1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cutting edges (and content)

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by juboy, Jul 4, 2002.

?
  1. Original Aspect Ration with 2 mins BBFC cuts

    7 vote(s)
    24.1%
  2. No censorship but non-correct 4:3 Aspect Ratio

    8 vote(s)
    27.6%
  3. Would rather not see the film at all if it's not fully intact

    14 vote(s)
    48.3%
  1. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    It appears there's a lot of people on these forums who love a bit of gore, horror, violence and sex in their movies (all done with taste and in context, of course).

    It goes without saying that many of us also put great emphasis on the Original Aspect Ratio of the DVDs we watch so, here's the question:

    If a big new horror movie was coming out, all the press and previews proclaimed it as nothing short of brilliant and you HAD to choose one, which would it be?

    1. Original Aspect Ratio but 2mins cuts enforced by the BBFC

    2. A fully uncut/uncensored film only available in 4:3 ratio
     
  2. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sadly, I would rather not see the film at all until a proper w/s version was released. It is one thing when ONLY a 4:3 version exists but it is quite another when a w/s version does exist but has not been put out (e.g. The Shining, I won't buy it until I get a w/s version).

    I faced a similar dilemma with the film Taxi. The only anamorphic version of this release that also has English subtitles is the R0 (Korean) version. However, in this version an entire scene is missing :rolleyes: I have never seen the film, but everybody tells me how good it is so I am holding out for a decent, uncut transfer!
     
  3. mcmullanbrush

    mcmullanbrush
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,137
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    39
    Location:
    rotherham
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think this is a good poll Juboy.

    I voted to not see it at all, but thinking about it, I would probably watch it with the cuts in the original ratio. I would definately not buy it though.
     
  4. rob_w

    rob_w
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
  5. kevb

    kevb
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,099
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    About
    Ratings:
    +3
    This is a tough one. :confused:

    To view a film with cuts that the director did not make, is not watching the film as the director intended. The same is true of not having the original aspect ratio.

    I would say the cuts are proberbly worse than not having the correct aspect ratio. Most of us grew up watching 4:3 tv's so thats all we really knew up untill recently anyway.

    I would go for the fully uncut/uncensored film only available in 4:3 ratio, and hope a uncut widescreen was released someday.
     
  6. BadAss

    BadAss
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,967
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +182
    I went for the uncut version. If you didnt youd be kicking youself if some one told you that the two cut muniutes were the best bit of the intire film.
     
  7. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    It was filmed in 4:3 and then cut down to w/s for cinematic release. Therefore, whether 4:3 is what Kubrick would have wanted on the DVD is a matter of controversy. See http://www.twentysix.net/dvdreview/showdvd.php?dvdid=1111. Whatever the case, I might just have to bite the bullet on this one soon and go for the 4:3.......
     
  8. Rambo John J

    Rambo John J
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2000
    Messages:
    3,687
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Hanoi Hilton
    Ratings:
    +916
    I'd watch the 4:3 if there was nothing else available.
    Hopefully it'd be an unmatted theatrical 1.85:1, seeing as you didn't say it was definitely panned and skammed Juboy;)
    Alternatively it may be an unmatted 2.35:1 (more head room but losing a bit from the sides) which isn't the greatest but if there was nothing else out there it'd have to do.
    Fullscreen's the way I have to watch my billion kung fu movies anyway, so it hasn't killed me yet.

    Personally I think it's criminal to fiddle with the directors vision:devil: .
     
  9. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    "Personally I think it's criminal to fiddle with the directors vision"

    Couldn't agree more. Two questions always spring to mind that I'd love to ask the people that DO insist on butchering films in either way:

    1. If the Mona Lisa had been an identical painting but with the lady in question topless, would you remove the bottom half?

    2. As the main focus of the painting is 'that' smile, would it be OK to trim round the painting to just leave the front of her face on show?

    Rambo John J is right, if you can't see it how it was intended by the original creater, you aren't seeing it at all, you're merely seeing what the middleman wants you to.
     
  10. Ian J

    Ian J
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    25,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    There is more twaddle spoken on this subject than almost any other in connection with Home Cinema. All this rubbish about "director's vision" and if it can't be watched in the original aspect ratio, it's not worth watching.

    There are hundreds of films made and released every year and the vast majority are useful to pass the time and nothing more with only one or two gems each year.

    Why are the majority of films such rubbish. One of the reasons must because the director isn't much good so we end up up with a rubbish film and poor direction but it is important to preserve his vision. :confused:

    I am willing to bet that the majority of people who always carp on about original aspect ratio are much more interested in what is written on the box than what is on the screen.

    Years ago we used to entertain more than we do now and many of our friends were so called wine snobs. I always decanted the wine so that they never knew what they were drinking and it became fairly obvious that they were really wine label snobs as they were lost without the label to read.

    The same people are now scanning internet sites looking for technical information on DVDs so they end up knowing far more about the technical aspects of the DVD than they do about the content.

    If everyone who claimed the importance of maintaining the director's vision were true to their beliefs, they wouldn't buy DVDs at all as the director's vision was to see the film on a huge screen in a cinema and not a 28" TV in the corner of the living room.

    The director's vision frequently encompassed thunderous bass lines so presumably anyone who has not spent in excess of £1,000 on a subwoofer is also not seeing the film as intended.

    One has to presume that anyone over the age of 30 who watched television and video before DVD was invented must have had a deprived life only being able to watch pan & scan films with greater censorship.

    Someone earlier in the thread suggested that it is possible that the BBFC had cut out the best bit of the film. Hardly likely unless you get your kicks from extreme violence or sexual depravity.

    Sorry to present a different viewpoint for once as I normally ignore threads like this but occasionally I like to point out that not everyone has such pretentious ideas.

    I will now stand back and await the carpet bombing :)
     
  11. uncle eric

    uncle eric
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Someone didn't get pudding last night :cool:
     
  12. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    "I always decanted the wine"

    And you're calling people that don't like to see films censored or presented in an inferior aspect ratio pretentious?

    "so they end up knowing far more about the technical aspects of the DVD than they do about the content."

    Concentrate on the content, sure. But what if 2mins of that content is never available to you for reasons known only to a few civil servants?

    "One has to presume that anyone over the age of 30 who watched television and video before DVD was invented must have had a deprived life only being able to watch pan & scan films with greater censorship."

    You'd presume correctly. When anything that is existed previously is subsequently improved then yes, people were previously deprived of the improved situation.

    You say that the "majority of films are rubbish". In who's eyes? Are you the arbiter of deciding what is a 'quality' film? I may well consider your favourite film to be unwatchable nonsense but I'm equally unable to make such a statement as being actual fact as you are regarding it's brilliance.

    And as for the HC comments, come on, that's a little silly... I've seen studio theatres and I guarantee you, nobody sits more than 25 to 35 feet away from the screen... so by your theory, people who go to their multiplex and sit further back than the middle, well over to the left, or right at the front aren't seeing the film as the director intended?

    My view is that if a film is made, no matter how 'bad' or 'good' and we then PAY to own/watch that film, we should be getting the whole thing, not what happens to be left once the censors and pan&scan engineer has deemed worthy of letting us have.

    What if your favourite band, maybe even the Sensational Alex Harvey Band, released a CD and their record company said they deliberately compressed the sound to within an inch of it's life claiming 'you can't hear half of it on a midi system anyway' and that they took two songs off of the completed album because the lyrics weren't 'suitable' even though they left those songs on the release in other territories?

    Would you think that was OK because, y'know, you should just put up and shut up?

    Wishing to be fairly treated is not the same as being pretentious Mr J.
     
  13. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    Yep OK I take your point about snobbery.
    However ones man's air is another man's poison so you may not attach as much signifcance to correct ratios on films that you don't personally rate whilst others do.

    I also take your point about frankly rubbish films being accorded less importance with regard to maintaining the directors vision on dvd releases. However you can have totally naff films with pretty good camera work (TombRaider for example). Also editing : quite often there are some clever things happening compositionally throughout scenes when you start hacking into the frame you loose this.

    These days although the vast majority of movies turn out to be tripe its normal to have A1 quality camerawork editing and soundfield work. Start messing with the composition of the image and you will loose the proper intent of this aspect of film-making. Personally I still appreciate this aspect of film-making even if the film itself is so so .
    (13th warrior is a good example ...pish film but some stunning camera work and editing...I admit I quite dig it once I've got my blood up with a couple of bevs)

    So in closing I'd rather all films were released as accurately as possible given the limitations of the format: dvd is very good in this regard ie its normally used to a very high level rather than just a halfway house: ( no reason why widescreen vhs shouldn't be available as anamorphic 16x9 for example)
     
  14. Chris Bellamy

    Chris Bellamy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    96
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Scottish Borders
    Ratings:
    +11
    I sort of agree with some of what Ian says: what matters is whether I find the story compelling, absorbing, thought-provoking, entertaining, disturbing or whatever when I view the film. Many, perhaps most films are mediocre, not classics, and could be improved from concept, screenwriting and up, although individual aspects may be well done (like Mr D. I do enjoy 13th Warrior with a few beers).

    As for cuts by the censor, frankly, I don?t care if short sequences of ultraviolence or hardcore sex are cut ? (which is basically what we're talking about in this example). I don?t subscribe to the view that these moments are simply essential to the ?vision?: they would be probably more effective implied rather than depicted directly, and I wonder if their inclusion as often as not reflects the filmmakers limitations rather than their challenging and cutting edge sensibility. I quite appreciate others will differ here!

    In terms of ?the original widescreen or nothing? discussion, sure there are many films (esp 2.35:1 or 2.76:1) where pan & scan pretty much destroys the cinematography. But as I understand it (and I'm open to correction here) there are also, especially nowadays, quite a few others where the director of photography knows in advance there will be multiple aspect ratios taken off the print, and makes allowances/compromises in framing such that you couldn?t easily be dogmatic about which is the ?definitive? aspect ratio, given that foreknowledge. In any case, as John J. says, if the original film was soft-matted (eg: Princess Bride etc.) and transferred full frame to video/dvd, you could always blank the offending parts off your screen when viewing, if you really, really want the cinema aspect ratio (although I accept you'd lose the potential benefit of an anamorphic disc in terms of pq. Having said all that though, I never buy a pan & scan, so I suppose I am a bit snobby/picky there!

    As a final thought, I?m not sure a film can embody a concrete ?director?s vision?, as implied at times in this thread. If the ?vision? existsl, I suspect it is a changing thing, before, during and after the filmmaking, just as we all change day to day, although we may not recognise the changes. By contrast, even the directors cut of a film is a thing of the moment, a product of swirling commercial, personal, artistic, practical, time and financial pressures and limitations (screen writing, actor availability, unexpected calamities or opportunities?) acting on an individual and those about him/her at one period in their life. It is not at all a ?pure artistic vision?, and the ?finished? article is not de facto sacrosanct, or even the only way the director would like to see that film be completed. Let the same director revisit even just the print every year, and I suspect you?d likely get a slightly or very different ?director?s cut?, along with the appropriate story about how ?the latest is the most definitive?. Since they are the director, do you then accept what they say? Certainly many directors are happy to revisit their films for DVD, re-release, or even have SFX redone etc, where budget permits. One minor dilemma for me at present is which lord of the rings version to buy, but the decision will not be guided by which was the ?as seen in cinema? version, or the ?extended real director?s vision? version, but more by which version will be better from my perspective: in most cases, there is good reason material is cut from a film during production: the result is better; but we all know a few exceptions for us (eg: Aliens for me) where the extra material improved the film. I suppose I think things are more complicated than a simple "vision" to be protected!

    Interesting thread discussion!

    regards,
    Chris
     
  15. Azrikam

    Azrikam
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Personally, I would watch a movie that's improperly presented, but I wouldn't buy it. I've become a bit of a aspect snob over the past year.

    If I absolutely had to choose between uncut or proper aspect, I'd choose uncut. For the same reason that I like watching deleted scenes on DVD's, I want to see as much of what was filmed as possible.

    But, it's just another level of demand in films. It's an extended form of demanding that a color film isn't distributed in black and white. There are some people (I've seen them with the disc in their collections) who think it's perfectly fine to get up to flip their Goodfellas DVD halfway through the movie. Demanding uncut movies, or exact aspect ratio, or near-perfect sound are just extensions of standard viewing requirements. There are extremes on both side. You can go too far (buying popcorn scented candles and placing gum on your floor), but as long as you have the choice, I think it's reasonable to get the most out of your viewing pleasure.

    That being said, I'm pretty shocked that so many so-called film fans admit to owning "showcase" movies, which are absolute dreck, but look and sound really good on DVD. (for shame! :) ) Sometimes I think we need to take a step back and look at movies as any other storytelling medium. If it doesn't convey some emotional impact, it's all just popcorn.
     
  16. General Skanky

    General Skanky
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    4,206
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +44
    Uncut widescreen version is my preference.
    13th Warrior is a great film.:) Still can't tell what's happening though in the fight in the dark room when they all pretend to be asleep. I'd say the director didn't want me to see how crap their swordplay was.:D
     
  17. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    "As for cuts by the censor, frankly, I don?t care if short sequences of ultraviolence or hardcore sex are cut ?"

    You've actually summed up the whole pro/anti censorship debate in one sentence Chris.

    As long as you don't care about it being cut, censorship's fine with you. But what if you did care? What if you were worried that your choice had been taken away from you?

    If you want to see a glimpse of what could happen were certain people were to censor films based on what they didn't wish to see or didn't 'care' about losing from films, go to:

    www.capalert.com

    The day you accept that it's OK for other people to decide what's fit for you to see and do is a very, very sad one.
     
  18. Jase

    Jase
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2001
    Messages:
    9,415
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    South Coast
    Ratings:
    +861
    Whilst I would prefer to watch my films uncut & in the correct ratio (given the choice!) what about those that are blissfully unaware that there are cuts to films, aspect ratio changes etc?? Most are none the wiser.

    Could be a case of what you don´t know, don´t hurt.

    Those at capalert are taking it to the extreme, though it would depend on your beliefs as to whether you think it is extreme or not.

    We all have different opinions/views, that´s what makes us all unique.:)
     
  19. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Capalert may be considered extreme by most of us but a lot of people, if they're told enough times and with enough conviction, are easily persuaded that those views are actually sensible ones.

    This is my point, if you accept some level of censorship (of the things you don't like presumably?) you have to accept that everyone else has the right to have things they don't like banned... and the flip side of us all being different and liking different things is that we all DON'T like certain things also... which would effectively mean banning everything in order to keep everyone happy.

    Or do some people deserve to have their wishes taken into account more than others? Maybe those animals that are more 'equal' than the others?

    It's all very Orwellian and, unfortunately, it's been happening long before 1984 (was it *really* such a coincidence the Video Recordings Act was passed in that year?) and continues to do so unabated in this country.
     
  20. Jase

    Jase
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2001
    Messages:
    9,415
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    South Coast
    Ratings:
    +861
    I think with censorship there will never be a happy medium, purely because we all see things a different way. Unfortunately lots of other things can influence people and their thoughts, what if someone were to offer enough money for you to turn a blind eye to something that you did´nt agree with?? (I don´t mean you personally juboy!! but in general). Money, for one thing,can be a very persuading (and deciding) factor.
     
  21. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    How much? :D
     
  22. Jase

    Jase
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2001
    Messages:
    9,415
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    South Coast
    Ratings:
    +861
    :D See what I mean, one wiff of cash and it all goes out the window!!:D

    Seriously though, makes you wonder about a lot of things. What we´ll turn a blind eye to, what we´ll put up with etc etc.

    Ideally, you would have two versions of the film on one disc (or two). One uncut, proper ratio etc. The other side, the cut, changed ratio version. You would just choose which version you wanted to see.

    Even so, there would still be people who wanted versions inbetween the two etc etc

    We just can´t win!!:(
     
  23. juboy

    juboy
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    In the States, virtually every music album that is released with potentially 'offensive' lyrics etc. also comes out with a 'clean edit' version.

    Apparently the record companies do this to appease bigger chains who refuse to carry the regular versions... and whp usually
    don't then actually carry the clean versions either!

    What is most interesting about this is that the record companies refuse point blank to release sales figures for these versions, the over whelming evidence pointing to the fact it's because these they sell jack *censored*
     
  24. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ... and these versions are often laughable. Either they're bleeped all the way through or the "offensive" words are replaced with hilarious alternatives ("mother flipper" comes to mind). It's not like film, where you can edit out scenes. With music, you have to replace the "offensive" material with something else.

    I shall continue to purchase the "warning: explicit lyrics" versions :devil:

    Although, I must say, I have no objection to such warnings appearing on music releases and no objection to parents being fully informed and indeed censoring what their children are buying/listening to.
     
  25. Chris Bellamy

    Chris Bellamy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    96
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Scottish Borders
    Ratings:
    +11
    I?m afraid I simply don?t care about specific removal of hardcore sex and ultraviolence ? it doesn?t pass my threshold for being bothered. If the example were different, or the details of censorship not publicly available, or not according to publicly available criteria, I likely would be bothered.
    I guess in general I would mildly prefer the uncut version, although it might not prevent me buying the disc just because of that cut of the type above. The specific issue is still a bit complex though: as a very extreme example, what about (simulated) explicit paedophilia in a film? Would you need to know the context or plot or moral stance of the film, or the motivation of individuals going to see it, or would it always have to be ok because anyone has the right to see whatever they want as long as any ?director? says it?s what they want to show us? Personally, I don?t find the issue as straightforward, black & white as some, and I suspect that the balanced freethinking individuals may just have to lose a bit of freedom because they are not the only people around. Of course, it should be those individuals who volunteer the loss. Where the boundaries lie is of course where the sparks start flying, and should be subject to continous and public debate as society changes. It?s interesting that censorship based on age is commonly supported (including by me, I suppose), when some older children are more sensible than their parents.

    I suppose an example of censorship that bothers me a lot more is the more prevalent but subtler censorship of complexity in public media, in both fact (news, current affairs) and fiction industries, which is unregulated, not defined, and depressingly ubiquitous. In the fiction industry, I wonder how many ?challenging? screenplays never see the light of day, or are rewritten/simplified to broaden the appeal.
     
  26. Ian J

    Ian J
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    25,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    That's a masterful piece of editing to deliberately make a comment mean the opposite of what was actually written.

    I don't suppose that you are a tabloid journalist by profession ?
     
  27. mcmullanbrush

    mcmullanbrush
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,137
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    39
    Location:
    rotherham
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sorry I am late replying but i was playing with my new projector:D

    As Squirrel said, it was filmed with an unmasked negative. Kubrick framed the shots twice if you like. His primary concern was the widescreen frame but took into consideration the 4;3 frame also.

    In the shots of the car going to the hotel you can see the shadow of the helecopter at the bottom of the frame and its rotary blades at the top. This would be masked out by the projectionist in the cinema.

    Kubrick used this method on Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. In my opinion it has not spoiled the composition of any of these films.

    The American version of The Shining is longer but the shorter version is infact Kubricks final cut of the film.
     
  28. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was under the impression that the US cinematic release was longer than the UK version when it was released originally and I thought that both the original and the remastered R1 DVDs put out that version. That would make them Kubrick's final US cut with the UK version being Kubrick's final UK cut (seeing as he approved the cuts for the shorter UK version). IMDB reports the original version as 146 mins (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0081505), whereas both the original and remastered R1 DVD run a couple of minutes shorter (I presume because of the difference in fps between cinema and NTSC).

    I've bitten the bullet and ordered the R1 digital remaster from cd-wow :rolleyes:
     
  29. rob_w

    rob_w
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    thanx for the info on the shining - looks like i`m gonna have to buy the us version now! - anyone know what was cut?

    chris bellamy -sometimes the bbfc cuts films that are 18 rated as the violence/or sex etc could (allegedly) influence youngsters/teens . (see orutsukidoji on the melon farmers site for an example)

    if the film is rated 18 then the bbfc should not be concerned of the films effect on anyone below that age!

    the general theme seems to be that the rest of the world is ok to watch a film, but uk citizens are too sensitive to watch. often there are cuts in uk films and none elsewhere - i am not a child and think that i should be free to decide whether to watch a film or not.

    also, why when defending censorship do people always use paedophilia/bestiality etc? - bestiality is illegal and therefore should be banned, as is paedophilia.

    i can see what your saying about simulated paedophilia, and there was a french film listed in the melon farmers site that dealt with child rape, and was banned due to its possible use by paedophiles for `grooming`.

    there is always going to be a small minority of people who get off on stuff that most of us find repulsive. often the directors intention is to disgust the viewer, but the scene could be seen as erotic by a sick mind.

    ie: horror/gore films - most people are sane enough to know it is pure fantasy violence, and can enjoy it without wanting to go out and kill someone:D

    rob
     
  30. BadAss

    BadAss
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,967
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +182
    I will not be sucked into replying to Stuarts Wrights ridiculous comments.
    I will not be sucked into replying to Stuarts Wrights ridiculous comments.
    I will not be sucked into replying to Stuarts Wrights ridiculous comments.

    "Now my dear mother is in her 70s now and she loves to watch a good film. One of her favourite kinds of films are police dramas. Now, when she watches a film such as Beverly Hills Cop, for example, why should she have to see the film spoilt by the foul mouth of Eddie Murphy?" Prime example.
     

Share This Page

Loading...