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

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

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 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.

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.

"curve of under breast and dark nipple"? Bam, that's a kid's life in ruin, right there...

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.

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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

lacktheknack:
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.

sweetylnumb:
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.

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"

Thyunda:

lacktheknack:
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.

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.

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.

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.")

sweetylnumb:
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.

Casual Shinji:
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.

lacktheknack:
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.

RossaLincoln:

lacktheknack:
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.

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.

NIPPLES? OH NOOOO~! D:

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

/sarcasm

RossaLincoln:

sweetylnumb:
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

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?

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...).

Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but thinking of Sin City makes me miss Brittany Murphy all over again... :(

sweetylnumb:
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.

weirdee:
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..

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.