Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

[SnakeDoctor]

I hate the MPAA. Showing a gun is ok, but the curve of a breast is taboo? Especially with how stupid Hollywood is with supporting anti-gun legislation, you would think that would be a no no.

Weird statement. I carry a gun most everywhere I go. My wife carries her ****s wherever she goes. Guess which never gets unholstered in front of the kids.

This poster getting banned....it's really brilliant marketing actually. Tons of people now more aware of the film, and as this thread would recently indicate, plenty of male viewers making sure not to miss this...

Indeed. There's about to be a flood of 'banned' movie posters.

SnakeDoc

 

[batfan08]

I think what he's trying to say is that we Americans have a weird sense of what's appropriate. A dude can get his head ripped off in a PG-13 movie, but a pair of **** will bag you and R rating if they're on screen for even one second.

 

[dw316]

Titanic was PG-13

 

[batfan08]

Well, it's a James Cameron movie.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

Somewhat nudity aside I think it's their best poster. The lighting and pose and colouring all works really well

 

[SnakeDoctor]

I think what he's trying to say is that we Americans have a weird sense of what's appropriate. A dude can get his head ripped off in a PG-13 movie, but a pair of **** will bag you and R rating if they're on screen for even one second.

I'm saying he has a weird sense of what is appropriate.

As for movie ratings ... Titanic was already mentioned. Doc Hollywood also had toplessness broad, if I recall. The Fifth Element was PG. Airplane was PG. The Woman in Red was PG13.

SnakeDoc

 

[dw316]

Fifth Element was PG???!!! Holy crap, I thought it'd be PG-13 at least for the violence, lol

 

[SnakeDoctor]

I'm mistaken. Fifth Element was PG-13.

SnakeDoc

 

[crows]

This poster getting banned....it's really brilliant marketing actually. Tons of people now more aware of the film, and as this thread would recently indicate, plenty of male viewers making sure not to miss this...

now they need to release a rated R red band trailer and everyone will want to go see this

 

[Rotfish]

Kind of a shame they're relying primarily on hard-ons to market this movie. I've wanted a sequel ever since I saw the first, before I was even developed in... that... region. All levity aside, the ad campaign for the original didn't quite rely on *** so much as general badassery and unique style.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

But this is banned so they aren't relying on *** sells.

The posters are about the same with the first movie. We had sexy ones then as well

 

[Rambler]

Have you ever seen this movie?



Pretty amazing look at how censorship works in Hollywood and now depending on the studio or the director some stuff will be approved and some won't. This film is pretty awesome at showing how things are controlled.

I'll check that out. Thanks.

I'm saying he has a weird sense of what is appropriate.

As for movie ratings ... Titanic was already mentioned. Doc Hollywood also had toplessness broad, if I recall. The Fifth Element was PG. Airplane was PG. The Woman in Red was PG13.

SnakeDoc

How is thinking that showing violence and guns is ok, but showing the outline of a **** is bad a weird statement? I carry a firearm almost all the time too. I just think this country is goofy when it comes to what is deemed appropriate and what not. We show all this violence and what not on TV and movies, but to show the curve of a **** or saying certain swear words is bad. Just stupid standards is all I was referring to. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Rambler]

I think what he's trying to say is that we Americans have a weird sense of what's appropriate. A dude can get his head ripped off in a PG-13 movie, but a pair of **** will bag you and R rating if they're on screen for even one second.

Bingo.

 

[crows]

Kind of a shame they're relying primarily on hard-ons to market this movie. I've wanted a sequel ever since I saw the first, before I was even developed in... that... region. All levity aside, the ad campaign for the original didn't quite rely on *** so much as general badassery and unique style.

is just one poster. we haven't even seen a full trailer.

But even if the next trailer is focused on ***, Like you said, the original trailer was focused on the badassery which we already know. so this time if they focus on the sexy, technically that would be a new approach

 

[crows]

I think what he's trying to say is that we Americans have a weird sense of what's appropriate. A dude can get his head ripped off in a PG-13 movie, but a pair of **** will bag you and R rating if they're on screen for even one second.

is not even all Americans. they do it because they just don't want to piss off the ultra religious right. If this poster was allowed then you would have hundreds of people protesting in front of movie theaters and sending death threats to Robert Rodriguez house. It has happened before.

 

[batfan08]

It's a bunch of puritanical nonsense. Like you said, it's not even all Americans, it's just that the prudes are the most vocal.

 

[Rambler]

Excellent points. You're absolutely right.

 

[crows]

It's a bunch of puritanical nonsense. Like you said, it's not even all Americans, it's just that the prudes are the most vocal.

which is why we have all these restrictions. Look at what happened when Janet Jackson showed her COVERED nipple on tv. it wasn't even a naked ****. she had a weird star thing covering it. All hell broke loose that was such a ---storm. Oh Dear God the kids saw a bewb on TV, they are damaged for LIFE!!!!
I find it ironic that for their first year of life, babies see a **** every single day. it gives them life, nutrients, they survive because of it. but once they hit around 4, they become these weird forbidden nasty things that they must be kept away from for parents. when you put it that way. it is completely Insane.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

How is thinking that showing violence and guns is ok, but showing the outline of a **** is bad a weird statement? I carry a firearm almost all the time too. I just think this country is goofy when it comes to what is deemed appropriate and what not. We show all this violence and what not on TV and movies, but to show the curve of a **** or saying certain swear words is bad. Just stupid standards is all I was referring to. I hope that makes sense.

You said you didn't know why they could see a gun and not a ****. For the same reason they can in my house. That's not a stupid standard. There's nothing inappropriately adult about weapons. For my kids, I personally have less problem with violence than sexuality on TV or movies. Not too many teenagers are going to derail their lives with indiscriminate gunfighting or car chases.

is not even all Americans. they do it because they just don't want to piss off the ultra religious right. If this poster was allowed then you would have hundreds of people protesting in front of movie theaters and sending death threats to Robert Rodriguez house. It has happened before.

Nonsense. There's all kinds of nudity and sexuality in movies that never get any response from the 'ultra-religious right'. One need not be a prude or a puritan to not want their elementary-aged kids gawking at Eva Green's ****s in a movie theater lobby while waiting to see the Lego Movie or whatever.

The poster is fine. Eva Green is worth a look. But, it ought not be hanging in theater hallways for all to see. It'll get more attention for being 'banned' anyway.

which is why we have all these restrictions. Look at what happened when Janet Jackson showed her COVERED nipple on tv. it wasn't even a naked ****. she had a weird star thing covering it. All hell broke loose that was such a ---storm. Oh Dear God the kids saw a bewb on TV, they are damaged for LIFE!!!!
I find it ironic that for their first year of life, babies see a **** every single day. it gives them life, nutrients, they survive because of it. but once they hit around 4, they become these weird forbidden nasty things that they must be kept away from for parents. when you put it that way. it is completely Insane.

Nobody said 'damaged for life'. But, I wouldn't take my kids to see Sin City ... and that all the women are literal prostitutes, and dressed that way, is one of the top reasons. If I'd not let them see the movie ... I'd also rather they didn't see the same objectionable stuff on the poster when waiting for a different movie.

As for your 'nursing' example -- certainly you see the difference in nursing a baby and taking one to a strip joint.

SnakeDoc

 

[Rambler]

Good point. I see where you're coming from Snake. From that standpoint I guess I will stand corrected a bit. I would agree I don't want my kids seeing a naked breast over certain levels of violence. However that poster doesn't seem inappropriate at all to me. That's what's confusing to me is how that is inappropriate. Whatever. You're right though that this is only good publicity for the movie.