Censorship - Make Up Your Mind!

[zaly]

All of that is subjective. None of it is truth and none of it can be used as a reason to prevent others from viewing it.

If you dislike something, don't watch it.

Know what I find disgusting? Homophobia. Should that therefore be banned from all movies and games? Hell no.

However, it's pretty much the only artistic merit the film has, at least as far as I can see it without watching the film itself.

Compare it to the countless killer-inspired-by-bible-thrillers. The premise there is basically, a real-life person takes a real-life work of fiction and does something horrible. Wow, the very same premise we have with HC2. Okay, with the bible instead of a crappy movie, but still. Hell, compare it to Se7en. That's a classic, yet it has a similar premise (minus grotesque sexual fet--- oh, wait, nevermind).

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure there are better examples, though I don't know any. And failing fiction, we always have real-life. They're called copycats. You know, murderous scumbags who watch a movie about Jack the Ripper and think it would be cool to do some modern re-enactment?
I actually thing the writers of HC2 scored well there. As I said in the HC2 thread, from what I can read, the protagonist of HC2 is a perfectly believable copycat. As in, he's exactly what the public would imagine a HC "fan" to be. So leaving everything else aside, well-done there. The premise is good horror. People want this movie banned because they are scared it could encourage copycats? It's a horror about the first HC encouraging a copycat. Mission accomplished!

Is there a big difference in the fact that HC2 directors use a definite work of fiction as a reference in their new work of fiction? Yes, on a "matrix-within-matrix"-level; it's a stunt, a pretty smart, but ultimately cheap attempt to blow our minds. But there's no real merit in the fact that "this time, it's about a real-world person". Hello? It always is. In any horror or thriller worth its salt, there have to be a plethora of recognizable elements from the real world in order for the horror to work. And I'm talking about psychological horror, not jump-in-front-of-screen-and-screech-movies. Come to think of it, wasn't the setting of the first movie some german town or whatever? As in, hey, the "real world"?

What HC2 does is basically say "Hey, our LAST movie was about a fictive sadistic psychopath, but THIS one, this one is TOTALLY about a fictive sadistic psychopath in the REAL WORLD!". And the funny thing is, it actually works before You stop to think about it. People grant it more, I dunno, "weight", just because they think a movie about a movie has to be some sort of documentary, right? Even though it's evidently just a slasher/shocker horror flick.

And I hope everyone can make a distinction here. I'm not defending a movie I've never seen and don't plan to view; it's probably pretty crappy and reminds me negatively of hostel (all shock, no plot). I'm just making an argument for how it's NOT that much different and "more banworthy" than most other thrillers/horrors.

~Sylv

I understand your points, and I agree that similar films such as Se7en shouldn't be censored.
I don't think this makes me a hypocrite, as Se7en, whilst also containing disturbing content, is widely regarded as having artistic merit and being a good film. I will take back my statements if Human Centipede 2 receives similar review scores, as to be fair I haven't seen it so maybe it does have artistic merit.

Yes, whilst most films are set in the real world, I do find it more realistic if they are done so in a scenario such as this. I can't explain it, but it does make them feel more real and disturbing. And whether it does or not, it feels like crazy people would be more likely to copy it because of this, rather than the first one.

I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and fair enough people are allowed to like Human Centipede 2. But I'm not arguing that it should be illegal to watch it, if you want to go ahead. I just agree that if a film is so sick and disturbing, the BBFC should be allowed to not want it shown in cinemas across the country. Sure, I would even be defending HC2 just on principle if it was illegal to import a copy from elsewhere, but its not, it simply isn't being shown in cinemas.

I've never liked the whole "its subjective" argument in these cases. Yes, people have a right to like whatever they want. But because of the amount of people and varying tastes, someone somewhere will like anything. Because of this, everyone can never agree 100% on something. The people in charge have to be able to make decisions that will inevitably upset some people. Take the law for example. What people define as good and evil are subjective. Some people may think its fine to steal/ murder. Because some people think so, does that mean that we shouldn't make stealing / murdering illegal? There has to be a line where someone steps in and decides for the greater good what is acceptable. Not everyone will agree, but its for the best.

Remember, I'm fine with pretty much all violent games / films, I'm just saying in this one case, they pushed the (pretty high and generous all things considered) bar too high. If someone wants to see the film they will, and thats fine, but the BBFC have a right to refuse to show it at cinemas, in my opinion anyway.

 

[Shio]

Some people may think its fine to steal/ murder. Because some people think so, does that mean that we shouldn't make stealing / murdering illegal? There has to be a line where someone steps in and decides for the greater good what is acceptable. Not everyone will agree, but its for the best.

...

Stealing and murdering are illegal because they harm others...

Did you seriously just say that?

Really?

Anywho, the majority of people in the U.S want violent video games banned, remember? By your logic, violent video games have "pushed the bar too high" for the community and should be banned.

What's that? You don't want Call of Duty, Halo, Portal, Grand Theft Auto and Mass Effect banned? You don't think they're disgusting? Tough. Everyone else does.

See how shitty that is?

 

[Anachronism]

On principle, I am against censorship. I think people have the right to choose what they want to see and do; if they choose to watch terrible films, I can't stop them. However, I have no problem with Human Centipede II being banned. Why?

Because I'm a film snob.

Let's just forget that Human Centipede is disgusting for the purposes of this discussion. Yes, it's a sick, revolting piece of cinema, but that's irrelevant for my opinion. I'm glad it's been banned, quite simply, because it's terrible. Yes, it's appallingly messed up, but then so was Oldboy, which was a magnificent film. Human Centipede is just bad, and now, since it's been refused classification, fewer people will be able to see it. This, to my mind, is a very good thing.

And no, of course this doesn't mean I think everything that doesn't meet my standards should be banned; that would be colossally idiotic. It's just that in this particular case, I have no issue with people not being able to waste their time on this film.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

I'm against censorship on principle. Adults should be able to decide for themselves what they read/watch/play etc. Disgust is a subjective reaction, and nothing should ever be censored or banned just because some people find it disgusting. As I said in the Human Centipede thread, if you don't want to go and see it, the solution is simple: Don't go and see it.

That's my way of thinking, too.

It's pretty easy to figure out through the use of trailers and/or reviews whether or not you think you want to watch a certain movie, or play a certain game. If you can tell you're not going to enjoy something because you think it's disgusting, nobody's going to force you to watch it or play it!

Censorship should be based around preventing easily influenced young people from being unnecessarily exposed to topics or themes that are above their age range. Although some people believe that even that is subjective. 0.o

 

[CaptainTrilby]

There is a fine line between the violence portrayed in other films compared to a film like A Serbian Film or HC2. In most mainstream films, the violence is either so comical that it is designed not to be taken seriously or at least realistic but restrained enough not to be seen as obscene. However, the violence portrayed in what can only be described as gorn films like the ones I have mentioned are so repugnant and of no artistic merit whatsoever that there is a valid reason for a ban of the film's general showing. I'm all for freedom of speech but sometimes you have to sacrifice the view of the many over the view of the few, and the fact is, the majority of people do not want to see this film. The BBFC was right, in my opinion, to ban this film from being shown on general release. By all means, go hunt down a copy of the film but I agree that it should not be shown to the general public.

That's my two pence anyway, feel free to disagree.

 

[Heartcafe]

If you don't like it, don't play/watch it.
SIMPLE.
If parents are complaining about kids playing a game with nudity on it, then don't let them play it. Ratings should inform the consumer about what they are in for so they can decide whether this game is the right game for them.
Nobody is forcing you to watch it. The world does not center around you.
You are in charge of your own censorship.

As in the case of the Human Centipede. Sure, let them run it. But I won't watch it. Why? Because I know from the TRAILER (which is made to clue in the consumer on what they are expecting to see) that I won't enjoy that type of movie. But someone out there will and I'm more then happy to allow that someone to forever scar their mind.

 

[zaly]

...

Stealing and murdering are illegal because they harm others...

Did you seriously just say that?

Really?

Anywho, the majority of people in the U.S want violent video games banned, remember? By your logic, violent video games have "pushed the bar too high" for the community and should be banned.

What's that? You don't want Call of Duty, Halo, Portal, Grand Theft Auto and Mass Effect banned? You don't think they're disgusting? Tough. Everyone else does.

See how shitty that is?

Erm... no I did not say that? In context I was making an point at how subjectivity and peoples right to like what they want shouldn't override common sense. (admittedly using an extreme example).

And no, the games you mentioned (Portal... really?) should not be banned for being too violent, just like the BBFC have not banned Saw, Hostel, and countless other films that the general public think are too violent. I was making the point that the bar of what is allowed by the BBFC (not the general public) is very high, and if one film manages to go too far then they should be allowed to decide to not have it shown at cinemas.

Anyway did you even fully read my post, HC2 is not banned. It is simply not being shown in cinemas. How would this compare to not letting shops sell those games?
Also, the content in the games you mention is nowhere near the level of HC2.
I'm not specifically defending games just because they are games. I don't see why the content of the two mediums should be treated any differently. If a game version of HC2 came out - with the exact same content, and the people at say E3 didn't want it shown at their event at a public screening, (which is the best comparison I can think of regarding to what has actually happened to HC2) I would also support their right to do so.

 

[YawningAngel]

I have no objection to HC2, I just won't go see it.

 

[bombadilillo]

There is a fine line between the violence portrayed in other films compared to a film like A Serbian Film or HC2. In most mainstream films, the violence is either so comical that it is designed not to be taken seriously or at least realistic but restrained enough not to be seen as obscene. However, the violence portrayed in what can only be described as gorn films like the ones I have mentioned are so repugnant and of no artistic merit whatsoever that there is a valid reason for a ban of the film's general showing. I'm all for freedom of speech but sometimes you have to sacrifice the view of the many over the view of the few, and the fact is, the majority of people do not want to see this film. The BBFC was right, in my opinion, to ban this film from being shown on general release. By all means, go hunt down a copy of the film but I agree that it should not be shown to the general public.

That's my two pence anyway, feel free to disagree.

Thats a good point. There are lines in censorship like it or not and I think its fine to not allow it in theaters over banning it from being imported into the country or something.

I think most people would agree that we dont want pornographic billboards, but in privacy let people at it. Then again kiddie pon should be illegal full stop. So thers always at line. Its unrealistic to desire 0 censorship.

 

[Shio]

If a game version of HC2 came out - with the exact same content, and the people at say E3 didn't want it shown at their event at a public screening, (which is the best comparison I can think of regarding to what has actually happened to HC2) I would also support their right to do so.

That analogy doesn't work because E3 is a private event. A more apt comparison would be if an organization said E3 couldn't show a game because they didn't like it.

Hey, look, if you're cool with being a hypocrite, that's fine. I however don't believe in censorship in one case and not in another.

 

[Shio]

However, the violence portrayed in what can only be described as gorn films like the ones I have mentioned are so repugnant and of no artistic merit whatsoever-

Okay. So I now decide your favorite video game isn't art and should be banned because I find it goes too far.

That's cool, right? I mean, we are allowed to judge what other people should and shouldn't be able to play/see because we find it disgusting (so long as no one is hurt) like you just did, yeah?

 

[razer17]

Discussion value: your thoughts? Justifications for or against?

I think the best example is the outrage when they banned Manhunt 2. In that game you actively hunt down and kill people in gruesome and graphic ways, and you get rewarded for being more violent.

In this film, the thing is passive. You watch it, you don't take part in it. Plus it seems it is clearly meant to be disgusting not glorified.

I don't think there is any need for Human Centipede 2. The first had an original idea, and not using too much gore was a good decision, from the description I doubt I could watch HC2, but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

This is no more harmful than Manhunt 2, yet the reaction to the two is so different it's ridiculous.

 

[BoredDragon]

lol I just came from the human centipede thread and realized the irony. While I feel that the Human Centipede and the Saw franchise are both entirely stupid and grotesque, it's not like I'm going to go see them and I'm not going to go out of my way to make sure others don't see it. I say as long as they don't show anything horrible on TV commercials I don't really care.

 

[brunothepig]

I actually saw that thread split about 50-50, so there you go. However, are you seriously comparing Duke Nukem to Human Centipede? Really?
Human Centipede 2 is not being censored. It's been refused a rating, because it's content is worse than even an R rating allows for, so it can't be shown in movies. That's akin to what is happening in Australia with violent games such as Mortal Kombat all the time, right now. Your analogy is flawed. What is happening to HC2 does happen to games. Which is why our rating system is getting a rehaul. If someone one day releases a very, very inappropriate or violent game, so violent it is refused even an R rating, like say, Human Centipede: The Game, the same thing would happen. That's how the system works.

If people want to see Human Centipede 2, they can hunt down a copy when it goes to DVD. The movie was refused classification because it's too gory/graphic/disgusting/etc for even an R rating, which means it legally can't be shown in cinema's.

 

[zaly]

That analogy doesn't work because E3 is a private event. A more apt comparison would be if an organization said E3 couldn't show a game because they didn't like it.

Hey, look, if you're cool with being a hypocrite, that's fine. I however don't believe in censorship in one case and not in another.

How am I being a hypocrite?
I simply believe there is a line, which if crossed by any medium - films / TV/ games / whatever - then censorship is acceptable. If I changed the position of the line depending on whether or not I like the thing in question then I would be, but simply not agreeing with you does not make me a hypocrite.

Anyway, as Sylvine pointed out earlier,

It has just been brought to my attention that there is, indeed, a difference between refused classification and censorship, as well as refused classification and a ban. It's not like it's released in a strongly cut version (like many games are), or not released at all (like some games are), it's just not released for public screening. If that's true, there's no hypocrisy involved, at least not necessarily.

Whether the fact it's not released for public screening can be counted as censorship, or indeed whether it's justified or not, is another debate, though.

~Sylv

whether or not what has happened to HC2 is even classed as censorship is debatable. They aren't saying its illegal, or cutting sections out of the film, they simply don't want it shown at cinemas. Time for another analogy. Say you own some shops. You sell stuff in these shops. Someone asks you to sell their product, but you think it is disgusting. The shop owner has a right to not sell the product. The shop owner is not trying to get the product changed, or made illegal, but decides that he does not want it sold in his chain of shops. The shop owner is the BBFC, the shops are cinemas, and the product is HC2. Do you really think the shop owner should be forced to sell the product?

 

[Zac Smith]

At least censor boards have the right idea in some cases. If someone tried to released a game about you killing bunnies with rusty hammers while trying to rape people, then obviously that should be banned. And purely racist games a la "Ethnic Cleansing" I understand though that some games end up receiving flak and unwanted controversy, a la "No Russian"

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I have no interest in Human Centipede or its sequel. They aren't my cup of tea. But I fully acknowledge that my opinion of them is not representative of *everyone's* opinions. I don't like them, so I don't watch them. I'm completely unaffected by their existence.

Frankly, I find censorship to be somewhat ridiculous. All it boils down to is one person forcing their own morals upon another. I'm very much in support of the idea of completely eliminating censorship entirely. If you find something questionable or outright offensive just don't watch/listen to/play it. Simple as that.

And really... If it's really that bad, and you're a parent, then your child probably needs permission from a guardian to get his or her hands on it anyway. It always frustrates me when I hear about parents complaining that their kids are being corrupted or whatever from playing the latest Grand Theft Auto or seeing the newest slasher flick in theaters. I worked as a cashier at a major electronics store for several years and we were required to card *everyone* who looked like there was even a remote possibility of them being too young to meet the rating. If we didn't card them or get permission from a parent and a supervisor happened to be nearby (or if the customer was a secret shopper) we were likely to lose our jobs. So maybe parents should do their part and actually get involved with the... y'know... *parenting* they're supposed to be doing before they go out on a crusade to ruin everyone else's fun for the sake of laziness and lack of interest in one's children.