Glenn Quagmire [31001. Posted 20-Aug-2016 Sat 14:30] View Near Messages
That`s a shame.
I really want to see the colour version of "Human Centipede II" but, obviously, uncut. I`ve seen it uncut in black and white but want to experience the full gory gloriousness.
Glenn Quagmire [30999. Posted 20-Aug-2016 Sat 10:15] View Near Messages
I do have a Panasonic Blu Ray player at the minute but can`t find any hacks for it. If you know of any it`d be great to hear them.
I`ll have a peek at those sights you mentioned.
Glenn Quagmire [30997. Posted 19-Aug-2016 Fri 14:07] View Near Messages
Does anybody know where I can get hold of a multi-zone Blu-ray player? I`ve looked on Amazon and that but they`re all multi region DVD. I really want some region A Blu rays but am really struggling to find something to play them.
Glenn Quagmire [30995. Posted 17-Aug-2016 Wed 11:38] View Near Messages
I haven`t seen it mentioned on here but the BBFC have just passed "The Human Centipede 2" in colour but, unfortunately, it`s the same cut as before. This was a perfect opportunity to try and get a more complete version, through. I know that they would never have passed it uncut but, given the backlash and ridicule the BBFC got for banning it, maybe they would have allowed some more of the cut stuff through, like the teeth smashing scene. I never understood why they cut that or a lot of the other violence. It wasn`t any stronger than "Hostel" or any of the "Saw" films. My guess would be that they had the distributor by the balls and could demand anything they wanted because it was important to get released. They were just bullying. They`re not strangers to that, though. They were justholding them to ransom.
Glenn Quagmire [30987. Posted 25-Jul-2016 Mon 09:16] View Near Messages
Why don`t we all start an email campaign and email the BBFC with our views? We`re the public. It`s our views that are supposed to count. We are part of that public. Come on! Let`s show `em!
If not that, then something. Anything. Let`s be treated like adults.
Glenn Quagmire [30986. Posted 25-Jul-2016 Mon 09:13] View Near Messages
Well, they did exactly what I thought they would. The BBFC have responded to me, reiterating platitudes they churn out to everybody, completely ignoring what was written in the email and not answering any of my questions.
Here`s what they said:
Thank you for your email.
BBFC classification decisions are made in line with available research and our Classification Guidelines which are a product of an extensive public consultation process. This process is repeated every 4-5 years and over 10,000 people contributed to the creation of the Classification Guidelines 2014, which are available here. Sexual violence is an issue that is consistently highlighted as an an area of public concern and page 27 of the Classification Guidelines sets out when the BBFC may intervene at the adult level. Different classification systems are operated in different countries and they accordingly have different classification standards. The BBFC aims to reflect UK public opinion.
This version of I Spit on Your Grave is a re-edited, reduced version compared to the submission classified in 2010. These changes were made by the films distributor prior to the film being submitted to the BBFC. The BBFC required that footage that was previously cut from the 2010 submission, but that had not already been removed by the films distributor, to also be removed.
Glenn Quagmire [30982. Posted 20-Jul-2016 Wed 11:39] View Near Messages
This was my email to the BBFC:
Dear Sir / madam
I see that, once again, you have felt the need to cut the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave".
Being in possession of a full, uncensored version, I have been fortunate to bear witness to the director`s intended vision. The board should not be cutting this film. It is incredibly insulting and hypocritical that the board are more than happy to pass "Baise Moi" uncut (and rightly so!) but insist on censoring a film that will have appeal to the masses, rather than just the middle class art brigade. Of further insult is the blatant ignoring of public opinion that you, ever so proudly, claim to shape your guidelines. On this very site, the previous public consultation undertook by the BBFC is there for all to read. However, some of the viewers felt that the film could easily pass uncut given the second half of the film and her retribution to the culprits. This clearly counterbalances the graphic scenes of rape. You seemed to have ignored the advice of the general public and proceeded to do as you wish.
Your claims of "eroticised sexual violence" is worrying to say the least. I`ve yet to meet, or speak to, anybody who found any of the films erotic or eroticised. This is something that obviously only the board is seeing. No one else is. Sorry? Who are you protecting, again?
It is also worth noting that the OFLC, the Australian censorship body, has passed all the films uncut and their guidelines are stricter than yours! Plus, there is NO recorded evidence that any harm has come to anybody as a result of these films being available uncut anywhere in the world. And the majority of people in Britian have seen the uncut versions of them. Still no reports of harm.
Glenn Quagmire [30981. Posted 20-Jul-2016 Wed 10:25] View Near Messages
The BBFC have, once again, cut 2010 version of "I Spit On Your Grave". This is AFTER the BBFC "consultation" that defines the boards policies said that the board was heavy handed and shouldn`t have been cut. So, in a nutshell, the BBFC completely ignore the public and do whatever they want, all the while spouting platitudes and crap about "public consultation"! Waste of space and money. Thank god I imported the uncut versions. I`m going to write an email to the board pointing this out. No doubt, they`ll do what they did last time and ignore it with only a simple response of "look at our guidelines on sexual violence". Dick heads!
Glenn Quagmire [30949. Posted 9-May-2016 Mon 12:53] View Near Messages
Does anybody find it strange that the blu ray boxset of "The Hunger Games" is only a 12 meaning that the cut cinema/DVD version is being used despite being originally released uncut on blu ray? This doesn`t make sense to me. Why would they do this?
Glenn Quagmire [30743. Posted 2-Aug-2015 Sun 11:07] View Near Messages
I just though I`d let people know that "Nekromantik 2" has been passed uncut by the BBFC for home release.
Glenn Quagmire [30694. Posted 16-May-2015 Sat 05:35] View Near Messages
Is it worth lobbying distributors when a gets category cuts? We all moan when a film is cut for a certain certificate but do nothing about it. Why don`t we make our voices heard? Lobby the distributors. Email them. Write letters. Attack their behaviour on public forums. Give them bad press. Let`s just do something!
Glenn Quagmire [30673. Posted 17-Apr-2015 Fri 04:33] View Near Messages
I`m a little bit confused as to the release of "Blood And Black Lace". It was a 15 certificate and they`ve now upgraded it to an 18? I know the board have done this with PG films to a 12 but I`ve never heard of them raising a certificate from a 12 to 15 or 15 to 18. And I`m not including extras which can raise a certificate.
Glenn Quagmire [30627. Posted 9-Mar-2015 Mon 10:33] View Near Messages
I think I can see why the BBFC have banned "Hate Crime". I`ve seen the film and it seems to me that the biggest problem with the film is that it`s shot through a video camera so, in effect, you are the perpetrator. There`s a scene where a woman is raped over a pool table and the rapist films it. You see it from his viewpoint. It`s why they cut the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave".
Glenn Quagmire [30393. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 16:51] View Near Messages
I`m slightly confused about the censorship applied to "Found". I`ve seen the uncut version but there was no scene of an erect penis in it. However, I noticed that the board classified the DVD extras at the same time. I`m wondering if the four seconds that were cut is from this instead rather than the main film.
Glenn Quagmire [30263. Posted 1-Aug-2014 Fri 10:54] View Near Messages
Personally I like the Arrow video covers. Very artistic. What you seem to be forgetting is that these films are exploitation films. Whether they have naked women in them or not is irrelevant. They`re exploitation films, Arrow specialises in exploitation films and the covers are just living up to that. Exploiting it so to speak.
Glenn Quagmire [30052. Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 06:49] View Near Messages
The BBFC are nothing to do with the government. They were set up by the film studios to make there films were in line with the law. The BBFC are self funded and are an independent body. They do not receive a single penny of tax payers money. The government have no legal say in the boards decisions. Only the law of the UK that they have to abide by. That`s why there was such a fuss over Jack Straw interfering (but denying) the decision to pass "The Idiots".
What`s to stop a company inserting hardcore porn in children`s films AFTER they`ve been passed by the board but BEFORE they are actually released? The version on the shelf isn`t necessarily the version the board passed. And, let`s be honest, the chances of that happening are zero. It would seriously damage the company, cost time and money to repress all the discs and cost time and money for somebody to go to those lengths. And all for what?
Sorry, Pooch. I`m with Phantom on this one. The BBFC are extortioners and racketeers. They`ve already passed it at 15 and it shouldn`t need to be resubmitted again unless they want a change in certificate or it`s in a different version.
Glenn Quagmire [30036. Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 05:36] View Near Messages
Well, nunchakus aren`t a problem anymore. But I don`t think that it is any more violent than any of the other "Dollar" films. I just don`t understand how they can lower and then higher a certificate. If they believe that it`s not suitable for people under 18 then what about the people under that age who have seen it because the board have decreed that it`s suitable. If it`s "damaging" (which is the usual platitude that they like to spout) then surely the damage has been done and it`s the board`s fault. But seeing as in there has been no evidence or reports of anyone under the age of 18 being harmed by viewing it then surely it is okay to keep it contained at 15? What I believe has happened is that a previous examiner has watched and recommended 15 and the board accepted. A different examiner has now watched it and thinks that it should be 18 and the board accepted. It shows how each examiners interpretation of the guidelines varies and, therefore, produces mixed and unreliable results.
Glenn Quagmire [30033. Posted 28-Apr-2014 Mon 09:38] View Near Messages
So the BBFC have just passed "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly" with an 18 despite previously lowering it to a 15 FROM an 18? Doesn`t this just show how inconsistent and untrustworthy the BBFC are? And, more importantly, pointless and a drain on the film industry? How can a board that continuously lower and higher certificates of the same film and in the space of a couple of years be "age ratings you can trust"?
Glenn Quagmire [29619. Posted 11-Sep-2013 Wed 02:32] View Near Messages
I got a reply from the BBFC. This is what they have to say:
Thank you again for your recent email.
Our classification decisions are carefully considered and made in line with available research and our published Guidelines. Our Classification Guidelines are a product of an extensive public consultation process which is repeated regularly. Over 8,700 people contributed to the creation of the Guidelines in 2009. These are available on our main website - http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/guidelines. We are currently processing the results of our most recent Guidelines consultation, which began in March this year and consulted over 10,000 people. The updated BBFC Classification Guidelines will be published at the end of 2013.
You might find the information about our recent research into depictions of sexual and sadistic violence useful. This is available on our website:
Thank you again for contacting us.
Senior Information Officer
Glenn Quagmire [29608. Posted 5-Sep-2013 Thu 11:36] View Near Messages
I know the board will never change. If it was subtitled then it would probably have a good chance of getting through. Working class plebs like me won`t watch anything that means you have to read so society will be safe. The BBFC have often been criticised for that level of thinking. But, like you say, nobody complains about censoring stuff so emailing them is better than nothing.
I wonder if the board are familiar with this site?
Glenn Quagmire [29607. Posted 5-Sep-2013 Thu 11:28] View Near Messages
If you read the post properly you`ll see I wrote that it will fall on deaf ears but I`ve got a voice so I may as well use it.
Of course I know it`s not going to do anything. But I can either sit here and moan about it on a forum or I can let them know. But that`s the problem. People moan but never let the people know how they feel. Maybe people ought to start emailing the board instead of just moaning about it.
Glenn Quagmire [29602. Posted 4-Sep-2013 Wed 12:03] View Near Messages
Dear sir/ madam
Once again the BBFC haven’t failed to disappoint me with their ludicrous censorship. Why do the BBFC insist on cutting and censoring under the excuse that it’s in line with public feeling? I’m part of the public and don’t feel that the footage in “I Spit On Your Grave 2” or “Little Deaths” should be cut. I’ve never been asked how I feel. I can only assume that the feedback you get and research you undertake all involve middle class, Daily Mail reading Londoners. A lot of the decisions that the board makes shows how seriously out of touch the board is with the modern world and Britain in general.
I saw the uncut versions of both the original “Grave” film and the remake as well as “Little Deaths” and did not see anything that the BBFC alluded to in their report. I have seen “August Underground”, “Murder Set Pieces” and thousands of others cut or denied by the BBFC. And, guess what? I haven’t attacked anyone.
Eroticised rape? I have never seen a rape scene to be erotic. It strikes me that the only people to find a rape scene eroticised are the board. Ironic when you consider that that is what the board are trying to save the public from. Maybe you need saving from yourselves? Contrary to what the board mistakenly believe Britain isn’t full of raving sex maniacs just on the edge of insanity. We don’t need patronising. We are adults. We can handle this sort of material. And as an adult I should be free to view these scenes.
The board has a history of cutting films because they fear they may be harmful to the public only to be released later on uncut with none of their original fears realised. This is the same. The board seems intent on making Britain look like a bunch of thin skinned cowards and the board itself silly. Is the board just erring on the side of caution?
Rape is a nasty and vile act and films show that. By cutting these scenes you are softening the impact of rape and taking away the true horrific nature of it.
I find it incredibly fascinating that the status of a work depends on the examiners personal opinion of it. If the examiner feels it’s of artistic merit then is prepared to pass it uncut. If they don’t then it gets cut. That cannot be consistent with the guidelines. Who are the board to say if something is of artistic merit? It’s just a job. Are you film scholars? Professors? Historians?
It boils down to the BBFC denying the public the right to see something because of personal opinion. I suppose if Ken Loach or Steven Spielberg had made “I Spit On Your Grave” it would have gone through without cuts.
Glenn Quagmire [29601. Posted 4-Sep-2013 Wed 11:40] View Near Messages
I`ve written an email to the BBFC complaining about their censorship. I know it`ll fall on deaf ears but why shouldn`t I let them know?
Glenn Quagmire [29572. Posted 19-Aug-2013 Mon 14:57] View Near Messages
Yeah, that`s Labour for you. It was their knee jerk reaction to the tragic murder of Jane Longhurst and trying to look good in the eyes of the public and Daily Fail that the extreme pornography bill came into force without it being fully researched and ignoring the facts.
Jack Straw tried to pull the strings with the BBFC without having any legal right to do so. A loathsome, rancid, despicable man working for an equally loathsome, rancid and despicable prime minister.
Glenn Quagmire [29571. Posted 19-Aug-2013 Mon 14:46] View Near Messages
So what about Keira Knightley`s nipples in "The Hole"? Are they going to start cutting that, now? The BBFC and the law have said before that nudity shouldn`t automatically be censored. They`ll make their mind up!
Glenn Quagmire [29554. Posted 17-Aug-2013 Sat 04:45] View Near Messages
Sorry Dave. Not "Women Behind Bars" I mean "Women In Cellblock 9". It`s a Jess Franco film.
Glenn Quagmire [29551. Posted 17-Aug-2013 Sat 02:26] View Near Messages
Thanks for the reply. I don`t know if you or anyone else would be able to answer this but if I ordered a copy of "Sweet Sweetback`s Baadasssss Song" or downloaded it could I then, potentially, be opening myself up for being in possession of child pornography? And the same for "Women Behind Bars"?
It seems to me to be such a confusing area of the law. It`s perfectly legal to own anything considered obscene as long as I don`t show it to anyone. Could the same be applied to the POTCA?
It makes me wonder is there an age when it stops being child pornography? If someone made a porno with sixteen or seventeen year old is that child pornography?
Glenn Quagmire [29546. Posted 16-Aug-2013 Fri 10:49] View Near Messages
What do you think the chances are of getting the age of the Protection Of The Children Act 1978 back to 16? Considering the age of consent is 16 the raising of the age in the act has made criminals out of innocent people who own Sam Fox`s page 3 pictures or who want to watch Jess Franco`s "Women In Cellblock 9". Under the act, now, the photographer who took the photos of Fox and Linda Lusardi could now be charged with being in possession of child pornography or possessing an indecent image of a child. At worst they could be charged with making one.
I want to stress that I am NOT advocating child pornography or believe 16 year olds should be in porn. I think the act should have a defence for context and the film be judged as a whole like the Obscene Publications Act.