The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I agree with Funky once more.
Except there is a need for censorship in one area.
Please ban Julia Roberts movies.
They dont help, offer anything of interest and cause normal people to pay good money and allow her to continue being a wide-mouth frog.
Except there is a need for censorship in one area.
Please ban Julia Roberts movies.
They dont help, offer anything of interest and cause normal people to pay good money and allow her to continue being a wide-mouth frog.
I agree with film certificates and in a lot of cases think there should be stricter controls.
Particularly in cinemas. I have not been able to see a lot of good films in the cinema because the certificate isn't high enough - hence the place will be full of annoying kids.
I have a rule where the film must be either a very good 15, otherwise an 18 - if not I won't see it.
I do agree in a sense that we should be allowed to watch what we like, but thats more to do with censorship than anything else.
Leave certificates - because they enable me to go to the cinema. Just remove a lot of censorship, and let adults choose what they see.
And anyway, I'd be willing to bet that most people don't give a damn about age limits as soon as they are above them. I use to swear the night away complaining that I couldn't rent certain films, and not drink in pubs. But now I just laugh at the kiddies who can't.
I get a laugh out of people who say films and television cause violence. Jack Dee once described how he saw crash then on his way home came across an elderly man who had crashed his car, so he did the same.
Its all nonsense!
Old people are always blaming things like TV for the language and violence of today. What a load of crap - they were swearing and fighting in the streets long before any of it was heard or seen on a TV.
And remember, Monty Python were the first people to use extreme bad language on TV and in their films. So next time your gran says she likes faulty towers, tell her she shouldn't, because John Cleese is responsible for teaching you to swear like a dirty git.
Although remember your birthday card will be considerably lighter from then on :)
Particularly in cinemas. I have not been able to see a lot of good films in the cinema because the certificate isn't high enough - hence the place will be full of annoying kids.
I have a rule where the film must be either a very good 15, otherwise an 18 - if not I won't see it.
I do agree in a sense that we should be allowed to watch what we like, but thats more to do with censorship than anything else.
Leave certificates - because they enable me to go to the cinema. Just remove a lot of censorship, and let adults choose what they see.
And anyway, I'd be willing to bet that most people don't give a damn about age limits as soon as they are above them. I use to swear the night away complaining that I couldn't rent certain films, and not drink in pubs. But now I just laugh at the kiddies who can't.
I get a laugh out of people who say films and television cause violence. Jack Dee once described how he saw crash then on his way home came across an elderly man who had crashed his car, so he did the same.
Its all nonsense!
Old people are always blaming things like TV for the language and violence of today. What a load of crap - they were swearing and fighting in the streets long before any of it was heard or seen on a TV.
And remember, Monty Python were the first people to use extreme bad language on TV and in their films. So next time your gran says she likes faulty towers, tell her she shouldn't, because John Cleese is responsible for teaching you to swear like a dirty git.
Although remember your birthday card will be considerably lighter from then on :)
I agree to a point but the BBFC shouldn't ban as much as they do.
>>>>>>>If someone jumps of the empire state building does that mean no one can go up there anymore in case they jump,no they build bars to stop them.
people should understand that to stop this 3% your on about we shouldn't ban the films we should target the main problem itself.
>>>>>>>If someone jumps of the empire state building does that mean no one can go up there anymore in case they jump,no they build bars to stop them.
people should understand that to stop this 3% your on about we shouldn't ban the films we should target the main problem itself.
I like to see film certification as a guide rather than a legal thing. It tells people what to expect. Over the past few years the covers of films have started to show a bit more about the content, i.e. the little sections where it says 'violence-moderate' 'sex/nudity-none' etc.
In this sense I agree with you, that they should only be there for a guide and it's to the viewer's discretion wether to watch the film or not. If that means no 18 certificate then so be it.
In this sense I agree with you, that they should only be there for a guide and it's to the viewer's discretion wether to watch the film or not. If that means no 18 certificate then so be it.
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: