So Here's The Sin City 2 Poster That Was Too Hot For The MPAA

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
So Here's The Sin City 2 Poster That Was Too Hot For The MPAA



Brace yourselves, readers, for a scandal the likes of which we may never see again until another movie needs some PR juice.

The Motion Picture Association of America has a notorious and well-deserved reputation for complete inconsistency and the application of arbitrary double standards when it comes to rating films and approving marketing. The organization's process is legendary for being both obscure and obtuse - IngSoc was more transparent, which is why its decisions often cause controversies in and of themselves. That state of affairs has led to a curious kind of marketing in which film productions deliberately attempt to catch the MPAA's ire, generating discussion and frustration from anti-censorship advocates as well as people who just tire of the way grown adults are treated like children when it comes to American movies.

Case in point, Page Six has reported [http://pagesix.com/2014/05/28/mpaa-prudes-too-much-boob-on-eva-greens-sin-city-poster/] that, in a shockingly convenient (I'll get to that momentarily) decision, the MPAA has rejected a poster for Sin City: A Dame To Kill For that features an extremely racy Eva Green looking, well, looking really hot, I can't lie.

The MPAA's problem with the poster was, so Page Six says, articulated in delightful, erotica-esque prose: it was rejected "for nudity - curve of under breast and dark nipple/areola circle visible through sheer gown." In addition to being accurate, that's also... highly specific. It suggests to me at least that the MPAA spent a lot of time lingering lovingly over the poster, probably using only one hand, taking care to closely examine every offensive detail in order to reach their decision. Smoke break time.

Yes, it's hard to disagree that this poster goes right up to the edge of the envelope and pushes just barely past it, even if I'm inclined to think that Americans could experience worse traumas than the overt suggestion of stunning breasts belonging to a stunningly beautiful woman. But that's probably the point. Let's be real - I've talked about this before [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132734-The-First-Sin-City-2-Trailer-Solves-Hollywoods-Aging-Problem], but Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is coming out a rather long time after the 2005 original. In the intervening years Robert Rodriguez's reputation has become a bit campier, and Frank Miller's has all but been permanently soiled. This movie needs more than just the fond memories of hardcore fans. What better way to draw attention to it than a little "THIS MOVIE MIGHT BE TOO HOT FOR THE MPAA TO HANDLE!"? Hence the fact that this rejection was leaked to the press along with the offending poster.

Mission accomplished: we're all talking about the movie again.

Too cynical? In This Film is Not Yet Rated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated], Matt Stone discussed at length how he and Trey parker deliberately made the filthiest possible version of Team America: World Police so that they could make a show of editing it down to the extremely filthy version ultimately released in theaters in order to gain MPAA approval. I can't imagine there isn't something similar happening here.

But enough about that, you want to see more of super hot Eva Green, right? Here you go.

[gallery=2588]

Update: Post slightly edited for clarity.

Permalink
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Man, RossaLincoln, tell us how you really feel.

What I'd like to know is: is this film really going to be worth watching? Besides for Eva Green?
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
... That is all?
No, really, that is enough to get rejected?
I am not saying it aint a hot poster (subjective, I am sure there are people that do not find her attractive or just dont like poster), because damn its awesome to me...
But really?
If I was designing the poster then... uh it would get rejected quicker then :p ...

A question though:
If it was a poster with extreme violence would it be approved?
 

vagabondwillsmile

New member
Aug 20, 2013
221
0
0
Ah the MPAA, and American sensibilities that are still in the Victorian era: where filling people with lead, blowing them up, cutting them to pieces, and spraying their blood everywhere can all be A OK, but the human body (partially or suggestively nude and in one piece) is the most evilest thing evaaaar! :(

I think these priorities are back-the-f***-asswards.
 

InsrtCoins

New member
Nov 22, 2013
2
0
0
It's the MPAA's job to provide very specific reasoning for rejection of content. It's a bit rude to imply that their specificity was due to excessive ogling.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
InsrtCoins said:
It's the MPAA's job to provide very specific reasoning for rejection of content. It's a bit rude to imply that their specificity was due to excessive ogling.
And yet, surely you're also aware of how famously inconsistent, obtuse and obscure they are about any number of decisions they make. Their job is to make sure the arbitrary sensibilities of secretive prudes aren't offended, not to provide specific reasoning. They don't even have to make their reasons clear, or public. I'll update to make it clear, but perhaps you're not aware that Page Six is a gossip (highly accurate gossip) site. This information was leaked, not announced by the MPAA. At any rate, I'm updating so there won't be any further lack of clarity.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Man, RossaLincoln, tell us how you really feel.

What I'd like to know is: is this film really going to be worth watching? Besides for Eva Green?
OK, here goes: Eva Green is really, really, really, really, really, really hot.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
So is the board/panel stacked with guys just unfrozen from the 50's? Or people who still think its the 50's?

I've seen far far worse on the supermarket magazine racks in plain view. And in the vast majority of british tabloids (The Sport, The Star, The Scum ect.)
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Man, RossaLincoln, tell us how you really feel.

What I'd like to know is: is this film really going to be worth watching? Besides for Eva Green?
OK, here goes: Eva Green is really, really, really, really, really, really hot.
And from what I have seen of her, she is also a very good actress.
 

Daemascus

WAAAAAAAAAGHHH!!!!
Mar 6, 2010
792
0
0
The MPAA's problem with the poster was, so Page Six says, articulated in delightful, erotica-esque prose: it was rejected "for nudity - curve of under breast and dark nipple/areola circle visible through sheer gown."

Maybe? I looked way too closely and for all i can tell that's just the shadows on her gown.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Charcharo said:
RossaLincoln said:
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Man, RossaLincoln, tell us how you really feel.

What I'd like to know is: is this film really going to be worth watching? Besides for Eva Green?
OK, here goes: Eva Green is really, really, really, really, really, really hot.
And from what I have seen of her, she is also a very good actress.
That's definitely true as well.
 

tdylan

New member
Jun 17, 2011
381
0
0
Charcharo said:
... That is all?
No, really, that is enough to get rejected?
I am not saying it aint a hot poster (subjective, I am sure there are people that do not find her attractive or just dont like poster), because damn its awesome to me...
But really?
If I was designing the poster then... uh it would get rejected quicker then :p ...

A question though:
If it was a poster with extreme violence would it be approved?
Check out this article:

http://posterwire.com/50-cent-vs-007/

The jist is that people were up in arms over a picture promoting Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson's movie featuring him holding a gun "promotes gun violence." At the time, Curtis spoke of the double standard saying that he gets singled out for holding a gun, but Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie got no such treatment for their gun wielding in the poster for "Mr & Mrs Smith."

\

Double standards abound. As with many things in life, it's not "what you know," but "who you know." I'm jaded enough to shrug my shoulders at this kind of thing. I like the first sin city movie, and I'm not enough of a movie guy to Rodriguez to be "campy." I'm honestly not even sure what that means. I planned on seeing this movie because I'm interested in it. If this poster business is nothing more than "sneaky marketing" to drum up interest for the movie, more power to em. Mother f*ck a double standard.
 

UberPubert

New member
Jun 18, 2012
385
0
0
I'm not even entirely sure what's going on here.

This isn't about the MPAA making Rodriguez censor the movie, it's about them rejecting a poster? As in, the ones that get plastered on the outside and inside of a movie theater? Yeaaah, I can understand why any theater that also shows family movies might not want this hanging around.

All this aside, I actually have been looking forward to this since I heard it was announced, I really liked the first one.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
UberPubert said:
I'm not even entirely sure what's going on here.
The Sin City 2 production leaked the rejection to Page Six coinciding with releasing the rejected poster to drum up buzz about the movie.
 
Mar 26, 2008
3,429
0
0
Nice 1984 reference there!

Personally I don't think it is in poor taste, but then again I wouldn't want to be walking past it with my kids at the cinema. It's a tough one.
 

XenoScifi

New member
Dec 30, 2013
143
0
0
Wow, thx for looking out for my best interest MPAA. You saved me from those very nicely shaped natural breast. Now I can go read the Bible and thank god for MPAA saving my mind from this perversion!

Stupid really.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Programmed_For_Damage said:
Nice 1984 reference there!

Personally I don't think it is in poor taste, but then again I wouldn't want to be walking past it with my kids at the cinema. It's a tough one.
Uhmmm...
Where is the problem? No, really I am honest :( . I see nothing scary, too violent or too spicy in the poster :(
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Charcharo said:
A question though:
If it was a poster with extreme violence would it be approved?
I guess that depends on how you describe "extreme". Besides, it's been a well documented that Americans are a lot more uptight about sex than about violence for decades.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
WhiteTigerShiro said:
Charcharo said:
A question though:
If it was a poster with extreme violence would it be approved?
I guess that depends on how you describe "extreme". Besides, it's been a well documented that Americans are a lot more uptight about sex than about violence for decades.
I must say I have noticed that too... though it just seem extremely strange.
Are there studies on the subject?

As for extreme... hmm that is tough. What is extreme violence to me. Well, not so much gore as effective violence. A Clockwork Orange was effective violence to me... though Rambo and Predator were not.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
wooty said:
I've seen far far worse on the supermarket magazine racks in plain view. And in the vast majority of british tabloids (The Sport, The Star, The Scum ect.)
But you see, when Hilda (18, Hull) gets her baps out in a newspaper that is journalism. When an actress is shown with her bewbage not-quite-out that's an abomination unto nuggan. After all children could see it and it will cause an unrelenting torrent of illegal foreign sorts that cause cancer! What WOULD Princess Diana think? :p

OT: Eva Green is the hotness and can act damn well too. But in this age of tubes do movie posters actually need to be approved to be put online? I can see why they would want to have some rules set up for posters that would go up on billboards and outside cinemas, but considering the wealth of porn on the net showing some underboob is hardly a big deal.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,533
977
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Never mind the MPAA's reasoning; I'm upset that that gown isn't more clear. [small]ba dum tsh[/small]

tdylan said:
The jist is that people were up in arms over a picture promoting Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson's movie featuring him holding a gun "promotes gun violence." At the time, Curtis spoke of the double standard saying that he gets singled out for holding a gun, but Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie got no such treatment for their gun wielding in the poster for "Mr & Mrs Smith."
To be fair, Mr. Jackson is a lot more intimidating than Mr. Pitt. Brad could hold a loaded alligator in my face and I'd want to pinch his cheeks. (Brad Pitt's cheeks, not the alligator's. Unless the alligator was cute.)
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
InsrtCoins said:
It's the MPAA's job to provide very specific reasoning for rejection of content. It's a bit rude to imply that their specificity was due to excessive ogling.
Yeah, and I'm sure when the ESRB reviewed Scribblenauts, that part where they explain how a steak can be attached to a baby to attract lions, it was something they happened upon by accident.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=26980
 
Mar 26, 2008
3,429
0
0
Charcharo said:
Programmed_For_Damage said:
Nice 1984 reference there!

Personally I don't think it is in poor taste, but then again I wouldn't want to be walking past it with my kids at the cinema. It's a tough one.
Uhmmm...
Where is the problem? No, really I am honest :( . I see nothing scary, too violent or too spicy in the poster :(
My wife has raised them to be pretty prudish and while I'm liberal I'm the minority in my family. I don't want to get into the specifics of my family life but let's just say they've been pretty sheltered.
 

Pinky's Brain

New member
Mar 2, 2011
290
0
0
tdylan said:
The jist is that people were up in arms over a picture promoting Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson's movie featuring him holding a gun "promotes gun violence." At the time, Curtis spoke of the double standard saying that he gets singled out for holding a gun, but Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie got no such treatment for their gun wielding in the poster for "Mr & Mrs Smith."

Double standards abound.
It's only a double standard if you try to boil standards down to some mathematical rule ... not too many kids are going to try to become high class assassins or spies in emulation of those posters.

Gangster rappers talking about standards, all you can do is laugh ... and cry when you realize how many records they sell.
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
Breaking news; Old farts cant handle breasts! Story at eleven. In other news blowing people into smithereens and shoving sharp objects into vulnerable body parts is still A-okay.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Charcharo said:
I must say I have noticed that too... though it just seem extremely strange.
Are there studies on the subject?.
I don't know if any studies have really been done on the matter, it's just something you notice after a while. A TV show or movie can have insane amounts of violence and most parents won't care, but if there's so-much as a cleavage shot and suddenly they'll go into a fit of rage about how they're corrupting our youth with that rubbish. Heck, just look at the Hot Coffee debacle. A video game that lets you beat random passers-by to death, and the thing that got worldwide recognition is when someone released a hack that unlocked a mini-game that poorly depicted sex; and let me re-emphasize poorly, we're talking clothes still on poor. Yes, the GTA series gets plenty of flack of its violence, but it never got much more than a mention during the usual "murder simulator" bashing; it was only when this sex mini-game was revealed as being on the disc (never mind that you had to download a third-party hack to unlock it) that suddenly there was a massive outrage.

It's just a thing with the US. We'll over-look a LOT of violence before you start to hear much outrage, but movies and TV (especially TV) always have to skirt around anything sexual, or else there will be hell to pay. It' why we have shows like Will and Grace where the characters are supposed to be overtly sexual, but it'll dance around saying any of the "naughty" words or even the subject OF sex despite the fact that it's supposed to be something that they'd be able to discuss on a fairly casual level.
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
It's too bad I'm not on the MPAA board. I would of passed it with flying colors. Also, thanks, RossaLincoln, for the new desktop background.

What's really wrong with the MPAA is they rate films made by their 6 funding studios far less strictly than independent and foreign films. [sarcasm] It totally isn't an attempt to smother the competition for movie patrons' ticket money.[/sarcasm] They also OKed (probably without their knowledge, but made no attempts to pull posters in circulation) a poster of a 17 year old Emma Watson with "digital enhancements". They also seem fine with girls in bikinis front and center showing more boobage(totally a technical term) than the lovely Eva Green's subtle curves in this poster.

Women have breasts. If you geriatric, childless[footnote]Look it up, most members don't have kids, are male and are at least in their upper 50s. This Film is Not yet Rated is a good look at how fucked up the American film rating system really is. Parents should be bitching about how PG-13 films are being barely trimmed of their "R" offenses(sometimes just a word swap), instead of "M" video games, which usually aren't edited to become "T".[/footnote], old farts and hermits are gonna take this much time to realize this, maybe a better group that isn't paid by Hollywood's big shots should be rating movies.
 

shirkbot

New member
Apr 15, 2013
433
0
0
wooty said:
So is the board/panel stacked with guys just unfrozen from the 50's? Or people who still think its the 50's?
Not unfrozen, but definitely from with an ideology informed by the era. For more information (see: Hyperbole) check out this Cracked <a=http://www.cracked.com/article_21151_6-bizarre-realities-how-movies-get-their-ratings_p2.html>article. Long story short, the board is staffed predominantly by old, white men and funded by the major studios.

OT:
"for nudity - curve of under breast[...]"
Guys, I hate to break this to you, but breasts have curves. They're not magic semi-circles just glued on to the female torso. Flesh and phrsics and whatnot.
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
Imagine for a moment the MPAA and ESRB swapped for a month. What kind of weirdness would happen?

Also
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Man, RossaLincoln, tell us how you really feel.

What I'd like to know is: is this film really going to be worth watching? Besides for Eva Green?
OK, here goes: Eva Green is really, really, really, really, really, really hot.
Her eyes are too big though. She looks like the living embodiment of "Sarcastic anime cartoon". It kinda works for some movies, but when I can see the musculature tugging at the side of her eyeball when she's in a scene, just....ewwww.
 

sweetylnumb

New member
Sep 4, 2011
174
0
0
As a female on the internet who appreciates boobies and pecks alike and doesn't mind seeing the T&A hanging over the internet like toilet spray.

Can we just have ONE post involving boobies that doesn't involve the male writer going "mm look at them boobies, bet there was lots of masturbation over this ;)" because seriously. Gross.


I get it, you probably don't see many boobies and thus have to browse the internet for nice big photo-shopped ones but can't you keep your erection gifs and your "omg so hot!" comments to your damn selves.

Christ. Grow the fuck up.

Rant over, move along.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
So... I'm guessing this movie would immediately get a "Eva Green out of 10", then?

OT: http://img.pandawhale.com/post-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif

Oh MPAA... You always know when to crack me up! Now, real talk, are you hiring anybody in their 20s and/or 30s? Or better yet, since we's always "thinking of the children" these days, why not hire some mothers/fathers with kids that are basically in their "teens" just so that whenever stuff like this gets "rejected" for reasoning like that, at least you can say that it was a majority and/or "diverse" voting?

*sighs* Seriously, guys... The more "adult" I become, the more I can take the MPAA seriously...
 

Briantb

New member
Feb 6, 2014
78
0
0
sweetylnumb said:
As a female on the internet who appreciates boobies and pecks alike and doesn't mind seeing the T&A hanging over the internet like toilet spray.

Can we just have ONE post involving boobies that doesn't involve the male writer going "mm look at them boobies, bet there was lots of masturbation over this ;)" because seriously. Gross.


I get it, you probably don't see many boobies and thus have to browse the internet for nice big photo-shopped ones but can't you keep your erection gifs and your "omg so hot!" comments to your damn selves.

Christ. Grow the fuck up.

Rant over, move along.
Yeah It would be nice.
 

Briantb

New member
Feb 6, 2014
78
0
0
wooty said:
So is the board/panel stacked with guys just unfrozen from the 50's? Or people who still think its the 50's?

I've seen far far worse on the supermarket magazine racks in plain view. And in the vast majority of british tabloids (The Sport, The Star, The Scum ect.)
Pretty much all the boards that are responsible for rating things in the States and most public officials are old guys and the occasional women from the 50/60's there not frozen just old.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Inconsistency? Where? The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it on public theater walls.

Why this rant? Why this article? Why this anything?
 

wwmcfar

New member
Oct 12, 2009
30
0
0
The Motion Picture Association of America

A bunch of unelected cunts who have taken it upon themselves to be the moral arbiters of the movie industry and do so in absolute secrecy and with absolutely no oversight.
Their word is law, cannot be challenged and is often the difference between financial success or failure for artists.
They are a violation of the constitution and an affront to democracy and freedom of expression.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
838
118
I guess this is one of those times I feel like I'm in bizarro world, since I pretty much agree with the MPAA over this. I have no problem with titillation, but nylon covered boobs I find have no place on a public movie poster.

I'm not really seeing what's so gosh darn outrageous about them not allowing an overly sexual poster in public places.
 

nevarran

New member
Apr 6, 2010
347
0
0
"curve of under breast and dark nipple"? Bam, that's a kid's life in ruin, right there...
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
They said there was a visible nipple under the gown. I see no such nipple, either that, or apparently I need a much larger picture to notice it.
 

RealRT

New member
Feb 28, 2014
1,058
0
0
Too cynical? In This Film is Not Yet Rated, Matt Stone discussed at length how he and Trey parker deliberately made the filthiest possible version of Team America: World Police so that they could make a show of editing it down to the extremely filthy version ultimately released in theaters in order to gain MPAA approval. I can't imagine there isn't something similar happening here.
Nothing new. Back in the sixties, Soviet filmmaker Leonid Gaidai, well-known for his hilarious comedies (classics of Soviet cinema, I might add), inserted a random scene of a bomb exploding into the movie just so the censors tell him to remove that and nothing else.
 
Jan 10, 2013
31
0
0
And on the other hand this are this year's posters for the famous Life Ball (big LGBT and HIV-awareness event) that grace billboards around Vienna and nobody but Catholic and Muslim fringe groups even give a shit.
(Definitely not SFW, but of artistic intent)

USians are funny.
 

Shinkicker444

New member
Dec 6, 2011
349
0
0
Either I'm blind or the MPAA must have gone over her breasts with an electron microscope looking for areola, because I cannot see it. The breast curve is obvious though, but an absolutely facepalmingly stupid reason to ban it. You see more from someone wearing a swimsuit. Hell you see more from walking down the street some days. But, stupidly, the guns A-okay (promoting gun violence, what gun violence?! *puts suspiciously thick envelope in pocket*), however the slightest hints of sexuality, call in the army we've got horny people to repress!

Twattycake_Fancypant said:
And on the other hand this are this year's posters for the famous Life Ball (big LGBT and HIV-awareness event) that grace billboards around Vienna and nobody but Catholic and Muslim fringe groups even give a shit.
(Definitely not SFW, but of artistic intent)

USians are funny.
You know.. it took me a few moments to notice the difference between the two posters. But really, my concern with them is WHAT THE UNHOLY HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT GUYS HEAD.
 
Jan 10, 2013
31
0
0
Yeah, I have no idea what that's supposed to be. Maybe a huge eyeball? An ovum? Although they hardly look like that.

Captcha: sausages

Why, yes, captcha. Surprise sausage.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Inconsistency? Where? The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it on public theater walls.

Why this rant? Why this article? Why this anything?
The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it.

Did you read that back to yourself? Because it sounds even more ridiculous when you say it like that. A very obvious breast...as opposed to a nice, subtle breast. Nobody wants to have to explain to kids what breasts are, after all.
 

Trillovinum

New member
Dec 15, 2010
221
0
0
sweetylnumb said:
As a female on the internet who appreciates boobies and pecks alike and doesn't mind seeing the T&A hanging over the internet like toilet spray.

Can we just have ONE post involving boobies that doesn't involve the male writer going "mm look at them boobies, bet there was lots of masturbation over this ;)" because seriously. Gross.


I get it, you probably don't see many boobies and thus have to browse the internet for nice big photo-shopped ones but can't you keep your erection gifs and your "omg so hot!" comments to your damn selves.

Christ. Grow the fuck up.

Rant over, move along.
Well said.
It's basically what I think as well.
I think it's absurd that these movie rating people are such a bunch of prudes just as much as everyone else here but I have to admit that this arcticle wasn't really a very nice read, mainly because of the dumb masturbation reference but also because the author couldn't help himself and commented on the acrtress 'hotness' multiple times. (well, twice in the article and more in the comments.)

Anyway, Well said ma'am.
As per your orders, moving on.
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
That is a clickbaity as all hell title. It belongs with "8 out of 10 woman sploosh at these trilby's" & "you won't believe how this food is killing your soul"
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Thyunda said:
lacktheknack said:
Inconsistency? Where? The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it on public theater walls.

Why this rant? Why this article? Why this anything?
The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it.

Did you read that back to yourself? Because it sounds even more ridiculous when you say it like that. A very obvious breast...as opposed to a nice, subtle breast. Nobody wants to have to explain to kids what breasts are, after all.
Sorry.

Obvious BARE breast.

Better?

That thing she's wearing is to shirts as condoms are to underwear.
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
I see more revealing posters hanging in the streets all the time. Of course I don't live in America but yeah.

What I also don't get is how it's supposedly really wrong to show off nipples, but it's OK in many cases to show off large parts of the breasts otherwise. Actually OK I get it, they're more "intimate", but still, it's part of the whole deal.
 

Sande45

New member
Mar 28, 2011
120
0
0
I think this poster is in better taste than that recent Jessica Alba one, but I guess you can't get over kind of, sort of, maybe seeing a glimpse of a nipple. That shit scars youth for life.
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
I worked as a manager in a local movie theatre about 15 years ago and we'd get occasional updates from the MPAA detailing what could and could not be on a poster or in the movie advertisement. Confusing, as we were just the vehicle by which the content was delivered and not a content producer in any way.

Amongst my favorite MPAA movie poster no nos were.

No physical or written depictions of the physically handicapped.
No usage of the word Hell or any variation thereof.
No visual depictions of specific religious figures.
No Explicit or insinuated sexual activity or reference.
No scatological humor or reference.

What always cracked me up is that the poster for South Park Bigger, Longer and Uncut was kind of a big "where's Waldo" game of MPAA advertising violations. It became pretty obvious pretty quickly that there was no consistency to these rules at all as virtually any poster for anything other than a family friendly kids flick was damn near guaranteed to have at least one glaring violation.


Edit:
(A quick glance of the Advertising handbook shows that the one time exhaustive list has been paired down to a handful of relatively obvious rules and an addendum that essentially reads "anything else we think is naughty.")
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
sweetylnumb said:
As a female on the internet who appreciates boobies and pecks alike and doesn't mind seeing the T&A hanging over the internet like toilet spray.

Can we just have ONE post involving boobies that doesn't involve the male writer going "mm look at them boobies, bet there was lots of masturbation over this ;)" because seriously. Gross.


I get it, you probably don't see many boobies and thus have to browse the internet for nice big photo-shopped ones but can't you keep your erection gifs and your "omg so hot!" comments to your damn selves.

Christ. Grow the fuck up.

Rant over, move along.
I apologize for the snark, but I have to ask, did you even read this article or the joke I made in it? Because you aren't actually talking about the joke I made.

EDIT: to clarify, the joke about masturbation hinges on the fact that the people who freak out the most about salacious threats to public decency seem to always demonstrate the most pathological obsession with said threats. Their obsession says more about themselves than it does about the threat they're trying to stop.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
I guess this is one of those times I feel like I'm in bizarro world, since I pretty much agree with the MPAA over this. I have no problem with titillation, but nylon covered boobs I find have no place on a public movie poster.

I'm not really seeing what's so gosh darn outrageous about them not allowing an overly sexual poster in public places.
I feel like my point about how this was an obvious promotional tactic by the Sin City 2 production is getting lost in this discussion. I even say in my article that this poster does kind of go right up to the edge and pushes a bit past it, but that was the point. The production wanted to be able to get people talking about ZOMG THIS MIGHT BE TOO HOT FOR THE MPAA. It's PR.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
738
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Inconsistency? Where? The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it on public theater walls.

Why this rant? Why this article? Why this anything?
It appears there might be some confusion. Here's what I wrote, with the relevant bit emboldened:

The Motion Picture Association of America has a notorious and well-deserved reputation for complete inconsistency and the application of arbitrary double standards when it comes to rating films and approving marketing. The organization's process is legendary for being both obscure and obtuse - IngSoc was more transparent, which is why its decisions often cause controversies in and of themselves. That state of affairs has led to a curious kind of marketing in which film productions deliberately attempt to catch the MPAA's ire, generating discussion and frustration from anti-censorship advocates as well as people who just tire of the way grown adults are treated like children when it comes to American movies.

Case in point, Page Six has reported that, in a shockingly convenient (I'll get to that momentarily) decision, the MPAA has rejected a poster for Sin City: A Dame To Kill...
My point is that the MPAA's reputation, which is widely known and richly deserved, makes it easy to use it for marketing buzz. WE GOT CENSORED gets people talking.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
lacktheknack said:
Inconsistency? Where? The MPAA didn't want a movie poster with a very obvious breast in it on public theater walls.

Why this rant? Why this article? Why this anything?
It appears there might be some confusion. Here's what I wrote, with the relevant bit emboldened:

The Motion Picture Association of America has a notorious and well-deserved reputation for complete inconsistency and the application of arbitrary double standards when it comes to rating films and approving marketing. The organization's process is legendary for being both obscure and obtuse - IngSoc was more transparent, which is why its decisions often cause controversies in and of themselves. That state of affairs has led to a curious kind of marketing in which film productions deliberately attempt to catch the MPAA's ire, generating discussion and frustration from anti-censorship advocates as well as people who just tire of the way grown adults are treated like children when it comes to American movies.

Case in point, Page Six has reported that, in a shockingly convenient (I'll get to that momentarily) decision, the MPAA has rejected a poster for Sin City: A Dame To Kill...
My point is that the MPAA's reputation, which is widely known and richly deserved, makes it easy to use it for marketing buzz. WE GOT CENSORED gets people talking.
Why are we feeding it, then? There's no way that poster was going to get on theater walls, and they knew it. I don't like being manipulated much.
 

El Luck

New member
Jul 22, 2011
312
0
0
wait, there were tits on that poster? I can't stop looking at those eyes. Oh I was meant to say something about the MPAA being dumb? well, that goes without saying, now if you'll excuse me i'm going to get hypnotised by those eyes some more.
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,356
0
0
NIPPLES? OH NOOOO~! D:

The absolute horror! Won't someone think of the children?!

/sarcasm
 

sweetylnumb

New member
Sep 4, 2011
174
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
sweetylnumb said:
As a female on the internet who appreciates boobies and pecks alike and doesn't mind seeing the T&A hanging over the internet like toilet spray.

Can we just have ONE post involving boobies that doesn't involve the male writer going "mm look at them boobies, bet there was lots of masturbation over this ;)" because seriously. Gross.


I get it, you probably don't see many boobies and thus have to browse the internet for nice big photo-shopped ones but can't you keep your erection gifs and your "omg so hot!" comments to your damn selves.

Christ. Grow the fuck up.

Rant over, move along.
I apologize for the snark, but I have to ask, did you even read this article or the joke I made in it? Because you aren't actually talking about the joke I made.

EDIT: to clarify, the joke about masturbation hinges on the fact that the people who freak out the most about salacious threats to public decency seem to always demonstrate the most pathological obsession with said threats. Their obsession says more about themselves than it does about the threat they're trying to stop.


I did and i understand. To be honest my comment was more a general frustration with the internet in general not to you specifically. As a girl you just get a little tired of dude bros going hehe erections. I like titties too but damn i dont talk about my vagina lubricating everytime i see a picture.

If you feel me
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,865
0
0
I love the fact that celebrities can wear outfits similar to that (neckline cut and sheerness) and it's perfectly A-OK. However on a movie poster? NO. How dare you?(the last sentence is sarcasm btw)

-rolls eyes-

I'm starting to not like the MPAA more and more. Them, the RIAA, and pretty much every industry in America that thrives off of censoring things and people. Can we please get our sensibilites out of the victorian age? If lots of bloodshed and violence is ok to show, the so it suggested nudity. Both are on different levels but only one is apparently acceptable. Unless it's a guy then what do we care right?
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
It's not just the double standards that are aggravating. Not to get all conspiracy-theorist, but an even bigger reveal in This Film Is Not Yet Rated was that the MPAA's other main function is to make it harder for independent films to gain wide renown, in favor of shilling for large studios.

In other news... I agree, I don't think anyone who designed this poster expected the MPAA to approve it. Even if the MPAA weren't so blatantly corrupt and ass-backwards, they probably would have no-no'd this. So yeah, it was a PR stunt, presumably to help people get over the fact that Frank Miller has been proven to be such a wingnut (now if only they could do something about the fact that the source material is almost as retrograde as Miller's later work...).
 

Ten Foot Bunny

I'm more of a dishwasher girl
Mar 19, 2014
807
0
0
Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but thinking of Sin City makes me miss Brittany Murphy all over again... :(

sweetylnumb said:
Can we just have ONE post involving boobies that doesn't involve the male writer going "mm look at them boobies, bet there was lots of masturbation over this ;)" because seriously. Gross.
Part of me wonders if some of this could be mitigated by normalizing artistic nudity (as opposed to ridiculous porn) rather than locking this imagery up in the name of prudishness. After all, you can go to just about any art museum and see pieces that show more skin than that rejected movie poster.
 

Holla Atchaboiy

New member
Jun 5, 2014
1
0
0
weirdee said:
Yeah, and I'm sure when the ESRB reviewed Scribblenauts, that part where they explain how a steak can be attached to a baby to attract lions, it was something they happened upon by accident.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=26980
Content ratings for ESRB are self-reported; they don't review games like the MPAA does films... The game makers simply tell the ESRB what objectional content their game contains and the ESRB ascribes a rating based on that content. There have been issues in the past where games lied and/or undersold content and got in trouble after release..