgusting, so it should be illegal. Eating spiders, come one. You could get the protein from any other animal. Why spiders? Spiders are gross. I demand a ban on all spiders and people who eat spiders should be fined because i think spiders are disgusting, therefor all of you have to respect and enforce my opinion.
That's your logic.
Reasonable human beings could find the consumption of spiders to also be reasonable. Reasonable human beings do not enjoy watching other human beings forced to eat shit.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:56 Elzar wrote: [quote]
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:56 Elzar wrote: [quote]
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
You're totally missing the point there.
I think it's disgusting, so it should be illegal. Eating spiders, come one. You could get the protein from any other animal. Why spiders? Spiders are gross. I demand a ban on all spiders and people who eat spiders should be fined because i think spiders are disgusting, therefor all of you have to respect and enforce my opinion.
That's your logic.
Reasonable human beings could find the consumption of spiders to also be reasonable. Reasonable human beings do not enjoy watching other human beings forced to eat shit.
That. Is. Not. The. Point. I don't know how i could it make this anymore clearer. I think i'm getting trolled here. :/
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 16:56 Elzar wrote: [quote]
Oh so you must be the guy who decides what people should like. Pleased to meet you.
Am i allowed to smoke a cigarette now or is that in bad taste because it's unhealthy? Oh wait, i'm an adult so i can do whatever the fuck i want without being patronized like a child. =)
Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
These things always make me curious. Think about all the people who gave their lives so we can live in freedom. If they would've known that their sacrifise would allow us to make movies about people getting sown to eachothers assholes so they have to eat eachothers shit, would they still have given their lives or would they have been like... "yeah I don't think so". Yet apparently there is a big crowd now who like watching this kind of movie. Is that progression? Are we evolving as a species? Or are these just signs of the inevitable selfdestruction of the human race? The mind boggles.
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
On June 08 2011 18:37 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:33 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:31 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
You're totally missing the point there.
I think it's disgusting, so it should be illegal. Eating spiders, come one. You could get the protein from any other animal. Why spiders? Spiders are gross. I demand a ban on all spiders and people who eat spiders should be fined because i think spiders are disgusting, therefor all of you have to respect and enforce my opinion.
That's your logic.
Reasonable human beings could find the consumption of spiders to also be reasonable. Reasonable human beings do not enjoy watching other human beings forced to eat shit.
That. Is. Not. The. Point. I don't know how i could it make this anymore clearer. I think i'm getting trolled here. :/
The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:52 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] Yep, I'm the guy, and I decided that a movie whose premise is having a persons mouth sewn to another persons ass so that they're forced to eat their shit eternally is a movie that people shouldn't like.
Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
Presumably because there are more people who agree with me, which creates more weight in a democratic system.
On June 08 2011 18:44 switchdev wrote: These things always make me curious. Think about all the people who gave their lives so we can live in freedom. If they would've known that their sacrifise would allow us to make movies about people getting sown to eachothers assholes so they have to eat eachothers shit, would they still have given their lives or would they have been like... "yeah I don't think so". Yet apparently there is a big crowd now who like watching this kind of movie. Is that progression? Are we evolving as a species? Or are these just signs of the inevitable selfdestruction of the human race? The mind boggles.
Strange, strange world
I think it's just a movie that will be forgotten in a couple of months (weeks?).
it is pretty obvious that people who want to see such movies have big mental problems.
This is why no one is taking you seriously. Well, one of the reasons. Your complete logical fallacies play a part too.
you guys think its fun to watch such movies? i was thinking you agree with me that its shit and just argue for the general freedom of speech. So if you really enjoy stuff like this than i total misunderstand the situation! If you feel something like fun when you look such crap than there is just nothing i have to say to you...
Okay, I have to emphasize this even though many already disagreed with you.
Enjoying such movies does not mean you are mentally ill. Stating that it is farily obvious is really ignorant.
You can't say that because you enjoy something "evil" you are "evil". The human mind just doesn't work like that. For one thing people recognize that this is fiction and react accordingly. It does not carry the same meaning as watching this stuff in real life would. Nor is enjoying "evil" or having "evil ideas" a sign of evil or mental illness. It is perfectly normal to have malicious whims and entertain sadistic thougts, for instance, it does not make you a bad or mentally ill person.
Anecdotal evidence: I have friends that enjoy such movies and will probably watch this as well. I certainly won't but I don't think less of them for doing so, as I know they are just as sane and compassionate human beings as I am. In fact, they are probably more sensitive in most aspects than me, but they are kinda habituated/desentizised to fictional stuff like this. That does not make them any more prone to acting violent though. They would likely scare away from any troubles in the real world, they are those kind of people that could never hurt a fly.
Bottom line is that the human mind is much more complex than "liking evil" -> "being evil". It just doesn't work like that.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
On June 08 2011 18:37 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:33 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:31 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
You're totally missing the point there.
I think it's disgusting, so it should be illegal. Eating spiders, come one. You could get the protein from any other animal. Why spiders? Spiders are gross. I demand a ban on all spiders and people who eat spiders should be fined because i think spiders are disgusting, therefor all of you have to respect and enforce my opinion.
That's your logic.
Reasonable human beings could find the consumption of spiders to also be reasonable. Reasonable human beings do not enjoy watching other human beings forced to eat shit.
That. Is. Not. The. Point. I don't know how i could it make this anymore clearer. I think i'm getting trolled here. :/
The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:54 Elzar wrote: [quote] Sorry, but that's a very stupid attitude.
The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:53 frontliner2 wrote: I hate cencorship.
But in it's defence. I watched the first movie a few weeks ago in a laptop in a pub. a friend DL'ed it and was so pushing us to watch it. I had to leave the pub TWICE all pale and sick. And I wasn't even watching the movie entirely, just threw in a few sneak peeks here and there ...
shit movie, really disturbing :D
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
Presumably because there are more people who agree with me, which creates more weight in a democratic system.
That's not how democracy works.Considering how you're an American and the movie is banned in Britain you're making even less sense. You don't serve the Queen anymore y'know, that stopped many years ago. Oh well, enjoy your bubble.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
If you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
On June 08 2011 18:37 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:33 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:31 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
You're totally missing the point there.
I think it's disgusting, so it should be illegal. Eating spiders, come one. You could get the protein from any other animal. Why spiders? Spiders are gross. I demand a ban on all spiders and people who eat spiders should be fined because i think spiders are disgusting, therefor all of you have to respect and enforce my opinion.
That's your logic.
Reasonable human beings could find the consumption of spiders to also be reasonable. Reasonable human beings do not enjoy watching other human beings forced to eat shit.
That. Is. Not. The. Point. I don't know how i could it make this anymore clearer. I think i'm getting trolled here. :/
The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
On June 08 2011 18:42 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:38 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:37 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:33 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:31 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
On June 08 2011 18:42 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:38 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:37 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:33 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:31 vyyye wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
You misunderstand the issue. You are no one and have zero authority on what's "too stupid to be legal", despite what your parents might have lead you to believe.
I am one voter out of many who agrees that watching fresh shit forced down somebody's throat who has been surgically sewn together with another so as to be forced to be sucking on an anus twenty-four hours a day is too stupid to be legal.
On June 08 2011 18:32 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:25 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On June 08 2011 18:09 Elzar wrote:
On June 08 2011 17:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: [quote] The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass so that somebody will be forced to eat shit forever is also stupid.
Your point being, if the movie is stupid, you can be stupid too?
On June 08 2011 17:56 Latham wrote: [quote]
Lol what? The movie was pretty tame. Nothing extreme. It was also boring as hell and stupid. Most of it was 3 people moaning in pain and walking on all 4's.\
The only mildly disturbing part was the jap slitting his own throat with a fat/dull piece of glass.
True. I must say, i was kind of disappointed.
You misunderstand me. The idea of sewing a mouth to an ass is stupid, but the idea that people shouldn't enjoy watching the forced consumption of feces fresh from the anus isn't.
I reply to that statement with your signature.
But why? Because it disgusts you? There are many things that disgust me, but i don't force my opinion on others. For example i find spiders to be disgusting, i wouldn't go so far that i would call myself arachnophobic, but i find them really repulsive.
Now there are people who find them in fact quite tasty.
Is it now ok for me to call those people stupid for enjoying something i find disgusting?
Spiders are a good source of protein. The forced consumption of human shit is not. It's not even edible. Or tangible.
"I believe X is stupid and should not be legal because of Y" "X is stupid and should be illegal"
Two separate beasts. You may have the right to vote, it doesn't make the latter argumentation less naive.
Nothing makes it naive besides the fact that you say so.
Hardly. I could call you genius, that would not make you genius nor would it change your naivety. It's not about what you like to watch, no one gives two damns about what you as an individual like or don't like. In fact, you're fucking irrelevant, as is everyone else. Opinions are like arse holes, no?
But you have the right to your opinion, just like everyone has the right to their opinion. While you believe The Human Centipede shouldn't be watched by anyone there are people who pay to watch it, clearly they have a different opinion of the matter.
So why the fuck does your take weight heavier than theirs? Because you say so? That's naive.
Presumably because there are more people who agree with me, which creates more weight in a democratic system.
That's not how democracy works.Considering how you're an American and the movie is banned in Britain you're making even less sense. You don't serve the Queen anymore y'know, that stopped many years ago. Oh well, enjoy your bubble.
I was speaking from a theoretical perspective.
Please tell me how democracy works, if you are so intelligent.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
If you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Like i said, thats your opinion and you cant just say "your opinion > my opinion". And it's not like i dont find it disgusting if someone would really do these things, but we're talking about a movie here. Fiction.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
If you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Like i said, thats your opinion and you cant just say "your opinion > my opinion". And it's not like i dont find it disgusting if someone would really do these things, but we're talking about a movie here. Fiction.
I just did. Here, let me say it again: if you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
If you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Like i said, thats your opinion and you cant just say "your opinion > my opinion". And it's not like i dont find it disgusting if someone would really do these things, but we're talking about a movie here. Fiction.
I just did. Here, let me say it again: if you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Well then i have to point out your very stupid attitude again and there's no reason why we should discuss this matter any further.
You just can't seem to understand, that you can't force your opinion/standards on others.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
If you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Like i said, thats your opinion and you cant just say "your opinion > my opinion". And it's not like i dont find it disgusting if someone would really do these things, but we're talking about a movie here. Fiction.
I just did. Here, let me say it again: if you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Well then i have to point out your very stupid attitude again and there's no point why we should discuss this matter any further.
You just can't seem to understand, that you can't force your opinion/standards on others.
You are free to find spiders disgusting while finding the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever perfectly agreeable and I cannot come to your house and force you to do otherwise at gunpoint, so yes, I can't force my standards on you.
I can, however, express my opinion of your standards.
Eh. I like freedom and all, but nothing in me feels at all concerned with the banning of this film. I can only imagine the protests for this in the streets:
Reporter: "So what are you protesting?" Protestor: "The banning of a film about sewing peoples mouths to others anuses, and then raping them and jerking off with sandpaper" Reporter: "..." Protestor: "It's totally about freedom to decide what we want to watch!" Reporter: "..." Protestor: "No seriously, we totally care about freedom" Reporter: "So you want to be free, and watch peoples mouths sewn to anuses, and then raped etc?" Protestor: "Yes, that is freedom."
Gotta love that freedom.
If you want to watch it, then just spend two minutes on the internet and find a billion more screwed up things to look at instead.
On June 08 2011 18:45 EmeraldSparks wrote: The point is that your analogy blows. Try comparing it to something more similar, like Holocaust torture pornography.
No, the analogy fits. You just have other standards.
You find those ass-to-mouth shit eating disgusting. I find spiders disgustung.
You can't put a value on things that disgust people. Maybe your own, but my standards might be completely different.
You have to understand, that your opinion isn't the ne plus ultra of opinions.
If you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Like i said, thats your opinion and you cant just say "your opinion > my opinion". And it's not like i dont find it disgusting if someone would really do these things, but we're talking about a movie here. Fiction.
I just did. Here, let me say it again: if you find spiders disgusting, but don't find the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever disgusting, your standards suck.
Well then i have to point out your very stupid attitude again and there's no point why we should discuss this matter any further.
You just can't seem to understand, that you can't force your opinion/standards on others.
You are free to find spiders disgusting while finding the idea of having your mouth sewn to someone else's ass so you are forced to eat shit forever perfectly agreeable and I cannot come to your house and force you to do otherwise at gunpoint, so yes, I can't force my standards on you.
I can, however, express my opinion of your standards.
They suck.
Ok, i say it one more time. I would find that stuff disgusting if it actually happened in real life, but this is a movie we're talking about.
Hmmmmmm..the trailer of the first part did not look that dreadful... not that i would watch it - i simply dont like the horror-genre
on the other hand, the storyline for the 2nd part doesnt seem that appealing either way...
But yeah, banning it in the uk will in the end make that film more attractive to certain people who wouldnt have bothered with it before, plus people tend to get what they want, banned or not.
It's almost torture reading a debate between someone who thinks that the government should prevent people from harming themselves and someone who thinks that paying to watch someone eat shit is not worthy of verbal chastisement. The middle ground is that stupidity does exist, but consensual stupidity is not the concern of the law, nor is consensual anything.
On June 08 2011 18:57 Enzyme wrote: Eh. I like freedom and all, but nothing in me feels at all concerned with the banning of this film. I can only imagine the protests for this in the streets:
Reporter: "So what are you protesting?" Protestor: "The banning of a film about sewing peoples mouths to others anuses, and then raping them and jerking off with sandpaper" Reporter: "..." Protestor: "It's totally about freedom to decide what we want to watch!" Reporter: "..." Protestor: "No seriously, we totally care about freedom" Reporter: "So you want to be free, and watch peoples mouths sewn to anuses, and then raped etc?" Protestor: "Yes, that is freedom."
Gotta love that freedom.
If you want to watch it, then just spend two minutes on the internet and find a billion more screwed up things to look at instead.
What's not to love? If you dont want to watch the movie, then just dont watch it, it's that easy. Why does it concern you what other people like in movies?
I've watched the first, the horror is the kind off "what the fuck is he doing.. ewww" not the "shit that scared so much out of me" compared to the other horror movies.
Don't think censorship (except age) is the way forward, but I just don't understand people who want to watch something like this...
I mean what do you get out of watching something disgusting or being scared by some movie displaying torture and the like? Is it some kind of need to prove to yourself you are tough or is it to brag to your friends?
On June 08 2011 19:13 Casta wrote: Don't think censorship (except age) is the way forward, but I just don't understand people who want to watch something like this...
I mean what do you get out of watching something disgusting or being scared by some movie displaying torture and the like? Is it some kind of need to prove to yourself you are tough or is it to brag to your friends?
I guess I will never understand.
I guess you just can answer this questions with "because i like it".
Why would anybody want to watch dramas? They make people cry. Do these people like to cry? They like being sad? What's wrong with them?
On June 08 2011 16:47 Revolt wrote: imo, im pretty sure the people who came up with the idea to create this movie had this kind of controversy in mind.
why not ban it? youre giving them what they wanted =)
Of course they had this kind of controversy in mind, but they certainly didnt want the movie to get banned. You can't earn money with movies that are banned everywhere.
its only banned in the UK... if the worldwide sales as a result of the publicity from this ban exceed the likely number of sales from the UK then they will actually gain from this
On June 08 2011 16:47 Revolt wrote: imo, im pretty sure the people who came up with the idea to create this movie had this kind of controversy in mind.
why not ban it? youre giving them what they wanted =)
Of course they had this kind of controversy in mind, but they certainly didnt want the movie to get banned. You can't earn money with movies that are banned everywhere.
its only banned in the UK... if the worldwide sales as a result of the publicity from this ban exceed the likely number of sales from the UK then they will actually gain from this
I know it's only banned in the UK (yet), but i see your point. I don't think they aimed for a ban, though.
it's a crap film all banning it did was give it a load of publicity what's the point in banning it if doing so causes more people to watch it? who would watch it anyway? who cares if someone wants to make a sick film it's up to them?
This is one of the most f**ked up movies I have ever saw. And thank god I saw only the trailer, which was already ugly as sh*t. Who the f**k comes up with this kind of sh*t ?
On June 08 2011 13:05 TALegion wrote: 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.
And by the time that someone commits a crime based on the film, it's too late.
On June 08 2011 13:05 TALegion wrote: 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.
And by the time that someone commits a crime based on the film, it's too late.
Like those kids who killed because they played videogames?
On June 08 2011 13:05 TALegion wrote: 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.
And by the time that someone commits a crime based on the film, it's too late.
Like those kids who killed because they played videogames?
For the sake of everyone here's credibility, let us not start an argument based on the negative side effects of violent video games on a video game-based website. It's like starting a religious debate on a christian community site...
the movie is really just disgusting and I don't think this kind of thinking benefits anyone in the human race. All it does is give people more sick and twisted ideas. These movies are almost always watched by the weirdest people too. Honestly if you like gore you are literally retarded and don't understand what makes good cinema (shock value is instant and fades fast, good cinema is always rich with content that lasts and means something).
On June 08 2011 19:54 Elzar wrote: I didn't want to do that. Just saying you can't blame movies/video games for crimes.
I completely agree.
Although I've never seen these movies it seems ridiculous to ban them doesn't it? I mean a preemptive ban on something is a bit silly but I guess it honestly doesn't matter, pirating things is not very hard.
But since it's that serious to ban, it has me curious now... lol
Them getting banned by the BBFC was the best thing for the movie because it's given them so much more publicity than they could've gotten on their own and it kind of turns it into movies like 'Teeth' and 'Shrooms' where people wanna see it just to see what all the fuss is about.
I dont think its a big loss for the British cinema scene to be honest. Dumb to actually ban it but I guess it must break some sort of rule/law/notfallunderanyrealratingsystemsboard. It is a pretty disgusting looking movie though so personally I could care less if its banned or not in any country as most people wont see it. But now that it has been banned more people will hop on the internet and watch it there than before.
I think it's a bit of stretch to say that a person's 'civil liberties' is infringed because a movie about people being surgically implanted end-to-end via their mouth/anus is banned. I'm sure there's a 'grey area' where these things are debatable (for example, a picture of a naked child in an art museum), but surely this one lies nowhere near that line?
Is anyone hurt in the production of this movie? Is anyone forced to screen or view this movie?
Censorship shouldn't be this heavy handed. Simply limiting the amount of the movie that can be shown in advertising and forcing the movie to have the harshest possible rating is enough.
Banning it because it is obscene or stupid? Why the hell is scat porn legal? Why is a gore flick of a sexual nature treated differently than a gore flick?
If you don't like something and you ignore it you've made your choice. If you don't like something and you go out of your way to give it attention then extol your opinion so heavily that you use the legal system; what exactly are you trying to achieve aside from force feeding your shit on other people?
he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’.
What the hell, that short clip in the OP was ridiculous. The director looked stupid with that cowboy hat and the fake blood all over him.
Stop giving him so much attention. The Human Centipede is pure shit. It's not interesting. It's not that disgusting. It's not that gore. It's just stupid.
Lurk the Chan or watch Pasolini's Salo or the 120 day of Sodom. But that guy... that guys is a clown.
Hey in the end of the second trailer that sounds like the sound when you clicked the academy in Broodwar, just the music in the background is missing ^^
And I don't get it, isn't there many movies that aren't allowed to be shown in cinemas for such reasons?
If there is a movie in which nobody is hurt during the making of, and it provides entertainment for some, then it is a positive thing whether you like it or not. You are not forced or even encouraged to watch it, so why should you care whether it exists?
I'm going to watch the movie. Am I going to enjoy it? No. Am I going to be disgusted by it? Probably. That's the entire fucking point of watching the movie. Some of the people in this thread act like anyone who watches stuff like this is jacking off to it with sandpaper. That is not the case. Sometimes it feels good to be shocked or disgusted or terrified for a couple hours. Maybe not for everyone, but why should it be your job or the government's job to judge what others watch?
Personally, you know what I think should be banned? All those sites with real gore. People who committed suicide, having amputations, eating human flesh, etc. I think people who look at that stuff are messed up, because those are pictures of people getting really hurt, not fake blood and special effects. The world of fiction is a completely different animal.
This director is a hero for getting something this effed up infront of public audiences. Paying audiences! Bwahahahahahaha. It began at rotten.com oh so many years ago.. and now it's in the theaters ;] The first one was really fun
On June 08 2011 23:56 Cel.erity wrote: Personally, you know what I think should be banned? All those sites with real gore. People who committed suicide, having amputations, eating human flesh, etc. I think people who look at that stuff are messed up, because those are pictures of people getting really hurt, not fake blood and special effects. The world of fiction is a completely different animal.
lolWhat? Those picture's aren't hurting anybody. Not the viewers and not the people depicted in the medium. What the fuck is wrong with people?
Ironically by banning it they've given it more publicity than this shlock would ever have drummed up by itself, now everyone is going to download it on the internet to watch instead. It's not the 80's anymore with video nasties and being difficult to get a copy.... banning something now means it's just takes an extra 2 mins to wait while your computer boots so you can google the torrent.
Lol, I'm gonna watch this without a doubt. I thought the first one was weird, not "oh FML"-weird, but it's nothing I'd watch on a first date or anything.
On June 08 2011 19:13 Casta wrote: Don't think censorship (except age) is the way forward, but I just don't understand people who want to watch something like this...
I mean what do you get out of watching something disgusting or being scared by some movie displaying torture and the like? Is it some kind of need to prove to yourself you are tough or is it to brag to your friends?
I guess I will never understand.
The issue is not why someone would want to watch it though. Why someone would want to watch it should be more or less irrelevant when it comes down to what is basically pure and blatant censorship. The only thing that is important when you are deciding whether or not to ban something needs to be 'Is this in any way harmful to anyone to such an extent that banning it is needed?'. Does anyone honestly think that this movie is?
If not then this film is banned out of disgust which is a slippery slope to go down. Do I find this movie disgusting? Hell yeah. However I also find anything that in any way, shape or form involves Gene Simmons to be absolutely horrible, atrocious, terrible, foul, vile and absolutely disgusting. Does that mean that I should go on a nation wide crusade to ban anything connected to Gene Simmons? Hell no.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
If you think this movie is bad go watch Cannibal Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocaust yeah beat that. (Yes I have seen it in theater and it is as disturbing/fascinating as it sounds)
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
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.
On June 09 2011 10:47 gosuMalicE wrote: If you think this movie is bad go watch Cannibal Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocaust yeah beat that. (Yes I have seen it in theater and it is as disturbing/fascinating as it sounds)
I just read the whole plot section of that link and to be honest it doesn't even sound 1/2 as bad as human centipede. Anyone else agree?
Edit: Although I have to give you the fact that I've seen neither, just clips on the OP.
As a pretty big horror film buff I've never been interested in seeing The Human Centipede, nor will I be interested in seeing the sequel. Something about it just seems... boring and unintriguing. However I disagree with the second film being banned. The "this shit is disgusting and gratuitous" argument just doesn't really hold water because you could apply it (often, mistakenly) to anything that you find disgusting and gratuitous. Maybe there's more artistic meaning. Maybe there isn't. One truth is that some people are simply entertained by disgusting gore. Maybe they get some vicarious thrill out of it. Maybe they're just morbidly curious. It doesn't make them bad people, nor does it indicate anything morally wrong with a society that allows such media to be accessible to people who want to experience it. It's just fake, stupid entertainment.
Oh, and since people are trying to draw comparisons in terms of pure disgust factor, I would urge people to read about the August Underground series. Haven't seen them, but I've heard some pretty insane things about them.
The first movie was hilarious and I expect the second to be even more hilarious. The movie is just so ridiculous that I have no idea how people can actually take it seriously.
If no crime was commited in the making of it why would there be a reason to ban it?
On June 09 2011 12:40 Leporello wrote: 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".
Ahhhhh, cool.
Yea the british censor cinema a fair bit, A clockwork orange and straw dogs come to mind, but loads used to have to be cut to get past the British censors, I have no idea if it still goes on.
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.
Raises interesting questions over what speech is free. How sick is too sick? What is the role of government in restraining/restricting what is made available to the public? If the film is profitable, what standard is being used to judge it to be unacceptable?
Or even, is this censorship of art no different from those that occurred in past eras for political or religious reasons?
and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers."
I find this interesting in that there recently have been discussions regarding the usage of taboo words in the community and the majority seemed to agree that there were behaviors that should not be tolerated. Obviously the difference here is that it's a government (or part of a government) that's doing the banning.
I personally love ostracism as a way for society to decide what's acceptable behavior without laws. Just because something isn't or shouldn't be illegal doesn't necessarily mean you should do it. Societies may be too diverse these days though to form cohesive opinions. It's very difficult to balance majority rule with minority rights.
Hrm, i guess this is a good thing lol because that movie sounds like it is god awful. But i do think that people should have the right to see it.... but it does just sound like a glorified 2 girls 1 cup... So i would agree that it is not "good" to watch, but i don't think that means they should censor it.
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.
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.
That's just your subjective and personal opinion though. Censorship and government involvement in people's personal lives serves no purpose but for them to exercise unnecessary power, that is far more abhorrent than any horror movie. If you don't want to watch it that's your choice, and in that case you're not exposed to it.
Whoa. This certainly was one those movies I didn't expect to get a sequel. Since it did however - I will most likely be watching it. It can't be worse than "The Last Airbender" tho.
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...
Personally, Im fine with it being banned. Call me an optimist, but I dont think censoring some things will end the world lol.
But I think in general this disagreement of censorship actually creates a nice balance of censorship. I think most of us (or at least I) feel that an extreme on both sides would end up being a bad thing. Complete freedom or complete censorship.
On June 08 2011 18:47 JiYan wrote: ugh this was a terrible thread to see before going off to bed. seriously.
I can't wait until it comes out. Not that I'm going to watch the film itself. I can't wait for the South Park episode covering it, HUMANCENTiPAD 2 would be great!
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.
On June 08 2011 23:56 Cel.erity wrote: If there is a movie in which nobody is hurt during the making of, and it provides entertainment for some, then it is a positive thing whether you like it or not. You are not forced or even encouraged to watch it, so why should you care whether it exists?
I'm going to watch the movie. Am I going to enjoy it? No. Am I going to be disgusted by it? Probably. That's the entire fucking point of watching the movie. Some of the people in this thread act like anyone who watches stuff like this is jacking off to it with sandpaper. That is not the case. Sometimes it feels good to be shocked or disgusted or terrified for a couple hours. Maybe not for everyone, but why should it be your job or the government's job to judge what others watch?
Personally, you know what I think should be banned? All those sites with real gore. People who committed suicide, having amputations, eating human flesh, etc. I think people who look at that stuff are messed up, because those are pictures of people getting really hurt, not fake blood and special effects. The world of fiction is a completely different animal.
Your argument does not apply to the publishing of suicide stories due to statistics showing a causative link between suicide stories and copycat suicides. Although I don't know who would want to copy shit-eating.
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.
This is something I wish wasn't bumped lol, thats nasty. Gonna watch it though, probably with my girlfriend to see her reaction, proabbly have to shut it off after 15 or os minutes though and put in something good, like shawshank redemption or the departed
On October 19 2011 11:35 MERLIN. wrote: This is something I wish wasn't bumped lol, thats nasty. Gonna watch it though, probably with my girlfriend to see her reaction, proabbly have to shut it off after 15 or os minutes though and put in something good, like shawshank redemption or the departed
The Human Centipede II -> Shawshank Redemption build... LOL
absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
On October 19 2011 12:08 FFGenerations wrote: absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
please grow up. You dont even care you just want soemthing to yell about. honestly i cant see this movie doing anything than scarring everyone for a long time.
On October 19 2011 12:08 FFGenerations wrote: absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
please grow up. You dont even care you just want soemthing to yell about. honestly i cant see this movie doing anything than scarring everyone for a long time.
oh thats a great post, real meaningful , how about YOU grow up huh? how do you like the sound of that?
you know what, i think im gonna go round posting "why dont you grow up?" in response to everything now, seems to satisfy you enough maybe i should try it huh?
On October 19 2011 11:22 Calyeah wrote: 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.
This is a post on the last page. It is followed by a majority of posts "hating" the ban (one of which is RIDICULOUSLY emphasized).
If you're going to get pissed off at something, at least get it right.
On October 19 2011 12:08 FFGenerations wrote: absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
please grow up. You dont even care you just want soemthing to yell about. honestly i cant see this movie doing anything than scarring everyone for a long time.
oh thats a great post, real meaningful , how about YOU grow up huh? how do you like the sound of that?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
NO! YOU GROW UP! No you! No you! Oh so mature~!
Quickly: bans exist in public distribution for a reason, I actually don't have a strong opinion for or against bans in general, but every country has "entertainment" restrictions for good reasons, it's only when the restrictions are too harsh that I take offence to them.
Human centipede is a piece of trash from a sick mind with no worthwhile contribution to life. So if it's banned, as was said jokingly before, nothing of value was lost.
Eh, in America we don't ban movies we just slap it with NC-17 and no theater will ever show it. Same goes with videogames and the AO rating. Theaters and stores don't want to be associated with such things.
I'm surprised that Britain doesn't have a similar system.
On October 19 2011 12:08 FFGenerations wrote: absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
Your entire post is just a huge rant in which you repeat the same points over and over. You act like something has been taking from you personally and this has severely effected your life. I get your point but anyone who truly wants to see this movie will without a problem, I can promise you that.
That being said I actually support such a ban because movies are easily accessible to a wide audience regardless of the rating. The reason they banned it is because it could potential damage some people that go see this movie without knowing to a degree of how perverse and out right sickening this movie actually is. I've gone to plenty of movies with friends without knowing what it was even about. If I happened to walk into this trash I would seriously be upset that I wasted my time and money in watching such filth.
Also the fact that movies are so easily accessible by the public it would and will in other countries get in the hands of children and I for one as a parent would not want my child to watch such a thing. I've seen a lot of movies I shouldn't have when I was younger and some of those movies exposed me to things I didn't understand or even know existed. This could potentially effect children in a negative way.
stupidest trailer trash I've ever seen in a long time... thank god the Brits banned this bullshit, at least nobody will waste their time.. if you want gore watch something else.
lol I remember that old Human Centipede 1 thread on TL
I swear to god half the comments in that thread before the movie release was "This film is going to be great, it's going to change the direction of horror films"
I'm all for letting people see what they want, freedom, etc., but in this case UK is just doing its citizens a favor by not letting anyone go near this film with a ten foot pole. Horrible films that just don't need any more publicity.
On October 19 2011 12:08 FFGenerations wrote: absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
please grow up. You dont even care you just want soemthing to yell about. honestly i cant see this movie doing anything than scarring everyone for a long time.
oh thats a great post, real meaningful , how about YOU grow up huh? how do you like the sound of that?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
NO! YOU GROW UP! No you! No you! Oh so mature~!
Quickly: bans exist in public distribution for a reason, I actually don't have a strong opinion for or against bans in general, but every country has "entertainment" restrictions for good reasons, it's only when the restrictions are too harsh that I take offence to them.
Human centipede is a piece of trash from a sick mind with no worthwhile contribution to life. So if it's banned, as was said jokingly before, nothing of value was lost.
again quickly, lots of laws and bans and bahblahs exist in many countries , you can argue that they are good or bad (eg threads about china or usa) and varying people will have varying opinions.
you say this law is only bad when...wait for it....YOU disagree with it.
you know what else i think is a piece of trash? all anime. and pornography. and xfactor. and dexter (show about a serial killer, geez people must be sick to watch this). infact talk to some ex-communist nationals and they will say all forms of TV entertainment detract extremely from life, and should be banned.
fact of the matter is people effortlessly relinquish control of their lives to a higher authority, always justifying it with crap like "oh its not that bad, come on grow up".
what. do. people. do. about. it? what do people do about their issues and problems? let me tell you: NOTHING. they lie down and accept it. they complain and whine and argue but they NEVER EVER take action. you can look at so many of the world's problems and step back and think "geez...if all those 100 million people living together with the same blood and back yard all united - even to just send one big ass letter with 100 million signatures - they could bring change."
but no. people bury their heads in the sand and think everything is as it should be because thats the way the world works and they have never experienced change, a revolution, or the importance of solidarity and the fact that we as human beings live together on this world and not in little boxes with one antenna mouth-feeding us entertainment and another antenna feeding us the laws and ideals of a sick and greedy minority.
On October 19 2011 12:52 BachHo wrote: I'm all for letting people see what they want, freedom, etc., but in this case UK is just doing its citizens a favor by not letting anyone go near this film with a ten foot pole. Horrible films that just don't need any more publicity.
you know what, maybe if the Uk didnt ban this and 1 million people went to see this film and were sickened by it and had to walk out after 5 minutes..........HOLY MOLY whats that, did people just take responsibility for themselves???? UNCANNY
On October 19 2011 12:49 MrHoon wrote: lol I remember that old Human Centipede 1 thread on TL
I swear to god half the comments in that thread before the movie release was "This film is going to be great, it's going to change the direction of horror films"
I haven't watched the first but I actually had a slight interest in watching it after seeing it in the south park episode.
The problem here is that Human Centipede1 Is completely different from Human Centipede2(The full sequence) in that
There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience"
So according to them this movie just merely displays the view of the protagonist with little story involved. Just us(the viewer) watching some sick pervert have his way with some people.
I have little object to the 1st because according to the reviews I've read it actually told a story.
On October 19 2011 12:08 FFGenerations wrote: absolutely disgusting that we allow and support some fucking bigwig to choose for us what is BANNED from OUR COUNTRY
OUR motherfucking country.
unbelievable that people supported this ban for even a second. it doesnt MATTER how crappy and vile the movie is. WE THE PEOPLE choose what WE want to watch and do in our lives. we DONT want some random pedestal authority deciding FOR us based on THEIR own blinkered view on the world.
deciding on MY behalf? who on GODS GREEN EARTH wants someone ELSE to decide for them, to censor them, to sit up in their fucking throne room abusing the living fuck out of our every orifice a million times more than a scene in a movie ever can.
hey guess what, you dont like something? its too obscene for you? its too smelly or you dont like the colour or the music pisses you off after a while? HEY isnt that YOUR choice, YOUR decision? to put this in the hands of some wealthy elite smartarses who call themself protectors of the people?? HAHAHAHHA you must be shitting me.
this might not seem like a big deal to 99% of you , because hey its a crap dumb movie and you wouldnt want to see it anyway. but IT WAS NEVER YOUR CHOICE ANYWAY, WAS IT????
just another pathetic example of people bowing their heads and walking by without realising that the real issue is not "obscenity in movies" but "giving all control of our lives to some elite pricks and not even realising how brainwashed and rigged and doomed our lives really are
please grow up. You dont even care you just want soemthing to yell about. honestly i cant see this movie doing anything than scarring everyone for a long time.
oh thats a great post, real meaningful , how about YOU grow up huh? how do you like the sound of that?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
NO! YOU GROW UP! No you! No you! Oh so mature~!
Quickly: bans exist in public distribution for a reason, I actually don't have a strong opinion for or against bans in general, but every country has "entertainment" restrictions for good reasons, it's only when the restrictions are too harsh that I take offence to them.
Human centipede is a piece of trash from a sick mind with no worthwhile contribution to life. So if it's banned, as was said jokingly before, nothing of value was lost.
again quickly, lots of laws and bans and bahblahs exist in many countries , you can argue that they are good or bad (eg threads about china or usa) and varying people will have varying opinions.
you say this law is only bad when...wait for it....YOU disagree with it.
you know what else i think is a piece of trash? all anime. and pornography. and xfactor. and dexter (show about a serial killer, geez people must be sick to watch this). infact talk to some ex-communist nationals and they will say all forms of TV entertainment detract extremely from life, and should be banned.
fact of the matter is people effortlessly relinquish control of their lives to a higher authority, always justifying it with crap like "oh its not that bad, come on grow up".
what. do. people. do. about. it? what do people do about their issues and problems? let me tell you: NOTHING. they lie down and accept it. they complain and whine and argue but they NEVER EVER take action. you can look at so many of the world's problems and step back and think "geez...if all those 100 million people living together with the same blood and back yard all united - even to just send one big ass letter with 100 million signatures - they could bring change."
but no. people bury their heads in the sand and think everything is as it should be because thats the way the world works and they have never experienced change, a revolution, or the importance of solidarity and the fact that we as human beings live together on this world and not in little boxes with one antenna mouth-feeding us entertainment and another antenna feeding us the laws and ideals of a sick and greedy minority.
so you post on TL? is that your idea of "action"? for someone who seems to be claiming that they have all the right ideas you don't seem to really have any, sounds more like generic propaganda.
more to the actual point, even if its banned people who want to see it will still see it. and banning a movie isn't really an assault on any of your rights. a real assault on your rights would be taking away your ability to immaturely argue about whats right/wrong in regards to a movie.
then you would have something REAL to bluster and bullshit about.
On October 19 2011 12:52 BachHo wrote: I'm all for letting people see what they want, freedom, etc., but in this case UK is just doing its citizens a favor by not letting anyone go near this film with a ten foot pole. Horrible films that just don't need any more publicity.
What. By ever banning it the only thing they've done is given the film publicity. Not like it's hard to download a film.
its really a sick society of luxury we live in when we advocate someone regulating this kinda thing
you know in most countries the child learns not to drink infected water at a young age or he dies?
and you have the nerve to say you're scared of your precious children sneaking into a cinema with their $30 shoes that the infected water children made and watching a naughty movie ?
get some perspective, get some responsibility.
and hey arent there scenes from ANY 18+ flick that you wouldnt want your kids to see, regardless of whether its a porno or action or horror or whatever? you know i havent seen HCII but there are some pretty disturbing scenes in stuff like Ghost Ship , Rambo, Alien 4 too arent there?
*rolls eyes* just think about what you're saying. "i wouldnt want my kids sneaking into the cinema and seeing this by accident". geez get a clue.
On October 19 2011 13:26 FFGenerations wrote: its really a sick society of luxury we live in when we advocate someone regulating this kinda thing
you know in most countries the child learns not to drink infected water at a young age or he dies?
and you have the nerve to say you're scared of your precious children sneaking into a cinema with their $30 shoes that the infected water children made and watching a naughty movie ?
get some perspective, get some responsibility.
and hey arent there scenes from ANY 18+ flick that you wouldnt want your kids to see, regardless of whether its a porno or action or horror or whatever? you know i havent seen HCII but there are some pretty disturbing scenes in stuff like Ghost Ship , Rambo, Alien 4 too arent there?
*rolls eyes* just think about what you're saying. "i wouldnt want my kids sneaking into the cinema and seeing this by accident". geez get a clue.
edit: wait who was i replying to? someone anyway
The problem is, you're throwing everything into one bag. You assume then that pornography is ok, snuff films are ok, etc. All this based on the fact that we're being raised within boundaries of Western civilization and don't have to learn about not drinking infected water?
Just look at what HC2 tries to portray here. I don't mind horror movies, but this goes beyond anything and gets too close to the actual snuff film with some mixed in sado-masochistic motives. Would you please tell me why any sane person would want to see this?
you know in most countries the child learns not to drink infected water at a young age or he dies?
lol Okay in what fucking way does this have any relation to a child watching something they shouldn't
We are not talking about survival here.. I just find that funny that you think thats a valid argument because it shows how your logic works or doesn't rather.
and hey arent there scenes from ANY 18+ flick that you wouldnt want your kids to see, regardless of whether its a porno or action or horror or whatever? you know i havent seen HCII but there are some pretty disturbing scenes in stuff like Ghost Ship , Rambo, Alien 4 too arent there?
Again here making nonsensical relations. How can you compare such graphic images of a man raping a woman with barbwire on his dick to action scenes in Rambo.
Obviously theres no point in continuing even discussing this with you since you clearly have no idea how to make an solid argument.
Human Centipede really wasn't that disgusting, they didn't show much it was mostly implied. It had some funny parts but the rest of it was really boring.
I always wondered why it's ok to show killing on tv but a little bit of nudity, lesser things than killing (torture etc) and things get banned.
Because the killing is bloodless and is "hidden"? How is that a good idea? Isn't that just teaching the kids, and people of similar mental development, that killing is neat and tidy?
I never thought overprotecting was a good idea. I had my first contact with sex/people having sex/images etc. of people having sex at age of 10 (or less, it happened a long time ago). I didn't receive any permanent mental scarring.
Just put an adult tag on the film but I don't see why any film should be banned.
I've seen The Human Centipede. It really isn't that bad in comparison to A Serbian Film.
I tell you what. After watching The Human Centipede part one I was like woah, that shit was crazy lol. After watching A Serbian Film, the best way to describe my feelings were of betrayal. I felt like apart of me died inside as if I'd been stripped of my humanity. I cannot stress enough the despair I felt upon watching this movie. Having said that it was a really good film. The acting, cinematography, location, story telling, plot progression, individual main characters and the place these characters had within the storyline (which the true nature is fully revealed in the end by the plot twist) was actually really good.
I know some will read this post, read what A Serbian Film is about and be horrified and disgusted by its content etc. But I knew what I was getting myself into. I like movies that move me emotionally, that have depth etc and this movie had it all. Instead of evoking good emotions that we like such as happiness or love, this movie brought out the extreme opposite. Sure the vast vast majority of people don't want to feel these feelings when they watch a movie, and if you don't, then don't watch the movie. But I wanted to experience these emotions and what better way to do so in the privacy and safety of my own home, and by a movie that ticked all my boxes for a good movie.
I don't think movies like The Human Centipede or A Serbian Film should be banned to the general public. There should be warnings and restrictions in place (like 18+). But if I want to watch a movie that evokes such negative feelings, as an adult I should be able to make a decision weather or not I want to expose myself to it or not and not have my government tell me I can't view something.
And just to clarify, watching A Serbian Film was not easy. Infact I almost threw up during one of the scenes from sheer disgust. But in the end it's only a movie. No one got hurt and it's been about 6months since I watched it and I'm fine. Upon reflection it actually was an incredible experience to have a movie evoke such real emotions that I have never felt before. I know it sounds sadistic but I enjoyed the movie due to this. Having said that though, I'll never watch it ever again. It was undoubtedly one of the most negative experiences I've ever had, but that's exactly what I was after. And fuck me did I get it...hard.
The depravity of this movie and the men behind its making knows no bounds. What kind of demented madman would even be able to think of this movie? What sadisitic, masochistic actors would be able to act out their roles? Although I doubt the ban will affect those who really want to view it, (interwebz, people) I am glad that it at least robs such a sickening movie of its legitimacy. I never really believed too much in something so NSFW that the phrase "cannot unsee" can be used to describe it, and I have seen and heard many things. This movie, however, aptly fits that description.
my god I read up on the serbian film with the link given and I now feel physically sick. thank god these type of films do get banned.... choice or no choice...
On October 19 2011 12:52 BachHo wrote: I'm all for letting people see what they want, freedom, etc., but in this case UK is just doing its citizens a favor by not letting anyone go near this film with a ten foot pole. Horrible films that just don't need any more publicity.
But this gives it publicity. People will seek it out now to see how bad it is.
On October 20 2011 01:13 Gigaudas wrote: Banning a movie isn't the way of a free society. Censorship is the one thing would make me rebel against society.
well thats not really fair and you know it. you're banned from doing lots of things. killing people etc. its the same line of reasoning they use to ban these films. inciting or glorifying pointless violence. hey i thought the first movie was actually funny in that it was so bad, i can just see the argument for banning movies.
On October 19 2011 12:52 BachHo wrote: I'm all for letting people see what they want, freedom, etc., but in this case UK is just doing its citizens a favor by not letting anyone go near this film with a ten foot pole. Horrible films that just don't need any more publicity.
But this gives it publicity. People will seek it out now to see how bad it is.
Yep, I might watch it now. Already watched A Serbian Film because I heard that it was supposed to be insane and well it was maybe a little insane but I still don´t think a movie should be banned. If you don´t want to watch it then just don´t.
Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
Err.. you need to look into the definition of "Snuff" Snuff is basically people getting killed for real in movies that are to be sold as entertainment to sick people. Also, snuff is not to be confused with people getting killed on camera by accident such as on surveillance cameras etc. that would be "mondo".
For people who are into exploitation and sleaze, people that collect rare horror movies such as the notorious "Video Nasties" way back, the Human Centipede comes of as a rather tame movie. Movies like the August Underground, that serbian movie etc. are way waaaay more shocking and disturbing than this.
Furthermore, there is nothing about this movie that breaks any laws, being disgusting or showing disgusting things is not a crime which is why i don't think this should be banned. If sick people want to watch it, let them, as long as the movie isn't breaking any laws, what's the problem? This comes down to a matter of taste, and people that don't like it have the choice to ignore it. Just because i don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
Err.. you need to look into the definition of "Snuff" Snuff is basically people getting killed for real in movies that are to be sold as entertainment to sick people. Also, snuff is not to be confused with people getting killed on camera by accident such as on surveillance cameras etc. that would be "mondo".
For people who are into exploitation and sleaze, people that collect rare horror movies such as the notorious "Video Nasties" way back, the Human Centipede comes of as a rather tame movie. Movies like the August Underground, that serbian movie etc. are way waaaay more shocking and disturbing than this.
Furthermore, there is nothing about this movie that breaks any laws, being disgusting or showing disgusting things is not a crime which is why i don't think this should be banned. If sick people want to watch it, let them, as long as the movie isn't breaking any laws, what's the problem? This comes down to a matter of taste, and people that don't like it have the choice to ignore it. Just because i don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.
Well see this is the issue. No it's not breaking laws and it's all filmed with actors who pretend to be characters whereas in snuff and other videos they are not pretending.
But at the end of the day, the message that comes with an actor movie is ALMOST just as bad as the one that comes from a live video.
You're right, it's legal, it's OK by the terms our society (societIES) are based upon but what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be.
And what's messed up? I'll be my own devil's advocate. By saying it shouldn't be legal I AM walking a very thin line between freedom of speech and decency. If you start banning movies left and right how do you define the parameters of what should be banned?
Sooner rather than later you'll get the extremists who want to ban everything that's not sunshine and rainbows and we can trail off into a Big Brother 1984 discussion right here.
I don't have a point, I'm stating what I notice and what I see. As the world has taught me.
So that's where Human CentiPad comes from, makes more sense. Also to me it's fine they ban this shit, I mean, seriously.
Also: Dachau was never an active concentration camp in the sense that it did never began using it's "burning ovens". I'm not sure whether or not they gassed people, but the didn't burn them there AFAIK (Yes I have been to Dachau) However they did use jews for slavelabor and mutilated them like in all the other concentration camps. But they never got the largescale "gas-and-burn operation up and going"
edit: I did not mean Dachau wasn't a concentration camp, just that it was a big extermination camp like for example Auschwitz. (not saying that noone died in Dachau, lots did)
lol @ all the guys who feel the need to publicly announce that they're too much of a pussy to.. watch a movie. also lol @ the people who say it's okay to ban a movie because they personally find it disgusting. you can simply not watch it, you know? it's not like someone who, for his own reasons, might want to see it, is going to sew your mouth to another person's anus if the government doesn't ban the flick. what other people are watching is none of your (or states) business. by the way i didnt watch any of the movies and i'm not going to. i however find it ridiculous that it's possible to actually ban them in a "democratic" country and, even worse, people actually applaud it.. then again, it's the good ol' GB.. enjoy your police state, it's only gonna get worse. but i guess most of you guys love it, cause you're too dumb to take care of yourself and need the big bro to do it.
I think people are overreacting, especially in light of the film being given a classification after having some scenes cut. The BBFC (rating board over here) only bans films for very specific reasons, in this case the fact that so many scenes revolved around the main character getting sexually aroused by the degradation of others. In this case I am quite happy that they refused classification until after the offending scenes were removed, such scenes were not integral to the movie at all and only served to try and push the boundaries of what is acceptable. Either way you can watch the film here now, it's just slightly less obscene.
On October 20 2011 03:33 Grovbolle wrote: So that's where Human CentiPad comes from, makes more sense. Also to me it's fine they ban this shit, I mean, seriously.
Also: Dachau was never an active concentration camp in the sense that it did never began using it's "burning ovens". I'm not sure whether or not they gassed people, but the didn't burn them there AFAIK (Yes I have been to Dachau) However they did use jews for slavelabor and mutilated them like in all the other concentration camps. But they never got the largescale "gas-and-burn operation up and going"
Ur wrong, it was a Concentration Camp, just not a Extermination Camp.
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I don't want to sound harsh but a prisoner of war camp does not even begin to compare to a concentration camp like Auschwitz, where literaly millions of people were killed because they didn't conform to the nazi norm.
Equally chilling and humbling is walking around Ypres, Belgium, knowing that millions of people fought and died on the very ground you walk on during the First World War. I've been there a few times already and I'm usually very quiet during my visit of the area.
I don't blame you though, it's impossible to capture that feeling if you've never been there.
Movies like the human centipede and Saw 2 and onwards (I found the first one a brilliant thriller in which you never really knew who was the killer) are just decadent. Torture and suffering as a form of entertainment is just sick.
Then again, decency is a value that's all too absent in our western societies, just like honor.
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that all Japanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Not POWs, but civilians. Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o I mean, a camp largely comprising POWs and criminals (and political prisoners, who could be labeled prisoners) that's far less a feeling to capture than the concentration camps I went to in the US or Greece, so in fact, I experienced "far worse" than you, if you want to put it that way. I don't see why you're saying otherwise :S.
I've heard this movie is nothing but pure gore and torture porn. I wouldn't want to see it anyway. A lot of movies that are trying to be scary/horror/gore often times give you the idea of what is happening but they don't show it to you directly, well I believe this movie does and the only reason to do it is to shock people, not a fan.
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
I believe you are terribly wrong in your second paragraph.
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
EDIT: Ok, your edit cleared it up. Sorry for the aggressive tone, but people downplaying Nazi concentration camps are often extremely callous in my opinion and I tend to overreact. Dachau was definitely not basically populated by criminals and POWs. In later stages probably yes, but it is not true for all its existence. Also it is not true that there was no killing in Dachau, it was just not extermination, but there was plenty of killing.
Also if you think places like Dachau were just scary and not horror, that is like the most naive thing ever. For some it might not have been horror, but for many it was. Places like Oswiecim are just pure horror. Modern Iraq and similar places are different, more immediate, but also somewhat more understood face of human violence and cruelty, they are similar to events that happened all the time in the history. Things that happened in Nazi(and also Japanese) camps also happened in history, but not on such a level and not in such a partially dehumanized industrial form. That is probably why those places have such deep impact on people.
Also I do not undestand what your objection has to do with Krowser's point. He said that Dachau had big impact on him and allowed him to realize what humans are capable doing to other humans. He was not discussing politics per se, so why bring about Iraq. Of course in terms of helping and doing something we should concentrate on current suffering. But that is not what he was talking about.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
This is definately not true. I have been a German soldier myself and we never made a visit to a Concentration and/or extermination camp nor did we specifically talk about that topic.
I think this might have been a misunderstanding. Back in the Nazi-days, every Soldier of the SS-Totenkopf-Verbände (SS-Skull-units), the ones that were responsible for running the camps, had to go through training in Dachau in order to teach them the inhuman ideology of the SS and disregard the prisoners as human. The learnt how to torture and beat up people, their commander's twisted ideology said "Toleranz ist Schwäche", roughly "tolreance means weakness".
On October 20 2011 03:17 Cloud9157 wrote: I actually watched this movie one night while bored. I heard it was disturbing.
Frankly, it was. Was it that bad? No. The Saw franchise would put it to shame.
I try to find justification for this movie, but I really can't see any... Maybe that we shouldn't try to play god and create our own "being"?
Speaking of saw there was some pretty nasty stuff in those movies. I personally like good stories in horror movies rather than just tons of unnecessary gore which seems to be really popular now.
On October 20 2011 03:17 Cloud9157 wrote: I actually watched this movie one night while bored. I heard it was disturbing.
Frankly, it was. Was it that bad? No. The Saw franchise would put it to shame.
I try to find justification for this movie, but I really can't see any... Maybe that we shouldn't try to play god and create our own "being"?
Speaking of saw there was some pretty nasty stuff in those movies. I personally like good stories in horror movies rather than just tons of unnecessary gore which seems to be really popular now.
Saw (the real ones meaning I and II) is really not about nasty stuff, those are some of the best films i've ever watched. It's about human nature, psychology, mistery, drama.
This centapide thing is just disturbing and disgusting, who needs that seriously?
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
This is definately not true. I have been a German soldier myself and we never made a visit to a Concentration and/or extermination camp nor did we specifically talk about that topic.
I think this might have been a misunderstanding. Back in the Nazi-days, every Soldier of the SS-Totenkopf-Verbände (SS-Skull-units), the ones that were responsible for running the camps, had to go through training in Dachau in order to teach them the inhuman ideology of the SS and disregard the prisoners as human. The learnt how to torture and beat up people, their commander's twisted ideology said "Toleranz ist Schwäche", roughly "tolreance means weakness".
Huh, that's interesting... I'm 97% sure he meant today's soldiers.
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources? If you're going to make claims that a known concentration camp wasn't actually one you should include a reference or else you shouldn't be surprised that people don't believe you. This is a very sensitive subject.
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
See my edit to my post that I wrote in response to your edit.
On October 20 2011 04:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:38 mcc wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
You really do not know some simple WW2 history?
You're coming across as being as ignorant as the few folks who still claim there were WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the iraqi govt. in Iraq. Commonly accepted that there aren't?? By whom? Where are your sources? You sound almost like they do, quite sadly. Seeing comments like that for some reason make me think of Glenn Beck. "Evil underground conspirational socialists aren't taking over America you say? This is madness you utter!" The cause and effect (conspiracy theory, to put it more properly) are so disconnected you just want to put your face in your hands and drink a shot.
Are you going to continue to deny facts, or will you finally resort to logic and reason?
Btw, the difference between a place being used to kill people, or prison camp holding mostly POWs and criminals and political prisoners is a pretty huge detail. Stating otherwise is extremely irrational.
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
ROFL, I love tools like you. Bet you're one of the kids who had a school trip to Treblinka and now they're all mad whenever someone even slightly implies that humanity has done other (or worse) atrocities than the Holocaust. Imprisonating people solely because of their Japanese descent? "ah guys, that's laughable, lolol". Armenian genocide? "nah u silly armenians we dont care were too busy talking about holocaust". Gulags? "fuk u guise have u ever talked to anyone who was in teh concentration camp??" News flash for you - every death or an imprisonment of an innocent person is equally horrible. Seriously, people like you are the reason why holocaust deniers actually have listeners for their bullshit.
On October 20 2011 04:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:38 mcc wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
You really do not know some simple WW2 history?
You're coming across as being as ignorant as the few folks who still claim there were WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the iraqi govt. in Iraq. Commonly accepted that there aren't?? By whom? Where are your sources? You sound almost like they do.
Are you going to continue to deny facts, or will you finally resort to logic and reason?
Btw, the difference between a place being used to kill people, or prison camp holding mostly POWs and criminals and political prisoners is a pretty huge detail. Stating otherwise is extremely irrational.
Still does not change the fact that you actually did not correct anything in your reaction as he did not say anything about Dachau being death camp. You original reaction had basically nothing to do with what he wrote and the only thing you said was that concentration camps were just somewhat scary and nothing terrible, which is somewhat subjective, but for most people your statement would be false.
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
ROFL, I love tools like you. Bet you're one of the kids who had a school trip to Treblinka and now they're all mad whenever someone even slightly implies that humanity has done other (or worse) atrocities than the Holocaust. Imprisonating people solely because of their Japanese descent? "ah guys, that's laughable, lolol". Armenian genocide? "nah u silly armenians we dont care were too busy talking about holocaust". Gulags? "fuk u guise have u ever talked to anyone who was in teh concentration camp??" News flash for you - every death or an imprisonment of an innocent person is equally horrible. Seriously, people like you are the reason why holocaust deniers actually have listeners for their bullshit.
Well for you imprisonment of innocent people is maybe equally horrible to their extermination. Not for me. Also I love how your arguments are just pure misrepresentation of what I said (it is also called lying). Where did I say that American concentration camps were laughing matter ? Please show me, I said that the comparison is laughable. I understand in the light of your last statement that you cannot distinguish any degrees of severity, cruelty and suffering and so you do not get what I mean by saying that comparison is laughable. Just to add to the list of your misrepresentations, I never said that there were never worse atrocities than Holocaust, I said not a word about Armenian genocide or gulags. But please continue.
On October 20 2011 04:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:38 mcc wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
You really do not know some simple WW2 history?
You're coming across as being as ignorant as the few folks who still claim there were WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the iraqi govt. in Iraq. Commonly accepted that there aren't?? By whom? Where are your sources? You sound almost like they do.
Are you going to continue to deny facts, or will you finally resort to logic and reason?
Btw, the difference between a place being used to kill people, or prison camp holding mostly POWs and criminals and political prisoners is a pretty huge detail. Stating otherwise is extremely irrational.
Still does not change the fact that you actually did not correct anything in your reaction as he did not say anything about Dachau being death camp. You original reaction had basically nothing to do with what he wrote and the only thing you said was that concentration camps were just somewhat scary and nothing terrible, which is somewhat subjective, but for most people your statement would be false.
No, Krowser was denying the fact that Dachau wasn't a death camp. When I stated that it was not, he replied with: "Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?" Reading comprehension tells me he was rejected my statement that Dachau was not a killing camp. I stated it was a concentration camp, and unlike what the original person I replied to said, had a very large POW population, unlike the US/Greek camps he assumes I've visited in the past which were entirely civilians, if anything.
So yes, I did correct Krowser. I don't see how I did not.
I'll tell you at least in part why it's subjective (for people who were not in the camps, of course for the people who suffered through the horror of the process of the relocation to and suffering in the camps will believe it's the worst thing ever and I full support them in that view since they lived through it). andycz put it pretty well imo. For most people in USA and western Europe, only the German concentration camps are terrible because it was ingrained that they were the utmost horror in the history of the world. I was essentially educated the same way, while things like the near-extermination of the Native Americans, and slavery were kind of washed aside like not a big deal. If those concentration camps had been given as little attention as say the US concentration camps, Italian camps, Soviet camps, Greek camps, Japanese camps, just within WW2 and the aftermath of WW2, not to mention other atrocities besides concentration camps, I believe there would be only some more horror attributed to it than other ones, not an exponential degree greater as it is.
I have not seen the second movie but I have heard it's not very much more gorey than any other slasher movie/ gore movie. Also the first human centipede was really tame(and stupid) so if the second one is the same it does not deserve it's reputation.
On October 20 2011 03:33 Grovbolle wrote: So that's where Human CentiPad comes from, makes more sense. Also to me it's fine they ban this shit, I mean, seriously.
Also: Dachau was never an active concentration camp in the sense that it did never began using it's "burning ovens". I'm not sure whether or not they gassed people, but the didn't burn them there AFAIK (Yes I have been to Dachau) However they did use jews for slavelabor and mutilated them like in all the other concentration camps. But they never got the largescale "gas-and-burn operation up and going"
Ur wrong, it was a Concentration Camp, just not a Extermination Camp.
On October 20 2011 04:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:38 mcc wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
You really do not know some simple WW2 history?
You're coming across as being as ignorant as the few folks who still claim there were WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the iraqi govt. in Iraq. Commonly accepted that there aren't?? By whom? Where are your sources? You sound almost like they do, quite sadly. Seeing comments like that for some reason make me think of Glenn Beck. "Evil underground conspirational socialists aren't taking over America you say? This is madness you utter!" The cause and effect (conspiracy theory, to put it more properly) are so disconnected you just want to put your face in your hands and drink a shot.
Are you going to continue to deny facts, or will you finally resort to logic and reason?
Btw, the difference between a place being used to kill people, or prison camp holding mostly POWs and criminals and political prisoners is a pretty huge detail. Stating otherwise is extremely irrational.
As a rule I never argue with idiots on the Internet so:
Yes, you are right, you are the all-knowing knowledgefull master of knowledge and I bow to your knowledgy wisdom.
Moving on...
I don't like movies like ''The Human Centipede''. Any good movies coming out these days?
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
ROFL, I love tools like you. Bet you're one of the kids who had a school trip to Treblinka and now they're all mad whenever someone even slightly implies that humanity has done other (or worse) atrocities than the Holocaust. Imprisonating people solely because of their Japanese descent? "ah guys, that's laughable, lolol". Armenian genocide? "nah u silly armenians we dont care were too busy talking about holocaust". Gulags? "fuk u guise have u ever talked to anyone who was in teh concentration camp??" News flash for you - every death or an imprisonment of an innocent person is equally horrible. Seriously, people like you are the reason why holocaust deniers actually have listeners for their bullshit.
Well for you imprisonment of innocent people is maybe equally horrible to their extermination. Not for me. Also I love how your arguments are just pure misrepresentation of what I said (it is also called lying). Where did I say that American concentration camps were laughing matter ? Please show me, I said that the comparison is laughable. I understand in the light of your last statement that you cannot distinguish any degrees of severity, cruelty and suffering and so you do not get what I mean by saying that comparison is laughable. Just to add to the list of your misrepresentations, I never said that there were never worse atrocities than Holocaust, I said not a word about Armenian genocide or gulags. But please continue.
Looks like you don't understand sarcasm, fits your overall profile so far. It was pretty damn clear I didn't say that imprisonment = extermination, the meaning was that killing an innocent person A, is just as horrible as killing innocent person B. Same for the imprisonment part. It's kind of sad I need to explain this to you. Judicator obviously got the point of my post, so I'm going to assume I articulated it pretty well and you're just stupid.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
This is definately not true. I have been a German soldier myself and we never made a visit to a Concentration and/or extermination camp nor did we specifically talk about that topic.
I think this might have been a misunderstanding. Back in the Nazi-days, every Soldier of the SS-Totenkopf-Verbände (SS-Skull-units), the ones that were responsible for running the camps, had to go through training in Dachau in order to teach them the inhuman ideology of the SS and disregard the prisoners as human. The learnt how to torture and beat up people, their commander's twisted ideology said "Toleranz ist Schwäche", roughly "tolreance means weakness".
Huh, that's interesting... I'm 97% sure he meant today's soldiers.
Well, it was a year ago, I could be wrong.
Let me elobarate a little bit more on this topic, also regarding to other discussions going on here. Dachau was one of the first, if not the first concentation camp in Germany, built as early as 1933/1934. It was a "model concentration camp". Of course you cannot compare it to the extermination camps in Eastern Europe, mainly Poland, that were founded in 1942 and 1943 (in the timeframe of the World War and it's conditions, while Dachau was erected in Peace time. I doubt you could run an death camp in a peaceful environment) and where hundreds of thousands were killed. In Germany there was never an death camp.
This should not mean that Dachau was not a horrific place. As I mentioned earlier, it was the SS-teaching-camp, the staff that would later be responsible for said extermination camps learnt their "skills" in Dachau.
I think later in the war there was even a dispute in the German government because the secretary of business administration or something alike wanted to use the prisoners for slave work, while the Nazi ideologists just wanted extermination. That business branch felt that it was impossible to use the SS-Staff taught in Dachau for delegating a working force because they were too harsh to the prisoners and argued that Germany needed that labor. What the exact outcome of that dispute was, is unknown to me.
On October 20 2011 04:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:38 mcc wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
You really do not know some simple WW2 history?
You're coming across as being as ignorant as the few folks who still claim there were WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the iraqi govt. in Iraq. Commonly accepted that there aren't?? By whom? Where are your sources? You sound almost like they do, quite sadly. Seeing comments like that for some reason make me think of Glenn Beck. "Evil underground conspirational socialists aren't taking over America you say? This is madness you utter!" The cause and effect (conspiracy theory, to put it more properly) are so disconnected you just want to put your face in your hands and drink a shot.
Are you going to continue to deny facts, or will you finally resort to logic and reason?
Btw, the difference between a place being used to kill people, or prison camp holding mostly POWs and criminals and political prisoners is a pretty huge detail. Stating otherwise is extremely irrational.
As a rule I never argue with people who prove my aggressive denial of simple facts wrong on the Internet so:
Yes, you are right, you are the all-knowing knowledgefull master of knowledge and I bow to your knowledgy wisdom.
Moving on...
I don't like movies like ''The Human Centipede''. Any good movies coming out these days?
Fixed that for you.
Everyone gets a bit too prideful when they're wrong from time to time, so I can't blame you. *shrugs* Thank you for praising my wisdom (albeit sarcastically). I am glad to have educated a young one in some WW2 history to say the least .
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
This is definately not true. I have been a German soldier myself and we never made a visit to a Concentration and/or extermination camp nor did we specifically talk about that topic.
I think this might have been a misunderstanding. Back in the Nazi-days, every Soldier of the SS-Totenkopf-Verbände (SS-Skull-units), the ones that were responsible for running the camps, had to go through training in Dachau in order to teach them the inhuman ideology of the SS and disregard the prisoners as human. The learnt how to torture and beat up people, their commander's twisted ideology said "Toleranz ist Schwäche", roughly "tolreance means weakness".
Huh, that's interesting... I'm 97% sure he meant today's soldiers.
Well, it was a year ago, I could be wrong.
Let me elobarate a little bit more on this topic, also regarding to other discussions going on here. Dachau was one of the first, if not the first concentation camp in Germany, built as early as 1933/1934. It was a "model concentration camp". Of course you cannot compare it to the extermination camps in Eastern Europe, mainly Poland, that were founded in 1942 and 1943 (in the timeframe of the World War and it's conditions, while Dachau was erected in Peace time. I doubt you could run an death camp in a peaceful environment) and where hundreds of thousands were killed. In Germany there was never an death camp.
This should not mean that Dachau was not a horrific place. As I mentioned earlier, it was the SS-teaching-camp, the staff that would later be responsible for said extermination camps learnt their "skills" in Dachau.
I think later in the war there was even a dispute in the German government because the secretary of business administration or something alike wanted to use the prisoners for slave work, while the Nazi ideologists just wanted extermination. That business branch felt that it was impossible to use the SS-Staff taught in Dachau for delegating a working force because they were too harsh to the prisoners and argued that Germany needed that labor. What the exact outcome of that dispute was, is unknown to me.
Ok that makes more sense. I forgot they were using it for unwanted people in 1930s.
It's messed up stuff and that's why I stay away from horror movies. In my opinion it's a subject we should stay away from because it shows how normal humans can go completely berzerk.
On October 20 2011 04:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:38 mcc wrote:
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
Holy shit. Stating the very commonly accepted fact that Dachau != death camp means I'm a Holocaust denier? It's called correcting a fallacious statement. Could you be more ridiculously absurd lol? More correct is to say you are terribly sensationalist and irrational for claiming such a thing lol. Holocaust denial means no concentration camp system existed, no internment and suffering of socialists, Slavs, Jews, etc. I said no such thing, not by a long shot. It's like claiming that someone who says the US had mostly bad intentions of going into Iraq is traitorous and un-patriotic, despite I've known a few veterans at that even who said it was a bullshit war. Actually, I've met people who were in the camps. I've heard their stories. Don't assume silly things.
Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?
In any case you seem more interested in bashing people and arguing about details than actually contributing to the discussing, come back when you've calmed down.
You really do not know some simple WW2 history?
You're coming across as being as ignorant as the few folks who still claim there were WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the iraqi govt. in Iraq. Commonly accepted that there aren't?? By whom? Where are your sources? You sound almost like they do.
Are you going to continue to deny facts, or will you finally resort to logic and reason?
Btw, the difference between a place being used to kill people, or prison camp holding mostly POWs and criminals and political prisoners is a pretty huge detail. Stating otherwise is extremely irrational.
Still does not change the fact that you actually did not correct anything in your reaction as he did not say anything about Dachau being death camp. You original reaction had basically nothing to do with what he wrote and the only thing you said was that concentration camps were just somewhat scary and nothing terrible, which is somewhat subjective, but for most people your statement would be false.
No, Krowser was denying the fact that Dachau wasn't a death camp. When I stated that it was not, he replied with: "Commonly accepted?? By whom? Where are your sources?" Reading comprehension tells me he was rejected my statement that Dachau was not a killing camp. I stated it was a concentration camp, and unlike what the original person I replied to said, had a very large POW population, unlike the US/Greek camps he assumes I've visited in the past which were entirely civilians, if anything.
So yes, I did correct Krowser. I don't see how I did not.
I could make sarcastic note about reading comprehension Note that I was explicitly talking about your reaction to his first post. Please read the first post of Krowser and show me where he was saying anything about Dachau being death camp. He did not. He said it was horror. And you jumped in saying it was not horror just scary and continuing with a rant that had nothing really to do with the point he was originally making.
On October 20 2011 05:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'll tell you at least in part why it's subjective (for people who were not in the camps, of course for the people who suffered through the horror of the process of the relocation to and suffering in the camps will believe it's the worst thing ever and I full support them in that view since they lived through it). andycz put it pretty well imo. For most people in USA and western Europe, only the German concentration camps are terrible because it was ingrained that they were the utmost horror in the history of the world. I was essentially educated the same way, while things like the near-extermination of the Native Americans, and slavery were kind of washed aside like not a big deal. If those concentration camps had been given as little attention as say the US concentration camps, Italian camps, Soviet camps, Greek camps, Japanese camps, just within WW2 and the aftermath of WW2, not to mention other atrocities besides concentration camps, I believe there would be only some more horror attributed to it than other ones, not an exponential degree greater as it is.
Just to clear it up, are you trying to argue that American concentration camps for Japanese-Americans had caused (even somewhat) comparable level of suffering and cruelty as Nazi concentration camps (and I include to that also death camps) or are you just comparing American ones with "non-death camp"-concentration camps of Nazis ?
On October 20 2011 04:27 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:51 Krowser wrote:
On October 20 2011 02:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 Krowser wrote: Snuff (violent pr0n) is illegal, just as is child pr0n and other forms of very sick and twisted videos.
Human Centipede easily falls into those categories, what baffles me is that the movie is being released in the first place.
Who the fuck is sick and twisted enough to even want to work on a movie like this? I'm sorry but we have reached the limits of human decency.
I got a huge dose of reality in 2010 when I visited a concentration camp in Germany, it really put some perspective of Horror movies (I don't mean scary, I mean Horror) and their psychological value as entertainment.
People are taking this way too lightly.
Edit:
Arguing that this is an issue about freedom of speech falls in the same category as the shortcomings of the justice system, where it's not the truth that wins the case, but rather who can bend the laws of society to their advantage.
I've been to what was apparently a concentration camp for Japanese in the US, and to a couple old concentration camps in Greece from the civil war. It's a bit unnerving being in effectively a massive, cramped prison for non-criminals, but I wouldn't say scary... Horror is like when a cross-faded gangsta points a gun at you. Even if he doesn't want to shoot you, he's so wasted, it may not even matter what he decides. Pretty close call, to say the least.
If people want to watch Human Centipede, then it just shows some people are really into sick and disgusting things. How anyone in on the movie (in particular the planner) could even have decided to be involved in it is abhorrent.
I think what you have visited was a P.O.W camp. Basically a prison for soldiers. I went to Dachau, which was the model/template camp for the extermination of jews and without going into detail, the ones that were shot on the spot were the lucky ones.
I was depressed when I got out of there, but not as depressed as the tour guide himself. It's one thing to hop on Wikipedia and read about it, but it's a whole other experience to actually visit the place and see how ''business was conducted''.
In short: Fucked up.
The tour guide told me that every German soldier has to go through a very thorough visit of concentration camps, much more detailed that what I got, just to ensure that this kind of crap never happens again.
And in the meantime you've got morons making ''entertainment'' out of similar situations.
I am appalled, revolted and disgusted by this whole mess of things.
You forget that allJapanese-American CIVILIANS were put in concentration camps? Also, in Greece, during the civil war, about a million people (out of the total population of like ~6 or 7 million at the time, and all noncombatants, mind you) were put into concentration camps for relocation purposes to move them out of DSE areas. That's pretty hardcore.
Also, I thought Dachau was removed from the list of alleged death camps decades ago. If they told you otherwise, they're obviously pushing a fallacious agenda or are terribly ignorant of what history has already been agreed upon by the victors, mind you. In fact, Dachau was effectively a prison for domestic and foreign political prisoners, prisoners of war, criminals, Jews, and others. No killing or w/e going on there. If anything, it's you who went to a POW camp / prison as a very large percentage of the camp were POWs and criminals. O_o
The only thing that is semi-correct in your assesment is that Dachau does not compare to some other places like Auschwitz. There were different kinds of camps in Nazi Germany. But comparing Japanese-American camps or even Greek civil war camps to the worst Nazi concentration camps is laughable. Or are you one of those Holocaust deniers, or just a person that lives 70 years after the fact and never met anyone who actually was in Oswiecim or Treblinka ?
ROFL, I love tools like you. Bet you're one of the kids who had a school trip to Treblinka and now they're all mad whenever someone even slightly implies that humanity has done other (or worse) atrocities than the Holocaust. Imprisonating people solely because of their Japanese descent? "ah guys, that's laughable, lolol". Armenian genocide? "nah u silly armenians we dont care were too busy talking about holocaust". Gulags? "fuk u guise have u ever talked to anyone who was in teh concentration camp??" News flash for you - every death or an imprisonment of an innocent person is equally horrible. Seriously, people like you are the reason why holocaust deniers actually have listeners for their bullshit.
Well for you imprisonment of innocent people is maybe equally horrible to their extermination. Not for me. Also I love how your arguments are just pure misrepresentation of what I said (it is also called lying). Where did I say that American concentration camps were laughing matter ? Please show me, I said that the comparison is laughable. I understand in the light of your last statement that you cannot distinguish any degrees of severity, cruelty and suffering and so you do not get what I mean by saying that comparison is laughable. Just to add to the list of your misrepresentations, I never said that there were never worse atrocities than Holocaust, I said not a word about Armenian genocide or gulags. But please continue.
Looks like you don't understand sarcasm, fits your overall profile so far. It was pretty damn clear I didn't say that imprisonment = extermination, the meaning was that killing an innocent person A, is just as horrible as killing innocent person B. Same for the imprisonment part. It's kind of sad I need to explain this to you. Judicator obviously got the point of my post, so I'm going to assume I articulated it pretty well and you're just stupid.
No I got it, but since you misrepresented my words I just used literal meaning of yours. But even your clarified statement is wrong and every moral and judicial code disagrees with you. Killing innocent person by putting him to sleep and by torturing him for days is not equally horrible. And before you accuse me of misunderstanding you again, my point is that there are scales in everything and everywhere, and specifically in this case amount of suffering caused by American concentration camps and German ones is actually different and quite significantly so.
I don't get what's the big deal about a movie (eg. didn't happen in reality) to get banned.
Sure, put a 18+ label on it so kids and teens (those who may actually learn something bad from this) are less likely to watch this (internet says hello).
I mean, if they ban this because someone may actually want to make an human centipede such as the film, don't you think that person would be clever enough to dl it from the internet? Also this won't motivate him further, because he already has the idea that fucking people off will be somewhat amusing for him.
Any sane person who watches this for whatever reason won't suddenly turn into a pervert masochist or w/e. These kind of fucked up personalities come from actual negative experiences in real life (ex. molested as child).
I haven't watched neither, but from what I've read, it's mostly a shock film, so I pressume it has a bad/non-existant history and contains more than expected gory scenes. In which case I'd just call the movie BAD and move on.
I don't see much difference between SAW and this, speaking about the premise for entertainment.
It seems more and more like I'm genuinely the only person excited about this movie; and I'm really glad to hear it'll finally be released. I feel the need to explain my excitement somewhat since every time a shock film is released there always seems to be people who question the intelligence and/or sanity of those who would appreciate such a thing.
I recently finished a university course in film studies and next year I'll be applying for an effects make-up course to follow it up with. I wanted to get into that because I was never a big fan of CGI effects; even in the best case scenario I find it still looks out of place and often reflects the quality of the tools used to create it more than the ability of the artist. It's in mechanical and make-up effects where the realism really reflects the work put into it. Many straight to DVD horror features reflect this pretty well in that the CGI effects are absolute crap while the gore and make up are still very well done, even with minimal budget.
I could appreciate all the Griffith and Eisenstein films we watched in class for their artistic value in regards to the grand scheme of cinematic things; but I was just as interested in the Friday the 13th franchise and other such 'filth' for the quality of their effects; and so I grew to idolize special effects folks like Tom Savini, Dick Smith, and (my personal favourite) Stacy Davidson for their uncanny attention to detail in creating morbid imagery.
But I digress; it's not for the gore or special effects that I actually can't wait to see this movie, but it stems from my obsession with such things. You see; in my film studies course both students and teachers would occasionally reference a movie so vile that it was brought to court because so many people believed the director had actually killed the actors. This of course turned out to be untrue (though some animals were harmed during filming), and the film in question was the notorious Cannibal Holocaust. I decided that if I ever wanted to make a career of grossing people out I had to see it.
You've probably heard of how gruesome Cannibal Holocaust is, and that's justified, but what has always bothered me is that people rarely look past that to talk about how it's actually a pretty good film; one that addresses issues that are much more interesting to consider and discuss than the gore. I was in a documentary film class at the time and was surprised to see that this movie covered about 3 weeks worth of lectures on ethics in a few gruesome hours. If you haven't seen it; it's about a documentary crew that goes to film a tribe of cannibals after another documentary crew goes missing doing the same. The second crew eventually discovers that the cannibals were not originally hostile, but rather that they were provoked into violence by the first crew and are no longer trusting of outsiders. It's not a perfect film; a lot of its message is delivered a bit too blatantly rather than through any sort of artistic method and it makes some of the dialog feel a bit unnatural, but the ideas it presents are fairly sound and the fact that the concept of ethical filmmaking that the film presents is juxtaposed by the complete disregard for it in the actual production strikes me as a rather brilliant move.
So fast forward to the release of Human Centipede. Around the time it starts to become infamous all my friends start asking me if I've seen it (as I'm often the only one who dares to watch such things). I look into it and find out that it's not some big special effects fest but more suggestive horror, a la Jaws, and the "First Sequence" subtitle kind of throws me off; making me consider waiting until the next few sequences are released and see if its notorious reputation still holds any weight. I read on a bit more and eventually stumble upon an interview with the director (which I can't find right now) where he says that First Sequence was limited on story because he wanted to set up the concept behind the centipede; which was supposed to be a plot device in the second film that the director didn't want to spend too much time discussing when it actually came time to create a narrative about the thing. Evil doctor, people sewn together, limited special effects; I got the concept, I never felt any desire to watch it but figured I'd check out Full Sequence when it was released and see if it's worth my time. I immediately became interested after seeing the new trailer and its similarities to Cannibal Holocaust. A self reflexive picture that uses a DVD of the original film as a plot device? It's clear that it wasn't the idea of the centipede that the director wanted to establish; it was the actual audience response to such gruesome ideas that he seemed to want to comment on. It could be a total bust; but frankly I see a lot of potential there for discussion on what should and shouldn't be allowed in cinema, the idea of good taste and whether it should be enforced in artistic mediums, that sort of thing. The fact that we've already been discussing such things for almost 30 pages really suggests that this sort of reading is within the realm of possibility, and if the film does address such things (and the reviews seem to suggest that it does), I'd imagine that the subject matter (if not the content) may be of interest to most people who participated in this thread. I can't comment on the execution but it strikes me as a really interesting idea and that's why I'm so excited about it. It might be something to consider before shunning it for being repulsive.
On October 23 2011 21:23 Beece wrote: its really not as gross as you think its all implied, A Serbian Film is like 10000x worse than the human centipede
True,, and even that movie is more silly than anything else at times..
On June 08 2011 04:38 RaLakedaimon wrote: I'm not a huge fan of censorship over things in entertainment but who in the fuck would want to watch that in the first place...if people that make stuff like this didn't have this outing to do so I wonder what they would be doing with a mindset like that. Few things make someone that's used to the internet (all the weird shit out there etc.) feel truly awkward and uncomfortable and that did it for me so ban it everywhere imo.
this post sums it up completely, sorry to bump an old topic but im not the first, and this is genuinely new to me, hadnt heard of the human centipede before, i feel sick after watching the trailer, how this shit even got past a conversation in a board room is beyond me
On October 23 2011 21:23 Beece wrote: its really not as gross as you think its all implied, A Serbian Film is like 10000x worse than the human centipede
Exactly. Necrophilia, "newborn porn", ultra violent hardcore SM... this movie owns it all. But the end actually made me laugh (I'm a terrible person). Faces of Death seems to be worse too since it's looking so damn real. The internet is also full of this stuff. Back when I was a young boy with his first internet I deeply disturbed myself with a now non-existing site named ogrish.org (got deleted for violating human rights or something) where people uploaded every brutal gore video and snuff film ever existing e.g. the beheading of the hostages in iraq. Two days ago I saw the dead body of Gaddafi (correctly spelled?) on youtube... before that I saw a chinese toddler actually get rolled over by a car.
The ban doesn't do much. It's more of a publicity for such a movie. If this ban wouldn't have happened it would only get semi-famous for being the sequel to the human centipede but now there will be even more views. Considering that movies run under the category "art" everything should be legal except the showing of real death and torture. If you are 18 (or in some countries 21) you should be able to decide for yourself if you want to see such stuff and before that age your parents should keep an eye on you.
I'm against banning entertainment. Especially nowadays it's pretty redundant. I'm on the internet, I could look up pictures and videos how mexican drug gangsters pull off the skin of people. Really, who gives a shit about a movie when reality is ten times more brutal and as accesible?
No matter what, banning media is pretty stupid. If it's famous enough that a lot of peoplwe want to watch it, why stop them? Why does the government have to be banning things people want to enjoy?
Imagine the "who would want to see that" argument in the hands of your grandfather. To some people, there isn't a lot in today's media that is worth seeing. You think you know what's best for the world but so does everybody. Someone out there feels the same way about a horror movie you enjoy. That person could be on the banning committee some day. Isn't that terrifying?
I finally saw this movie.. and I was actually disgusted as to how un-disgusting the first movie was. People completely make this movie sound gross more than it actually isn't. Oh well~
to be honest, these movies aren't that bad, it's only gory (which usually just are quite fake) and uses camera to hide the real gory parts.
I have seen real pictures and videos of people dying and it is a lot more different than these torture stuff
in Babel, the part where the chicken's neck got twisted and pulled off and let the kids chased after the headless chicken was real, that was real creepy.
On October 23 2011 22:46 Back wrote: Imagine the "who would want to see that" argument in the hands of your grandfather. To some people, there isn't a lot in today's media that is worth seeing. You think you know what's best for the world but so does everybody. Someone out there feels the same way about a horror movie you enjoy. That person could be on the banning committee some day. Isn't that terrifying?
This banning committee is a joke and they even know it themselves.
Why do you think they ban this film? It's an easy target because:
1) It's disturbing enough that even at first glance most people will say "i don't care for it"
2) Nobody does care for it. They only ban these weird films that hardly anyone wants to watch to begin with.
They go around banning these tiny films that nobody cares for because then:
1) They have a purpose. They are stilling doing their job of banning films.
2) There will be no backlash. Nobody is gonna give enough of a damn to fight a ban on this film. Even it's fans will just download it.
Honestly i would not be suprised if some of the people on the committee are taking bribes from these small film makers so they can get the ultimate street cred bump.
The whole committee is a joke wich is why it limits itself to these small time films. They know that if they ever ban any film that a decent ammount of people care for they are gonna be out of a job the next day.
The committee is sustaining itself by keeping it's head low. They ban under the radar films and even those on a scale big enough to justify their existence but small enough to not draw any public attention.
If anyone would want to waste their time with that job they can go ahead and have it.
They allow 'A Serbian Film' and ban this one? Really? -____- Also as long as its not breaking law, it should not be banned. Everyone should judge for themselves if they want to see it.
A Serbian Film is much worse than Human Centipede by several tiers, i felt i needed to take a shower or just go to the police station and submit myself after that one.
We (in western culture) flaunt how we have freedom of this and that, yet we often fail to truly follow that.
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. Really wanted to see this, it's a pain in the ass it was banned. First one was one of the funniest movies I've ever come across.
On October 23 2011 23:31 Tyree wrote: Video Nasties 2.0?
A Serbian Film is much worse than Human Centipede by several tiers, i felt i needed to take a shower or just go to the police station and submit myself after that one.
We (in western culture) flaunt how we have freedom of this and that, yet we often fail to truly follow that.
I wasn't able to finish watching ASF. And I really don't get it why such movies are even entering the cinemas.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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".
On October 24 2011 03:13 LeSioN wrote: 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?
F.D. -not shocking and repetitive, Saw- nothing special, Hostel- boring, Ho1000c- turbo-boring, SPR - just paint heavy. AvP? LOL! Seriously? Even commedy "Slither" is more disturbing than these movies. Than why I just find the very concept of THC disgusting to the limit? I'm against the censoring this though...
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 agree with the jist of your argument, but for the application of law lines have to be drawn. So what is pornography and what constitutes a minor is certainly a grey area, but at some point it has to be defined, even if it's a bit arbitrary(for example, 17 is not much different then 18, but obviously has very different rights) Consent laws are kinda messed up, but you can't judge every kid individually and decide which of them are capable of making which decisions.
I don't think this movie is disturbing, sick or even exceptionally gruesome compared to really fucking disgusting horror movies like Philosophy of a Knife and all kinds of snuff movies, or w/e they are called. It's just a mainstream money-maker designed to hype and shock people, and seeing how the bans ironically only give it more and more publicity, it does the job rather well.
What offends me most about this movie is that it's yet another movie of no substance or even entertainment value, trying to cash in on controversy. It's an insult to everyone else in the industry honestly tries to make a decent movie, even if they're total hacks.
No idea whether banning it is the right thing to do, but it shouldn't have been made to begin with.
Lol the first one being human centipede was like the disney channel compared to some really sick films such as Martyrs, August Underground trilogy, hell even Salo 120 days of Sodom was worse than that and its like 45 years old. these guys are just cashing in while they can. good luck to em.
Everyone's got a breaking point I guess. I'll watch it when its out , don't expect to think highly of it though. I'm into these kind of films though, Martyrs made me question everything about reality and my existence. Made me question god damn life. Not many films have... *shrugs*
On October 24 2011 21:39 Technique wrote: Banning just gives it more attention...
Besides people should decide for thereselfs if they will watch it or not.
Agreed , banning a movie actually makes people want to see it more, and hype's it up way way more. That's what happened with the first one and i don't even know if it was banned, everyone was like 'omg omg you have to see 'A human centipede'. So I saw it and laughed... then showed them some really fucked up sh!t and I kinda just got looks and now I'm a weirdo. lols.
Like when watching a movie that's made to shock and disturb, I just always say to myself 'its only a movie, its only a movie'.
That's why august underground kinda shocked me.... the way Fred Vogel made it was infuckingenius. It's as if you found this video walking home, put it into your player and you just get a glimpse of what reality is. N thats why these movie's like Human Centipede, Saw, etcetcetc do nothing. Has nothing attractive except hype from people who probably don't know what a scary movie is.
On October 24 2011 21:32 sighco17 wrote: Martyrs made me question everything about reality and my existence. Made me question god damn life. Not many films have... *shrugs*
Meh, the all concept looked like the writers were playing KULT RPG before filming (all the "trancendence through pain" concept is like kultesque 'awakening' through the dark path and I'm sure there were even many more inspirations in this one). In short- its original and mindblowing like statistical commercial. Only violence scenes were kinda... unpleasant. While concept in human Sentipede movie even sounds like made by psycho (I'm talking about basic concept, not about movie, as I havent seen it and i dont even want to).
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.
thought provoking indeed: 'what would it be like if someone shit into my mouth? what would the taste be? a bit like chocolate? with nuts in it?" What would it be like to get raped by someone who has got a barbed wire around his member: it would probably be a pain in the ass.'
These are the things we really need to think about my friends
I already know that humankind is capable of the most disgusting abominations: I dont need this kinda shitty movie to prove it to me. And the director's "excuse" for this shit he made "being art" is pretty lame.
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.
thought provoking indeed: 'what would it be like if someone shit into my mouth? what would the taste be? a bit like chocolate? with nuts in it?" What would it be like to get raped by someone who has got a barbed wire around his member: it would probably be a pain in the ass.'
These are the things we really need to think about my friends
I already know that humankind is capable of the most disgusting abominations: I dont need this kinda shitty movie to prove it to me. And the director's "excuse" for this shit he made "being art" is pretty lame.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://photos.travellerspoint.com/186318/Mark_eating_a_spider.jpg)
