Talk:Video nasty

message: 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)
replies: text: I redirected back here. Jooler 11:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The article seems to suggest that the board said it about themselves  YDAM TALK 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of video nasties

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Texas Chainsaw Massacre]]

message: 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)
thread_title: The Beast In Heat

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. ~ NossB (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Re-Animator]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Planning to Have at This

message: 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)
thread_title:  The 'other films' section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified