The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm interested in knowing what people in this forum think about the state of film and video censorship in the UK.
I personally think that censorship is not needed. Adults should be given the information they need to decide whether they want to watch a film and the choice should be made by them not by the government.
The BBFC says that up to 3% of people have personality disorders that leave them vulnerable to mimicking violent acts. These people are clearly a problem -but the rest of us shouldn't suffer. Someone who wants to kill will kill. Someone who wants to rape will rape. They don't need to see a film to commit violence, they will be violent anyway.
I also think the argument that children could see these films in their homes is ridiculous. Nobody says that razor blades, ovens, alcohol or kettles should be banned yet all of these could seriously injure children!
I am sure that children are more likely to be corrupted by cartoon violence (such as Power Rangers) rather than realistic portrayals of violence. At least violence in adult movies tends to be shown with consequences. I also think that 15 should be the highest category of classification -18 is too high.
The Matrix was almost passed as an 18 certificate. It was only made a 15 when the film studio volunterily removed the offending images of head butts. I watched this film with my 10 year old sister and both of enjoyed it for what it is -a modern fairy tale set in a fantasy world. I can report that my sister has (so far) not kicked anyone in the head, broken anyones nose or leapt of the side of a building.
The fact is that some people have a violent disposition. Violence has been around for as long as animals have been around (just read the Bible if you want some extreme violence). A person who is not violent will not kill someone because they watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (currently banned) and someone who is violent is likely to engage in violent acts regardless of whether they see violence on film or not.
I think that the following rules should apply:
1. Anything can be shown on video or film apart from actual abuse of animals, children or unconcenting adults.
2. There should not be an 18 category -instead the category could be called 15X, meaning that it is suitable only for an audience over 15 and is particulary liable to offend.
What does anyone else think?
I personally think that censorship is not needed. Adults should be given the information they need to decide whether they want to watch a film and the choice should be made by them not by the government.
The BBFC says that up to 3% of people have personality disorders that leave them vulnerable to mimicking violent acts. These people are clearly a problem -but the rest of us shouldn't suffer. Someone who wants to kill will kill. Someone who wants to rape will rape. They don't need to see a film to commit violence, they will be violent anyway.
I also think the argument that children could see these films in their homes is ridiculous. Nobody says that razor blades, ovens, alcohol or kettles should be banned yet all of these could seriously injure children!
I am sure that children are more likely to be corrupted by cartoon violence (such as Power Rangers) rather than realistic portrayals of violence. At least violence in adult movies tends to be shown with consequences. I also think that 15 should be the highest category of classification -18 is too high.
The Matrix was almost passed as an 18 certificate. It was only made a 15 when the film studio volunterily removed the offending images of head butts. I watched this film with my 10 year old sister and both of enjoyed it for what it is -a modern fairy tale set in a fantasy world. I can report that my sister has (so far) not kicked anyone in the head, broken anyones nose or leapt of the side of a building.
The fact is that some people have a violent disposition. Violence has been around for as long as animals have been around (just read the Bible if you want some extreme violence). A person who is not violent will not kill someone because they watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (currently banned) and someone who is violent is likely to engage in violent acts regardless of whether they see violence on film or not.
I think that the following rules should apply:
1. Anything can be shown on video or film apart from actual abuse of animals, children or unconcenting adults.
2. There should not be an 18 category -instead the category could be called 15X, meaning that it is suitable only for an audience over 15 and is particulary liable to offend.
What does anyone else think?
Page:
Because you are not supposed to question and think for yourself.
You are supposed to accept what is told to you, it's for your own good, it really is.
Don't get onto the net and read about the abuse of the date protection act with police intercepting and storing all text messages on mobile phones now.
Just sit indoors and watch Big Brother, it would be best really.
Let them do your thinking for you.
*heavy sarcasm in case ANYONE thinks I'm being serious*
You are supposed to accept what is told to you, it's for your own good, it really is.
Don't get onto the net and read about the abuse of the date protection act with police intercepting and storing all text messages on mobile phones now.
Just sit indoors and watch Big Brother, it would be best really.
Let them do your thinking for you.
*heavy sarcasm in case ANYONE thinks I'm being serious*
why should they censor films with violence and horrowing experiences in when it is LIFE.
All we hear on the news is death, destruction, rape and worse...all the stories from Kosovo etc if made into a film it would be banned! I do believe (being a mother and hoping that kids should be allowed to be children for as long as possible and be subjected to images that shock and scare, however real!) that there should be age ratings on films.. but once a film has a rating of 18 it should be allowed to show anything (excpet abuse to people and animals).
Or even perhaps introduce a new rating of 21 (sorry all you guys who have reached 18 finally) as it is so much easier to tell when someone gets nearer this age than 18 as kids try their hardest to grow up too fast.
Basically what I am saying is that Classification of films is a good idea but censorship is not.. we all live life why can't we see it for what it really is..the world is not all pretty and sweet so why should be have to pretend it is?!
All we hear on the news is death, destruction, rape and worse...all the stories from Kosovo etc if made into a film it would be banned! I do believe (being a mother and hoping that kids should be allowed to be children for as long as possible and be subjected to images that shock and scare, however real!) that there should be age ratings on films.. but once a film has a rating of 18 it should be allowed to show anything (excpet abuse to people and animals).
Or even perhaps introduce a new rating of 21 (sorry all you guys who have reached 18 finally) as it is so much easier to tell when someone gets nearer this age than 18 as kids try their hardest to grow up too fast.
Basically what I am saying is that Classification of films is a good idea but censorship is not.. we all live life why can't we see it for what it really is..the world is not all pretty and sweet so why should be have to pretend it is?!
It IS a stunning film.
Not easy unless you're one of the chimps that watched it in the cinema and kept laughing because they were too nervous.
This movie puts you in a very uncomfortable place and doesn't let you out for 2hrs.
It doesn't say "Drugs are BAD!" it says "People have always, and will always take drugs. This can happen."
It is about dependancy. Be it on chemicals or any other substance.
Ellen Burstyn plays a middle-age, overweight mother that has nothing in her life except tv and her friends.
She broke my heart, a woman with so much love but nowhere to put it.
Requiem For a Dream is:
Stunning, evocative, powerful, fiercely terrifying.
Requiem For a Dream is not:
For everyone
Easy viewing
Light Hearted
Simple to watch
Easy to forget
I think the thing that upset me the most about this one, the thing that had me in silence all the way home and made me sit in the garden for an hour before I could get my head together enough to speak was (no spoilers here):
A character suffers EXTREME humiliation and degredation for their fix. They are abused, physically and mentally simply to get their high.
And, once they have their gear, despite all of the shame and utter humiliation, they smile because they got what they needed.
These are people going through absolute personal hell because they want to. They choose to in order to get what they need.
I know some people on this site are under 18 and might not ever get to see this movie, but if you can, rent it.
Watch it by yourself so you don't laugh and make jokes because it makes you uncomfortable in front of your mates.
If anything can make drugs seem "not cool", then this movie is it.
Not easy unless you're one of the chimps that watched it in the cinema and kept laughing because they were too nervous.
This movie puts you in a very uncomfortable place and doesn't let you out for 2hrs.
It doesn't say "Drugs are BAD!" it says "People have always, and will always take drugs. This can happen."
It is about dependancy. Be it on chemicals or any other substance.
Ellen Burstyn plays a middle-age, overweight mother that has nothing in her life except tv and her friends.
She broke my heart, a woman with so much love but nowhere to put it.
Requiem For a Dream is:
Stunning, evocative, powerful, fiercely terrifying.
Requiem For a Dream is not:
For everyone
Easy viewing
Light Hearted
Simple to watch
Easy to forget
I think the thing that upset me the most about this one, the thing that had me in silence all the way home and made me sit in the garden for an hour before I could get my head together enough to speak was (no spoilers here):
A character suffers EXTREME humiliation and degredation for their fix. They are abused, physically and mentally simply to get their high.
And, once they have their gear, despite all of the shame and utter humiliation, they smile because they got what they needed.
These are people going through absolute personal hell because they want to. They choose to in order to get what they need.
I know some people on this site are under 18 and might not ever get to see this movie, but if you can, rent it.
Watch it by yourself so you don't laugh and make jokes because it makes you uncomfortable in front of your mates.
If anything can make drugs seem "not cool", then this movie is it.
Thanks for recommending it, I'm going to place my order for it now :)
/Stj
/Stj
Yes.
It's not a movie you'll "enjoy" by any description.
I ordered it from Amazon, the directors cut and watched it over the weekend, and it's still intense on a 2nd viewing.
It's VERY adult in tone and ideas.
Not a feelgood movie at all.
I watched it one Sunday afternoon in Fulham.
1/2 the audience walked out, most in the final 15 mins.
A few people sat there crying at the end and EVERYONE walked out in silence, just standing around outside smoking, looking around and just sighing.
Now,there will be people tempted to rush out and get it because of what I've just said.
Good.
Watch this movie and not understand it.
It's about drugs, addiction,loneliness, desperation, hope, debasing yourself for a fix....
Watch it at least one.
It's not a movie you'll "enjoy" by any description.
I ordered it from Amazon, the directors cut and watched it over the weekend, and it's still intense on a 2nd viewing.
It's VERY adult in tone and ideas.
Not a feelgood movie at all.
I watched it one Sunday afternoon in Fulham.
1/2 the audience walked out, most in the final 15 mins.
A few people sat there crying at the end and EVERYONE walked out in silence, just standing around outside smoking, looking around and just sighing.
Now,there will be people tempted to rush out and get it because of what I've just said.
Good.
Watch this movie and not understand it.
It's about drugs, addiction,loneliness, desperation, hope, debasing yourself for a fix....
Watch it at least one.
I'm actually deliberating on purchasing Requiem For A Dream on Region 1 at the moment.
Would you say it's worth it GB?
/Stj
Would you say it's worth it GB?
/Stj
I think, if nothing else, censoring or banning movies creates an interest that just wasn't there before.
It's just people's ghoulish "oooo..that's nasty" instinct that causes rubberneckers at accidents.
People hear that a movie is "extreme" and they make a point of going to see it.
Classic case of Bluebeard's wife being told to not look in the room, of course you're going to.
Example:
Reservoir Dogs came out and played every Saturday night at midnight at my local cinema.
There was just the same 14 people there week after week to watch this movie.
It got so that the staff knew us and we were allowed to smoke at the front and bring in beer. Well behaved regulars just watching this film every weekend because it's fantastic.
Then the Daily Mail ran it's usual "ban this sick filth" campaign and whipped up interest.
Next friday?
We turned up and it was sold out. We couldn't get in.
Why? Why had we spent 2 months watching this, same people, same movie.
But all of a sudden, because people were told "this is evil" everyone went "moo" and "baaaah" and went to be offended.
Makes no sense.
Loads of videos were banned, then released.
The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre..these had video releases last year after almost 20 years of being banned.
People rented them and thought "well that sucked" because of the hype.
Take a movie that NOBODY here saw last year called "Requiem for a Dream".
Harrowing, disturbing, relentlessly grim, a total mind job and nobody went to watch it.
Why? Because no papers started decrying it as "offensive" and "evil".
Hence, I got to watch one of the most powerful films of recent memory.
The BBFC are debating whether to even grant this a release on DVD and video now.
Why?
Because the director, Darren Aronofsky has been signed to make the latest Batman movie.
So now everyone wants to watch Requiem and Pi (his debut).
Moronic behaviour that means I can't rent this movie yet in case some bovine viewer watches it and considers it "offensive".
That's the point of art, it's supposed to make you react in any way. Be that anger, respect or disgust.
I would rather watch something that provokes me as opposed to Batman and Robin.
But that's me. I'm odd like that
It's just people's ghoulish "oooo..that's nasty" instinct that causes rubberneckers at accidents.
People hear that a movie is "extreme" and they make a point of going to see it.
Classic case of Bluebeard's wife being told to not look in the room, of course you're going to.
Example:
Reservoir Dogs came out and played every Saturday night at midnight at my local cinema.
There was just the same 14 people there week after week to watch this movie.
It got so that the staff knew us and we were allowed to smoke at the front and bring in beer. Well behaved regulars just watching this film every weekend because it's fantastic.
Then the Daily Mail ran it's usual "ban this sick filth" campaign and whipped up interest.
Next friday?
We turned up and it was sold out. We couldn't get in.
Why? Why had we spent 2 months watching this, same people, same movie.
But all of a sudden, because people were told "this is evil" everyone went "moo" and "baaaah" and went to be offended.
Makes no sense.
Loads of videos were banned, then released.
The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre..these had video releases last year after almost 20 years of being banned.
People rented them and thought "well that sucked" because of the hype.
Take a movie that NOBODY here saw last year called "Requiem for a Dream".
Harrowing, disturbing, relentlessly grim, a total mind job and nobody went to watch it.
Why? Because no papers started decrying it as "offensive" and "evil".
Hence, I got to watch one of the most powerful films of recent memory.
The BBFC are debating whether to even grant this a release on DVD and video now.
Why?
Because the director, Darren Aronofsky has been signed to make the latest Batman movie.
So now everyone wants to watch Requiem and Pi (his debut).
Moronic behaviour that means I can't rent this movie yet in case some bovine viewer watches it and considers it "offensive".
That's the point of art, it's supposed to make you react in any way. Be that anger, respect or disgust.
I would rather watch something that provokes me as opposed to Batman and Robin.
But that's me. I'm odd like that
The only films I watch are based on truth or contain violence, seks, and swearing. Goodfellas was the best and with my sense of humour I found it funny as well. The chainsaw scene in scarface was the same. I think putting a 18 stamp on a film is enough without cutting scenes. At 18 you are ready for virtualy anything a film can show you and censorship is really fcuking annoying.
e-jazz wrote:
> Julia Roberts films all suck.... however I haven't seen the Mexican
> yet. But then again I don't intend to.
Well, I for one disagree there. I like Pretty Woman, Erin Brockovich, Hook, Stepmom, Steel Magnolias, Notting Hill, Flatliners, Conspiracy Theory, The Pelican Brief...
> Julia Roberts films all suck.... however I haven't seen the Mexican
> yet. But then again I don't intend to.
Well, I for one disagree there. I like Pretty Woman, Erin Brockovich, Hook, Stepmom, Steel Magnolias, Notting Hill, Flatliners, Conspiracy Theory, The Pelican Brief...
There is hardly in any point in things censored because all the films are on t.v and adults cant watch there children all the time. There is music from eminem that all u have to do is the age to buy the cd as the cashier never ask the age. Although if u keep people censored for a long time then some things on t.v people will fear however unrealistic it is. If you do believe in censoring especially in films then rally aganist sky as there r 12 & 15's on at noon with cursing and everything included. Although what would you go and see steps who cover songs or eminem who songs are his own and have feeling? You would go for eminem. Socity on the fall soon we won't have censoring cause everything involves cursing and sex like adverts so whats the point of censoring were there is implication of what you try to censor all around us?
Page: