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 …
..."HUMANCENTiPAD". Bet that fanbois loved that one!
So THAT's where they got the idea for that.
Gotta love Cartman's line in it:
"It's a phone, it's and iPad, AND it craps in Kyle's mouth?!"
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.
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.
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.
So whomever wants to watch it will just order a copy from wherever?
What's your point?
If them want to, yes.
If the BBFC have not certified it, I don't know if it might be classed as extreme pr0n. So I would be very cautious about ordering anything like this which will go through customs.....
And Hostel / Hostel2
Hostel killed the Genre for me. Maybe because it was a pretty japanese girl that got mutilated instead of an American?
Who the hell...
...decided that 18 films should be censored or banned?
Supposedly an 18 rating means that it's for adults only, so who give the right to one adult to say what another adult can or can't watch?
Agree completely, although, reading the brief plot on wikipedia, I don't think I want to watch it anyway...
I like the director's comment though:
"It is all make-belief. It is art..."
Go to hell...
So by that logic it's fine to also produce films simulating kiddie porn? Hey, it's just acting....
@Who the Hell ....
I wouldn't want to watch it but that's not the point.
Censoring what an adult can watch because it is 'disgusting' etc is a dangerous form of censorship.
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.
"who give the right to one adult to say what another adult can or can't watch?"
That would probably be a quango type thing. You could try speaking to your local elected non-representative, but I doubt it will help.
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.
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?
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).
@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.
"made viewers an accessory"
Oh, rubbish. You don't become an accessory to a crime by watching a recording of it.
If you did, they'd have to arrest anyone who watches those stupid police programmes on TV.
@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.
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?
@AC 15:52 I think the point was
I think the point was (as it sailed over your head) that buying *real* kiddie porn is subsidising the industry that produces it, therefore encouraging it.
It's not a big stretch to compare it to fencing stolen property.
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.
at which point
At which point did I mention real child pornography? I was clearly talking about computer generated and drawn images. The rationale behind that being quite logical, an actual act has taken place and there fore you are supporting a crime.
"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.
@Marvin the Martian
Fake CP would be equivalent to a film of somebody making and using bombs, not instructions for making them.
And you used an analogy without a car so that's an automatic fail anyway.
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.
"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.
I really don't think
I really don't think this is something you want to watch..
Is just what *THEY* said...
No, I wouldn't want to watch it personally, but stopping everybody watching it is a different matter.
@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?
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.
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.
What I was trying to get at was that LT was banned because someone said "That is disgusting, people should not be allowed to watch it"
Whether they ban it or not
Not intrested in the slightest in seeing this , no redeeming feature whatsoever.
Local torrent site in 3...2...1...
Free publicity will ensure it makes it to "da toobs" in double quick time, where every 12 year old kid can get it and have his or her morals "redefined" by it!
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...
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.
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?
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.
It took more than 30 years for Salo
It took more than 30 years for Salo. If anyone remembers the HC 2 in 30 years it may get a chance.
As seen on Twitter earlier.....
BBFC. Ban Human Centipede 2 and explain why, thus giving the ailing British piracy industry a much needed shot in the arm. @FurryCanary
... the sexual arousal of the central character ...
Is this the character at the centre of the narrative, or centre of the centipede
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.
The first one is allowed because it is mild
The first HC film doesn't push any of the BBFC buttons. It's not about sex and it's not explicit (in terms of the flesh it shows).
Sigh, Streisand Effect in full force.
Have torrent, will travel.
I'll be watching it.
Not because I would have otherwise *wanted* to, but because they *don't* want me to.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
- Banking apps: Handy, can grab all your money... and RIDDLED with coding flaws