Talk:Cannibal Holocaust

Proposed changes to DVD release information

The article currently reads:

== Releases and sequels ==

With such extensive controversy, there are many different versions of Cannibal Holocaust in circulation, some unedited and others substantially edited. Most "uncut" releases are actually missing around five to ten seconds of film material from the Last Road to Hell segment of the film, which includes real documentary execution footage. These few seconds are missing as a result of the master film negatives being damaged during the original film-to-DVD transfer. It is estimated that there are only five legitimate uncut releases of Cannibal Holocaust, including the missing footage of the Last Road to Hell sequence as a supplement. These releases are:

• The 25th Anniversary Collector's Edition (Limited Edition out of 11,111 copies. US release by Grindhouse Releasing).
• The Grindhouse Releasing Deluxe Edition (Non-limited US release by Grindhouse Releasing)
• The Deluxe Collector's Edition (Australian release by Siren Visual Entertainment)
• The Ultrabit Collector's Edition (Limited Edition out of 4,000 copies. Dutch release by EC Entertainment)
• Another World Entertainment Special Edition (Scandinavian release)

The Australian release is an identical copy of the US release, but has been renamed the "Deluxe Collector's Edition". Both releases include the intact version of The Last Road to Hell as a special feature on the first disc. The EC entertainment Ultrabit Collector's Edition and the Another World Entertainment release are the only two releases that include the intact sequence within the feature. Another common release is the 25th Anniversary Edition released in the UK by Video Instant Picture Company (VIPCO), which is heavily cut to comply with BBFC editing and runs at a PAL format running time of 86 minutes.

But this is factually incorrect. The exists two *Unique* transfers in those releases:

EC Entertainment's Transfer of the Italian version released as:

1. "Limited Ultrabit"

2. "Non-Limited Ultrabit" (only a change in packaging)

3. Licensed by AWE (Another World Entertainment), this version contains different menus etc - and (apparantly) a different audio track than EC's.

Grindhouse Releasing's Transfer of the English version released as:

4. Limited "25th Anniversary Collector's Edition"

5. Non-Limited "Deluxe Edition" (only a change in packaging)

6. License by SVE (Siren Visual Entertainment), I do not know if this version contains the same menus as the Grindhouse disc or not (but usually SVE Licenses a transfer and puts in their own menus) - however the special features are identical.

So as you see, the current number at "5" is factually incorrect, either you have to call it 6 releases... or you would call it four releases - which is what I would like to change it to. The article is currently inconsistent in that it counts both the Grindhouse "versions" but not both EC's Ultrabit versions. As only the packaging changes between the two versions released by Grindhouse and the two versions released by EC Entertainment, they should be considered as being one version.

Furthermore, the article reads "The Australian release is an identical copy of the US release" but fails to mention that the AWE release is an identical copy of the EC Entertainment "Ultrabit" release - it even says so on the cover "high-resolution Ultrabit transfer". Although the AWE version has Stereo sound! From [this review] of the AWE disc it sounds like there was minor mastering error where the "disclaimer" in the opening credits isn't translated as it is in the original "Ultrabit" release by EC Entertainment. That review also claims that the AWE release is re-distributed by "Firebox" in Finland, which would bring the total to 7 releases.

Finally, it is not known why there are different versions of "the last road to hell". Grindhouse Releasing said it wasn't in the negatives they used. EC Entertainment's transfer is the only transfer to include the longer version, and for all we the public know they could have added it from a different source (which seems plausible given that the quality of the added scenes is noticeably worse than the others). Either way: what is currently in the article:

Most "uncut" releases are actually missing around five to ten seconds of film material from the Last Road to Hell segment of the film, which includes real documentary execution footage. These few seconds are missing as a result of the master film negatives being damaged during the original film-to-DVD transfer.

Seems misleading to me. They're not missing if they were never there; there are different theatrical prints (given that we're talking about two distinct transfers here, one from the Italian print the other from the English print); and if it was really supposed to be in the negatives then it should be found in more prints than the one and only transfer by EC Entertainment that contains it. The extended version on the Grindhouse DVD is not the same as the version in the EC Entertainment DVD - the EC entertainment version contains the same credits as the Grindhouse transfer, but the extended version found on the grindhouse disc has different credits but is the same length as found on EC Entertainment's Ultrabit transfer. I don't think there's a definitive answer, I think that it's conjecture to say material is or isn't missing without further conclusive evidence on the matter (again, we don't actually know that EC didn't just insert those three scenes from another print), and as such I also propose we change this to mention the different lengths of the Last Road to Hell segment as remaining "unexplained".

Are there any objections to these proposed changes to this section? 210.9.138.6 (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• A few things:
  • The two releases by EC Entertainment (limited and non-limited) are NOT the same. The non-limited DVD does not include the full Last Road to Hell sequence. Having owned this edition, I can personally attest to this. The two versions also have different special features.
  • The AWE release is not the same as the Ultrabit edition. The film proper is (that is, it includes the full Last Road to Hell sequence), but the DVD release as a whole is not.
  • There exists two different versions of The Last Road to Hell (i.e. different credits) because the names of the characters in the film crew were originally different, and these credits reflect this difference. The version in the Grindhouse Releasing special features has the correct names of the film crew as they are in the film. The other version has two different running times, one with the extra five seconds and one without. It appears that this is the version that is in most, if not all, of the feature prints. Because of this, it still makes sense that a damaged master would be the reason why the five seconds are missing from most every other release.
• All of this is irrelevant, as I was in the process of thinking up how to change this section anyway. There is the aforementioned Firebox release, and another release, a Czech (I believe) special edition, is also an exact copy of the Grindhouse release, except that it comes with a bonus CD of the film's soundtrack. Instead of listing the individual releases, the Last Road to Hell issue will be summed up in a paragraph. Helltopay27 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The two releases by EC Entertainment (limited and non-limited) are NOT the same.

I'm not talking about the previous release. The Ultrabit has been released TWICE by EC Entertainment - the first time it came in a green slip-case with a limited edition numbered 1-4,000, and the second time it came with no green slipcase, the front of the amaray case has the cannibal instead of the skull (but the background is is black, not green), and the back has a corrected "special features" box (the only difference is that under Disc 1 it lists the subtitles) and the part where it says "Warning this movie contains scenes of extreme violence..." on the amaray cover of the limited edition is replaced by the "Ultrabit box" on the non-limited version. I have held both versions personally, I can attest to the accuracy of this. I can also provide links to scans of the covers: [Limited Edition Amaray cover] [Reissued Amaray cover]. The discs are EXACTLY the same, have EXACTLY the same specifications and special features, and the non-limited version remains readily available. This is no different to Grindhouse releasing the same product twice... one in a "limited edition packaging".

Because of this, it still makes sense that a damaged master would be the reason why the five seconds are missing from most every other release.

Conjecture. There's no evidence! Anyone who owns a copy of the EC Entertainment UItrabit DVD will attest to the fact that the three clips not present in other transfers are visually lower quality. They probably were not in the theatrical print that EC Entertainment used as their master - but this cannot be proven either. 210.9.138.6 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Ambiguity removed

Describing how Deodato voided the contract with the "missing" actors, someone wrote he "voided the contract to avoid life in prison"... since "life in prison" is a very vague term and can, not surprisingly, confuse readers giving a false idea that one, in Italy, could get life sentence for breaking contracts, I rewrote the phrase to better adjust to the reality: "to avoid serving time in prison". --200.216.236.75 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cloverfield

I reverted the mention of Cloverfield in the article, not because I don't think it deserves a mention for its cinematography, but because it doesn't fit with The Blair Witch Project and The Last Broadcast. Feel free to reincorporate the reference in a more suiting location. Helltopay27 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous cast

There is no mention about how the crew managed to have the several indigenous people act in the film.

• How was the script conveyed to them?
• Did they have a language? (The film gives the impression that they don't.)
• Was there a translator?
• What difficulties did the crew face in getting these people to act?
• Which part of the Amazon are they from? What tribes are they from?
• How did the director find the people and decide to use them in the film?
• How does the film's portrayal differ from their actual lifestyle?

Edit: I found this in the Critical Response section: "Schager's racism argument is supported by the fact that the real indigenous peoples in Brazil whose names were used in the movie – the Yanomamo and Shamatari – are not fierce enemies as portrayed in the movie, nor is either tribe truly cannibalistic (although the Yanomamo do partake in a form of post-mortem ritual cannibalism)."

Although it partially answers questions asked above, I believe there should be a paragraph in the Casting section dedicated to the indigenous cast, answering all the questions above in more detail.

--ADTC (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

While it is definitely notable that they brutalized and killed live animals on the set, is it really notable that they killed a spider? That really isn't controversial, and it doesn't outrage anyone except ALF fanatics with no realistic outlook of life and perhaps some Hindus w/ a specific interpretation of their religion. Maybe if it was a rare spider, but there is a difference between killing an animal and killing an insect (or arachnid), and they pester a lot of people's houses and are killed frequently (and rightfully) as a result. J390 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's notable to be a complete list, rather than decide what is and isn't worth mentioning. Personally I would have thought the same could be said about the snake, the turtle and the monkey; maybe especially the monkey. But you raise a good point, I will edit the section to make mention of the fact that the animal cruelty was a staple element of movies of its genre at the time. 61.69.2.91 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A 'remake'?

I just ran across this article: http://www.disnology.com/2010/09/03/abc-television-show-the-river-based-on-paranormal-activity/comment-page-1/#comment-6174 Although it doesn't specifically mention CH, the premise sounds awefully familiar. Should it be mentioned in the article? 148.137.254.90 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Thats just cheap publicity seeking. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, (wrong link) the article itself, not the comment.148.137.254.90 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Made "Synopsis" more concise

I have edited the Synopsis section to make it more concise and probably more should be done. The definition is "a brief summary of the plot of a novel, motion picture, play, etc."(Free Dictionary.com) The details of the violence do not all have to be given.Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actors/Actresses

In certain parts of the synopsis it mentions characters as he or she when their actor is of the opposite sex. Is that merely a mistake or were members in drag? Something doesn't seem right with that however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.184.34 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are the real natives acting in this movie as cannibals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.83 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, yeah; I believe the difficulty in tracking down the native actors contributed to the murder allegations after release. GRAPPLE X 19:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Shema Yisrael!

The article fails to mention the inappropriate use of the world Holocaust in this film. The Shoah-Porajmos is an unmatched disaster of cosmic proportions, a singularly tragic event in the history of the whole mankind, whose name cannot be misappropriated for for-profit gore and fornication!

I am pretty sure at least Germany, Austria and the State of Israel protested the use of "Olocausto" in the title of this movie, but to what effect. Did the Mossad teach a lesson in respect to the italian movie-makers? Why nobody tried the film crew for Holocaust denial, which is a codified crime in many countries? 87.97.110.115 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to say that Germany, Austria or Israel protested the use of the word, then it can be added. Epa101 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust means an event of great destruction, it cannot be monopolized by any one pressure group. There is no logical reason why the film cannot be called Cannibal Holocaust.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Special effects

The film was gory and brutal for 1980, though tame by modern standards. The special effects were not all that compelling. Nevertheless there was apparently some belief that this could have been a snuff film. But the statement that "The film's impalement scene was examined by the courts to determine whether the special effects were genuine" is wrong. Of course the effects were genuine! They were geneuine special effects - not genuine killings! Better grammar, please.203.184.41.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cannibal Holocaust. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181453/http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1848 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1848

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cannibal Holocaust. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110233913/http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/features/articles/cannibal-holocaust-16541 to http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/features/articles/cannibal-holocaust-16541
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221071540/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/4101 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/4101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226232652/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/7578/ to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/7578

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Box office

Removed the box office gross. The director never refers to box office gross in the documentary, as sourced, only the budget (which he claims to be $200,000, not the $100,000 given in the article). PacificBoy 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The box office gross is not 200 million dollars. This is a WILD exaggeration and should be removed unless there is evidence to support it. Making 200 million dollars at the box office would be the equivalent of making an inflation adjusted $600,000,000. This is clearly not the case. 141.214.17.228 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary length

Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be between 400-700 words, and should not include minor details, scene-by-scene descriptions, or film dialogue. I've reduced the plot summary, which was over 900 words, to 674 words. Please keep it below 700 words in the future. Per the restrictions on including dialogue, references to Monroe's closing line of "I wonder who the real cannibals are?" should not be added and will be removed. Helltopay-27 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Section about abuse of indigenous cast

I'm a bit appalled this article has a header acknowledging the animal cruelty but doesn't mention the abuse of the iindigenous cast in the controversy section. It's hinted at elsewhere in the article, but I feel that that's way more important and deserves proper acknolwedgement?

It was banned in Iceland

It was also banned in Iceland. It says so in the censorship section: "The film was also banned in Australia, the United States, Norway, Finland, Iceland,[39] New Zealand,[40] Singapore[41] and several other countries in or before 1984.[42]" I my opinion "developing" is a not racist word and "being civilised" is not racist too. Nothing to do South America specifically or stuff been western. I don't think not engaging in cannibalism is a specifically western attitude MongoDBisbest (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I take back what I said about Iceland not being in the article. I appreciate you pointing this out to me, and you can add the Iceland category back. However, those phrases are racist, and I don't think they should be added back in. I think you've misunderstood the reason I removed them.

Saying European countries are 'developed' as opposed to non-European countries is widely considered to be racist by people of colour - including myself - cos it says non-Western countries are 'primitive' as opposed to Western countries. Same goes with calling us 'uncivilized'.

For centuries, white people have perpetuated stereotypes that people of colour are cannibals - ofc including indigenous people. Here is one example of this stereotype against black people: Jungle Jitters. @MongoDBisbest Stephanie921 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It is still common to say "developing". For example, Developing country exists and does not say that it is widely seen as racist. I think it is incorrect to replace it with "South-American" because this is not about South America, but developing countries in general. I also think it is incorrect to replace "being civilized" with "being Western", because being civilised here means being peaceful etc. "Being Western" does not convey the same meaning. MongoDBisbest (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Also developed is not the same as EEuropean, for example Japan, Taiwan or the US. MongoDBisbest (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 960 cannibal holocaust blu-ray 7o.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a south-american coatimundi

The animal that got killed in Cannibal Holocaust is a south-american coatimundi. Stop changing it to random different animals (an opposum for example, or an anteater, or an otter) based on many different online articles that got it wrong as well. (Opposum doesn't even live in Amazon jungle.)

Yanomami

For a featured article, it sure does fail to mention one of the central controversies surrounding the film. What was the reception and controversies surrounding the indigenous casting of the movie? Why hasn't this been discussed?

I do acknowledge it was mentioned briefly, but it makes no appearence within the "Controversies" section. JamesSolterre (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)