PDA

View Full Version : UK refuse to give an age 18 rating to a film


Toblerone
August 20th, 2009, 09:08 AM
The UK BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) has refused to allow a Japanese movie named "Grotesque" to be shown in cinemas or in fact disributed or sold in the UK.

This scenario is the first for the UK since 2005.

Grotesque is a gory and "sadistic" movie with no plotline or indeed motives involving a main character torturing and mutiliating two other people for seemingly no reason. But, such movies like Saw are as equally gory yet involve a storyline so they are allowed to be aired and distributed in the UK.

I don't find this right at all, as i am a big fan of horror and gore movies. They ban a movie because it lacks storyline. Here's an Atricle about this: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/entertainment/entertainment/quirky/grotesque-film-banned-by-censors-$1319925.htm

PS: If this type of thing is not allowed or does anything to break rules, i am sorry..

peirateis
August 20th, 2009, 09:33 AM
This is where the ideology of, 'if you don't like it, don't look at it,' comes out. I personally wouldn't go see this movie (even though I love the Saw and Final Destination movies), but I think that a person should absolutely be allowed the right to see this.

poopnoodle
August 20th, 2009, 09:33 AM
I'm very picky about movies, I can't stand modern horror. And this movie sounds, well, poorly executed...more of a fetish flick than quality entertainment. Whether they ban it or not, people will find some way to get a hold of it.

Graceful
August 20th, 2009, 09:40 AM
Exactly what poopnoodle said. People will get it shipped from America(If it does get released there) or even go there....or even japan! People will get hold of it! (I don't want it though)

Rokusasu
August 20th, 2009, 10:08 AM
Ick, horror. ;-; I'm not too fussed about what happens to it, so long as I don't get to see it. XD

Kazukii
August 20th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Ick, horror. ;-; I'm not too fussed about what happens to it, so long as I don't get to see it. XD

I agree. Anyway, if it is literally just pointless torture and violence with no reasons why.. I agree it shouldn't be aired.

Toblerone
August 20th, 2009, 10:33 AM
I do understand that the movie lacks storyline and motive etc. but that does not mean it should not be allowed to be shown in the UK. Some.. well, strange people would want to watch this movie, so even i am a bit for it not getting distributed in UK etc.. But yeah, it'll get into the UK no matter what, and despite me being a fan of the Horror genre i'd prefer a comedy any day. I'm just thinking the UK are a bit too, shall we say, over protective, to be honest.

Brainstorm
August 20th, 2009, 07:15 PM
The UK was never a place to go for human rights. This should be evident from their banning of the completely innocuous "lolicon", among other things. What good is it to take away people's rights to enjoy something? Society benefits from addition, not subtraction.

Toblerone
August 21st, 2009, 03:19 AM
The UK was never a place to go for human rights. This should be evident from their banning of the completely innocuous "lolicon", among other things. What good is it to take away people's rights to enjoy something? Society benefits from addition, not subtraction.

I totally agree with you. They should let it be shown. I hope the makers of the film challenge their decision. They should stop being so over protective and get over it!!

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
August 21st, 2009, 03:32 AM
The UK was never a place to go for human rights. This should be evident from their banning of the completely innocuous "lolicon", among other things. What good is it to take away people's rights to enjoy something? Society benefits from addition, not subtraction.

The idea of a 'lolicon' is that a girl who seems to be very young (i.e. below sixteen) is being portrayed in a sexual manner >.> I wouldn't call that 'innocuous'.

As for the film, I feel that, to be honest, the BBFC has done the right thing. the OP called it 'sadistic' and rightly so. It would be like showing 3 guys 1 hammer in a cinema and there's no way that would be allowed :\

Terror
August 21st, 2009, 06:19 AM
TBH there is very little gore in any films that are given ratings. Saw and Hostel actually have very little violence or gore in, it's more about suspense.

This film would appear to purely be depicting gore and therefore has been ruled too extreme for the British public.

(I don't necessarily agree, but this is the reason).

Gary, the Magic Fairy
August 21st, 2009, 12:26 PM
I can definitely see where they're coming from, banning it in theatres etc. I mean, literally having no plot and being pure, senseless gore doesn't seem like something that should be shown in public. Also, I'd have to disagree with Saw being equally as gory.

Banning DVDs seems a bit too far, though. :\

Toblerone
August 21st, 2009, 01:13 PM
Yeah you're right, banning it COMPLETELY is just a bit too extreme. Banning from cinemas i can definitely understand, but from the whole country? It just isn't right tbh. Although i can see why they are banning it.

The Corrupt Plague
August 21st, 2009, 04:54 PM
I don't care how obscene it is, they still have no right to ban it. I will definitely keep a close watch on them because this may be a sign that things are going to get much worse.

txteclipse
August 21st, 2009, 07:59 PM
Honestly, if I owned a theater or a DVD manufacturing company, I wouldn't show it or produce it even if it was legal, the reasons being a) few people would probably actually come to see it/buy it and b) it's more or less just tasteless gorn that would earn my company way more criticism than praise. It just wouldn't be a sound decision from a business standpoint.

Brainstorm
August 24th, 2009, 09:40 AM
The idea of a 'lolicon' is that a girl who seems to be very young (i.e. below sixteen) is being portrayed in a sexual manner >.> I wouldn't call that 'innocuous'.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant 2-D lolicon, sexual portrayal of a young girl who isn't real. 2-D lolicons are generally "fairly harmless," because drawn lolicon has just about NO CORRELATION to interest in actual young children. To say viewing 2-D lolicon leads to sexual abuse of children is like saying viewing a guy being shot in an action movie leads to actually shooting someone. There is nearly no correlation to prove they are indeed damaging, so they shouldn't be banned.

These countries banning 2-D lolicon (such as the Philippines and UK) are passing laws to crush a tiny minority of the population to their will with emotional appeal rather than solid proof. Here's an example. Let's say you like eating strawberries. But your country has decided to ban strawberries. Why? Because a few terrible criminals openingly expressed love for strawberries, and it's now publicly agreed to be a terrible fruit. Your country didn't even try to use formal statistics to prove it's action of taking people's RIGHTS away. Wouldn't you be angry at something so preposterous?

As for the film, I feel that, to be honest, the BBFC has done the right thing. the OP called it 'sadistic' and rightly so. It would be like showing 3 guys 1 hammer in a cinema and there's no way that would be allowed :\

If people want to see a sick sadistic movie, let them. They asked for it. As in the first paragraph of mine on this post, it's nigh improbable that the movie will turn anyone into a sadistic person.

Terror
August 24th, 2009, 03:00 PM
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant 2-D lolicon, sexual portrayal of a young girl who isn't real. 2-D lolicons are generally "fairly harmless," because drawn lolicon has just about NO CORRELATION to interest in actual young children. To say viewing 2-D lolicon leads to sexual abuse of children is like saying viewing a guy being shot in an action movie leads to actually shooting someone. There is nearly no correlation to prove they are indeed damaging, so they shouldn't be banned.

These countries banning 2-D lolicon (such as the Philippines and UK) are passing laws to crush a tiny minority of the population to their will with emotional appeal rather than solid proof. Here's an example. Let's say you like eating strawberries. But your country has decided to ban strawberries. Why? Because a few terrible criminals openingly expressed love for strawberries, and it's now publicly agreed to be a terrible fruit. Your country didn't even try to use formal statistics to prove it's action of taking people's RIGHTS away. Wouldn't you be angry at something so preposterous?



TBH while I have no problem at all with lolicon there are things that are much less likely to lead to criminal behavior that are illegal. I don't really have a problem with it being banned, I can kind of understand why it has been made illegal (but I think it's ******** that it was just introduced, it meant that people who had never broken a law ever were suddenly forced to wipe their HDs, or whatever, there should have been a "cool down" period.) I think the main reason for having it b& would be because it would become hard to distinguish between lolicon and 3d rendered "pseudo-photographs" (which were already illegal) at some point, so it's easier to outlaw it all rather than try to define some kind of boundary.

s0nido
August 27th, 2009, 01:04 AM
It really depends whether the movie is worth airing in the cinemas and whether people would actually want to watch it or not. The movie probably didn't get much appreciation before by others, unlike Saw, and so the British government didn't see it fit to be aired in cinemas.

Neutrino
August 27th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Aww... I love gory movies, but that sounds like a really crap movie, so I'm agreeing with my government, it sounds like a rubbish movie, and it probably wouldn't sell anyway.