The NUCLEUS FILMS thread

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

Some sort of censorship is needed otherwise it becomes a free for all.





In the 2 documentaries Bright talks about children and adults being affected by the contents of the films and someone has misheard him and others who have seen the clips from that point and have taken the ball and rolled with it and still people believe he says 'Dogs'

Why would he say 'Dogs' in the context of children being affected by the contents of the films in question? Simple answer really is he does not say that but hey if you and others want to believe he says it then fine and you and others can take it into myth history.

I just differ on that sorry,You and others must believe that Humphrey Bogart says "Play it again Sam" in the Casablanca film then if you and others believe Bright says 'Dogs'

There was a lot of things wrong with the Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship & Videotape Documentary and that was one of them and secondly not very 'Definitive' either as a second volume had to come out.

Are you deaf or Trolling the site?

He says 'dogs'. Unless you can pull something up where the greasy opportunist backtracks or corrects himself its clearly dogs. Your literally the only person I've encountered who seems to think he says something else.

And for the documentaries. Well volume 1 is definitive in regards to the 39 nasties where someone could get jail time for distributing.

The second one covers section 3 which was a lesser charge which meant the offending material would get seized and destroyed.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

Some sort of censorship is needed otherwise it becomes a free for all.

Naturally child porn and the like needs to be curtailed, as does anything where people are genuinely being exploited or abused (bum fights)
This is why the obscene publications act and other laws are on the books.

However, the films in the nasties documentaries are not those. Animal cruelty aside, which I think everyone agrees isn't on and was one of the darker areas of the film industry for a long time (Though this equally covers a large number of American westerns, heavens gate and other 'mainstream' titles as it does things like cannibal holocaust) are hardly in the same league as kiddie porn. Anthropophagus, nightmares in a damaged brain, absurd, evil dead ect all got released uncut and western society didn't fall.

This is besides the point however as most people seem more baffled by your insistence that Bright didn't say something he's clearly saying.

[Rik]

I think he actually is Graham Bright, or he’s related to Mary Whitehouse because he clearly agrees with the farce that went on back then, which makes me wonder what the Hell he’s doing on a forum like this where I’m almost 100% certain every member despises censorship and thinks the whole Video Nasties uproar was ****ing ridiculous!

Either that or he’s just a troll that likes to argue with everyone for the sake of it!

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

I just differ on that sorry,You and others must believe that Humphrey Bogart says "Play it again Sam" in the Casablanca film then if you and others believe Bright says 'Dogs'
:

Also. I could quite easily pull up a clip of Casablanca and it would provide clear evidence of the actual line. What your reffering to is the phenomenon where people who haven't seen the film in a while go by other media influences such as parodies or erroneous reviews and believe they heard something they didn't. That's literally not whats happening here. That's why people posted the clip. I'm sorry but even with his daft accent adults and dogs do not sound similar enough for it to be an error. Perhaps he meant to say adults but had his favourite porn on his mind?

[SilverSurfer]

Originally Posted by keirarts

He says 'dogs'. Unless you can pull something up where the greasy opportunist backtracks or corrects himself its clearly dogs. Your literally the only person I've encountered who seems to think he says something else.

As I have said before if you and others believe that then fine,All I am saying I do not.

Originally Posted by keirarts

And for the documentaries. Well volume 1 is definitive in regards to the 39 nasties where someone could get jail time for distributing.

The second one covers section 3 which was a lesser charge which meant the offending material would get seized and destroyed.

When the first documentary came out they shot so much footage for it they cut it to a reasonable lengh for it and the unused footage was used for Vol 2 plus some new material dealing with section 3.

Originally Posted by Rik

because he clearly agrees with the farce that went on back then, which makes me wonder what the Hell he’s doing on a forum like this where I’m almost 100% certain every member despises censorship and thinks the whole Video Nasties uproar was ****ing ridiculous!

This is a forum about films and opinions and a whole lot more besides not a anti censorship forum correct?

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

As I have said before if you and others believe that then fine,All I am saying I do not.

If someone says the earth is flat, that's their belief. However they can't complain when people throw evidence in front of them demonstrating they're wrong.

[SilverSurfer]

Originally Posted by keirarts

However they can't complain when people throw evidence in front of them demonstrating they're wrong.

So true.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

When the first documentary came out they shot so much footage for it they cut it to a reasonable lengh for it and the unused footage was used for Vol 2 plus some new material dealing with section 3.

Perhaps. However its not like the thing sprawls over two releases. The first is fairly self contained and deals with the 39. These are the nasties.
The releases on the second doc are not 'nasties' per se but the DPP had a go anyway, they just didn't end up on the final list.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

This is a forum about films and opinions and a whole lot more besides not a anti censorship forum correct?

yes, but generally if someone voices a differing opinion then its going to get challenged. This is how a thing called human interaction works.
If you say everyone else is biased and is hearing something in a video clip that the person didn't say then sure make your argument. But when everyone else watches it and say 'nope he says dogs' its either mass psychosis with yourself as the last sane person or you might be wrong. Either way people are going to challenge you. Especially when the evidence Bright was basing his spurious arguments on got trashed in peer review. I would also remind you that bright got caught out by Chris morris and got talked into appearing on brass eye to warn people of the dangers of cake. It only got removed from the DVD release after he complained about being misled.

[Rik]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

This is a forum about films and opinions and a whole lot more besides not a anti censorship forum correct?

Correct, and we all have different opinions otherwise it would be a boring place, you on the other hand just like to argue for the sake of it.

Anyway, I’ve more important things to be doing than feeding a troll and diverting the main purpose of this thread which is to discuss releases by Nucleus Films

6BF67F29-D184-4E55-9C6C-0CFE1DB51204-15282-00000A41CCAF138B.JPG