Talk:Video nasty

POV
This article was clearly put together by people who consider that they are in a position to look down on the concerns raised from a great height Philip 01:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Deal with it.
 * Either that, or it is an article put together by people who believe that adults should have a right to view whatever material they wish, and that it is the job of adults to ensure that minors do not get to see it, rather than relying on "Big Brother" type Statist nannying to assume that everyone is incapable of making up their own minds. You might not have the intelligence to make that judgement, but it doesn't mean that everyone else has to conform to your standards.
 * Well my anonymous friend, you and I might feel that way, but don't you suppose it flies in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV policy? &mdash;Casey J. Morris 22:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Another 1984 reference phail lives and dies. 217.20.20.85 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of video nasties
The DPP list is also given here. Pretty ambiguous. We should either remove the List of video nasties page or the list on this article. Face 20:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I redirected back here. Jooler 11:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The films should link to our articles on the films or be red-linked (which acts as a prompt to write the article) and the IMDB links should be placed bext to them rather than having them in place of links to Wikipedia articles. Jooler 11:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I updated this list to reflect recent releases and to add previous releases that were not mentioned. I used the BBFC's website. This is my first major edit, so I hope it's OK. --Greg 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Kerekes and Slater's See No Evil also includes Cain's Cut-throats on the DPP list. Are there any other sources that confirm its status as an official video nasty? 86.29.92.105 13:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the only time Cain's Cutthroats was mentioned as a video nasty was in the brilliant See No Evil. However with different sources there are different nasties; in one of the final issues of the magazine Samhain it listed the spaghetti western Django as a video nasty, although this is obviously untrue. Most publications list the 39 that were prosecuted (whether successfully or unsuccessfully), some add extras that were considered for prosecution. - NossB 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a secondary list of films that were initially siezed but the prosecution of which failed eg Last Cannibal World? Not sure where you'd find the info on this though.Bladeboy1889 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: The below statement

"The Board has never relaxed its guidelines on video violence, which remain the strictest in the world". Do we have a source on this statement. Irish censorship is in fact stricter than that of the UK. In general this can be noted in the ratings given to given film in Ireland. A large percentage of films rated as 15+ in the UK will receive an 18+ rating in Ireland. In some cases a film rated 12+ in the UK will receive an 18+ rating in Ireland. All of this occurs despite Ireland having an additional rating of 16+. Indeed this would be even more so if not for the fact that before a video is rated in Ireland, it will have received a rating and possibly some cuts from the UK censor. The Irish censor uses this falsitously to claim they have ceased recommending cuts. In reality they are reviewing something that will likely have received some cuts to receive a particular rating in the UK. The is pretty irrelevant to the distributors. This is owing to the costs of marketing two different version of the same movie, between the UK and Ireland. I could expand on this more but I would be going off the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.178 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article seems to suggest that the board said it about themselves  YDAM   TALK 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Wasn't this on the official list? It was certainly one of the main videos discussed at the time (along with I Spit On Your Grave). Ben Finn 16:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eaten Alive! and Eaten Alive
Bit confusing I know. It's the whole 'multiple titles' thing to blame. One film on the list was labelled as both 'Eaten Alive!' and 'Death Trap' but instead of linking to the Tobe Hooper movie it linked to the film by Umberto Lenzi. I've corrected this, but am concerned that 'Eaten Alive!' by Umberto Lenzi also needs to be on the list. (Or could possibly already be there under a different name. Someone would also need to check the re-release details. - 30th September 2012

Child's Play
The Child's Play series were never banned, some shops chose to pull the titles from the shelves after the media claimed they were connected to the murder of James Bulger. The BBFC however passed them all for distribution. ~ NossB (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the section that has appeared about other banned films is somewhat misleading and irrelevant. There are loads of films that have been refused certificates by the BBFC at one time or another - which made it illegal to distribute them - but that doesn´t make them nasties (eg TCM, Straw Dogs, Exorcist, New York Ripper).  Only those films successfully prosecuted by the DPP can be classed as such.  Move to remove the other banned films section or completely rewrite it to explain the difference (although this should avoid trying to list films as it would be too complicated as the bans have come and gone regularly).
 * I've removed Re-Animator as it was passed since release (although in cut form). The Child's Play series has been removed completely as they were never banned. Films that had long term bans should be mentioned (TCM, Straw Dogs, Boy Meets Girl etc.) along with movies that are still banned and that are notable (The Untold Story, Nekromantik etc.) - NossB (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But this article is about 'video nasties' rather than films that have been refused certificates by the BBFC - ie it needs to focus on those films that were found guilty under the OPP and made illegal rather than just not being passed by the censors.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Beast In Heat
Wasn't this passed uncut in the uk under the title SS hell camp recently, and not banned outright? --93.96.112.229 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit - i was thinking of a a recent news article on "SS Experement Camp" ignore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.112.229 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-Animator
Someone keeps adding this back to the main page, however it's been available since release as per. Although the levels of gore caused problems on release, it was never a video nasty. Entertainment In Video released it in heavily cut form around 1986 - A film being released cut does not equal a film being banned ~ NossB (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - as I responded to the thread about Childs Play this article is supposed to be about films that were successfully prosecuted by the DPP, not films refused certificates of cut by the BBFC. That whole section should be removed. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. ~ NossB (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That section's back again with yet more films added to it - this is an article about the list of 'video nasties' not simply films refused a certificate by the BBFC. I move to delete it once more! Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Planning to Have at This
It's difficult to find information (good information) on the nasties, but I've just ordered a UK documentary on the subject. I'll have at this article after I view it. I do have a few sources, but want to wait until I view the documentary. Cheers!ValkoWhite (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)ValkoWhite

The 'other films' section
This conversation has been ongoing for years (see above) but I really don't think the arbitrary list of films tagged on the end should form part of this article. The films listed were never 'banned' by the BBFC, they were simply refused certificates at one point in time. The BBFC has no power to 'ban' films, the issue is that cinemas cannot show films without a certificate. The list is also pretty arbitrary, there is a considerable list of films that the BBFC have refused a certificate for ('Murder Set Pieces' and 'Gutterballs' being two recent examples off the top of my head) that aren't listed, plus they can also only refuse a certificate if someone re-submits the film so if no one does that then it remains unavailable but not necessarily banned (eg 'Fight for your Life' which I think would still struggle to pass but no one wants to take the risk on.) I really think this article should focus on the films seized and / or prosecuted during the furore as they are the only real video nasties. Maybe - 'List of films refused certificate by the BBFC' could be another article - in which case they'd go on there.

That aside I'm interested in maybe having a go at bringing this up to GA quality - I notice a few other people have been updating it of late.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Video nasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.critical-film.com/essays/Nasties/Nasties1.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100728053500/http://www.pre-cert.co.uk:80/cgi-bin/cms/search?GR=1&IT=13&GI=&Q=70844&M=IT&OP=7 to http://www.pre-cert.co.uk/cgi-bin/cms/search?GR=1&IT=13&GI=&Q=70844&M=IT&OP=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)