The 88 Films Thread - Page 398

fuzzymctiger · #**3971** 9th June 2016, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulD

Why? That makes no sense, expecially when uk cuts to films are made by the BBFC. They aren't cut to make them more palatable for an audiene, it's all the silly nonsense stemming from the VRA etc (which I disagree with)

I would prefer uncut everytime, of course, goes without saying. But I can live without animal violence if needs be and if a film is released uncut (like say New York Ripper or I Spit On Your Grave) I don't feel the need to bang on and on about how I am not gonna buy it. That sort of thing with genre fans does my head in, it's just as tedious a moral crusade as Mary Whitehouse as far as I am concerned

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more. A big card that is always pulled out is the "as the director intended" card, which I feel a lot of the time with animal violence isn't even relevant, as some of them fully regret including it, and I doubt any director would be fussed that a filler shot of some chickens fighting got cut.

PaulD · #**3972** 10th June 2016, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzymctiger

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more. A big card that is always pulled out is the "as the director intended" card, which I feel a lot of the time with animal violence isn't even relevant, as some of them fully regret including it, and I doubt any director would be fussed that a filler shot of some chickens fighting got cut.

Absolutely! "As the producer intended" maybe, judging by most of the stories you hear about this sort of thing.

Demdike@Cult Labs · #**3973** 10th June 2016, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzymctiger

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more. A big card that is always pulled out is the "as the director intended" card, which I feel a lot of the time with animal violence isn't even relevant, as some of them fully regret including it, and I doubt any director would be fussed that a filler shot of some chickens fighting got cut.

I'm sure they only regret including it due to the stink it kicks up nowadays. Back then in the 70's, 80's, when they thought 'anything goes', they'd be happy to go with whatever made them a quick buck and got whichever film they'd made a bit of notoriety.

It's only now when they realize they are in the minority and the 21st century doesn't consider animal cruelty acceptable that said film makers regret it.

For the record i loathe animal cruelty, but also understand that what was once acceptable may not be deemed so now, meaning that i would still wish whatever i watch to be completely uncut and on my screen just as was intended when made.

To be quite honest, take away the lopping off of a mongoose's bollocks, or whatever was originally filmed, and many of these jungle / cannibal films are a right load of boring twaddle and are about as entertaining as watching paint dry without the exploitative elements of pulling 7 livers out of a fake torso or turning a snake into a pair of boots. Having said that i do enjoy these films and own the majority on uncut dvd, but it's not a fave genre of mine.

Unless of course you actually believe these films were intended as a socio-political message... in that case i'm not sure whose the more deluded.