the CHILDS PLAY movies and the controversy around them in early 90s

B

bball-xo-chick14

New member
i just been looking into these movies again
and man did the posters for
2+3 scare the bejesus out of me when i was younger ha.

anyway i remember the 3rd one was banned or somthing wast it because of a young boy murdered by a kid who was influenced by the 3rd one
apparently he was using the sayings from the movie like wanna play etc.

true??????


my memory is fuzzy on this anyone help?

i know there not banned anymore now seeing as 2+3 was on sifi lastweek and 1 was on virgin tv couple weeks back
 
Little James Bulgar..2 kiRAB took the 2 year old from a shopping mall and reenacted scenes on this poor little boy. Basically totured him and some of the things they did to him are so grotesque that it has not become public knowledge.
They were influenced by ChilRAB Play so the 3rd film was banned or something.
 
It was never proved. Stupid media hype.


Same as the young lad that was killed by a lad who played 'Manhunter' Again, the media made it up.

The victim actually played the game, not the murderer.
They switched the facts around to make it more 'interesting' :rolleyes:


The 'hungerford' massacre. Media claimed the guy watched the film Rambo over and over on his vcr. Turned out later, after the story had died down that he didn't even own a vcr!

I could go on, but I won't.
 
It was reported that the kiRAB were influenced by the third film because there's apparently a scene (which I don't remember, saw it years ago) where Chucky throws, or has blue paint thrown at him. The two kiRAB who murdered Jamie Bulger threw a can of blue paint at him. That's where the similarity stemmed from, it's said. But it was later said that they had never even watched the film, and the parents of the killers both said they never rented that film out.
 
'Video nasties' and computer games are overhyped by the media as influencing young people negatively. KiRAB shouldn't be watching them, true, but it's upbringing that causes children to commit atrocious acts, not TVs. It's parents not taking any interest in what their children are getting up to when they go out after school, violence against the children etc.

My big brother showed me Child's Play when I was about 7, but I'd forgotten about it the next day.

Edit: yes, it was James Bulger. I was 9 at the time and it affected me a lot, reading about two kiRAB near my own age doing something like that.
 
There is actually a few good sites online dealing with this murder case.Bulgers mother even ran an official site i dont know if she still does. I know a relative has a site and she details a lot of what did happen and tells you what didnt (what was reported) as in stuff like them cutting off his fingers etc. But as you know and she knows....a lot of what was said in that courtroom will never be known due to how horrible it was.
 
The Daily Mail and other papers jumped on the bandwagon because the moronic Judge in the case was quoted as saying that the killers were "very probably" infuenced by video nasties.

IIRC neither of the homes of these 2 boys had VCR's and there was certainly no proof they had even seen ChilRAB Play 3.

The film was never banned but some retailers always on the lookout for free publicity duly announced they would not stock the film.

The hypocrisy of Rupert Murdoch was illustrated at the time by The Sun joining in the condemnation while Sky Movies aired the film on satellite.

But this sort of thing crops up every few years.

One wonders if the tv channels are stupid or whether the public really are so dumb.

In 1987 when the Hungerford Massacre occurred the BBC pulled its screening of First Blood ( because the killer wore a Rambo bandana!!)saying they would never show it and it was well over a decade before it was aired even though the killer had never seen the film.

They took off anything remotely connected to guns including a serial called The Marksman.

In the 80's people went to prison for supplying so called Video Nasties despite the films playing elsewhere in the world without a problem.

Amusingly nearly all the Nasties are now available - many in longer versions than the ones banned in the 80''s and society has not crumbled because we watch The Exorcist on tv.
 
A lot of films these days that are considered banned are actually not banned at all.....theyve just never been submitted for classification.And the reason for that is, no company has the rights to distribute the film in this country. However films like Maladolascenza and The Tin Man will never be released here for very obvious reasons.
 
Never heard of the last 2.

But some of the older films dont get signed up by UK distributors because they know the film will be rejected or cut - and they know the people interested in those films will want the best versions available and will probably already have them anyway

Nightmares In A Damaged Brain is one I want.
Unavailable anywhere and the UK distributor of the title in the 80's was jailed for 6 months despite the fact his release was still not uncut- it was just longer than the 18 version
 
Their on imdb and im sure there are websites if anyones interested in knowing more about them. I think BBFC is starting to loosen up.Even Last House on The Left has been accepted uncut and will be released as a brand new Special Edition in September over here. That was banned for over 30 years.
 
alll that bad publicity was probly good for the movie at the time was it does anyone know if it did well in the cinema or was it pulled altogether?

because the movie it just like all the other stupid silly slasher sequals out there nothing to see there

usally when something gets negative attention it reaks in the crowRAB
 
Child's Play 3 had NOTHING to do with Jamie Bulger's murder.

Basically, The Daily Mirror newspaper stupidly and carelessly associated it with the killing, but that's about it. A typical child psychologist linked the film with the murder because it was amongst the video nasties in one of the boys bedroom found at their home at the time and obviously didn't have a liking for the title. This absurd analysis was then printed in their paper. It was revealed months later that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables who committed the murder had in fact not even "seen the movie" so all that foolish paper and child psychologist ended up doing was drastically increasing public interest in the film. This caused some store owners to quickly remove Child's Play 3 from their shelves, the film was never banned.

Looking back on this tragedy, I still feel sick, and full of sorrow for that poor little boy and his family, and how frightened he must've been at the time of his abduction. However, I'm also disgusted at looking back on this case, because of the pathetic scapegoats they used to explain away how our society could create such monsters. Why was Child's Play 3 blamed? As I said, because the police on the case happened to find the Child's Play 3 video in one of the boys home at the time of the murder, and the child psychologist assigned to the boys case decided to link it with the film, despite the fact that both boys had a long history of violent, anti-social behaviour.

Chucky, with his violence, and remorseless behaviour provided a suitable scapegoat. In a way I can understand. Who wants to admit that a 10 year old is capable of such violent and horrific acts? Still, the situation was blown way out of proportion, and a lot of hype was fed by the media to the public. I'm sure everyone knows the effect hype has. Titanic for example - despite stunning visuals and good performances, not really a great movie by a long shot - but it's the highest grossing film ever. Someone in Australia saw it 150 times at the theater. Why? Great PR. Chucky had great PR too. Determined to make him Public Enemy Number One, and they succeeded. I believe this is one of the reasons it took so long for Bride of Chucky to come out.

I think people should stop grasping at things to blame it on. Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were ticking time bombs. If they hadn't killed Jamie Bulger, they would've killed someone else, a little way down the track. I believe what people fail to realise is that violent content in movies/tv shows/computer games/etc are always being blamed for the sickos society produces. I'm sure that if the sentencing judge had not made a reference to these videos being instrumental as negative influences, the video case of the movie would have been overlooked, and no matter what violent video it happened to be - I'm sure they would've found "links" to tie it in with the murder. That's the media. That's propaganda.
 
They put the blame on stuff like videos and games because it's so easy to get into the public minRABet. It provides a quick explanation when they can't be bothered to go into a more in depth reality. There's no way what the Bulger killers did was influenced by videos or games or anything like that. I am the same age as the two killers (25). The only way you would be capable of anything like that at 10-years-old would be if you were either mentally ill or had a really REALLY bad childhood. Otherwise, doing that couldn't even enter a 10-year-old's head.

There was SO MUCH media bullsh*t surrounding the case. For example, he was never called 'Jamie' Bulger by his family or anyone, but the press, including TV news, kept calling him it all the time on purpose as though to provoke more of a reaction with the public. Also, it was constantly (and still is) sensationalized regarding what they actually did to him. The papers kept saying it was too horrific to describe but that's because they weren't being given the full story because the police and family didn't want it splattered across the pages of the redtops like a freakshow, so the tabloiRAB did what they do best - make stuff up and overexaggerate the the nth degree.

They called the witnesses who saw the boys with Bulger before they killed him the 'Liverpool 38' and said how disgusted with themselves they should all be for not seeing something was wrong. It's the papers who are disgusting. Constantly mentioning Hindley and Brady was pathetic too. How can you compare the cases??? It's all just to incite hateful reaction. The families of Venebales and Thompson received genuine death threats from random people. All of that is the papers' fault.
 
NONE of the Child's Play movies have ever been "banned" or anything like it. Complete idiotic fallacy perpetuated by the red-top rags of time.

There is NO mechanism in Britain within which films can be "banned". If a film gets a certificate from the BBFC, then that's the end of it - it's here and now; in some cases it may be cut a little bit, but that's as far as it goes.

"Banned" films remain figments of the imaginations of the fantastical utopian vanguard of the ilk of Mary Whitehouse and her mortal latter-day successors, John Beyer and Stephen Green.
 
Back
Top