The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There was an infamous list a few years ago consisting of films that you could not get hold of except from behind the desk in a dodgy video shop or get imported from abroad. Today this list has been reduced greatly as more of these films have been re-released for general public viewing.
As the head of the BBFC changed so these films were given a second lease of life. This was great news for the film studios as they could thrive off the notoriety these films had attached to themselves.
Consider for example the case of the Exorcist. Very popular when originally released in the 70s making millions for Warner Brothers but was then withdrawn from distribution in the UK. During the time it was withheld it was building up this air of mystique with stories of how terrifying and disturbing this film was and other than the odd dodgy import most people up to a certain age hadn’t seen it.
Then the BBFC allowed it to be re-released and a whole new generation of people was able to see it for the first time. Most of these people were of the age, which enjoy going to see horror films most i.e.18 – 30 year olds. The Exorcist did extremely well at the UK box office on re-release and subsequently on home purchase format. Indeed a new longer version has been released in the USA and has also done remarkably well – so expect that over here soon.
The reason it was so successful was not only because it was banned originally but also because it’s a really good film with a great story. Not all films that have been re-released have done so well – but they have done better than they would have expected had they not been banned.
In the case of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” I thought this was overhyped and nowhere near as frightening as the name made out or the history that surrounded it (This doesn’t make it a bad film though). The hitchhiker they pick up on their bus is scarier than leatherface. This film has a great following probably because of the name. By holding back the distribution of this it again created a whole new market curious to see what all the fuss was about. Had it been released quietly it would probably have made as much money , maybe more, than a similar film of that budget.
This is the whole crux of the problem of banning films; it makes them more popular. Take Reservoir dogs, a really good film that did exceptionally well at the box office. Yet would it have done quite so well if certain parts of the press had not tried to stop it getting released.
Yet there are other films before and since which have got equally bad scenes of violence and gore, which are of equal quality, but because they do not get the attention from the media do not create the same kind of box office impact.
The appeal of these controversial films can be seen with Natural Born Killers, which is currently banned on video format, yet Channel 5 managed to show it on TV and got one of its biggest ever audiences at that time.
By trying to get a film banned is simply whipping up the public’s interest. Provoking questions like why shouldn’t we be allowed to see a certain film yet the reviewer can. Or in the worst cases when the person making the judgement hasn’t even seen the film. By stating that a film should be banned only makes me want to see it more so I can compare their judgement with my own.
This is a contentious subject and will always run and run but I cannot understand why anybody cannot go to the cinema and see any film he/she wants to see. They obviously know about the content or they would not be going to see it.
Today it is harder to get films banned but I’m sure the film studios do not mind a bit of controversy as this publicity can only help its box office appeal. So I say carry on re-releasing these banned films, they usually turn out to be no worse than the films around today and in some cases like The Exorcist and Clockwork Orange are really good films.
BODGER
As the head of the BBFC changed so these films were given a second lease of life. This was great news for the film studios as they could thrive off the notoriety these films had attached to themselves.
Consider for example the case of the Exorcist. Very popular when originally released in the 70s making millions for Warner Brothers but was then withdrawn from distribution in the UK. During the time it was withheld it was building up this air of mystique with stories of how terrifying and disturbing this film was and other than the odd dodgy import most people up to a certain age hadn’t seen it.
Then the BBFC allowed it to be re-released and a whole new generation of people was able to see it for the first time. Most of these people were of the age, which enjoy going to see horror films most i.e.18 – 30 year olds. The Exorcist did extremely well at the UK box office on re-release and subsequently on home purchase format. Indeed a new longer version has been released in the USA and has also done remarkably well – so expect that over here soon.
The reason it was so successful was not only because it was banned originally but also because it’s a really good film with a great story. Not all films that have been re-released have done so well – but they have done better than they would have expected had they not been banned.
In the case of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” I thought this was overhyped and nowhere near as frightening as the name made out or the history that surrounded it (This doesn’t make it a bad film though). The hitchhiker they pick up on their bus is scarier than leatherface. This film has a great following probably because of the name. By holding back the distribution of this it again created a whole new market curious to see what all the fuss was about. Had it been released quietly it would probably have made as much money , maybe more, than a similar film of that budget.
This is the whole crux of the problem of banning films; it makes them more popular. Take Reservoir dogs, a really good film that did exceptionally well at the box office. Yet would it have done quite so well if certain parts of the press had not tried to stop it getting released.
Yet there are other films before and since which have got equally bad scenes of violence and gore, which are of equal quality, but because they do not get the attention from the media do not create the same kind of box office impact.
The appeal of these controversial films can be seen with Natural Born Killers, which is currently banned on video format, yet Channel 5 managed to show it on TV and got one of its biggest ever audiences at that time.
By trying to get a film banned is simply whipping up the public’s interest. Provoking questions like why shouldn’t we be allowed to see a certain film yet the reviewer can. Or in the worst cases when the person making the judgement hasn’t even seen the film. By stating that a film should be banned only makes me want to see it more so I can compare their judgement with my own.
This is a contentious subject and will always run and run but I cannot understand why anybody cannot go to the cinema and see any film he/she wants to see. They obviously know about the content or they would not be going to see it.
Today it is harder to get films banned but I’m sure the film studios do not mind a bit of controversy as this publicity can only help its box office appeal. So I say carry on re-releasing these banned films, they usually turn out to be no worse than the films around today and in some cases like The Exorcist and Clockwork Orange are really good films.
BODGER
On the subject of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it wasn't anymore scary than any of the other films released back then. But it was really warped and twisted in other ways, such as the contents of the house, and the bit in which they let gramps try to kill the girl. I think this was moreso the reason why it was banned, rather than it's being too scary.
But a good topic to bring up!
But a good topic to bring up!
I feel that the idea that 'people should be able to watch what they want in the cinema because they know what content to expect' is rather simplistic. If a teenager goes to see a film knowing that it contains scenes of graphic sadistic torture and explicit degredation of women, this kind of content is not any better for society just because he is looking forward to it. Furthermore, A Clockwork Orange was not banned by the studios. Kubrick himself withdrew the film and never wanted it to be seen beyond its original art cinema circuit airing. Kubrick was barely cold in his grave when the film was released, a move which strikes me as having precious little respect for the director's wishes.
There was an infamous list a few years ago consisting of films that you could not get hold of except from behind the desk in a dodgy video shop or get imported from abroad. Today this list has been reduced greatly as more of these films have been re-released for general public viewing.
As the head of the BBFC changed so these films were given a second lease of life. This was great news for the film studios as they could thrive off the notoriety these films had attached to themselves.
Consider for example the case of the Exorcist. Very popular when originally released in the 70s making millions for Warner Brothers but was then withdrawn from distribution in the UK. During the time it was withheld it was building up this air of mystique with stories of how terrifying and disturbing this film was and other than the odd dodgy import most people up to a certain age hadn’t seen it.
Then the BBFC allowed it to be re-released and a whole new generation of people was able to see it for the first time. Most of these people were of the age, which enjoy going to see horror films most i.e.18 – 30 year olds. The Exorcist did extremely well at the UK box office on re-release and subsequently on home purchase format. Indeed a new longer version has been released in the USA and has also done remarkably well – so expect that over here soon.
The reason it was so successful was not only because it was banned originally but also because it’s a really good film with a great story. Not all films that have been re-released have done so well – but they have done better than they would have expected had they not been banned.
In the case of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” I thought this was overhyped and nowhere near as frightening as the name made out or the history that surrounded it (This doesn’t make it a bad film though). The hitchhiker they pick up on their bus is scarier than leatherface. This film has a great following probably because of the name. By holding back the distribution of this it again created a whole new market curious to see what all the fuss was about. Had it been released quietly it would probably have made as much money , maybe more, than a similar film of that budget.
This is the whole crux of the problem of banning films; it makes them more popular. Take Reservoir dogs, a really good film that did exceptionally well at the box office. Yet would it have done quite so well if certain parts of the press had not tried to stop it getting released.
Yet there are other films before and since which have got equally bad scenes of violence and gore, which are of equal quality, but because they do not get the attention from the media do not create the same kind of box office impact.
The appeal of these controversial films can be seen with Natural Born Killers, which is currently banned on video format, yet Channel 5 managed to show it on TV and got one of its biggest ever audiences at that time.
By trying to get a film banned is simply whipping up the public’s interest. Provoking questions like why shouldn’t we be allowed to see a certain film yet the reviewer can. Or in the worst cases when the person making the judgement hasn’t even seen the film. By stating that a film should be banned only makes me want to see it more so I can compare their judgement with my own.
This is a contentious subject and will always run and run but I cannot understand why anybody cannot go to the cinema and see any film he/she wants to see. They obviously know about the content or they would not be going to see it.
Today it is harder to get films banned but I’m sure the film studios do not mind a bit of controversy as this publicity can only help its box office appeal. So I say carry on re-releasing these banned films, they usually turn out to be no worse than the films around today and in some cases like The Exorcist and Clockwork Orange are really good films.
BODGER
As the head of the BBFC changed so these films were given a second lease of life. This was great news for the film studios as they could thrive off the notoriety these films had attached to themselves.
Consider for example the case of the Exorcist. Very popular when originally released in the 70s making millions for Warner Brothers but was then withdrawn from distribution in the UK. During the time it was withheld it was building up this air of mystique with stories of how terrifying and disturbing this film was and other than the odd dodgy import most people up to a certain age hadn’t seen it.
Then the BBFC allowed it to be re-released and a whole new generation of people was able to see it for the first time. Most of these people were of the age, which enjoy going to see horror films most i.e.18 – 30 year olds. The Exorcist did extremely well at the UK box office on re-release and subsequently on home purchase format. Indeed a new longer version has been released in the USA and has also done remarkably well – so expect that over here soon.
The reason it was so successful was not only because it was banned originally but also because it’s a really good film with a great story. Not all films that have been re-released have done so well – but they have done better than they would have expected had they not been banned.
In the case of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” I thought this was overhyped and nowhere near as frightening as the name made out or the history that surrounded it (This doesn’t make it a bad film though). The hitchhiker they pick up on their bus is scarier than leatherface. This film has a great following probably because of the name. By holding back the distribution of this it again created a whole new market curious to see what all the fuss was about. Had it been released quietly it would probably have made as much money , maybe more, than a similar film of that budget.
This is the whole crux of the problem of banning films; it makes them more popular. Take Reservoir dogs, a really good film that did exceptionally well at the box office. Yet would it have done quite so well if certain parts of the press had not tried to stop it getting released.
Yet there are other films before and since which have got equally bad scenes of violence and gore, which are of equal quality, but because they do not get the attention from the media do not create the same kind of box office impact.
The appeal of these controversial films can be seen with Natural Born Killers, which is currently banned on video format, yet Channel 5 managed to show it on TV and got one of its biggest ever audiences at that time.
By trying to get a film banned is simply whipping up the public’s interest. Provoking questions like why shouldn’t we be allowed to see a certain film yet the reviewer can. Or in the worst cases when the person making the judgement hasn’t even seen the film. By stating that a film should be banned only makes me want to see it more so I can compare their judgement with my own.
This is a contentious subject and will always run and run but I cannot understand why anybody cannot go to the cinema and see any film he/she wants to see. They obviously know about the content or they would not be going to see it.
Today it is harder to get films banned but I’m sure the film studios do not mind a bit of controversy as this publicity can only help its box office appeal. So I say carry on re-releasing these banned films, they usually turn out to be no worse than the films around today and in some cases like The Exorcist and Clockwork Orange are really good films.
BODGER