South Park...
..."HUMANCENTiPAD". Bet that fanbois loved that one!
Brit censor stamps on The Human Centipede
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has stamped firmly on the DVD sequel to low-budget movie The Human Centipede, refusing to certify the second installment of director Tom Six's horror series. The BBFC explains that 2010's The Human Centipede saw "a mad scientist stitch together three victims face-to-bottom" to …
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 14:00 GMT Dave Murray
Not just the idea
Not just the idea but also the pictures behind Steve Jobs showing how the operation will be performed are lifted straight from the movie.
Dissapointed in the BBFC. HC is one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time (remember the tag line is "100% medically accurate" while you watch it) and I've been really looking forward to the sequel. Oh well I giess I'll have to watch it illegally like I did Clockwork Orange, the various Cannibal movies, etc when I was younger.
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 16:34 GMT Martin 42
Doesn't sound great.
I really enjoyed the human centipede - it was what it was - a poorly acted (except for the doctor), very unorigional (except for the premise), silly horrorfest, and it delivered. But by what I have read of the sequel, it is doing a 'saw', making zero attempt at a plot or characters, and just throwing as much gore as it can at the viewer. With the first one, the horror was in the idea, it actually contained very little in the way of real gore.
-
Tuesday 21st June 2011 11:49 GMT Shakje
I would say that for once
the first one actually did it right. It was mostly mediocre, but the ending was pretty special, well built-up, and reasonably nasty. Left a taste in my mouth. Seems like they just gave up on the 2nd one.
For anyone who didn't already know it's been doing the rounds on Syfy recently.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 14:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ac
If it's not actual kiddie porn then where's the problem? Said porn is censored (or, at least, the original reasoning was) because it necessarily made viewers an accessory to sexual abuse, battery, greivous bodily harm and whole other slew of things offences.
People like ypu seem incapable of ditinguishing reality from unreality. If itMs all just acting, then it is not,lby definition, reality. No harm is done. So, what gives ypu the right to censor something that isn't real?
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 15:29 GMT Dan Likes Spoons
@ac-14:32
Are you honestly saying you're against censorship to such an extent that you don't see a problem with, for example, films of computer generated CP being available for people to buy?
Thanks for reinforcing my views on the sort of person who'd enjoy watching HC2 :D (not implying you'd be into that kind of thing, just that you're border-line retarded).
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 15:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Dan Likes Spoons
So you're one of those idiots who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality and, would prefer children be abused than mitigate offenders with alternative images.
Not that there's ever been a legitimate case study to link drawn and computer generated images right through to acts of abuse, the only one was abandoned by its authors and received no peer review becouse it was just so badly executed (ask child abusers to blame their crimes on something other than themselves.)
It's a lot like believing drinking coffee makes you a heroin addict, as most heroin addicts smoke dope, most dope smokers smoke fags and most fag smokers drink coffee.
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 17:16 GMT Dan Likes Spoons
@ac-15:52
So you think my belief that people can be changed/corrupted by their environment is a logical fallacy equal in stupidity to your little coffee/heroin story?
Maybe it's just that I don't understand the attraction in torture-porn. What part of HC2 are you looking forward to the most and why? Watching people shit in each others mouths, or watching a woman getting raped with a cock wrapped in barbed wire?
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 16:02 GMT Old Handle
@Dan Likes Spoons
Personally, I don't see how you can be "a little bit" against censorship. If you're only against censorship of things you approve of, you're really just saying "don't tell me what to watch", which is fine, but unless you extend that thinking to content you personally disagree with, then you're not really against censorship as such.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 19:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
@skelband
That's it, precisely.
When it comes down to it, the crime is in the harm it does to children. If there are no children abused, there is no crime, regardless of what the law says. If children are not involved, it doesn't matter what people think, there is no crime being committed. It's the inability to distinguish eality from fiction that prompts the criminalisation of fiction and fantasy, and thought. The idea that we should be able to legislate what someone is allowed to think is ludicrous.
So what if someone gets off on the thought of children inside their own head? As long as they don't act on it, as long as no children are abused, *there is no crime*. And no, arguing that they should be pre-emptively dealt with "just in case", as I'm sure some are already going to argue, misses the point entirely once again: convicting people for something they *might* do is no different to convicting people for something they *haven't done*. It is unjust to convict people for things they haven't done, yet so many are so quick to do precisely that when fake, unreal "child pornography" (which features no children) is mentioned.
So yes, I would be okay with seeing fake, computer generated child porn available to purchase, precisely because it isn't real. I wouldn't buy it. I'd avoid it, in fact, and I'd even try to discourage people from watching it because I find pornography to be immoral, but I wouldn't demand it be banned for this single reason: it isn't real.
-
Wednesday 8th June 2011 08:39 GMT Marvin the Martian
"If there are no children abused, there is no crime, regardless of what the law says."
That's clearly nonsense too. Put a good bomb making recipe online --- hey, no real explosives were used, nothing smuggled or destroyed, so no crime committed?
Fake-CP is outlawed for the obvious reason that it normalizes what is seen.
-
Monday 13th June 2011 10:54 GMT Goat Jam
Idiocy Abounds
"Put a good bomb making recipe online so no crime committed?"
Yes. that's right (morally) no crime has been committed.
Why should it be a crime? If somebody builds that bomb and blows shit up then yes, they have clearly commited a crime.
Should it be a crime to provide schematics for a gun and instructions for making ammunition?
What about instructions for taking a mild steel rod and fashioning it into a bayonet?
How about instructions for taking some piano wire, tying the ends around some sawn off dowel rods to make a garrote?
All these things can be deadly. Where do you draw the line?
Merely providing technical information should never be a crime. Suggesting that it should be is simply another form of security by obscurity.
It's a falsehood and a slippery slope I don't want to be on.
-
Thursday 9th June 2011 10:24 GMT Lamont Cranston
Can't you be sectioned under the Mental Health Act
in order to prevent harm to yourself or others? That's pretty much dealing with someone for something they might do, although it doesn't involve criminal proceedings.
As for fake child pornography, I'd like that to remain banned. I'm not in a position to quote sources for this, but I've heard a number of reports suggesting that the prevelance of regular pornography, and it's availability to young boys, is changing their attitudes towards sex, and not in a good way. You might be able to distinguish between reality and fantasy, but that doesn't mean that everyone else can.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 13:48 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: Who the hell...
Er, no-one. If you RTFA you'll see that this hasn't been granted an 18 certificate. That was rather the point.
And as for who decided it was OK for one adult to say what another can't watch, the answer is pretty obviously Parliament. However, its remit only extends to the UK and they haven't banned foreign travel, so if you *really* want to see this film then I suggest you go take a running jump across the pond and watch it there.
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 14:32 GMT DrXym
Who the hell?
"...decided that 18 films should be censored or banned?"
Successive elected governments of course and hand the job of classification over to the BBFC. If the BBFC refuses to classify a film it is effectively banned from sale though I assume you could obtain it in other ways. As far as censors go, the BBFC is relatively benign and liberal these days.
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 14:21 GMT BristolBachelor
@downvoter for Blofeld's Cat
I'm at a loss as to why you downvoted here (are you David Cooke?)
For example, it was quite famous here (Spain) that Last Tango in Paris was banned for the same reasons as this film here. No, I don't want to watch that film either, but that doesn't make it right to stop everyone.
What about all the news reporting videos and pictures. When they say that no-one is allowed to see them either, then that's OK too?
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 16:02 GMT PT
Last Tango
Actually, Last Tango was banned for a different reason - it showed people having meaningless casual sex and, um, really enjoying themselves. Except that it wasn't really meaningless and they didn't really enjoy it, but you'd have to watch the movie with an open mind - probably more than once - to understand the subtle messages. There's a world of difference between Tango and torture porn.
-
Wednesday 8th June 2011 11:32 GMT Patrick R
Last Tango's subtle message...
Is also that the (very young) actress really felt abused and suffered depression her whole life as a result of this ( you might simply call it a lack of professionalism). Until she died recently. There is somehow a reason to discourage the production of sick movies. Not that Tango was extreme in any way. We might get used to everything, not everybody does.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 13:43 GMT Absent
title is too long
"sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder of his naked victims."
"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."
Sounds very similar to 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom' and 'Salon Kitty' both passed fully uncut by the BBFC.
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 21:50 GMT ph0b0s
Again, Extreme Pr0n?
If the BBFC have not certified it, I don't know whether being in possession of this movie would be classed as extreme pr0n. I know I am sounding paranoid, but it would not surprise me if someone found with this in their possession has some problems.
The same way that anyone who pirated that movie, that got pulled from blockbuster shelves by the police, a while ago. If you did not download the right BBFC certified cut you would would also be in trouble....
Sometimes downloading movies can have more risks than just angering the movie industry...
-
Wednesday 8th June 2011 11:32 GMT MonkeyBot
Re: Extreme Pr0n
Isn't there something in the law that requires you to be posessing the video for the purpose of sexual arrousal or something to that effect? I think the guy in the Tony the Tiger case defended himself by saying the video was comedic and not pornographic.
That's why I'd present a defense of "spite" i.e. the only reason I have the material is because you told me I couldn't, m'lud. Nothing sexual about it.
-
Thursday 9th June 2011 17:37 GMT nyelvmark
Your logic defeats itself
If the law only forbids possession for purposes of arousal, then you are not forbidden from possessing it, so you have no grounds for spite. You would only have such grounds if you found the material arousing, since you would then be effectively forbidden from possessing it, innit?
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 7th June 2011 14:00 GMT myhandle
Bizzare
It's bizzare the the first one was allowed on sky. I wouldn't want to watch it either, but with the new suites there does seem to be a huge double standard with respect to what hollywood is allowed to show on tv and what you are allowed in your own private collection, which would inevitably result in the jackboots kicking down your doors. Same applies to the "Last house on the right" which contained a rape scene that I swear would put you in jail if it were on your private dvd collection but cause hollywood put it out it was fine to show on tv.
Personally, I think it would be funny to apply the same vigor to tv as is implyed by the new draconian laws and watch hollywood shriek as they loose money and watch the politicians loose out on their favourite violence movies.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
