Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Cen***ship

2

Comments

  • #32
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    Proxy wrote: »
    It's a ridiculous movie. It has literally no redeeming qualities (other than maybe the pride the VFX guys took in their work). There's no art here. Aside from this, I felt awful after watching it, physically sick, even if I am a horror fan. It's torture porn.

    The creators of this film need to be psychologically assessed.

    As for the censorship question, in this case it would be valid, more as a "this isn't a film, what the **** are you thinking" point.

    It begs the question, why did you go out of your way to watch a movie, that's been banned on the grounds that it's plotless "torture porn" (how I loathe that phrase)?

    And if it makes you feel so awful and physically sick, why not stop watching it?

    I'm always amused by people who seem to go out of their way to be horrified and outraged about things.


  • #33
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    There's a more serious discussion of this subject on the films forum here.

    My stance on this is that censorship is an abhorent practice. Think back to the video nasty scare in the UK (something we're still seeing the tail end of, considering some films that were originally banned still are banned in the UK, and many films only being released uncut very recently), and ask what did it accomplish? A huge amount of "sick" and violent films were banned, but history has proved it was futile. Violence in society is not a product of fictional violence on film, never was and never will be. Blaming films is scapegoating.


  • #34
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    dsmythy wrote: »
    How's about the 90 minute fictional depiction of a presumed (but probably not quite) underage girl being sexually abused? In this proposed film there is no character development or plot in sight like the film here that's going to be banned. But sure, once they're over 18 they can buy what they like...

    Oh no, pedofilez!


    Thats no better than invoking godwins law tbh.


    Simulated assault of a minor you say? Well, thats illegal in the first place duh. A minor can't consent, so can't be involved in anything sexually explicit.
    If you meant cartoons, well why didn't you say so! And no, my stance doesn't change, if its legal to make, its legal to watch, or will you come up with some other tabloidesque over the top situation to invoke, "omg censor us please nanny state!" style reactions.

    So I repeat.

    If you are over 18, you should be able to watch whatever the fcuk you want.

    Please bear in mind that there are laws against paedophilia anyway, and its a matter for the real police, not some 1950's book burning thought police.


  • #35
    jumpguy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭jumpguy


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    It's not always the case - I've seen a few films that received a lower rating here (though they'd generally be ones that relate to Irish history). The 16 rating is a cinema only rating, any film that receives it is upgraded to 18 on DVD release.

    The reasoning behind the 16 rating goes something like this: originally the cinema rating was 15A, so kids under 15 could go to a film accompanied by an adult. But some parents were shocked and appalled and outraged and calling Joe Duffy due to the content of some of these 15A films, so the 16s cert was introduced. It allows more violence, boobies and drug usage.

    Not sure I totally follow the logic behind it.
    It's upgraded to 18s on DVD? It goes from 16s to the highest availiable cert? What a load of ****e. I feel sorry for anyone with the sort of parents that wouldn't let their child watch an 18s movie at 16.


  • #36
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    jumpguy wrote: »
    It's upgraded to 18s on DVD? It goes from 16s to the highest availiable cert? What a load of ****e. I feel sorry for anyone with the sort of parents that wouldn't let their child watch an 18s movie at 16.

    Yeah, as there's no 16 cert for DVD it's upgraded to the nearest higher cert, which is 18s.

    Wikipedia claims the film could be recut to get a 15s cert, I'm not aware of that happening though.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    dub_skav
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭dub_skav


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    I don't know whether I'd ban it or not from Ireland. I would certainly not allow it to have been available on my local video store shelf along with more conventional movies. Taking home a movie from my local store only to find a guy raping his child ( at least twice, before I ejected the video and returned it) is unnecessary (to put it mildly).

    To this day it remains the only movie I have been truly repulsed by.

    Would you be happier perusing the sick pervert section?

    If it had an 18 cert on it I don't see the problem with it being among "conventional movies" (whatever that means). If it was PG and beside Toy Story I could see a problem


  • #38
    Wazdakka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭Wazdakka


    <Snip>


  • #39
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Imo this survey says a lot about the user profiles on boards, My attitude as a parent is sensor everything feck it. Kids will see what they want anyway, why make it easier for them.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    Imo this survey says a lot about the user profiles on boards, My attitude as a parent is sensor everything feck it. Kids will see what they want anyway, why make it easier for them.

    You're argument is that any material not suitable for children should be censored as they'll watch it any way no matter what you do? That's complete bull, why should other people have their viewing experience limited just because you fail as a parent.


  • #41
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,100 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Owwmykneecap wrote: »
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8209829.stm
    The BBFC have banned a new Jap Horror film and so we wait with baited breath to see how long it takes IFCO to copy them.

    So then Cer***ship, for it or again it?
    Can a Movie really harm you?

    Is the whole business entirely pointless given the internet and our abilty to anything we want, should the Censors office be scrapped for being an archaic institution and being a massive waste of money?

    Won't somebody think of the children?

    It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I disagree completely that a bunch of adults can sit down and watch this and then decide for the rest of the adult population what is and is not fit for viewing. What makes them all right and us all wrong? What is not nice for some folks may be okay for others. If you don't think you will like it, don't bloody watch it.

    By all means, slap an adult cert on it, but how dare they dictate to adults what they can
    and cannot view, after they themselves view it? We have had enough of this for far
    too long in Ireland with the church and others


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,923 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    Imo this survey says a lot about the user profiles on boards, My attitude as a parent is sensor everything feck it. Kids will see what they want anyway, why make it easier for them.

    Whenever I hear people use the term 'as a parent' it instantly makes me want to run out and have a vasectomy.


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Whenever I hear people use the term 'as a parent' it instantly makes me want to run out and have a vasectomy.

    I know a guy who prefaces nearly every sentence with "As a parent...." Ask him his opinion on anything from the war in Iraq to the best pizza topping and you're guaranteed a reply along the lines of, "As a parent I feel that the continuing action in Iraq is there to safe guard my childs future".

    He seems to think that having a kid is some achievement and not in fact down to him stupidly believing a girl when she said she was on the pill.


  • #44
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    dsmythy wrote: »
    How's about the 90 minute fictional depiction of a presumed (but probably not quite) underage girl being sexually abused? In this proposed film there is no character development or plot in sight like the film here that's going to be banned. But sure, once they're over 18 they can buy what they like...

    And to whom do we award the right to decide for others what may not be seen? I don't know anyone in the world I would trust to tell me what I shouldn't watch.

    No censorship, ever.


  • #45
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    In the end it probably won't matter too much... It doesn't prevent you from watching it, it just makes you go out of your way to watch it.

    I too hate censorship. OK for child porn - there are real children being abused here. (Even if they consented they aren't old enough) or snuff movies, or anything where someone was harmed to make it.

    But for anything with consenting adults, why should it be banned? I mean the censors are allowed watch it, why shouldn't the rest of us? We're allowed smoke, which kills thousands of people every year. So by all means, slap a government warning stickers saying, "this shut is ficked up!"

    But a feicin taste police is the last thing we need.

    And censoring things for adults because you're afraid children will see it is just as bad.


  • #46
    jpm4
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 497 ✭✭jpm4


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    I remember, it must be 10 years ago anyway, going to the local video store and getting a new release. I'll never forget the name of the movie (or 'film' as it then was): War Zone.

    It was directed by Tim Roth and starred Ray Winstone. It was on the shelf like any other movie there. I brought it home to watch it and there was a father (played by Winstone) raping his daughter, while being filmed by his son. It was horrific stuff.

    I'm by no means a prude - even feeling that I have to say that seems unwarranted - but I don't think this sort of film should have been among the rest of the movies in my local video store.

    I've seen it.....grim and nasty stuff without a doubt, but the rape scenes were not filmed in a pornographic or titillating manner, so why should it be removed from the other films just because you were disturbed by it? It's a serious subject manner and was treated as such.


  • #47
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You're argument is that any material not suitable for children should be censored as they'll watch it any way no matter what you do? That's complete bull, why should other people have their viewing experience limited just because you fail as a parent.

    LOL you are a very funny guy. I express an opinion on censorship and you can map out my whole life. Well done! Ever think of going into fortuene telling!

    I simpley ment I would favor making it as hard as possible for kids becuase even the best parenting is innocent to the ways of kids. Just ask any man/women over 50 I reckon 25% of them can send a text message never mind try and grasp the concept of cyber bullying.


  • #48
    gillo_100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭gillo_100


    Just to say Bruno which was given a 18cert in most other countries was given a 16 in Ireland, and in fact since the new film classification officer has been appointed this has been the case with some other movies as well.

    We have moved on from the days of banning the likes of The life of Brian.
    One significant difference in my opinion is the change from the censorship office to classification office, while only a name change it does represent the change in attitude of the body.

    Anyway back to original issue, for the most part agree should be able to watch what we want, with some exceptions. Maybe they should introduce some sort of 18+, not so much as a classification but more as a warning of extreme sex or violence above and beyond what would be normal.


  • #49
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭bleg


    IFCO is really after getting way more lax in recent years.

    They actually give less lenient age restrictions to many films than the UK.


  • #50
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    lol who cares

    i haven't watched tv/dvd/cinema in years

    internet ftmfw


  • #51
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,755 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    bleg wrote: »
    IFCO is really after getting way more lax in recent years.

    They actually give less lenient age restrictions to many films than the UK.

    So lax in fact that its gone from

    Irish Film Censorship Office

    to

    Irish Film Classification Office


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    an interesting article about bhutan which only allowed television in 1999 and how crime rates subsequently rose.a simple case of monkey see,monkey do. http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/bhutan-tv.asp
    can a movie (or tv) harm you? yes,imo, they can be highly detrimental to society not only in desensitizing people to violence,inspiring some to commit violence but also detrimental because of the ideas (propaganda) contained therein.


  • #53
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    I simpley ment I would favor making it as hard as possible for kids becuase even the best parenting is innocent to the ways of kids. Just ask any man/women over 50 I reckon 25% of them can send a text message never mind try and grasp the concept of cyber bullying.

    By your own admission then, by supporting censorship or the banning of films, you wouldn't be effecting kids who are familiar with torrent sites or are in any way computer savvy and could easily see banned films unhindered, you'd only be effecting adults. Faultless logic as a parent. :D


  • #54
    Lux23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    jumpguy wrote: »
    IFCO's classification system: If England rate it something, we'll outdo them and rate it higher!

    Seriously, it's always one higher. If it's 12's in England, it's 15's here. It's retarded and annoying! Also, why do we have a 16's class now? Does it really make a huge difference it you're 15 or 16?

    I think the IFCO classifications system is pretty good, it does allow for parents to make the decision on whether or not they want to bring their kid under 15 to any movie and also the 16 classification means that its rare to see a film get an 18s cert these days. It has to be pretty horrific to get that. The last one I could that got that was Antichrist and that has genital mutilation in it amonsgt other things.

    As for banning films, what's the point? Its easy to download them, buy them on the internet etc etc so its pointless really. Its far better for someone to go and see a film that might disturb them in the cinema surronded by people then sitting at home on their own.


  • #55
    rossie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,537 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    irelandrover wrote: »
    some of the japanese stuff should never be seen, by anyone. Anyone that ever saw ichi the kiler should kind of know what i mean

    great movie, Takashi Miike is one of the finest directors around today


  • #56
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    wudangclan wrote: »
    an interesting article about bhutan which only allowed television in 1999 and how crime rates subsequently rose.a simple case of monkey see,monkey do. http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/bhutan-tv.asp

    The article says nothing of the sort. There's no figures, no facts, no kind of study referenced to support that viewpoint. There's nothing concrete to suggest any causation.

    The only study quoted says "over 66% said television had had a positive impact on society, while just 7.3% disagreed."

    The only statement claiming that is "critics of television press on regardless, arguing that petty crime and recreational drugs, almost unheard of a decade ago, have arrived in Bhutan in the last one decade. " with nothing factual to back it up.


  • #57
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    By your own admission then, by supporting censorship or the banning of films, you wouldn't be effecting kids who are familiar with torrent sites or are in any way computer savvy and could easily see banned films unhindered, you'd only be effecting adults. Faultless logic as a parent. :D

    Again are you asking me a question or mind reading. I never specicically mentioned filims. Additionally there is programs that can track kids usuage of the internet. I mind be effecting adults but that is what the pin number on sky is for, So adults can access things kids should not.

    "Faultless logic as a perent" translates into "There is nothing wrong with this way of thinking as a parent" I assume as a parent that is a good thing.


    What is simply boils down to is what as a parent are you happy with your kids seeing. Granted you might be making it harder for yourself as an adult but if it means protecting my kids so be it.


  • #58
    fizzynicenice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 466 ✭✭fizzynicenice


    C'mon ichi the killer dosen't need to be banned, the violence for the most part is just ridiculous and funny. There is stuff out there much much worse...some of it by the same director actually (Visitor Q anyone?)

    IMO banning films is almost never necessary, definitly not in this case.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    LOL you are a very funny guy. I express an opinion on censorship and you can map out my whole life. Well done! Ever think of going into fortuene telling!

    I simpley ment I would favor making it as hard as possible for kids becuase even the best parenting is innocent to the ways of kids. Just ask any man/women over 50 I reckon 25% of them can send a text message never mind try and grasp the concept of cyber bullying.
    Joey the lips wrote: »
    Again are you asking me a question or mind reading. I never specicically mentioned filims. Additionally there is programs that can track kids usuage of the internet. I mind be effecting adults but that is what the pin number on sky is for, So adults can access things kids should not.

    "Faultless logic as a perent" translates into "There is nothing wrong with this way of thinking as a parent" I assume as a parent that is a good thing.


    What is simply boils down to is what as a parent are you happy with your kids seeing. Granted you might be making it harder for yourself as an adult but if it means protecting my kids so be it.

    Basically what you are saying is that adults over the age of 18 should have their access to adult material restricted so as to make a parents life easier.

    Complete crap, if a kid wants to see a film he will find a way and this isn't some new development either. When I was a kid I wanted to see Natural Born Killers and even though it was banned I got to see it pretty easily. Banning material is not going to stop children seeing a film, if anything it's going to make them even more curious to see it.


  • #60
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    John Kelleher (the film censor) is a sound man. He was the producer of 'Eat the Peach' years ago (1986), if anybody remembers it.
    I liked it. Although it had Pat Kenny acting in it.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,100 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Seems to be two issues being argued here. If children are getting to see
    dodgy films, then it's an issue to resolve, but not banning the films for all.
    I, as an adult, have every right to be able to view absolutely anything that any other person can view, whether it be a garda, a nun, a priest,a doctor or a flml censor. Now, if there is concern that kids will watch adult films, then put in safeguards to control this, or damn well monitor your kids, but don't ban me as an adult from viewing anything I choose.


Advertisement
Advertisement