[Redway]

When it's their choice to watch them?

[_Seth]

Because these days they're ****. The trailers are decisive.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Because these days they're ****. The trailers are decisive.

This.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Because these days they're ****. The trailers are decisive.

This.

[Mac Hiavellian]

False hopes and expectations, overpriced tickets/DVDs, over-reliance on HD/3D/CGI rather than plot

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Because trailers and sypnosis are edited in a way that makes u think the film is going to be great but once you watch it, your boner goes south and you leave the film feeling limp and cheated.

[Patrick]

Same reason they complain about Big Brother and other TV Shows;

They are sad lowlifes with nothing else to do and need a job.

Although I find it funny when people complain to Ofcom because girls flash a bit of Pussy on Adult TV - It's like... are you homo or are you just taking the piss?

[Stu]

Because forming an opinion on a piece of art - be it positive, negative or somewhere in between - is what said art exists for you fucking ****zo.

We wouldn't have made it out of the caves if everyone kept their negative opinions, doubts or querys to themselves.

Originally Posted by Patrick

Same reason they complain about Big Brother and other TV Shows;

They are sad lowlifes with nothing else to do and need a job.

Although I find it funny when people complain to Ofcom because girls flash a bit of Pussy on Adult TV - It's like... are you homo or are you just taking the piss?

So are you a sad lowlife who needs to get a job because you complain about shows you don't like? Or is that somehow different?

Your foot goes so far down you're throat that I'm shocked your toenails aren't bleeding out the inner lining of your stomach.

[Redway]

I just think it's quite unfair that the censors decide to class the movie "too graphic for anybody" when some people may actually want to watch them.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Redway

I just think it's quite unfair that the censors decide to class the movie "too graphic for anybody" when some people may actually want to watch them.

Agree with this.

I dont think any film should be censored.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Agree with this.

I dont think any film should be censored.

The "too graphic for anybody" title is going way too far. Having age restrictions is slightly different. I can understand why they do it, but, really, parents should be the ones to decide whether they want their kid to watch a particular movie.

[Jords]

How do you know its **** without watching?

[Redway]

The censors really need to consider the people who may actually want to watch these movies (like me ).

[Kerry]

Because if you pay for something, or put your time into watching something, you're entitled to say "That was bloody sh!te" if it was. Just like you're entitled to say it was great

I believe it's called having an opinion

[waterhog]

there are some great films out there but i do think they need to make more and up there game to keep people interested in them. thank god for the digi box and all the other channels lol

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by Stu

Because forming an opinion on a piece of art - be it positive, negative or somewhere in between - is what said art exists for you fucking ****zo.

We wouldn't have made it out of the caves if everyone kept their negative opinions, doubts or querys to themselves.


So are you a sad lowlife who needs to get a job because you complain about shows you don't like? Or is that somehow different?

Your foot goes so far down you're throat that I'm shocked your toenails aren't bleeding out the inner lining of your stomach.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by ~Kerry~

Because if you pay for something, or put your time into watching something, you're entitled to say "That was bloody sh!te" if it was. Just like you're entitled to say it was great

I believe it's called having an opinion

Well, in terms of age restrictions, it should be entirely at parental discretion. It is not the governors' job to tell people what people of certain ages can and cannot watch. Perhaps a warning would be most appropriate.

[Stu]

Is is just a warning and it is at parental discretion you pillock.

It is illegal to sell a child a violent movie. It is not illegal for the childs parents to buy it and allow him to watch it.

I fail to see the problem with that system.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Stu

Is is just a warning and it is at parental discretion you pillock.

It is illegal to sell a child a violent movie. It is not illegal for the childs parents to buy it and allow him to watch it.

I fail to see the problem with that system.

Agree with Stu on this.

And the censors are there for our protection, whether you agree with it or not.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Stu

Is is just a warning and it is at parental discretion you pillock.

It is illegal to sell a child a violent movie. It is not illegal for the childs parents to buy it and allow him to watch it.

I fail to see the problem with that system.

No need to name names. Anyway, you don't get my point. I am talking about the cinema in general. I don't think it's fair that a thirteen-year-old boy cannot walk into an 18 movie. And, to be honest, most parents wouldn't even buy their kids an 18 movie (not that I know of, anyway). If you watch the news, you would know that they are desperately trying to device stricter methods of age limits, so less "under-age" children can access movies with a limit above their chronological age.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

Agree with Stu on this.

And the censors are there for our protection, whether you agree with it or not.

I don't agree with it; I'm registering my opinion.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Redway

I don't agree with it; I'm registering my opinion.

I never said you weren't but I'm also registering mine.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

I never said you weren't but I'm also registering mine.

Oh, sorry! Fair enough.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Redway

No need to name names. Anyway, you don't get my point. I am talking about the cinema in general. I don't think it's fair that a thirteen-year-old boy cannot walk into an 18 movie. And, to be honest, most parents wouldn't even buy their kids an 18 movie (not that I know of, anyway). If you watch the news, you would know that they are desperately trying to device stricter methods of age limits, so less "under-age" children can access movies with a limit above their chronological age.

So you're point is we should have equal rights for all and an eight year old child, should he or she so choose to, should be allowed wonder freely into a midnight screening of A Serbian Film?

Wonderful. You're an idiot.

As a side note I do watch the news - I don't think you do - and I see no great cause for panic with relation to these evil censors. Kids have easier access to violent and disturbing content right now than at any other point in history. A bitter politician looking to make headlines will come out of the woodwork every now and then looking for tighter restrictions but these moral outrage stories-of-the-week almost never translate into legislative action.

I see no problem at all with age ratings. I don't want kids sitting anywhere near me when I go to the movies. I assume you draw the line on your view at some point - perhaps at allowing a young child access to hardcore pornography - which totally debases and contradicts your own argument?

[Vicky.]

I was under the impression that the 'censors' bit was about films that are determined too violent or whatever for anyone...not age restrictions :/

I agree with age restrictions, but not with banning films altogether.