Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop Clothing clo_fly_aw15_NA_shoes Shop All Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop Fire HD 6 Shop Kindle Paperwhite Shop now Shop Now Shop now
Customer Discussions > horror discussion forum

BBFC is it not time to get rid of them


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 8 Nov 2012 19:10:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Nov 2012 19:11:23 GMT
byekitty says:
its now the case that the BBFC is a largely redundant organisation most people have access to the internet and can watch uncensored films which are currently banned by the BBFC and denied a dvd or blue ray release also with ebay amazon and many others offering dvd and blue ray discs from other countries in uncensored versions what is the point of the BBFC is it not about time we got rid of them or substantially changed their role, if an online petition was started it could at least force the government to debate the issue in parliament i am a bit sick of being treated like a child and from the views of others on these discussions im not alone

Posted on 8 Nov 2012 19:29:22 GMT
West25 says:
We have to have the BBFC but their job should be to give a film an age certificate and that's it, they shouldn't have the power to cut a film or have it completely banned. Anyone that wants to watch a film uncut can do so easily and they know it, so them cutting a film is nothing more than an annoyance. What they should do if they really feel that some films are a bit too extreme for the 18 rating, is to make a new rating of 21 or even 25 so they feel better about it and we don't have to hunt down imported copies.

Posted on 9 Nov 2012 20:15:13 GMT
I'm in agreement, the BBFC's role should be reduced to classification alone instead of censorship, I think a 25 rating is going to far but I think unrated 21 material could be a good way forward.

Posted on 9 Nov 2012 23:23:24 GMT
JONESY says:
The BBFC is now largely redundant as its very rare now that you are unable to get hold of a particular film.
However we shouldn't get rid of them. When they make a fuss about something its a good "heads-up" for us.

Posted on 10 Nov 2012 05:09:54 GMT
I agree on the censorship part...they have just butchered my friends biker movie 'Dear God No!' of 1 min 34 secs for uk dvd release.

Posted on 10 Nov 2012 07:26:12 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Nov 2012 08:19:09 GMT
byekitty says:
yes it would be a good idea if they merely provided guidance to content its kind of ridiculous that this unelected body has the right to censor and outright ban films, the same tired old old arguments are always trotted out people being sent into a killing frenzy at the sight of a bit of blood etc but we all know this is nonsense and underneath there are political reasons why films have been censored anyone interested should read tom dewe mathews history of censorship

ps tom dewe mathews book censored is real cheap on amazon loads of copies for1p + postage its an easy to read history of censorship in uk

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Nov 2012 13:37:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Nov 2012 13:38:45 GMT
I think if the BBFC have to exsist then yes just rate a film and leave the content alone (as in leave it uncut) and let us the film fan choose what we watch. I can't believe the BBFC see us aS being brain dead as to murder someone just because we saw it on Friday The 13th.

There are some that would but when they look into the history of said person its normally a 98% chance that were they already mentally disturbed

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2012 18:42:23 GMT
I loved "Dear God No!", luckily I got the unrated US version, what did the BBFC cut and why? Also really cool that you know the director, hope he does more films in the same vein.

The arguement of films inspiring dangerous acts is stupid, surely anyone who would kill because he saw it in a movie is a ticking timebomb that would kill because of music, books, games or even a violent nightmare, we can't justify censorship on the off chance some lunatic is among us and a bit of fake blood sends him into a frenzy, besides we all know people who kill and blame a movie are just cowards who want to avoid guilt and avoid justice on grounds of insanity.

Posted on 21 Nov 2012 21:27:27 GMT
Again to agree with most. If the BBFC have to exist, surely their only point should be in correctly deeming a movie's content an age appropriate certification. The paying customer will decide what we want to see, and if were in raw uncut terms true that movie violence surgically trickles through to the viewer who is likely to act out in a possible copy-cat way, than every other house would have a wall of corpses around it, as would those travelling to and from school and work every day. Violence in an aspect of the human condition, but most of us have a breaking point, and generally the power of the shouted sentence complete with un-BBFC-pc expletives would usually impede and subdue such feelings.

If anything, I think should exist to back up the humane society, RSPCA and any other organisation set to monitor animal treatment on TV and in movies. That, of course, is not why they were formed, why they exist, or ever what they would do, but it would add a voice and a bit of weight nonetheless. From the vile and pointless drawn-out murder of the sea turtle literally cut from its shell for the silly cack of 'Cannibal Holocaust', the tiger being sprayed with a poisonous black dye which soon killed it in 1982's fantasy 'The Beast Master', the farmed animals being dragged across the screen by ropes and kicked and beaten in 1990's 'The Journey Of August King', the imprisoned orca dolphin having its miserable life cut short and then set free to die in a kid's film (nice!) 'Free Willy', to all the animal deaths in the Italian 'Wild Beasts' (and boy do Europe need more prompting on this issue), even the pig killed for Eli Roth's rather unimportant 'Cabin Fever', it's still pretty common, but like animal-testing many like to believe it doesn't happy anymore.

Of course movies and TV don't inspire animal death and suffering, they merely mirror our society's complete detachment to treating other species worse than dirt, but they certainly don't help. Animals get more than enough nasty crap from pretty much every other way they are dealt with by us regularly (food industry, clothing, testing, hunting, "population control", pet industry, enslavement, landscape shrinking, pollution and global warming. Surely the world of TV and movies is the one place we can bloody leave them in peace instead of pieces. Which I know is nothing to do with the BBFC.

And, yes, banning movies, or passing them with more gaping cuts than a machete wielding twit? That's almost an abuse to us.

Posted on 25 Nov 2012 17:33:45 GMT
As far as the copycat violence idea goes, I'd love to know what it was the Mary Whitehouse types think caused, for example, the hideous violence of the Victorian slums - maybe Jack the Ripper read too many penny dreadfuls? And the routine atrocities of the medieval anti-Jewish pogroms must have been inspired by woodcut nasties. It's time we stopped giving an easy excuse to every sick fruitbat who wants to assault kids or animals, or torture vulnerable people - 'Your Honour, my client only clubbed his ex-girlfriend to death with a baseball bat because he had been watching the Saw movies in a continuous cycle for six days.' I've watched horror films since I was eight (starting, admittedly, with the old B & W Universals) and I have never committed an act of violence or cruelty on any living thing - unless you count spraying the wasp that stung me with air freshener and jumping up and down on it. And I expect to take responsibility for my own actions, not lay off blame on movies, or video games, or overdosing on filter coffee.
As for censorship, I'm old enough to understand that an 18 certificate means a film isn't going to be Mary Poppins. All the BBFC should do is warn us that films contain material appropriate to certain audiences. But we need to sack the present lot as their judgement is as flawed as a BBC director general's; when the remastered version of Hammer's The Devil Rides Out gets a higher certification than Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, something is badly askew.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the horror discussion forum (819 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  horror discussion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  10
Initial post:  8 Nov 2012
Latest post:  25 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions