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

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

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

sin city dame to kill eva green small

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 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, 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, 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.

Update: Post slightly edited for clarity.

Permalink

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?

... 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?

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.

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.

InsrtCoins:
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.

Shamanic Rhythm:
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.

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:

Shamanic Rhythm:
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.

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.

Charcharo:

RossaLincoln:

Shamanic Rhythm:
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.

Charcharo:
... 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."

image\

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.

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.

UberPubert:
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.

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.

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.

Programmed_For_Damage:
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 :(

Charcharo:
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.

WhiteTigerShiro:

Charcharo:
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.

wooty:
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.

Never mind the MPAA's reasoning; I'm upset that that gown isn't more clear. ba dum tsh

tdylan:
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.)

InsrtCoins:
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

Charcharo:

Programmed_For_Damage:
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.

tdylan:
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.

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.

Charcharo:
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.

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[1], 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.

[1] 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".

wooty:
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 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.

Imagine for a moment the MPAA and ESRB swapped for a month. What kind of weirdness would happen?

Also

RossaLincoln:

Shamanic Rhythm:
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.

Hmmm.. may have to spring for digital super duper deluxe 3D for this one..

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.

So... I'm guessing this movie would immediately get a "Eva Green out of 10", then?

OT: image

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...

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.

Yeah It would be nice.

wooty:
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.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here