Insofar as I believe in any censorship of film that doesn't actually damage any real human being against their will (clue: I don't) I can more or less see where they're coming from in terms of their comparison of the two in that the first does sound as though it has more dramatic merit. On the other hand, I'm not sure "It's a crappy (!) film by comparison to the original" is justification per se... Otherwise Jurassic Park II shouldn't have been allowed into the country either. On the other other hand, if the film was genuinely just unratable by their guidelines there isn't much they can do about that. Other than, yaknow, change the guidelines.
To clarify, because commentors on Blastr don't get it: Refusing a certificate doesn't mean 'banning' a film. It means it won't be approved for general release in cinemas or on DVD. It is not illegal to download it (well, y'know, it is, but...) or watch it at all if you go the extra mile to obtain it.
It does mean that you can't wander into your local picture house, say "oh, that looks like an interesting film," and wind up seeing - well, a more disturbing sequel to Human Centipede.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-06-07 12:00 pm
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Refusing a certificate doesn't mean 'banning' a film. It means it won't be approved for general release in cinemas or on DVD. It is not illegal to download it (well, y'know, it is, but...) or watch it at all if you go the extra mile to obtain it.
It does mean that you can't wander into your local picture house, say "oh, that looks like an interesting film," and wind up seeing - well, a more disturbing sequel to Human Centipede.
(no subject)
Bailey Report
no subject