March 31, 2007, 6:15 a.m. CST
i totally agree- theres got to be a line...especially when it comes to advertising
March 31, 2007, 6:16 a.m. CST
well...theyve got to be honest-as people judge the movie by the cover. Plus- there is the question...I mean, how affected can a kid get by looking at a dvd cover? ANSWER: SHIT-SCARED! the cover for stephen kings IT fucked my up when I was a kid!
March 31, 2007, 6:25 a.m. CST
...who had a driller in his throat? Because they used it in europe everywhere and nobody complained. And that one is much harder than the Captivity ad IMO.
March 31, 2007, 6:25 a.m. CST
March 31, 2007, 6:33 a.m. CST
by Captain RawBeard
I agree in that if they were told not to put up the posters they shouldnt have and should be punished for it. <br> But at the same time I thought the Saw posters were more graphic than that and in the UK we had them everywhere even on a public bus. <br> <br> Plus in reacting this way we are going to give, what might be a rubbish film a stupid amount of publicity. So after all the fuss calms down they will no doubt release it with the ad "the film they tried to ban", so many idiots will flock to the cinema to watch it and a new crappy franchise is born.
March 31, 2007, 6:36 a.m. CST
I agree with you Moriarty. That billboard ad is unacceptable, and After Dark's slow response to the demands to remove the ads only makes matters worse. I like that they drew attention to a number of small horror films with the 8 Films to Die For, but this marketing stunt is a terrible and desperate way to draw attention to the latest in a growing sea of torture movies.
March 31, 2007, 6:46 a.m. CST
Don't care about the movie anyway, but this kinda stuff should not be shown in public.
March 31, 2007, 7:06 a.m. CST
...about that billboard is her nasty fake tit defying gravity. What the hell is that? Yuck! <p>Johnny Kool, a REAL tit man. <p>Um, yeah... Carry on.
March 31, 2007, 7:14 a.m. CST
...on this one. Just bear in mind, you'll be siding with Courtney Solomon. I repeat. You'll be siding with the auteur of Dungeons & Dragons. (Not to mention the legions of easily-manipulated junior-high "rebels" who immediately started flooding the imdb Captivity boards after this pre-planned controversty broke.) Consider yourself warned.
March 31, 2007, 7:23 a.m. CST
I just wrote a load of bullshit that I'll save you from! But please do read this end bit.... my thoughts only, just like youres: But that poster ain't gonna effect no muthafucker more than a lot of other shit thats out there, whether it be entertainment or real life. You are in Hollywood after all. So here is my request, and I hope you and Harry and Quint take it seriously: TAKE THIS TABLOID BULLSHIT OFF OF THIS SITE! Put it in the Zone if you want. But I want to read about Iron Man, Batman, Spielberg, Scorese ETC ETC..... not what the fuck you think of a bullshit publicity stunt thats only got big because the trades and now international press have run with it. Can we talk about the merits or lack there of, of the poster please? I swear the best thing about this site is the lack of bullshit and pretension and cynicism that have infected most other sites and have drowned the printed movie press. Don't fall into this trap... I fear you posting about a "controversial billboard", no matter what your stance, is a bad sign...
March 31, 2007, 7:24 a.m. CST
I should mention that apart from the hook image I REALLY REALLY HONESTLY don't find that poster THAT bad at all! And the hook thing.... weeeeel I've seen worse. Kids have seen worse. What the fuck is wrong with it? Other that its not very creative and its for a shit lookignn film.
March 31, 2007, 7:26 a.m. CST
You geeks and your celebration of torture porn now want to get all self righteous because you think THIS TIME someone went to far? I know lots of parents who have been complaining for years about the sick images displayed to promote films like Saw and Hostel that you praise to the rooftops. You popularized these movies and now you're paying the price. The fact that movies where people are routinely tortured to death are being churned out by the bucket load is the problem, not some stupid ad campaign. To get all huffy about a symptom while still celebrating the problem is ridiculous. You created this world. You live in it.
March 31, 2007, 7:44 a.m. CST
A certain film reviewer lets his little nephew watch R-rated movies because he saw R-rated films when he was younger and "it didnt screwed me up" argument.... yes because he hasnt look at himself in the mirror. People like this should be charged with abuse.
March 31, 2007, 7:48 a.m. CST
the highest literary approach to match the same artistic level of the movie.
March 31, 2007, 8 a.m. CST
Let me say this first. I don't have children. They make you weak, as Moriarty just pointed out in his article. Do you have no problem with fashion billboards promoting super skinny barely legal girls as the representation of the female race? Do you have no problem with alcohol or ciggarette advertisements. Hell, in South Florida we now have local gay hotline billboards with shirtless men right off the interstate. Better yet, I saw a billboard with a female robot that said "I go both ways" and it was advertising vodka. Does that not bother you more than the movie billboard?
March 31, 2007, 8:03 a.m. CST
Ooooooh protect the children! Who cares? Sorry to break it to you Mori, but people who want to censor stuff "for the children" really want it because it upsets them personally. Or in your case, the thought of having a fucking meaningful conversation with your kid upsets you. Grow up and learn to be a fucking parent.
March 31, 2007, 8:11 a.m. CST
seriously. you are the only reason i continue to visit this site on a regular basis. i could call out some of these TB'ers but i wouldn't be saying anything you've already thought. intelligent people FTW! high five.
March 31, 2007, 8:15 a.m. CST
Anyone else think that the other point of this whole thing is to make the MPAA irrelevant? Mori and others are really pushing for the film to receive no rating, rather than a harsh one. Sure, a no rating will make further advertisement very difficult. But, when the movie does finally come out, isn't it easier for a minor to get into a no rating film than an NC-17? Couldn't that actually help the box office? Eh, maybe I'm just rambling.
March 31, 2007, 8:18 a.m. CST
Well done, sirs.
March 31, 2007, 8:19 a.m. CST
I'm up to early and stuff. Unrated movies stand to make next to nothing it seems. Ah well. I'd have preferred a secret Joss Whedon agenda.
March 31, 2007, 8:21 a.m. CST
I like Moriarity too, I just think that, this time, he is on some seriously soggy footing. You just can't have it both ways. I remember the 'Hills Have Eyes' movie poster with the terrified girl on the floor with the hand over her mouth. That picture was so disturbing and that poster was EVERYWHERE. Was it any more acceptable because it was only IMPLIED that she was about to be hacked to death? Did that make the terror in her eyes okay? This is a very slippery slope and again, points to a much larger problem. If we're getting so desensitized to these images, is it any wonder someone has decided to up the ante? Hollywood only gives us what we want. Perhaps we have met the enemy and he is us.
March 31, 2007, 8:33 a.m. CST
You're missing the point. In this case, the MPAA said no. If the MPAA had approved this poster, then there would be no issue.
March 31, 2007, 8:40 a.m. CST
by I Own You
Now After Dark can promote what might be a silly, boring film as the one that "THE CENSORS DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE". Hoards of the male target market will seek out this film thinking 'whoa, a censored movie with Cuthbert, cool'. Personally, I think this might be work well for After dark in the long run.
March 31, 2007, 8:47 a.m. CST
The director of The Killing Fields has sunk to directing sub-torture porn trash? Aw man, that's gotta hurt...
March 31, 2007, 8:58 a.m. CST
So what's so bad about those billboards anyway. I would hardly say there's anything graphic about them. As for Mori's insistence that it could be traumatic for children. "But say he’d been a little older... how am I supposed to explain to him what those four panels add up to? More importantly... why should I have to?" Here's a thought, man up, be a friggin' parent and say "it's from a dumb horror movie." Who do you think should explain to him that there's a lot of fucked up shit that goes on in this world, and part of being human is dealing with said shit? By the time kids are a few years old they've already experienced death, from Bambi's mom, to grandpa kickin' off. Kids don't need protecting as much as the censors and weak parents think. Grow up, violent imagery is everywhere, teach your kids that it's just a damn movie and give them more credit they're stronger than you think.
March 31, 2007, 9 a.m. CST
You want to protect your kid from seeing stuff instead of having a meaningful discussion with him (and if hes too young to have a meaningful discussion with then hes too young for that poster to have any affect at all. Period.), fine. You can buy him a motorcycle helmet and make sure he wears it when you're out in public. Protecting your child from things you dont want them to see is YOUR responsbility and no one elses, and the motorcycle helmet allows you to do just that. That's why its the only thing you get to do. You don't get to tell other people to take down images just because you find them offensive. And you certainly dont get to do that and get to retain ANY credibility as a free speech advocate. I am extremely dissapointed in both you and Joss, two people I used to have tremendous amounts of respect for advocating de facto economic censorship because an ad campaign made you uncomfortable. Now, I admit I dont know the MPAA rules- if they broke some sort of MPAA they should certainly be fined or somesuch - but to advocate an action that would effectivley destroy the movie is unconsciable. Conversly, if they simply went around the MPAA, more power to them. I for one will be going to see the movie in the theater now to support this company because I am what you've apparently only pretended to be - a strong supporter of the right to free sppech.
March 31, 2007, 9:08 a.m. CST
Listen, Moriarty didn't say putting the poster up should be illegal. He didn't say the movie should be banned. He is not saying that we need to censor everything just in case a kid happens to walk by. If you can't see the distinction between calling for something to be illegal and calling for an organization to withhold benefits based on violation of the organization's decisions then you're not thinking about the matter very hard.
March 31, 2007, 9:11 a.m. CST
The MPAA and filmakers are not responsible for what your children see, the parent is. I was allowed to watch The Shining and The Forbidden Zone when I was under the age of 10...Thank fucking god. It would have been aweful to grow up expecting a PG-13 world, when in reality our society is obsessed with porn, the war, and snorting lines of coke off Anna Nicoles festering ass. If your kid wants to watch hookers munch aborted fetuses while pissing on the fuhrer, thats your problem. About that poster, FUCK IT, your kids will see that shit anyway. Whenever I question, what should "Timmy" be watching I looked over at Kurt Russell. If he is laughing pretty hard, I guess it is okay. Oh yeah, and Tipper Gore sucks cocks in hell!
March 31, 2007, 9:13 a.m. CST
Will forcce the movie out of theaters thereby censoring(making it more diffcult to see) it through economic means. Moriarity is playing word games because while he is not activley endorsing censorship, he is supporting an action that will have a censoring effect. And if you can't see that, I'd say YOU weren't thinking about the matter very hard.
March 31, 2007, 9:13 a.m. CST
I can see the outrage but there are far more offensive posters out there. <p>Take War of the Worlds - a deformed baby hand gripping my balls.<p> And ditto the Killing Feilds director remark sinking to a new low ..... I can make torture porn - it's called Dirty Sanchez. Just think about it.
March 31, 2007, 9:18 a.m. CST
The MPAA is a private institution. So is it censorship for advertisers NOT to buy ad spots during TV shows they don't want to endorse? This isn't the government, it's a private entity punishing a film for disobeying the decisions of that private entity. What should the MPAA do when a company breaks its rules, just say "whoops, thems the breaks" and act is if nothing happened? Please.
March 31, 2007, 9:23 a.m. CST
I said above - if they broke some sort of MPAA rule, by all means they should be fined. However, removing the rating is economic censorship and completely unacceptable. As for your advertising question - it should be up to the individual advertising avenue whether or not they accept the advertising. The MPAA has no more business telling someone else NOT to accept advertising then they would forcing them TO accept advertising.
March 31, 2007, 9:27 a.m. CST
Moriarty made it clear that he thinks the movie should be allowed in theatres. He has no problem with it running. He supports not giving it a rating NOT to keep it form theatres, but to punish them for defying the MPAA's decision. Just because, incidentally, the movie's release will suffer does not make that censorship. You may as well say it's censorship every time a movie studio turns down a screenplay, because they're making it harder for that writer's words to find an audience. Not everything that affects the ability of a message to find an audience is censorship, to be censorship it has to be based in some way on the message's content.
March 31, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST
Keeps it from theaters because damn few theaters will show it. Thats economic censorship (since Moriaritys definition is based on the content making him uncomfortable). Moriarity works in the industry and knows this, which is why any claim that hes not supporting censorship is completely hypocritical. No, hes not demadning that the movie be changed- just that it be made impossible to see. You dont get to do that and still claim you stand up for free speech. I'm all for punishing them for breaking the MPAA's rules - but do it in a way that isnt defacto economic censorship. And isnt hypocritical.
March 31, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST
They should be fined? The MPAA is a private institution, how are they going to make them pay said fine? By... refusing to rate their movie, maybe? Hmm.<br>Listen, when they submitted that movie to be rated they knew that they were agreeing to abide by the MPAA's advertising rules. They broke those rules, the process gets suspended. It's very simple, and it has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with not dicking the people you are relying on to give your movie approval.
March 31, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST
them a rating. That's de facto censorship. Hopefully the fine is high enough that they think twice about doing this a second time.
March 31, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST
...It was only a matter of time before someone brought up that ridiculous chestnut. Because torture porn is exactly the same thing as the implied death of Bambi's Mom. That argument is right up there with the, "What do you want? Shakespeare?" when excusing Uwe Boll movies.<p>My nephew is 3, but I think that's old enough for him to watch a lot of hardcore porn. After all, he saw Bambi, and Bambi had that whole "twitter-pated" scene. I figure that's pretty much the same thing as Anal Teen Whores.
March 31, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST
Moriarty had no problem at all with the content of the film. He said so. He had a problem with the billboard, which was there *against the rules*. If that billboard had been MPAA-approved, there would be no issue. Again, this has nothing to do with the content of the film and everything to do with the fact that they broke the rules. If I murder someone and write a manifesto in their blood, is being incarcerated censoring my message or just punishing me for my crime? <br>And, please, explain to me why it is the MPAA the is censoring the movie by not giving it a rating rather than the theatres that won't show the movie because it's unrated?
March 31, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST
I know that wasn't your intent in writing this article, but it does seem like a publicity stunt that is working very well. The more articles that are written, the more money they will make and the more they will be rewarded for this billboard. It would have been better to ignore them if you wanted to punish them. But I know AICN needs content, and it is an interesting story, so it goes...
March 31, 2007, 9:40 a.m. CST
And just about "healthy" to watch.
March 31, 2007, 9:40 a.m. CST
They make them pay the fine by suspending the process until the fine gets paid, duh. I have no problem with a TEMPORARY suspension of the process until some sort of appropriate punishment(i.e. a fine) gets decied on and paid. Keeping people from seeing the movie by refusing to rate is is economic censorship, plain and simple and is not approrpiate; regardless of what the billboards had on them.
March 31, 2007, 9:45 a.m. CST
So it's okay to not-rate it if they don't pay the fine, but it would be wrong to not-rate it because they put up a billboard? That's interesting. And, again, why is it the MPAA's fault that theatres won't show the movie? That's the theatre's decision. Shouldn't you be criticizing them for their lack of spine rather than the MPAA for punishing a studio that disobeyed them?
March 31, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST
"...the movie in the theater now to support this company..."<p> I can't believe how easily manipulated some people are. Somewhere, PT Barnum is smiling.
March 31, 2007, 9:50 a.m. CST
The MPAA hype machine. "Oh my god - this was so bad we wouldnt rate it- only sickos and perverts will come to this." Theater owners bear some small portion of the resposnbility, no doubt- but if the MPAA hadnt set itself up as the ulitmate arbitrater of acceptiability, then they lack of a rating wouldnt have anywhere near the stigma.
March 31, 2007, 9:55 a.m. CST
I think when America starts cannibalising itself after having elected its first black president, kids are gonna need a fighting chance if they wanna stay alive. According to my figures, if the average ten year old doesn't look like a shrunken doll version of Vin Diesel in three years time, then they probably won't ever get to see puberty.<p> </p>Hollywood is gonna be the centre of all the fighting, considering that it's a liberal blip in the middle of a Republican state, so we're gonna need more and more posters like this keeping our children hard.<p> </p>Plus have soft corn play during the daytime, just like in Holland.<p> </p>We've got a hard few years ahead of us, I'm glad people like this Near Dark man are doing their best to prepare our children for the inevitable.
March 31, 2007, 9:55 a.m. CST
for breaking the rules. But removing the rating is the equivelent of beheading someone for jaywalking - ridiculously over the top.
March 31, 2007, 10:05 a.m. CST
We should fine them, and not rate it until they pay? So the censorship is the same--follow our rules or we won't rate your movie--except you're adding extortion to it--give us cash or we won't rate your movie. You can't complain about economic censorship than ask for a *fine*, that's economic censorship refined to it's purest form! <br> As for the MPAA setting itself up as the arbiter--they couldn't do that unless the theatre chains listened. They don't have *any* real power. None. The only power they have is that the theatre chains listen to them. You may as well call Roger Ebert a censor for giving movies a thumbs down and hurting their box-office chances with all the viewers who respect his opinion.
March 31, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST
The MPAA has no problem with that poster? A body being dragged is good.
March 31, 2007, 10:15 a.m. CST
Not rating till they pay a fine is the equivlent of the police holding on to your licsence until you pay a ticket. An incentive to pay the fine that no one is arguing you deserve. And thats what they deserve - a fine. Your other comment is bullshit as well- the MPAA has done its level best to portray unrated films as worse than XXX over the years (Hey, at least we gave it a rating- no rating must mean its worse than porn)- knowing that the great unthinking masses will never judge for themselves but merely listen, lemming like to what the MPAA has to say.
March 31, 2007, 10:20 a.m. CST
Heh, I like that.<p> </p>And I'm with Brandon all the way. First of all, the people responsible for that poster aren't necessarily indicative of everyone who worked on the movie. Movies aren't like some terrible trance/techno track some kid cooked up in their attic- they're a community thing. So blackballing a movie because someone decided to disobey, is just like banning a football team because a player got a rough tackle.<p> </p>The MPAA's job is to rate movies; if they refuse to do this and base the ratings on their own beefs, then what are they good for? Let's imagine this wasn't some probably corny (soft porn corny???) low-budget horror flick, and was something like...Flags of Our Fathers. If they'd proposed a billboard with a picture of the severed corpse of Ryan Phillipe (...I'm liking this analogy already), were rejected, and yet stuck it up anyway, there's no way they'd refuse to rate the movie, but there's a very high chance they'd fine them. I don't see what's so different about Captivity and Flags of Our Fathers...except for the fact that the Phillippe is so much prettier than the 24 chick. ;-)
March 31, 2007, 10:21 a.m. CST
For whatever reason when i first loaded the page the picture of the billboard didn't load so I was expecting something really shocking. Now that I've seen it, I don't see what the big deal is. it doesn't look that bad at all to me. What exactly is it that the MPAA objected to?
March 31, 2007, 10:27 a.m. CST
by Sledge Hammer
...people actually try parenting and talking to their kids for once. If the kid doesn't notice or the kid doesn't ask, then the kid doesn't care. And if the kid does ask, what's so bad about talking to your kids anyway? But mostly it's prissy parents that get wrapped up in this shit, the kids really don't give a damn.<p>Also, there's a lot worse posters and dvd covers than that around, as has been the case for many a year (all the way back to the days of video), but I don't see anyone calling for censorship of poster art in and outside movie theatres, dvd rental/sales stores and so on, and yet kids walk through those places all the time. <p>No, you got your personal panties in a bunch so clearly it should be banned because you personally don't like it. Right. Whatever. And calling for economic blackmail by the MPAA over this non even is both ludicrous and insulting. I bet if it was Tarantino or Eli Roth that had done this then this article wouldn't even be on the site to begin with, or else you'd be instead praising then for "fighting the power". Pah, whatever.
March 31, 2007, 10:36 a.m. CST
What the MPAA (and most of the people who were offended) probably objected to was the bare breast in the last panel. We can all point to plenty of other MPAA aproved stuff that is just as bad or worse than the first three panels- but got forbis someone sees a breast! The American attitude to nudity and sex is pathetic.
March 31, 2007, 10:38 a.m. CST
What the MPAA (and most of the people who were offended) probably objected to was the bare breast in the last panel. We can all point to plenty of other MPAA aproved stuff that is just as bad or worse than the first three panels- but got forbis someone sees a breast! The American attitude to nudity and sex is pathetic.
March 31, 2007, 10:40 a.m. CST
I mostly agree with what he's saying but as a fellow parent I can firmly say a billboard like this should be the least of anyone's worries. Kids don't get affected by images like this unless, of course, you explain to them what it means, which you'd never do. Like someone a few posts back said, you just play it down. I assure you your child isn't going to be thinking 'torture porn' when he/she sees this poster, unlike the immature idiots who actually get a kick out of thinking they ARE going to see torture porn. I don't like posters/billboards whose sole purpose is to cause controversy and upset.
March 31, 2007, 10:46 a.m. CST
The fact that almost everyone here loves Tarantino's HOSTEL (which imo, was a childish attempt at a horror flick) so much that they just automatically lambast any movie that might come close to that peice of garbage? I mean seriously, everyone knows that AICN is practically mothering Tarantino's next child. Of course its an outrage. OMG someone made a crappy rip off of our buddies crappy horror film. Spare me.. please
March 31, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST
March 31, 2007, 11:19 a.m. CST
This is AICN, so I'm sure that plenty of people out there are familiar with comic books. Does anyone remember the CCA (Comics Code Authority) and it's long history? It's the same thing. A private organization set up to act as the watchdog for an entire industry whose job is to monitor and rate content viewable by children. In other words, they'll keep watch so parents don't have to. In the late eighties, it's influence started waning and by the 90's, if content wasn't approved by them, comics were printed anyway, without their stamp of approval. Now, in 2007, the question is "Who the fuck is the CCA and how did they hold so much power over the industry?" Comic books are still being published and the world has not devolved into some post-apocalyptic wasteland or feiry pit of Hell. So I have to ask: "Who the fuck are the MPAA and how did they manage to grasp the entire industry by the balls?" Maybe it was by pandering to the infantile wishes of wannabe part-time parent. (There's more of them out there than we'd care to admit.) Freedom of speech is not something that should be discarded just because someone doesn't have time for a lengthy conversation with his child or because his personal tastes were offended. Personally, I don't like movies like HOSTEL, SAW, etc... But I do believe they should have the right to show whatever they want (...and that includes movie posters). Like the above person said, if you want to shelter your child from such things, don't let him go outside without his motorcycle helmet on. Otherwise, accept the fact that being a parent means talking to a child. Even when it's uncomfortable, even when you wish you didn't have to, even when you feel you don't have the time to, even when you feel you SHOULDN'T have to. Why should a whole industry be watered down because you have better things to do than talk to your child.
March 31, 2007, 11:23 a.m. CST
I agree with many people that have already posted, that the ad was not such a big deal. Simply, many parents are afraid to TALK TO THEIR CHILDREN in these modern times. However, many are missing the big picture. The ad was submitted to the MPAA and rejected. Now, until the government comes in and takes over the ratings system, we are stuck with the MPAA. I don't like them. Many people don't. In this case, the MPAA has the right to punish them as they see fit. They could fine them, and still rate and release the movie. Some could then say, how could they enforce this fine? Simple, say they will refuse to rate any movie that comes from that studio until they do. It would then be a death sentence to the studio, and they would definetly avoid that. Bottom line: The studio gave a big middle finger to the MPAA, and now they are most likely going to pay. On the ad in general: It's no more graphic than what you would see on any crime drama on TV. The big M is simply afraid to talk to his kid if they ask. Lastly: Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't Moriarty the one who started the big complaint fest about reviewing scripts, etc. given to them in not so legal ways. This was back when scripts were being leaked about the last Star Wars films. If it was him, it doesn't suprise me that he'd post an article like that.
March 31, 2007, 11:24 a.m. CST
First off, I don't give nearly as much a shit about this as will probably come across, but I have to say, if you're gonna refuse to give that movie a rating because of that poster, then you oughtta ban half the population of Berlin, and metalheads, for being offensive to children with their piercings, leather, big-ass boots and what have you.<p> </p>I'm gonna take this frame by frame:-<p> </p>Frame 1: Ah, NOOOOOW I know why they banned this, they're upholding the long-standing tradition started by the Spinal Tap album Smell the Glove. Maybe they should replace the billboard with just black and rename the movie None More Black.<p> </p>Frame 2: I've seen scarier emo chicks. Fuck it, I've DATED scarier emo chicks.<p> </p>Frame 3: That image is more bemusing than anything else. Is that a claw coming out of her nose? I'm glad the kidnapper was sensitive enough to give her a facial.... cast first. I know I'm a desensitised and debased I Spit on Your Grave fan, but do any of you remember that Disney ride with all the creepy singing puppets? I think The Simpsons did a spoof on it once- when Patti and Selma take Lisa and Bart to the beer fair- well those puppets were about twenty times scarier than this chick with the nose-piercing.<p> </p>FRAME 4: Tits. I thought the unwritten law that EVERYONE knows was that you could show as much cleavage as possible, just as long as you hide the nipples. Hell, shower gel adverts show guys n gals who are completely naked save for some tactfully placed bubbles.<p> </p>Conclusion: BAAAAAAN DIIISS TRASH NOW!
March 31, 2007, 11:28 a.m. CST
I fucking despise Moriarty.
March 31, 2007, 11:31 a.m. CST
Courtney Solomon, you suck! I understand why Drew is frustrated, but besides whether or not those ads were appropriate is besides the fact that you are a moron. You want to get mad about some posters? How about the poster for the failed AfterDark horrorfest that took place in November. There's still a giant billboard for that piece of shit on 3rd st by the Beverly Center. Drew, I think your little one will have a harder time with the rotted skeleton on that poster then he will with Elisha's nose plugs. Or,how about the cracked doll head poster for The Abandoned? That thing plastered LA for a good four weeks, and you know what the movie opened at? $800,000 on 1000 screens. That's right, break it down. 1000 screens. 5 showings a day for 3 days. At $10 a ticket, that's about 4 to 6 people per screening. Embarassing. Way to fuck that up Courtney. I know that director really well, and we discussed why the film didn't open. We thought maybe it was because of Lionsgate. After all, they have all new people working there and they fucked up the opening for Pride last weekend too. But there's this Captivity thing. This is just the final nail in the coffin. This is so sad and desperate for attention. This is going to be a SHITTY film. I'm sorry to the people who poured their blood sweat and tears into making this. Censorship issues or not, please do not see this film. Please see anything else. Do not support AfterDark and their stupid business practices. They're hurting filmmakers. They're hurting the horror genre. They're taking advantage of people. This is an exploitve company in an already exploitive business. May they rest in pieces. Fuck you Courtney Solomon.
March 31, 2007, 11:34 a.m. CST
This is AICN, so I'm sure that plenty of people out there are familiar with comic books. Does anyone remember the CCA (Comics Code Authority) and it's long history? It's the same thing. A private organization set up to act as the watchdog for an entire industry whose job is to monitor and rate content viewable by children. In other words, they'll keep watch so parents don't have to.<p> In the late eighties, it's influence started waning and by the 90's, if content wasn't approved by them, comics were printed anyway, without their stamp of approval. <p>Now, in 2007, the question is "Who the fuck is the CCA and how did they hold so much power over the industry?" Comic books are still being published and the world has not devolved into some post-apocalyptic wasteland or feiry pit of Hell. So I have to ask: "Who the fuck are the MPAA and how did they manage to grasp the entire industry by the balls?" Maybe it was by pandering to the infantile wishes of wannabe part-time parent. (There's more of them out there than we'd care to admit.) <p>Freedom of speech is not something that should be discarded just because someone doesn't have time for a lengthy conversation with his child or because his personal tastes were offended. Personally, I don't like movies like HOSTEL, SAW, etc... But I do believe they should have the right to show whatever they want (...and that includes movie posters). Like the above person said, if you want to shelter your child from such things, don't let him go outside without his motorcycle helmet on. Otherwise, accept the fact that being a parent means talking to a child. Even when it's uncomfortable, even when you wish you didn't have to, even when you feel you don't have the time to, even when you feel you SHOULDN'T have to. <p>Why should a whole industry be watered down because you have better things to do than talk to your child?
March 31, 2007, 11:45 a.m. CST
Yep, I agree with everything he says here. There -is- a need for a ratings system, just as there was in the 60's to get around the necessary self-censorship that was in place to avoid government-mandated censorship. The MPAA abuses the living shit out of that system, but in this case it's a textbook example of why the system exists and why it works. I would even be more sympathetic to the campaign if it was at least accurate. From what I've read, the ad was completely misleading and depicts events that just do not occur in the film. Cuthbert isn't tortured in the way depicted, and she isn't killed. That makes it not just beyond the bounds of good taste, but out and out sensationalistic whoring of an otherwise tame movie. If After Dark wants to be grindhouse, they should take the bad with the good: go unrated and show Captivity as a roadshow or other distribution method. Good luck keeping the fanboys in the seats once they find out that Hostel makes this look like a Mister Rogers episode.
March 31, 2007, 11:59 a.m. CST
Where's Harry with his side on this? Or is this why he's keeping quiet? As others have said in the TB he's allowed his nephew to see violent horror movies...exposing his relative to such scenes..How can Harry not have an opposing view? And seriously, is that banner that horrible???
March 31, 2007, 11:59 a.m. CST
Ehy don't be anti-gay!!!
March 31, 2007, noon CST
by drew mcweeny
I knew I'd get the angry geek response, "Well, you're just a bad parent!" <P>That's not what this is about. Not remotely. I spend all day with my baby boy. I love talking to him about anything and everything he's curious about. As he gets his language skills working, it's a great and exciting time, and any question he asks, I'm happy to answer. <P>And of course there will always be images and ideas that he is exposed to that are difficult or unpleasant, and part of being a parent is knowing how to talk to them about these things. <P>But this specific image was rejected as acceptable advertising by the MPAA. Like them or not, and I've said plenty in the past about my problems with them, they are the regulatory body of this industry. That is the world we live in. And when the ad is rejected by that regulatory body, the company does not have the right to put it up anyway. <P>When they do, I have the right to be angry. As a parent who now has to deal with that imagery in an inappropriate venue. As a filmmaker (and yes, Tom Bodet, writers are filmmakers... try removing us from the process and see how well it works) who abides by the decisions of the MPAA, no matter how I feel about them. <P>They chose not to accept the decision of the MPAA when it was convenient to them. They should not benefit from the process by getting a rating for their film. It's a very simple equation. <P>And if you think this is an isolated incident and Solomon has learned his lesson already, check out the brewing controversy over the advertising for WRISTCUTTERS. Solomon obviously fancies himself a modern-day William Castle. The difference is that Castle wasn't a giant douchebag determined to play by different rules from anyone else in the industry while reaping the same benefits as the people who follow those rules. <P>No rating for CAPTIVITY. It's the only logical conclusion.
March 31, 2007, 12:36 p.m. CST
Them breaking the rules or what your child sees? And do you have a problem with a poster showing two legs sticking out of bag being dragged across the desert? How do you explain that one to your child? Are the limits being set based on who you like?
March 31, 2007, 12:46 p.m. CST
For that horrible new poster universal put out.Dont throw RELIGION AT ME!
March 31, 2007, 12:48 p.m. CST
The MPAA is an internal police force for the movie industry. If the MPAA is ignored and (ultimately) becomes irrelevant, what do you think happens? You got it: the government steps in.<p> So I agree wholeheartedly with Mori on this one.
March 31, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST
I have no problem with punishing this guy for going against the MPAA. But to prescribe the maximum penalty for what is in effect a first violation is a ridiculous over-reaction; as I said- we don't behead people for jaywalking. Fine them, sure. Fine them heavily (you're still overreacting, but at least youre not imposing economic censorship) - what you call for is too much and leads us too far down a road best left alone. You win this battle, and next the Americsn Taliban will get Saw IV and Hostel denied theatrical releases and not long after that film will be reduced to the most balnd inoffensive pap imaginable. DewMan is completely right. And I couldn't help put notice your complte lack of answer to the question "What's so offensive about this?"
March 31, 2007, 1:03 p.m. CST
March 31, 2007, 1:09 p.m. CST
Before I even caught a whiff of this controversy, I was ASTOUNDED that these billboards could be put up around LA. We've seen plenty of gruesome horror movie campaigns in this city but this one is absolutely devoid of the spirit of horror. No matter what you say, no matter how realistic horror films get, there has to be an element of a "wink", so to speak. We see these films to be scared, to confront death in the most absurd and frightening of ways, but ultimately we have fun with it. I have seen Hostel, Audition, even Faces/Traces of Death, and I 100% agree with the MPAA and the critics of this ad campaign. Fucking ridiculous. I think many of you who don't understand why haven't actually had these billboards plastered all over YOUR city and seen them in person.
March 31, 2007, 1:11 p.m. CST
I'm sorry, I don't know any parents with the ability to shield their children's eyes at ALL times of EVERY day from the billboards that litter the LA area, bus-stops, and more. Maybe we should pluck out the eyes of our children at birth so that pathetic, straight-to-DVD-quality torture porn films can advertise in peace.
March 31, 2007, 1:14 p.m. CST
That's Elisha Cuthbert's character in the poster, right? If so, am I really expected to believe that the hot star protagonist in a cheesy horror movie actually reaches that "termination" stage? Somehow I doubt it. I could be wrong. If not, the real problem is that this is false advertising.
March 31, 2007, 1:19 p.m. CST
by Gwai L0
Will someone PLEASE tell me at what point in the movie Elisha Cuthbert has tubes inserted into her nose? Like, in the first half hour, or when? <p> Is that scene even in the movie?? I downloaded a bitTorrent of "Captivity," but I don't want to watch the whole thing. <p> Thank you for hopefully answering this question!!! 9
March 31, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST
The whole MPAA system is broken. When you're allowed to get away with one or two "F" words in a PG-13, when gunshots can kill without blood, when you can hack and decapitate robots and orcs and have all the foreplay and partial nudity of sex without consequences, it means something's wrong. It's an ugly billboard ye, but there have been others, some worse, and I think the MPAA has got to start having some sort of broad measurable standards. Otherwise, you get shit like this coming out every once and a while.
March 31, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST
In the actual article his outrage stemmed from imagining his kid seeing the billboard, but in that talkback post he's now acting like an MPAA poster boy. Yes, you have to abide by their rules, but that isn't to say you can't change those rules for the better.<p> </p>The one comment in your post which alluded to your previous outrage said this billboard was posted in an "inappropriate venue". Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty of yours and Joss' problem with this. You're projecting your own tastes on everyone else. Things change, barriers move, but that doesn't mean to say we're sinking into a Sodom and Gomorrah like shitpit. You can't suddenly pick this moment to think, "Hey, I don't like black leather gloves and nostril piercings! How dare they!" That you'd WANT a film to fail, WANT it to sink, simply because they didn't agree with the MPAA's opinion shows that maybe you've become a little too heavily indundated in the snidey schadenfreude bullshit prevalent in Hollywood.<p> </p>I understand, you're saying the MPAA must be obided by, but that doesn't mean to say you have to put up with all of their atavistic tactics, just because they're there.
March 31, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST
...the MPAA still sucks supremely.
March 31, 2007, 1:21 p.m. CST
Mori has CHANGED his tact.
March 31, 2007, 1:23 p.m. CST
<p>I am shocked by all of you with your "Try Parenting, Mori", crap. Children need to be protected from horror. It gives them scary nightmares. A parent can't fix that by talking them down. The way to appropriately be a good parent is to demand that the public square be child safe. As much fun as it is to live in this Babylon we've created, Moriarty's basic point is sound. There needs to be limits on billboards. Some joker above tried to equate this depiction of the torture and murder of an adult woman with billboards with too skinny fashion models on them. That person is what we in the business clinically and carefully call a "fucking idiot." The skinny fashion model thing wont scare your kid half to death. But there are sexual images a parent should feel comfortable protecting their kids from. (its why I think email spammers should be put in jail for distributing pornography to minors.)</p> <p> As for the whole "first offense" crap. The punishment needs to be enough to make them regret the decision - otherwise it isnt punishment. You need an appropriate deterrent. <p> AND as for what is so awful about the poster. It is a clinic depiction of torture-porn. Sexual torture and murder depicted openly for entertainment. Hell - forget the kids. I can think of a lot of female friends of mine who could have their day ruined by that thing. Where we draw the line is always a grey area. But the people who were supposed to draw it, drew it. and they drew it in a place that was REASONABLE - even if you don't agree with it. And then these guys ignored them. Therefore their only appropriate response is to smack them hard - as Mori is suggesting. Or lose credibility. </p> <p> Just one last thing - and here I need to poke Moriarty a bit. Your site isn't blocked off from minors either. or from young daddy geeks who have kids over their shoulder watching. So why did you put a picture of the advertisement right in the story instead of putting it behind a link? <p>
March 31, 2007, 1:23 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
Your complaint isn't strengthened by put-downs and straw-men. You can be right without being an asshole, Mori. The ads were too extreme and should have been released with a few minor edits, however to malign people who watch horror movies smacks of Pollyana-ims.
March 31, 2007, 1:24 p.m. CST
Just asking. I agree the thrust of his argument was altered in his second statement.
March 31, 2007, 1:25 p.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
let's put up a massive billboard of a woman being raped, tortured and abused down your street for your kids,mum,sister or family to see every morning. <p>Mori is right 100% in my opinion.
March 31, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST
At what point of realism in horror films do you people catch on to the fact that they are no longer horror films? I despised Hostel on grounds of entertainment value, but regardless that film is a fantasy compared to the torture-porn they're loading up for release. You guys realize that we're headed towards remaking Schindler's List shot for shot but calling it a horror movie and aggressively promoting all its most graphic elements as its "hook"? Do you realize this? There IS a line, and I'm glad the MPAA has chosen to draw it at a very reasonable point. Movies are meant to be art, entertainment, or some intersection of the two. Torture porn "horror" films are neither, except for the lowest dregs of our society. And that's coming from a raging anti-conservative who believes in personal freedom and responsibility above all.
March 31, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST
i saw the billboard, i saw the 'fuck-you' replacement billboard, and i've also seen countless billboards in LA of: severed fingers, full-shot bare asses and bare tits, corpses being dragged up a hill, massive guns pointed at drivers, and tom cruise. to make a stink over one dumb ad campaign that isn't any worse than the shit we're bombarded with on a daily basis is utterly ridiculous. UTTERLY ridiculous.
March 31, 2007, 1:28 p.m. CST
I do not disagree with what you have written....but..... "What right does After Dark Films or Courtney Solomon have to put that imagery in front of my child?" Well, actually, there is that whole "freedom of speech," right that all those Liberals talk about. But honestly, I think it is just some made up fantasy created by Howard Zinn. Also, here is the most simple way to explain that to your child, "Well, it is a movie." Where are you on the Hostel 2 Poster? Or the Grindhouse ads on TV? Or shit, if we start now, why don't we just censor everything because our kids may see it, or -GASP- our grandmother! Look, as a parent, it will not be an easy trip, so you must teach right from wrong, and fact from fiction. And you are responsible for the teaching of those morals. Film companies, they exist to make money from stupid saps like you or I, and they will do what they need to to rake in the dough. Does that make it right? Probably not, but it is inevitable.
March 31, 2007, 1:29 p.m. CST
By Jove, I think Darth Coreleone is right! Way to discredit anything I have to say from the outset.<p> </p>I guess admitting I liked "I Spit on Your Grave" earlier in the talkback did that though. ;-)
March 31, 2007, 1:32 p.m. CST
So you think all that stuff is "shit" that is "bombarding" us, but you are against removing one extreme example of it? Were you on the debate team?
March 31, 2007, 1:32 p.m. CST
i'd like to reiterate, mori, BARE ASSES AND TITS. on hollywood and sunset boulevard. nothing PG-13 about it. no stink made whatsoever. how does that apply to your holier-than-thou rhetoric? it's fine for my 6-year old to see a large billboard of a naked woman dry-humping another naked woman but not OK to see a bewildering, grimy-filtered series of shots of a girl's face with some unclear gizmos next to it? thank you for promulgating the MPAA's continually bewildering logic in the face of an ever-expanding media world.
March 31, 2007, 1:33 p.m. CST
Mori's basic argument (especially as phrased in his Black Box TB above) is a very sensible one and I wouldn't disagree with it. <p> Unfortunately, clouding this issue is a bunch of bullshit like "OH THE EYES OF MY WEE CHILD WILL BE TAINTED" and a certain amount of player-hating on Courtney, who yes, does seem like a worthless fuckhole, but whose further actions and shockmeister wannabe-ness and refusal to play by the rules ETC are besides the point. <p> And I and every other childless adult DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE SENSIBILITIES OF CHILDREN and are tired of a media environment tailored to what overprotective 21st-century American yuppies think best for their little genius offspring. I heard in France, they totally show tits on television.
March 31, 2007, 1:35 p.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
and something I don't agree with but at the same time there is a difference between an artist expressing himself and a company going this low to make profit. <p>I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to watch this type of vile (and poorly made) shit if that's your cup of tea. I'm just saying why can't After Dark be responsible in their marketing and not force these images on our children, family and friends?
March 31, 2007, 1:35 p.m. CST
You're 6 year old came out of a naked woman, so I think he/she will survive. And you seem to have a problem with these billboards, but you're AGAINST taking a stand about them? I really don't get your drift.
March 31, 2007, 1:35 p.m. CST
i wasn't on the debate team, actually. i was busy playing varsity sports. *snork* no, seriously - i don't know if you live in LA, but the unbelievable billboards we constantly see put the 'captivity' billboard to shame. no joke. i would believe the MPAA pulling the billboard from, say, the bible belt, since i'm sure that's happened before, but from west hollywood? give me a break.
March 31, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST
After all this bitching and moaning I wonder how many of us are going to see the movie mentioned anyway.Some of us will see it just because we spent a few days bitching about it in the talkback columns.I think its just manufactured hype along the lines of american idol.The movie probably isnt very good but people will watch it because everyones talking about it.
March 31, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST
You can't complain about the MPAA if you are not willing to do a fucking thing about it when you have the power to do so. Got it? This Movie is Not Yet Rated was fantastic, but dissing them one minute then saying, "but yous gots ta listiiin to dem" is fucking pathetic.
March 31, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST
I'm apalled at you, Moriarty. The MPAA approves the Saw posters, approves those Hostel Part II posters, but THAT is offensive? Are you serious? This is just anothr case of the MPAA's hypocrisy. I agree with you in that After Dark are douche bags for going ahead and running the ad. I agree they should be punished accordingly. But I don't think there ever should have been any debate over that poster in the first place. If severed body parts are okay to be placed in a theater lobby (by a company that's become quite the money maker in recent years...), then Elisha Cuthebert with a fucking tube up her nose shouldn't be a problem (though it's from a newbie company without any hits...). Yeah, After Dark now look like that kid in high school who came to class with a Budweiser shirt or one of those tees that proudly declared FUCK, and then tried to act surprised when he was sent home. That kid was a fag and so is After Dark for trying to be all badass. But that kid was still allowed to come back to school the next day. Oh yeah, and what's so hard to explain to a child about that ad? "Son, it's a bad movie you aren't going to see. It's not apropriate." There. You've done your job as a parent, and he'll do his job as a good nerd and go rent it at a friend's house, just like I always did and I'm sure you did too. At least you turned out fine.
March 31, 2007, 1:38 p.m. CST
I have pretty thick skin when it comes to imagery, but sometimes it's what's behind the imagery that really bothers me. I think the Captivity boards are the perfect example of that. There is no art, entertainment, humor, or anything else of value within that 4-panel billboard. I think it is an exception, and should be censored. Believe me, this one of maybe 2 or 3 times in my entire life when I've argued on the side of censorship, and it's concerning a movie I will likely never see.
March 31, 2007, 1:38 p.m. CST
Blame it on the twenty mojitos and lime daiquiris I had last night.
March 31, 2007, 1:38 p.m. CST
No one was forcing this shit down my throat when I was a kid. I would go down the horror aisle or into a theater if I wanted to watch this junk, not when I was just walking around or trying to fucking eat.
March 31, 2007, 1:39 p.m. CST
He will open the door to ultimate evil and COMSPIC POWER.
March 31, 2007, 1:39 p.m. CST
i'm presuming you don't have children, or, if you do, perhaps you let your 6-year old watch R-rated films. i certainly agree with parents watchdogging what their kids are exposed to, but assigning the level of gratuity in the 'captivity' billboards as greater than the rampant violence and nudity on the billboards we see every day here in town is bad judgement.
March 31, 2007, 1:39 p.m. CST
Blame it on the twenty Lime Daiquiris I had last night.
March 31, 2007, 1:40 p.m. CST
March 31, 2007, 1:41 p.m. CST
no getting around that fact.
March 31, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST
Anyone who says they don't see what is wrong with this is so full of shit. This isn't plastered in a theater where you would expect to see this, it is out in the open and lame. Stop trying to act all blind, you look like a moron.
March 31, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
You are all jumping at a boogey-man. Sure there are some pretty gross DTV movies, but the closest thing to a torture porn with a wide release was "Passion of the Christ." That awful thing by Sage Stallone and Co doesn't count because it was hardly even released. For those of you that are offended by the mythical "torture porn" genre, are you also offended by romantic comedies and underdog movies? The messages in those films are much more corrupt as crime against reality than the morbid depiction of dismemberment and death. If your parents did their job corectly, you know that in most contexts violence is bad. However, how do you counter the lies in rom-coms? What is that shit teaching your daughters?
March 31, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST
I don't even know why this is an argument about children. This campaign is offensive to ADULTS. It degrades our culture. Does anyone remember what culture means? Shit, it doesn't have to be high art, but these ads had NO value from any perspective--they don't even effectively sell their product.
March 31, 2007, 1:43 p.m. CST
And I remember when Lionsgate used to be the vangard for GOOD films, not slasher trash.
March 31, 2007, 1:43 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
March 31, 2007, 1:48 p.m. CST
One of the billboards, I believe it was on Sunset, totally killed my high. Afghan kush wasted, afternoon deep-sixed. Thanks After Dark. And yes, Virginia, there IS a torture porn. Rom-coms don't hurt our culture anymore than bedtime stories about princesses hurt the little girls in 12th century Romania. Fantasy is OKAY in art/entertainment. Reality is also okay, if it has redeeming value. This is neither, and has none. How is this even a debate?
March 31, 2007, 1:48 p.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
I agree! <p>but did chuckle at the thought of you walking along minding your own business, maybe on a lunch break from work. You are just about to bite into your sandwich when you look up and see that image hehe
March 31, 2007, 1:50 p.m. CST
Rom-coms add to the global exposure and idolatry of their "actors" (read: celebrities). So I guess they do kind of fuck up our society.
March 31, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST
do the people who own the space in which the billboard is have any control over what gets put up there or is it just some rent a space company where anyone with some dough can go and get whatever they want put up on it. i mean if i could raise some loot could I than go and put up a billboard that says "I HATE NAGGERS" (and Im not racist at all I swear) i guess in trying to find someone to blame for this happening not only is the studio to blame for putting it up there but maybe the owner of said billboard space perhaps? just a thought
March 31, 2007, 2:06 p.m. CST
by Sledge Hammer
...the world doesn't revolve around you (or me for that matter) and as such isn't required to meet your own personal aesthetic or moral specifications, tastes and hangups, so stop with the "I find it personally repugnant therefore it clearly shouldn't exist where I can see it" bullshit. Newsflash folks, but regardless of what some whiners may think, there wasn't a vote that proclaimed that artistically and/or morally we always have to strive to please the lowest common denominators amongst us just because they scream the loudest. Nope, fact is we all have to live in this big old crazy world, and as such none of us are going to like all the bits of it on a day to day basis. Price of freedom and all that. So while I have to put up with American Idol, Ben Affleck, Desperate Housewives and Emo, well then you fuckers can surely put up with a dingy poster or two without it being the downfall of civilization as we know it. I mean Jesus, don't you have something better to do than whine about petty shit like this? No? Apparently me either. Sad, innit?
March 31, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST
by Sledge Hammer
...Kurt Russell was laughing at this poster pretty hard, so I guess that makes it okay.
March 31, 2007, 2:25 p.m. CST
It´s your good right to be angry but it´s hypocrite bullshit to demand the financial death for this movie only because in this case it goes against your taste and not the mpaa's. Why should the filmcrew, actors, etc. be punished? Let the producer pay a fine and worry about something more important. Be angry about Bush cause you have to explain to your kid why the US invaded the Irak or why Wild Hogs becomed Number 1 in the Box office. It's just a fucking publicity stunt for fucks sake.
March 31, 2007, 2:33 p.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
I asumme have already been paid...if that is what you were getting at
March 31, 2007, 2:40 p.m. CST
by Talkbacker with no name
To the MPAA, <p>There's a message I'm supposed to cut and paste but I imagine you've read it. So just let me say that the ad campaign for "Captivity" is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it's an assault. I've watched plenty of horror - in fact I've made my share. But the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanizing not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre. This ad campaign is part of something dangerous and repulsive, and that act of aggression has to be answered. <p> As a believer not only in the First Amendment but of the necessity of horror stories, I've always been against acts of censorship. I distrust anyone who wants to ban something 'for the good of the public'. But this ad is part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have to see it. It's like being mugged (and I have been). These people flouted the basic rules of human decency. God knows the culture led them there, but we have to find our way back and we have to make them know that people will not stand for this. And the only language they speak is money. (A devastating piece in the New Yorker - not gonna do it.) So talk money. Remove the rating, and let them see how far over the edge they really are. <p> Thanks for reading this, if anyone did. Sincerely, Joss Whedon.
March 31, 2007, 2:45 p.m. CST
by Jack Burton
then is actually warranted. It's a cheapie horror knock off desperately trying to get under the buzzer before the torture porn/extreme reality horror genre, whatever you want to call it finally goes away. Hills 2 made $10M opening weekend. Yeah it cost $15, but no one cares about these movies anymore. Like the Scream knock offs and asian horror, the scene has moved on. After Dark had to do something controversial to get any awareness of their little movie. I agree, the images are a bit extreme to be out in the open but plenty of horror posters are over the lines of "decency". One of these days someone will learn that making a big deal about "shocking" media only keeps it around longer.
March 31, 2007, 3:28 p.m. CST
I am sorry, but what is the big deal with the poster? It's hardly worst than the poster for Hostel and Saw, which were both plastered everywhere here in the UK, I just dont see the problem. I am definetely not a fan of this torture porn bullshit, but I just can't see the argument here...especially with AICN beeing a site filled with obscene langauge, artwork etc..
March 31, 2007, 3:31 p.m. CST
Why do even people on a geek website like this talk like that the wave of *torture porn* or the "degradation of women" is something new in the genre? Just think about what people must have said in the 70's about cult classics like Cannibal Holocaust, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or even Dawn of the Dead. Sure, those movies are way above most of the new horror shockers but "concerned parents" and people like that only see the gore and the shock value and never care about quality, parodistic elements, or society criticism. Whats about the Cannibal Films after Holocaust or the Rape and Revenge Flicks that came after Last House on the Left like House on the Edge of the Park? Today we see most of the flicks as harmless trash(i don't even mention Nunsploitation, Nazisploitation or Women in Prison Flicks with extreme rape and torture scenes like Ilsa) but back then they were surely more shocking than a mainstream sicko like Hostel today. ... and some of these movies also must have had marketing campaings like this. one last thought: What would moriarty think if they banned one of his movies not just from Wal-Mart but from all dvd-stores cause his producer did something like in this case? I think he would blame the MPAA on this site for the next 10 years in every single post.
March 31, 2007, 3:31 p.m. CST
You COULD equate the MPAA refusing to rate the film until the fine was paid with the police holding your license until a fine is paid IF the MPAA were the GOVERNMENT. Which they are NOT. <br> This is at the crux of the other comment, too--the MPAA is NOT government, the MPAA is NOT police. The MPAA has *no power*. They can't stop a theatre chain from showing an unrated movie--they can't even force a theatre chain to keep five year olds out of NC17 movies. They can't force anyone to do *anything*, all they do is advise. If you're going to be upset, be upset at the people who choose to listen to them. <br> Listen, you're trying to claim that it is censorship for an independent body that has amassed influence in their industry to withhold a benefit to a film based on the filmmaker's breaking their obligation to that body. The problems with this are obvious. First, it is not censorship because they are not basing this decision on the content of the film *in any way*. If you were going to have a complaint, it should be that they're black-balling After Dark. It's based on the studio's lack of obedience, not the content of their film. Second, as I said, the MPAA can't directly affect the distribution of the film, it's individual theatre chains that are refusing to show the film based on the rating, or lack thereof. Go get angry at them. And finally, it's ridiculous to think it's somehow okay to withhold a rating for refusing to pay a fine, but it's not okay to withhold a rating for disobeying a judgment on advertising. Either way, adhering to the agreement the company made when they submitted the film is the issue. If they enter an agreement with the MPAA, and then break that agreement, the MPAA has no obligation to fulfill their end of the bargain. It's that simple.
March 31, 2007, 3:41 p.m. CST
Yeah, they used those Hostel posters here. But I bet they didn't have them on huge Billboards in Europe. Posters yes, not on billboards, and there is a difference. And when you say nobody complained, how can you even fucking know that. If I never went on this site or IMDB, I'd never have known of complaints about this billboard.
March 31, 2007, 3:57 p.m. CST
What an awful, tasteless advertisement campaign it's been.
March 31, 2007, 4:01 p.m. CST
And it's being used as retribution under pressure from a very small but vocal minority with delicate sensibilities. The bottom line was that if it had crossed any lines as far as community standards it would have been liable for criminal charges under existing obscenity laws. It wasn't because the ad is so tame that no prosecutor would dare tackle First Amendment issues with it. So instead we again have a small group (like Tipper and the PMRC) who want to dictate morality for the rest of us and make the world child-safe instead going through their friends in the industry and at the MPAA to censor this flick because they personally find it distasteful. And of course they aren't going to stop there. If you read their discussion on their blog (here: http://tinyurl.com/2kpwun and here: http://tinyurl.com/2mwv49) You can read how they want to prevent this film from being shown theatrically ever. Then they want to go after anything else they find distasteful, any horror flick they consider "torture-porn" (nice spin phrase) and they plan on going after Wristcutters. This whole "controversy" was manufactured by a group of feminist Hollywood writers (see their roster list at the link posted) with their own agenda to censor anything they find misogynistic. One of the group is Marti Noxon, former Buffy writer and producer and it was she who got Jos Whedon to lend his name to this censorship campaign.
March 31, 2007, 4:15 p.m. CST
because they have no legal power is absurd and laughable. Tell you what- show me a signed contract with After Dark that says "We give you the right to refuse to do your fucking job if we put up advertising you dont like"- thats the only way you're even going to come close to having a point. The MPAA has made damn sure that the lack of a rating is box office suicide- that gives them more than enough power to do whatever they want. And now a vocal minority of people who either are squeamish themselves/lack the responsiblity to protect their own children and want others to do it for them are calling for the ultimate punishment for disobeying the almighty MPAA- when there are other, far less ceonsorius steps that set a far less damaging precdent that can and should be taken. Until I see that signed legal contract were After Dark agrees to allow the MPAA not to do its fucking job if After Dark doesn't fall in line - its a call for sensorship, plain and simple. And any claims to the contrary are disingenious bullshit.
March 31, 2007, 4:29 p.m. CST
How is this any worse than the 50 billboards for the Spearmint Rhino that line LA? Or the billboards for Vivid or Hustler? Face it, yjust don't like Courtney Solomon, he's getting alot of push by Lion's Gate and your fucking jealous. And you shouldn't be, but your whole article smacks of someone who's just bitter that someone you deem unworthy is getting more press and more push than you are. But of course this isn't about that it's about your poor child, and how this billboard could potentially have warped his fragile little mind. Well you can go fuck yourself with that line of thought cause I'm tired of having people go after the entertainment choices I enjoy because they don't want to talk to their kids. There is far worse on the news than that silly billboard.
March 31, 2007, 4:32 p.m. CST
Honestly, I could give a shit about "Captivity" (I read what happens in the movie and it reads like it's a Xeroxed copy of any other torture porn movie out there that usually goes DTV), but this whole brouhaha over a billboard is a slippery slope that, like another poster said, could lead to other films getting their promotional materials or even the movie itself pulled. As I always like to say parent isn't just a noun, it's a verb, and it's time for people for whom that title applies to start acting like it and stop trying to turn society into Nerf World for those of us who are smart enough not to breed.
March 31, 2007, 4:50 p.m. CST
Mt Saint Helens erupted like in 1980 or so, on May 18. Oh and it was Pope John Paul II's birthday too. Coincidence? Well...yes, actually.
March 31, 2007, 4:55 p.m. CST
Im impressed by the number of people on here that are taking personal shots at someone for having a child. i mean i cant recall ever having the "birds an the bees" talk or stuff like that with my parents when i was younger (Im 28 now). pretty much everything i know or learned was through other methods so i turned out fine, i think. i mean im no pyshco killing , drug using, woman abusing mess. some peolpe are a lil uncomfortable with what their kids see. now its when the things that there child sees effects THAT child that people should be up in arms. This billboard is no where as harmful as some of the things people see in their daily lives. i mean HELLO, the news has people getting stabbed and shot all the time on it, does that mean we should cut our chidlren out from any news reports or newspapers for that matter. Maybe im from a different school of thought here but most people now a days have a high tolerance for what they find too OUT THERE and im sure there are people who dont have kids out that might have the same thoughts on the billboard as moriarty. lets not go attacking the fact that he has kids and say "fuck you and your kids". your just feeding into what is already an ignorant enough society as it is. Present your arguements as best you can and leave the bashing of someones child raising skills alone. It was his choice to have a child , just like its his opinion to feel the way he does. Attack the POV not the person with the POV.
March 31, 2007, 5:06 p.m. CST
have problems seeing janet jacksons nipple. //won't someone please think of the children?
March 31, 2007, 5:14 p.m. CST
might know how to get publicity, but why is he even allowed to be in this industry. Did anyone see An American Haunting besides me? It was laughably bad and franky, inexcusable filmmaking. Way to go Courtney. And as far as Captivity goes, yes I think the company went too far, but honestly, it's not like kids don't see far worse on the news. I don't think the film Captivity and the people who worked on it deserve to get screwed because of a marketing decision, I think it deserves a rating and a fair chance at release, but the reason this will really hurt the film is because it is now in danger of not being rated in time for its proposed release date, because now it can't be resubmitted to the MPAA til May 1st and even then, it goes in the regular queue, so they might not even get to rating it until after May 18. Don't be surprised if this one gets pushed. And Courtney Solomon, stop being a douche and start playing by the rules. There are other ways to stir up controversy.
March 31, 2007, 5:20 p.m. CST
Looking at all the comments no-one actually meant it, they just want to provoke a reaction. You shouldn't let a kid watch R-rated flicks though, but the key thing is not going 'OMG THAT'S REALLY BAD!!' and throwing a fit because that nearly always makes the kid want to do it more just to defy you. Another fun fact while we're here, a lot of fathers hate their daughters' boyfriends because they're doing the one thing that they could never do. You see what I mean.
March 31, 2007, 5:41 p.m. CST
Dear RevSick, Courtney Solomon is not "getting a push" from Lionsgate. AfterDark has a domestic distributison deal with Lionsgate in which Solomon either buys the domestic rights to foreign films and uses Lionsgate as a distribution arm ala The Abandoned. Or he comes on to trash like this as an executive producer and then Lionsgate distributes. There is no love for him by Lionsgate. He just has a business deal with a company that can't figure out how to open a film. And I hope to god that Drew isn't jealous of a douche bag like Solomon. I'm sure Drew is embarrased to make a living in the same genre as Solomon. Courtney's a terrible marketer and a terrible filmmaker who is using bullshit tactics to make a fast buck. You want to see how to market a film, watch Tarentino and Rodriguez market the shit out of Grindhouse. There is no reason that a three hour movie about Zombies and killer stuntmen should be what the Weinsteins bet the farm on, but they know that they're dealing with pure showmen who know what they're doing and that film is going to deliver. Look what good marketing did for 300. When a hack like Solomon comes along, well, we as geeks should help take him down until he gives a reason not to. The MPAA shouldn't have to stop us from seeing this movie by not giving it a rating. We should decide not to buy into this stuff ourselves. But if Solomon's going to bite the hand that feeds him, then fuck him and his stupid business practices. Don't see his movies.
March 31, 2007, 5:44 p.m. CST
I gotcha on that point. it just seemed like saying "fuck you and your kid" was taking things to a whole nother level, even for a tb.
March 31, 2007, 6:37 p.m. CST
Here in the Uk we have a system whereby a movie cannot be released without a rating. The BBFC is a government sponsored - though separate - body and is therefore open and accountable. This whole business of denying a rating is ludicrous. What you are talking about is an issue with the way the film is marketed, nothing else. To base the rating of a film on whether or not parents should be concerned or should be able to take their children is to my mind, a wrong-footed approach. Each film should be rated on its own merits, with a decision made on the suitability of the film for a child, teen or adult audience. This should be done as a matter of course and should not be something that a film can be denied - Oh my gosh, your film advertising offends me! I shall refuse to decide who your film is suitable for unless you remove the advertising. Which I have decided is unsuitable for kids..... Uh, what???
March 31, 2007, 6:38 p.m. CST
A few months ago, i read a small blurb taken from a Madonna interview, where she stated that she does'nt allow her children to watch tv because she feels that it's too sexual. THIS COMING FROM MADONNA, WHO DURING THE EIGHTIES THROUGH THE MID-NINETIES PRETTY MUCH EXPLOITED SEXUALITY AT A WHOLESALE PREMIUM! I guess with parenthood come a sense of responsibility (aka "The world must stop because i have kids) or as Marie Antoinette once said "Let them all eat cake" except me and my kids. Btw, i've seen worst posters as a kid, suchas "The Corpse Grinder". I'm not attacking Mori or Joss because i'm fans of both, but i think that both of you are a part of the machine that opened this pandora's box...Especially during the last season of Buffy. Does anyone remember the ep. Dirty Girls? For tv, it was pretty graphic. Just trying to add a little perspective.
March 31, 2007, 6:39 p.m. CST
Maybe I misspoke a little with saying "HE" is getting a push. But his product is getting pushed pretty hard right now, alot more than MOH2 is. Look, I agree Solomon is a bad director, but hey I think Michael Bay is a complete and utter hack too, so taste is relitive, the point being, there have been alot of ad campaigns by shitty directors, and for shittier movies, that go far beyond this one and to have such an angry response to it screams of being jealous that his product is all over the place and Mori's isn't. My biggest problem is this reccurring argument I hear from parents that have no want to raise their kids, that would rather drop them in front of the tv and have it babysit them, the whole argument that, this that or the other shouldn't be on tv, billboards, magazine stands, theaters, video game consoles, because it affects the children, and that they'd have to explain it to them. I don't have kids, I'm not really planning on having them, but if I do, I'm not going to censor other people's tastes so that I don't have to do my job as a parent. I'm going to explain to my kid film, video games, and comic books, and I'm going to monitor what my kid does. One of the things that seems to be a misconception now is that people seem to think that they have a right to not be offended, and I hate to tell them that there is no such right. It'd be interesting to see what would have happened if a director Mori liked did this instead of one he obviously does not.
March 31, 2007, 6:40 p.m. CST
the BBFC is not a government funded body. Just talking shit here folks
March 31, 2007, 6:45 p.m. CST
Obligation? Once again, you talk as if the MPAA is a government agency. They're not. The only obligation they have is to parents and theatre chains who use the rating system. Studios come to them and ask them to rate their films. I'm not a huge fan of the MPAA, I think the way they rate movies is idiotic, but if you're going to stand up to them be a fucking man and take the consequences. But it's the height of hypocrisy to FIRST go to the MPAA, THEN say "fuck you" to them, and THEN act like a victim when they say "fuck you" right back. If you're going to stick it to the man, don't be a fucking pussy about it. The MPAA is in no way obligated to rate a movie if the filmmakers don't play ball. It's as simple as that. You may as well ask your boss for a paycheck after not showing up to work for a week.<br><br>And on the topic of the MPAA's power, the fact is the only power it has is what theatre chains give it. Yes, they've positioned themselves as the arbiter of movie decency--so fucking what? If no one listened, they would have no power, period. If you don't like the fact they've amassed that much influence, fine. Like I said, I'm no big fan of theirs. But if you're going to bite the hand that feeds you, don't throw a fit when the meals stop coming. You knew what you were doing, have the courage of your fucking convictions.
March 31, 2007, 6:46 p.m. CST
by The Future King
I read the article, and I'm not sure if I agree with Moriarty but I can at least see that he has a point. What I can't believe is how everyone just starts attacking Mori for being a bad parent, or "fuck you and fuck your kid". How the hell are we supposed to care about you or your opinon when you are so obviously just an ignorant shit? Whether or not Mori is making a good point, he presented his argument and allowed that people will disagree. That is how you should do it. So please, discuss this in a mature manner or stay out of the forums.
March 31, 2007, 6:54 p.m. CST
I don't think it's necissarily ignorant to have a "fuck you and your kid" attitude. I think it comes out of frustration, every time we turn around be it a horror film, or a violent video game we're treated to people who want to take it down, or ban it, all because of the "but my poor easily influenced child" argument. I personally would love to slap every person who says anything negative about something's content based on the argument of "but I'd have to explain it to my child" like it's a bad thing to talk to your child about life and what goes on in it. Too me that's ignorant.
March 31, 2007, 7:40 p.m. CST
Seriously, this bad publicity can't hurt. Directed by Roland Joffe? Good to see he can still find work after The Scarlet Letter. Hmm . . . overall, I really don't care either way as far as this "controversy" goes.
March 31, 2007, 8:04 p.m. CST
by The Southerner
Are we not helping them make money right now? "Sites such as Aintitcool even deem this too bad to be shown in theaters!" People break rules. It's what they do. Most people even skate away without a consequence. And if the MPAA doesn't rate it, they will use that to market the film. If their marketing works, theaters won't give a damn what it's rated. If it will put popcorn and candy in a gut, they will show it. NC-17 and unrated films have been box office duds so far. But how much would it suck for "Captivity" to break records! It would in essence, sully the good name of filmmakers who have been straddled with the rating or lack thereof. Good decent directors like Atom Egoyan, Noe, etc. will be upstaged by an unoriginal film with little or no artistic merit. The recruitment of Whedon to write that letter was ill-advised. It's playing right into After Dark's hands. If the internet and groups of opposition just kept their mouth shut, Captivity would have floated on into the nether regions of obscurity, but now, with every negative word said, a veritable money machine is being made. "The film no one wants you to see!" And, without a rating they can put all the nastiness and gore inside and use that as a selling point as well. People are saying this Solomon person is probably quivering in fear somewhere. My guess is she's laughing and creaming at all the money she's going to make for putting After Dark on the map with a shitty film (that's assuming it's shitty, no one who's complaining has even seen it).
March 31, 2007, 8:05 p.m. CST
I tell you what IS -"The MPAA has substantial power." and your response is to bitch about what SHOULD BE "Well, people shouldn't listen to them then". While I agree that people shouldn't listen to them, its not fucking relevant. And again, unless you show me a legal document that says otherwise - the MPAA is damn well obligated to rate every movie that is presented to it. Second, you keep insisting that the choices are Do nothing or economically censor the movie by releasing the movie with no rating. BULLSHIT. I'm willing to bet that there are other legal penalities that both cna and should be invoked before using that drastic of a step. Fine them, delay the rating, whatever- but unless you have a leagal document that says otherwise you dont get to stop doing your fucking job because someone did something you dont like. "Wah! I'm going to take my ball and go home." How fucking third grade playground dictator can you get?
March 31, 2007, 8:07 p.m. CST
First let's look at Mori's statements... <p> "Thankfully, he’s still too little to really give a shit about advertising or even to process it or pay attention to it. But say he’d been a little older... how am I supposed to explain to him what those four panels add up to? More importantly... why should I have to?" <p> Why should you have to... well, and I shouldn't have to say this, but it's your job. As the parent of this child you ARE that filter that is supposed to be there to reaise your child the way you think you should. I'm not in anyway saying you are a bad parent, I don't know you, but if you feel that a studio creating horror films geared towards the adult demographic should consider children and the extra work you might incur as a parent when creating their work then you are at the very least guilty of being a morally lazy parent. Play with them all you want and spend the time with them, but if you don't you don't see why you have the responsibility to be the moral compass for your child then I don't know what to tell you. <p> Again, I don't know you so you could be a great father, but from your own comments it seems like you don't want the hard stuff, and I hate to say it, but there will be more of this and if you ignore it, or pretend that it's not there, or even work to make sure it doesn't see the light of day just to "protect" your child, then you aren't a very good parent. Better that the explanations come from you than somewhere or someone else. <p> "What right does After Dark Films or Courtney Solomon have to put that imagery in front of my child? Or any child? Or me, for that matter?" <p> Advertising is art. Art is expression. The freedom of expression is protected under the Constitution of the United States. It's the reason you can do what you do for living. It's the reason we can say, do, and show anything we want within the limits of the law. So long as no one was really murdered in those images then they are protected under the laws of this country, if you don't like it. <p> MOVE! <p> Move, or complain, but don't trample on someone else's rights to express or promote thier work of art because you don't want to have to explain it to you kids. If they loose that right, then someday we might all loose that right. How do you explain to your kids that once upon a time we were a free society but all that changed because you were trying to "protect" them from something the might just see themselves when they are adults. <p> "And even after they were told to take them down, After Dark intentionally dragged their feet, and when they finally did remove them, they just put up these smarmy “CAPTIVITY Was Here” messages in the space, as if to flip the bird on the way out the door." <p> Again, freedom of expression. The MPAA is not an organization that is federally funded. It is not a government entity and as such has as much right to tell another studio what to do as you do... pretty much none. Replacing the one billboard with another that essentially expresses a dissatisfaction with the MPAA and their stifling of the very freedom they were built to try and protect. Then I say good for them. <p> "I’m asking you as an artist, as a horror filmmaker, and as a parent. You’ve made the first move, and it’s a strong one. Now finish the job, or the next jackass who needs to stir up controversy to sell a piece of crap will go even further. This isn’t a game. This is what your organization supposedly exists for." <p> Actually, the MPAA "was formed to advance the interests of movie studios." They are made up of representatives for the "big six" a.k.a. Disney, Sony, Paramount, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. Other than the assignment of the VOLUNTARY film rating system, the MPAA lobbies for protecting things such copyright and free speech. As well as promoting digital rights management technologies to help protect these rights. If they trample on another studios rights then that is hypocracy. <p> All you do when you support this sort of response is say that you want someone else to handle your job as parent to screen the content you child is exposed to by removing it. Instead of doing your job and explaining to them what they see when exposure is unavoidable. <p> In my opinion an appropriate response by the MPAA would be to impose a fine for displaying the ad after it had been rejected and then to give the film the rating it deserves. Even if that rating is NC-17 or X, but what you won't see it the MPAA taking After Dark to court over the billboard, the MPAA will loose and they know it. Remember, MPAA ratings are voluntary, not federally generated or financed, and only given power by... well... us.
March 31, 2007, 8:10 p.m. CST
I disagree with the entire concept of billboards and other obtrusive advertising. This is not like a T.V. commercial, or a full page splash in a magazine, its an image forced on you trying to drive about your daily business. Thats not to say I find these series of images anymore offensive than the other junk they foister upon us, and it's certainly less offensive than the many Saw and Hostel boards that were plastered about my city. But the entire concept behind jamming these eyesores in my face is wrong, regardless. As far as the "Wont someone please think of the children!" debate; You think of them. They're your kids. If your child IS seriously traumatised by these rather obsucre and bland posters, he's already got some serious issues he needs sorting out before venturing into the adult world. Oh, and to keep ranting, as far as the MPAA goes...Don't like their rules, don't join. It's hardly censorship to be exluded from a private club. You aren't allowed to advertise or screen your film with their members? Boo fucking hoo. Follow their rules or just resign yourself to selling unrated DVD's. Shit, if it wasn't for the fact that this is a shitty, lazy horror film, there would be more than a few art house's that could screen your creation.
March 31, 2007, 8:27 p.m. CST
If they don't wanna follow the rules, then no rating! Hit them where it hurts.
March 31, 2007, 8:39 p.m. CST
by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies
Why does everyone get so worked up about this poster but all the other sick shit put out there is somehow OK? If you are going to be outraged at least be consistent.
March 31, 2007, 9:03 p.m. CST
by The Future King
Yeah there is sick shit out there, but we have a choice whether or not we are going to see it. Sure you can look up some crazy stuff on the internet, or go rent Hostel, or something like that, but you are making the choice that you will be doing that. When that billboard was put up those people didn't have a choice about what they were going to see, it was just shoved into their faces. The constitution protects whatever sick fantasies you have, and it protects your right to look at others sick fantasies, but your rights end where mine begin. I have the right to not be drenched in perverseness when I'm driving down the road. And don't try to start on the bullshit that its going against "freedom of expression." There's nothing illegal about drawing or looking at something like this, but is against the rules to be putting it up in public places. We have ratings systems for movies, not billboards. And you can put that stuff into movies because people choose whether or not they go see it, and the ratings can influence whether or not you will see that movie. When it's up there on the billboard, you have no choice, it's there.
March 31, 2007, 9:20 p.m. CST
by El Borak
you (whoever you are) like perverted, torturous pics and films doesn't mean the rest of the public does. it's about having respect for other people and their standards. btw, screw you bastards. ha! ha! ha!
March 31, 2007, 9:42 p.m. CST
1: Why do you keep arguing for a legal document saying the MPAA doesn't need to review every movie? Tell me, do you have a legal document saying YOU don't have to review every movie? No? Well then why are you holding the MPAA to a different standard? They're NOT a fucking government agency! They don't have to do anything! What don't you understand about this very simple fact? 2: I'm not saying people should or shouldn't listen to the MPAA--I'm saying that the only reason the MPAA has any power is because people do. The censorship is NOT in the MPAA refusing to give a rating, but in the theatres refusing to show unrated movies. The MPAA has every right to endorse or not endorse or even rate a movie, just like anyone else. 3: I never said there was no other way--I just said that the MPAA has no obligation to do business with someone who won't follow the rules. As Moriarty has said, there's been a publicity huff over this, and they shouldn't benefit from it. 4: Third grade playground dictator? Bullshit. The MPAA is dealing with someone who broke their agreements, and was kind of a dick about it afterwards. If After Dark does something serious to show they realize they fucked up, maybe I can see for leniency. But if they continue their defiant attitude, there's no reason the MPAA should do them the favor of doing business with them.
March 31, 2007, 11:09 p.m. CST
... where does this kind of thinking end? "I'm offended by this, so no one should be allowed to see it." Okay, but who made you the arbiter of taste for the whole world, and where do you draw the line on it? I'm an atheist, and am GREATLY offended by having religion shoved in my face 24/7. Lord and savior and lifestyle and heritage and all that to you, annoying bullshit to me. Far more bad/evil things have been done in the name of religion, far more harm has been done to countless numbers of children in the name of religion than any exposed nipple or severed limb will ever cause. So, again, where does the line get drawn? I'm offended by displays of religion; does that mean they should be banned? Should the local churches be forced to take down their crosses because they offend me? Should religious programming on tv be prefaced with a warning label? Should I go tell my neighbors that the Easter display in their yard is bugging me and they should take it down, NOW, before I impose sanctions? You don't like their ad, don't look at it. I love me some Whedon, but fuck him if he's offended.
March 31, 2007, 11:40 p.m. CST
You're falling into a trap many people are, of apparently thinking Moriarty, Whedon, or the MPAA want to ban the movie because it's offensive. Not one of them said that. They want to refuse a rating because the studio broke the MPAA rules. Yes, the rule in this case was "don't put that offensive billboard up", but the content of the movie is no way in question here. It's the willingness of the studio to abide by the MPAA's rules.
March 31, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST
I can't believe you're taking a stance on this. Why not go after the DVD covers of certain Masters of Horrors, the Descent, or The Hills Have Eyes while you're at it. The poster is no less appropriate than the covers. How about the Hills Have Eyes 2 poster or all of the various Saw posters. There are so many other things worse than this poster on TV, at the movies, and out in public. Why not go after them?
March 31, 2007, 11:58 p.m. CST
You wrote: "Hollywood is gonna be the centre of all the fighting, considering that it's a liberal blip in the middle of a Republican state..." California is one of the most liberal states in the US! Have you even been there??? All of it's major cities are heavily Democratic which include San Diego, LA, and fucking San Francisco, the most liberal major city in the US. Good God, man, the Republicans hardly even bother with it during Presidential elections because they know they can't take it. Arnie won re-election because he moved towards the center and is generally considered one the most liberal Republican governors. It's legislature is dominated by Democrats. What's next, Boston is a liberal blip in the middle of a Republican state? I hope you're not American, and, if not, I guess that might explain such a nonsensical comment like that. But if you are American, you should be ashamed with yourself for being so ignorant.
April 1, 2007, 12:12 a.m. CST
In France... well, I don't have a television, but advertising in cinemas is much racier than anything in Britain. The ratings system is different here, so you can take your child to see a romantic comedy (which would probably be rated R in the US and 15 in the UK), and before the movie starts there are ads for soft drinks which feature partial nudity, and in one instance, a man apparently receiving oral sex from a dog. Not having children, and being much more liberal when it comes to sex as opposed to violence, I think this is hilarious.<p>These ads for "torture porn" on the other hand, I find disturbing. On the Metro, there are still banners showing teeth hanging on wires to promote Saw 3. I don't want to see that.<p>The problem is, I can't expect a marketing company to cater for my tastes. I have no problem with sexually suggestive images (although I wouldn't like to have to explain to a four year-old why the man seems to enjoy having a dog lick his groin area...) or profanity, but I don't particularly want to see the kind of dehumanising violence in Saw or Hostel presented as entertainment. So what? If a campaign works, my sensibilities are not going to stop the next series of gruesome billboards. I'd rather have freedom of speech than be comfortable and unoffended.<p>At the risk of getting political, I'd also rather that our governments would be a little less inclined towards real-life violence, which is far more destructive than a poster. Right now France is about to elect a right-wing xenophobe as president, and this will put the country further up shit creek than a repulsive marketing campaign.<p>Future generations are in greater danger from reality than fantasy. If we're going to speak out against violence, let's get our priorities straight and speak out against the violence that actually matters.
April 1, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST
Surely the more pressing danger with these billboards comes from motorists looking at Elisha Cuthbert and not the road?
April 1, 2007, 12:29 a.m. CST
Again and again and again, I point out WHAT IS - and again and again and again you argue what SHOULD BE. IS trumps SHOULD BE each and every time. Idealism is all well and good, but the rest of us are living in the real world. The facts are that the MPAA has the power to crush this film by denying it a rating. Like it or not, that amounts to defacto censorship(regardless of the reason for it). The MPAA has set itself up as the ultimate arbiter of what is good and acceptible in American cinema and by virtue of their own claims have a moral (and barring legal proof otherwise, I'd say a legal) obligation to rate every film that is put before them (And to answer your inane point- I have not set myself up as the ultimate arbiter so I have no such obligaiton - thats the difference between me and the MPAA). Had the MPAA not set themselves up that way they would have no power and this would be a non issue. The fact is that I would love for a theater chain to have the balls to do the equivelent of what Marvel did when they killed the CCA and destroy the rating system- but the MPAA will never allow that to happen. Yes, After Dark was a dick- but that does not give the MPAA (or you) leave to be a bigger dick back. The fact is that it doesn't really matter why the films rating gets pulled- the American Taliban will see this as a victory and use the precedent against other films they deem offensive (which alone is reason enough for the MPAA to rate the movie). The fact is you have offered no other options in your overzealous call for censorship of a movie for actions you dont like - which has been and always will be a line too far. The fact is that a fine, even a huge fine is appropriate- but defacto censorship is not. Those are the facts, and until you can argue the facts instead of pointless, irrelevant platitudes about what people SHOULD BE doing, I'm done with you.
April 1, 2007, 12:31 a.m. CST
Unfortunately, this isn't a great analogy, for several reasons. 1: The MPAA isn't a court, they don't have any legal authority. This also means they don't have any legal responsibility to grant any kind of benefits to people who break their guidlines. 2: You're talking about actively punishing these protestors--that is to say, you are imprisoning them. In this case, the MPAA is withholding a rating, a benefit that you must apply for and pay a fee for. It's not a right, unlike basic liberty. 3: The MPAA is a private organization you can choose to deal with or not deal with. They're perfectly free to make this movie and put up these billboards without MPAA approval--as they did. In the case of these protesters, it isn't simply more difficult to protest if their particular demonstration is illegal, they are forced not to, potentially with violence. An entirely different issue. 4: Imprison them for life? That's vastly different than failing to rate the movie. No one's going to prison because of this movie, not for a day, let alone a lifetime.<br><br>However, if you're asking if people who protest the government in a way which is illegal should be imprisoned, the answer is yes. Now, we can debate which ways SHOULD be illegal--I think fairly few (i.e., destruction of property, blocking a public road perhaps)--but the point is, if it is illegal there must be a penalty. Otherwise the law itself has no weight, and that's a fairly bad scenario in anything short of total dictatorship.
April 1, 2007, 1:07 a.m. CST
You seem to be utterly failing to understand what I'm saying. Let me try it again, slowly.<br><br> 1. This is not censorship. Censorship must be based on content or message, which this is not. The movie could be worthy of a G rating, and it wouldn't matter. This could be the fucking Care Bears. The issue would still be the same. The MPAA has the right to decline to rate a movie. Period.<br><br> 2: I am not, and never have been, talking about "what should be" or "ideals". I am talking about the fact that the MPAA *has no enforcement power*. That is a simple, undeniable fact. They have no direct ability to censor. The theatre chains are the only ones directly censoring anything, so take it up with them. On the topic of indirect censorship... <br><br> 3: It is ludicrous--and you have shown no ability to rebut this--to suggest that denying the film a rating is in somehow more economic censorship than forcing them to pay a fine. A large fine would hurt the studio's profit margin as much as the lack of wide releases. Even a small fine will have *exactly the same effect* if they choose not to pay. So you are, once again, left with the fact that you are endorsing withholding a rating for not paying a fine, but maintaining a rating for disobeying a direct guideline. Why you seem to feel one infraction is worse than the other, I have no idea. <br><br> 4: However the MPAA has "set itself up", they have *no obligation* to rate movies. I still don't see why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp. They are a private organization. You may as well say that McDonalds has an obligation to serve you hamburgers after you walk into the restaurant without a shirt and shoes. I don't care how powerful they are in their field, until they are a government agency no one has an intrinsic right to their services. Certainly, they can't legally discriminate based on race, sex, creed, etc. But they can damn well refuse to provide a service if you don't hold up your end of the bargain. If you want a government regulation board instead of the MPAA, that's fine, but you have to deal with what IS, not what SHOULD BE. The MPAA is in no way legally required to give a film a rating, however much you may wish it otherwise.<br><br> 5: This is slightly repetitious of point 1, but it bears repeating: The content of this movie has nothing to do with the actions being taken. You imply that it's hatred for this film--which none of the people involved have yet seen, it would seem--that is driving this. Well, maybe it helps, but, personally, I don't give a shit about the movie. Moriarty said much the same. The point is that they broke their agreement. That's all. <br><br> 6: Once again, you speak as though I'm offended by the movie, or the billboard. I'm not. If it were up to me, the MPAA ratings would have no bearing at all on whether or not a movie found theatres to play in, this one included. I really don't give a crap about the movie or the damn advertisements. If the MPAA failed to rate it, and every theatre in the country stood up and said "fuck it, we'll play it anyway" I would be *happy*. This has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with the studio. The studio did something wrong, and they need to accept the consequences. It's as simple as that. <br><br> 7: How is it "being a bigger dick" to refuse to rate the movie? After Dark and the MPAA had an agreement. After Dark broke that agreement. Once they did that, the MPAA had no responsibility to honor their end of it. If you don't pay your rent, your landlord kicks you out. It doesn't matter if you need the apartment more than the landlord needs the cash, the fact is the agreement is broken and you're on the street. And complaining about it just makes you sound like a brat with an entitlement complex. You don't get what you want by breaking your word.
April 1, 2007, 1:12 a.m. CST
As someone who watches horror with unabashed glee, I gotta say those billboards were obnoxious, inappropriate and offensive. Yet, I can't help but think that someone at After Dark is fucking LOVING this whole debacle. It's cheap publicity for what's sure to be a stinker. Congrats to the MPAA for actually doing something smart. I'm all for putting regs on advertising and leaving the controversial material only in the film itself.
April 1, 2007, 1:15 a.m. CST
I agree about the poster, actually. I think the MPAA needs to be more consistent about the posters they allow, one way or the other. This one wasn't all that bad, though I can imagine how seeing it on a giant f'in billboard might make it so. But that still doesn't mean the studio can get away with breaking MPAA guidlines and still expect an MPAA rating. ::shrug::
April 1, 2007, 1:38 a.m. CST
We had this convo,YEARS ago.Mori felt this way back then,before he became a parent.(Yeah dude,your still wrong.)But not really-it doesnt matter whos correct. None of the opinions expressed in the talkback ammount to shit.Its all subjective.Our own approval /disapproval ammounts to shit because heres the one case my radical liberal ass has to say isnt a slippery slope.Its an isolated incident that will never lead to more censorship. However,Its funny folks keep sighting a precedent like previous ads for Saw and Hills Have Eyes ,when the MPAA doesnt allow a debate of precedent.You cant deny your contradicting yourself when you say that you agree the MPAA is bullshit,you even go so far to mention you're on the commentary for This Film is not yet Rated,and then you say"Bullshit as it is,those are the rules, and you didnt follow the rules"You have to admit thats a major contradiction
April 1, 2007, 1:45 a.m. CST
I don't think it is a contradiction to dislike the MPAA and yet still say "those are the rules, accept them". If these guys had totally bypassed the MPAA, I doubt Moriarty would have any problem with them, I know I wouldn't. The problem is that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to buck the system while still enjoying the benefits of the system. That's hypocrisy, and fairly pathetic.
April 1, 2007, 1:47 a.m. CST
Was reading a interview with Eli Roth of Hostel infamy and he says that he finds the term 'torture porn' to be offensive. He also says that he hopes to see the day when there is no restriction on violence in movies at all. That's all the evidence you need to see that the MPAA is needed. It's one of last lines of defense to protect society from these folks like Roth and the Captivity makers who are separated from society and societal values.
April 1, 2007, 1:48 a.m. CST
you know, i'm a huge fan of AICN. but to sit there and make a movie called 'pro life' and then get pissed off about a fucking movie BILLBOARD with NOTHING offensive other than WORDS and a tube up some chick's nose, is bullshit. you are responsibile for what your child sees. how do you explain something like this to your child? it's easy: 'it's a scary movie. it's a sign for a scary movie. it's supposed to look scary'. that's it. that's all. and if i hear one more parent bitch about what their kids see, i am going to flip. you are responsible for YOUR child. that's it. it's not my choice or anyone else's what YOUR child sees. YOU are responsible. if there are any guidelines that they refused to follow, that's one thing...but for them to put up an ad campaign in that vein, is not wrong. to not follow the rules set for everyone else, IS wrong, but looked at seperately, it's not THAT bad. i don't find it offensive, and i don't think anyone else should either. 'pro life'? really. you can't even compare it to that. yeah, it's cool that wal-mart banned it. but you know what? they shouldn't have. it wasn't appauling. it wasn't controversial. in fact, it was kind of weak and hokey. i like hokey, but it was so 'pro life' that it was ridiculous.
April 1, 2007, 1:57 a.m. CST
And a good one at that.But I would pose the question-Hasnt "Bucking the system"Served a great purpose in the history of mankind? Undergorund railroad anyone?
April 1, 2007, 2:15 a.m. CST
I'm all for--and it seems Mori's all for--saying "fuck you" to the MPAA. It's the fact that they voluntarily entered into an agreement, then broke it. That's a far fuckin' cry from the moral courage of people who defied a system they were forced into knowing full well what the consequences of their actions might be.
April 1, 2007, 2:24 a.m. CST
by JimmyJoe RedSky
...obvious - its a "how to" diagram - isnt it obvious - in this case its a "how to commit murder as a form of self gratification" - in 4 simple steps - theyre even spelled out and illustrated - rape was left out - but that can occur during the "torture" - optional - i wonder how many boners this billboard induced - sick shit - am i becoming an old prude or is this shit just getting worse and worse - now we have to see it whether we want to or not - on theater lobby walls and on giant-ass billboards - is this shit supposed to be scary? - shocking? - its neither - its porn for sick fucks - but i guess this vein of "entertainment" has a big audience - the same assholes that think its fun to post (and/or watch) cell phone camera videos of people getting assaulted on the internet - god bless amerikkka
April 1, 2007, 2:48 a.m. CST
by vacuous tart
But this "private organization" shit is exactly why I take libertarians about as seriously as Scientologists. Oh no, a government threatened to fine you $5,000 if you did the wrong thing! EVIL EVIL EVIL! Oh wait, you mean it was just a "private organization" with roughly the same resources as a national government, threatening to use a web of government-enforced contracts, collusive "understandings" with politicians, and immense economic pressure to prevent you from selling your product, thus costing you tens of millions of dollars and preventing you from earning a living until you agree to bow to their will? Don't waste my time with that shit, this guy over here is being evilly forced to pay a parking ticket!
April 1, 2007, 3 a.m. CST
Yeah, uh, I heard a whole lot of people here talking about how parking tickets are evil. Right.
April 1, 2007, 3:37 a.m. CST
Just saying...you're sort of enabling plenty of impressionable youngin's who haven't seen the billboard to see it. If you're serious about your stance against the ads -- and personally I don't quite see what the big deal is, but I don't have a kid so it's not my call -- take the image down from the site.
April 1, 2007, 3:41 a.m. CST
by Dr Gregory House
looks like Saturday night on Sunset Strip to me. What's all the hubub......Bub. People are born, they live, they get tortured, they die, blah blah blah. Kids have it too easy. I say scare 'em a little. Since Mommy and Daddy are too busy with their careers, SUVs, mistresses, pool boys, shopping for shoes, ect., SOMEBODY needs to discipline the little buggers.
April 1, 2007, 3:44 a.m. CST
I do feel some of the Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, and Saw ads are more or less on the same level as that. Maybe they all should be toned down some. Regardless, it does sound arrogant if they deliberately went against the MPAA just for attention.
April 1, 2007, 4:50 a.m. CST
That whole first comment was me just "acting" as retarded as possible, so I wouldn't sweat it too much, eh? And naw, I'm an ex-pat Canuck, so that'd explain the ignorance. However, imagine what utter drivel I'd have written if I was a REAL American.
April 1, 2007, 4:51 a.m. CST
Shrunken, Wrinkled Vin Diesel Dolls Are Now Available At Walmart for $15.95.
April 1, 2007, 4:54 a.m. CST
...a movie that AICN doesn't want to advertise with a talkback at almost 200!!! looks like this is all the publicity the movie needs :-)
April 1, 2007, 5 a.m. CST
Peoople should avoid this film because it was made by a filmaker who is challenging both PWSA and Dr. Boll for the title of "Worst Living Filmaker"TM, and will undoubtedly be utter shite.
April 1, 2007, 6:27 a.m. CST
it'd be another story being posted here about how fucking retarded the MPAA is. The publicity worked. The billboard is less graphic than a Calvin Klein poster. Hey, some vegetarians throw up when they see billboards of McDonald's hamburgers, but we're not taking those down. It's just too bad I know that the actual film won't feature the graphic torture of Elisha Cuthbert. And, man, Josh Whedon is such an a-hole. Who gives a fuck what he thinks?
April 1, 2007, 6:48 a.m. CST
by Atticus Finch
The only difference is that Harry is a "good friend" of Eli Roth. If not for that, this site would be touting both films as unacceptable.
April 1, 2007, 6:51 a.m. CST
Has AICN been bought out by FOX News?
April 1, 2007, 6:57 a.m. CST
by maybe banana-nut
Ever watched Dexter - Found this chilling blog from some kind of copycat. check out: http://danteconfesses.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html Perhaps these kind of sociopaths are what Eli Roth really needs to confront.
April 1, 2007, 6:59 a.m. CST
by maybe banana-nut
April 1, 2007, 7:40 a.m. CST
Come on Mori, its April 1st. Dont tell me you are playing the angry parent card for real. I canot wait to explain everything to my kid. It keeps the creeps from Jesus and the Government Shools from brainwashing her.
April 1, 2007, 7:49 a.m. CST
They are responsible for almost all the evils and greed in the United States. Fucking Masons.
April 1, 2007, 7:55 a.m. CST
It's OKAY to have graphic, violent imasges from torture porn movies displayed in public, where little kids can't help but be exposed to them, as long as the MPAA SAYS it's okay. Yeah, I feel better.
April 1, 2007, 8 a.m. CST
that we won't get to see that lovely pic of Elisha's right boobie anymore. BTW: IS there nudity in this? That's what the hub-bub SHOULD BE about.
April 1, 2007, 8:12 a.m. CST
They will send you to jail for refusing to pay parking tickets, you know. The MPAA can't do a damn thing to you for making an offensive billboard. What? They don't give you a rating, meaning you will be refused promotional and screening opportunities by other like minded privately owned groups? Then why manufacture a product that relys on a system you intend to buck? That's pretty stupid. I've seen a number of films earn money without a rating, they just cater to an audience that does not need to be informed of said films exsistence through family papers, or who are able to travel to a cinema that does not reside in a mall. Like many have said, if you intend to take advantage of the giant media conglomerates to sell your tickets, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like it, release it independant of their system. At least film makers still have that option open to them, as opposed to dealers in illegal drugs. They will actually lock you up and destroy your product in most countries. The MPAA, in association with many large corporations, may wield enough power to restrict exposure to your product, but they completely lack the power to censor it. You should at least be happy for that, because its alot more leniant than the tyrannical government regulatory bodies most of the rest of the world have to deal with. Besides, if you don't like it, the best option is to help Captivity make alot of money unrated, and thus weaken the system. Only, no one will, because it looks like a turd burger anyway.
April 1, 2007, 8:15 a.m. CST
...we live in a child obsessed popular culture..'what is good for kids' and the way adults obsess over it and unknowingly relive their own childhoods through their children is the very fountain that feeds most teenagers loathing of their parents.. the movie business is primarily about making money, these billboards are not one iota worse that a lot of popular sexually charged ads or violent computer games..its stunningly hyprocritical for Moriaty and AICN to be beating this up... yeh they did the wrong thing by running the billboard, but the objection to the material is baseless and fundamentally hypocritical of this site...
April 1, 2007, 8:27 a.m. CST
To all you who think that Mori is wrong, and that frankly, any idea should be presented in the world freely and openly, I present this: I assume you are ok with snuff films. I mean REAL SNUFF FILMS. I mean Daniel Pearl dies, then cut off a nameless asian woman's head and have sex with it while whipping a small Indian boy with barbed wire snuff films. I assume you would be ok with that. Hell, I assume you will champion it. Everyone should be able to do what they want. FUCK THE GOVERNMENT ans Doc_Strange says. Why not, you can just have a talk with your kids about it, explain it all. I know my five year old daughter would understand. She is really smart. I mean REALLY SMART. And really, if no one likes it they do not have to go see it. I mean, hell, society will take care of it. That makes it ok. Come on...there are just some things that should not be out there. I personally do not think THIS ad is any worse than the Hills have Eyes, but the fact is at some point someone needs to draw the line. AD can put out the movie, but the MPAA has the right to do what they do. You apply for a rating, it goes through them. So everyone get off your "Oh, we are oppressed, and we can say what the fuck we want to" horse. Remember, that is not what the first amendment says, and if you truly believe that, go ahead and put rape images or racist images on the outside of your houses...I am sure they won't be burnt to the ground within 4 hours.
April 1, 2007, 8:58 a.m. CST
Joffe, Cohen, Cuthbert, et al... They put in long hours, for months (at least) in many cases to make Captivity. Why punish them by forcing the film into the ghetto? After Dark are at fault. Hit them, and only them. Fine them as much as you want. Just don't take the work of some people who put blood, sweat and tears into a film and put it where almost nobody can get to see it. That's just hideously selfish, ignorant and brutish.
April 1, 2007, 8:59 a.m. CST
You are right and the all the childless nerds on this board are wrong. If the MPAA doesn't do it, the government will do it far worse.
April 1, 2007, 9:19 a.m. CST
Why ban certain billboards and not others. I have seen other adverts for films that are worse than this so what criteria is being used and why do the MPAA appear inconsistent.<P>Also if an advert is banned, what authority does the MPAA have to police it. If they don't really have authority then what is the point.
April 1, 2007, 10:07 a.m. CST
Personally, I don't think the MPAA should exist at all... and if we HAD to live with those self-righteous hypocritical bastards, they should only be responsible for content descriptors - not quantifiable tiered ratings.<p> In THIS case, I really think it's a private dispute. Whatever company owns the billboard (CBS, Clear Channel) also gets to approve the adverts... and if they were duped, they should be the ones seeking damages. If we have to, someone should inspect the finished, printed posters to ensure they match the ones approved before they're sent out to be pasted up.<p> Anyhoo, I don't think the MPAA should really have a say in the matter. These posters are a lot less offensive/graphic than, say, the ones for Hostel 2... and they're a lot less interesting, too. C'mon, those scream "Aha, shitty low-budget horror torture porn." Who fucking cares.
April 1, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST
The best thing to do would be to ignore it. This very website, by mentioning it at all, is helping to advertise to exactly the market Solomon wants. It's too late for that now, though.
April 1, 2007, 10:50 a.m. CST
The reason why the MPAA has a say in the billboard matter, the reason that the MPAA is concerned here rather than Clear Channel or whoever, is that when After Dark submitted the film for a rating they agreed to let the MPAA also approve all content related to the film. After Dark broke that agreement, and so the MPAA is considering not upholding their end of the bargain in retaliation. Clear Channel or whoever certainly could take issue with After Dark as well, but the MPAA has a valid complaint about After Dark breaking the terms of the rating agreement.
April 1, 2007, 11:10 a.m. CST
There seem to be a lot of people with misconceptions regarding this matter. Please keep the following things in mind:<br><br>1: No one has said putting up these billboards or releasing this movie should be illegal or in any way prohibited. The MPAA cannot ban a movie.<br><br>2: The content of the movie has nothing to do with the fact that the MPAA is refusing to rate it. No one has said that the movie is too offensive to be rated. The movie is currently not being rated because the studio broke their agreement to only run advertising approved by the MPAA. <br><br>3: The MPAA is not a government agency, and is under no legal obligation to review films. If a studio won't play by the rules and honor their agreements, they are perfectly within their rights not to offer the service of rating their film. <br><br>4: Whether or not the billboards are better or worse than billboards for Saw or Hostel is irrelevant to this matter. It is not the "offensive content" of the billboards that is at issue, it is the fact that the billboards were not approved. You may think the MPAA was wrong not to approve the billboards (or wrong TO approve the billboards of Saw and Hostel), but that doesn't change the fact that if you expect them to rate your movie you have to play by their rules.<br><br>5: It is NOT hypocrisy to believe the MPAA is right in this matter while still generally disapproving the MPAA. If you disapprove of the MPAA, then go outside the ratings process. Don't make agreements you don't plan on keeping, as After Dark did.<BR><BR>Okay? I'd really appreciate it if everyone would keep those things in mind before posting angry rants about how "we shouldn't ban movies for being offensive" (which we're not) or "the MPAA has no right to tell you what you can and can't put on a billboard" (which they do--if you have agreed to give them that power in exchange for a rating). Okay? Thanks.
April 1, 2007, 11:13 a.m. CST
Unleash the hounds. I'm with Moriarty on this.
April 1, 2007, 11:16 a.m. CST
For the love of all that is good in film would somebody take their fucking heads out of their asses and wake the fuck up!!!! It's funny how mainstream films are now on par with or worse than direct to dvd releases are. I wanna think there are still about, oh, 2 or 3 filmmakers with talent and integrity out there, if that. After Dark films are nothing but lazy, untalented hacks.
April 1, 2007, 11:19 a.m. CST
Mori is correct.
April 1, 2007, 11:28 a.m. CST
by Dr Lisa Cuddy
Last House on the Left Anyone? Hey After Dark. Remake that bitch and have a poster that just shows some intestine. On second thought, don't.
April 1, 2007, 11:37 a.m. CST
a viable alternative.To say you only have those options "Play by the rules or stay out the game"Thats not going to get us where we want to be.After Dark felt they were treated unfairly,and without the abillity to quote precedent like prior ads that may have been worse,they were correct.So in the end this is how you provoke change,by CHALLENGING the system.I dont see how continuing to play by the rules is going to make the MPAA change the way they evaluate ads or films
April 1, 2007, 11:43 a.m. CST
..."This Film Is Not Yet Rated" last night on IFC, I gotta say, I'm extremely confused by this article. The MPAA and CARA should be disbanded immediately and replaced with an organization that is actually held accountable for their actions. That is, of course, after we know what it is they do to begin with. How in the WORLD can you be blaming an independent studio for this? CBS, the actual OWNER of the billboard space, should have control over what they sell that space for. And if it's inappropriate, THEY should be punished, sanctioned, etc. This article just makes no sense to me Mori, sorry. I don't agree on this one.
April 1, 2007, 11:46 a.m. CST
You said, "3: The MPAA is not a government agency, and is under no legal obligation to review films. If a studio won't play by the rules and honor their agreements, they are perfectly within their rights not to offer the service of rating their film." <br><br> So I have to ask, have you seen "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"? If not, you should. I think you might change your mind regarding the above statement.
April 1, 2007, 11:50 a.m. CST
Is the billboard tacky? Yes. Is the film a pile of shit? Most assuredly. But just once I'd like to hear this argument (which almost made sense) be made WITHOUT mentioning children. Nice try, Moriarty.
April 1, 2007, 11:59 a.m. CST
How would that movie make me change my mind about the MPAA not being a government aggency?
April 1, 2007, 12:03 p.m. CST
If they're challenging the system, that's fine. But you don't get to challenge the system and still take part in that system. When I was in college, I disagreed with classes having attendance policies--If I can get the grades without being in class, more power to me, right? But if I skipped class for an entire semester, I sure wouldn't bitch if the professor flunked me. If I disagree with a school's policy, I can protest it, I can choose not go to that school, but I can't expect to break the rules without consequence.
April 1, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST
"But you don't get to challenge the system and still take part in that system" Dude,if you had just skipped class the proffesor wouldve never heard you even state the issues..So if After Dark goes outside the MPAA (ratingless) thats not really provoking them to make a change.I think both sides agree that we NEED the MPAA, we LIKE the MPAA ,its necessary.But they do need to make signifigant changes.They need to set a STANDARD,a guideline to follow."This many pelvic thrusts gets you an NC17 ,and this type of content in a billboard will get your ad rejected"Thats the heart of the arguement in the end.Its unfair to say this particular ad is unaceptable but the Hills Have Eyes II ad is.Any other arguement about the artistic value of the ad or whether or not its a cheap publicity stunt is off topic.Hell,it is a cheap stunt!And its not any stretch of the imagination to conclude this flick will suck ass balls!Again,without "Bucking the system"you will never get this system to reexamine they way inwhich they evaluate the materials submitted.Bypassing the MPAA and releasing your film unrated would not garner that result
April 1, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST
It looks like I've cracked the system, 'cause I wrote that psot above mine. How dare AICN attempt to steal the credit, just because I mentioned a Pam Grier film.<p> </p>What does AICN have against Pam Grier anyway? What's with the Pam Grier slam-campagin?<p> </p>Fuck you AICN for stealing the credit to my post, fuck you up your stupid ass.<p> </p>...ah I can't stay mad at you for long, not when you give me those puppy-dog eyes.
April 1, 2007, 12:36 p.m. CST
Having children I was astonished by these ads and disgusted with their close vicinity to schools. To punish the film makers for a decision made by After Dark and Lionsgate is by far the most ridiculous decision ever handed down by the MPAA. Does the MPAA or REMOVETHERATING.COM realize how much publicity they are giving this film, a film they would like to see disappear? Real effective, people. I have children and also work in the industry much like you Mori but do you honestly think this decision to suspend the rating on this ONE film is going to matter much to other companies with similar agendas? No. Why you might ask? Publicity in any form supports the film regardless good or bad. Publicity is publicity and that's the name of the game. There are quite a few great arguments on this thread against your post Mori. Usually I agree with your opinions but this one is plain ridiculous and having seen THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED repeatedly, the MPAA favor others while disregarding the rest. The system is severely flawed and needs to be governed by people who cannot be "bought & sold" like those who sit comfortably on the rating's board or not at all. Being a new parent, which you are Mori, I admire that you want to safeguard your child from things such as this but when you make a living from writing scripts with horrific elements it seems a little hypocritical. Please don't take offense at this Mori, like I stated, I value your opinion usually just not in this instance. For Christsakes, it's only a fucking movie and in a few weeks or months it will be completely forgotten about...much like this REMOVETHERATING crusade. By the way I looked at a few of the people signed on for this "mission" and who should I see? Laeta Kalogridis. Who is she you all are wondering? She "conspired" with Oliver Stone in writing that cinematic "masterpiece" Alexander and also, provided a script polish on Scream 3. Scream 3...I guess you can polish a turd after all or at least try. And Alexander? A "film" that requires the DVD treatment, i.e. multiple versions, that is usually reserved for the EVIL DEAD films? That said, I'll definitely value her opinion. Marti Noxon is on that list as well but I actually respect her work. So all of you people "fighting the good fight" keep dragging this out and ensure this film has a healthy opening weekend due to your publicity and all it is causing. The people over at After Dark and Lionsgate appreciate all you are doing for them. Your ranting and raving will be far more successful for the film than those tacky billboards that were removed.
April 1, 2007, 12:42 p.m. CST
By the way Mori, I agree with your opinion on Solomon. Castle, he is not. The person who I feel truly bad for is Roland Joffe. For crying out loud, he directed THE KILLING FIELDS.
April 1, 2007, 12:44 p.m. CST
You just had to hate on Alexander,,..Was all that really neceassary?
April 1, 2007, 12:52 p.m. CST
by Spandau Belly
And in doing so, become children ourselves!
April 1, 2007, 12:53 p.m. CST
Yes, yes it was. Was it necessary? Who knows? I was angry and needed to vent. Come to think of it though, it was necessary. Stone along with Joffe are great directors who lately have been tackling material that should be left to directors who haven't given us superb films such as Salvador or The Killing Fields. Both Alexander and Captivity suffer from the same thing, great directors capable of doing far greater things. Get fucked? How clever.
April 1, 2007, 12:54 p.m. CST
Absolutely agree with you.
April 1, 2007, 12:55 p.m. CST
That what After Dark did was to defy the MPAA. The MPAA, like them or not, is supposed to keep mainstream movies within an area with certain restrictions. SOme movies and ads are G rated and are allowed to go everywhere. Some movies and ads are R rated, and are limited to where they can go. Like the red band previews, for instance. What AD did was they submitted their ad and despite being told it was unacceptable, put it out anyway. Now, you can aregu all you want that the limits are constantly being pushed fruther and further away, and things that wouldn't have been allowed 5 years ago now are. Ok, but that's a different arguement. These guys were told no, and did it anyway, and that's why they deserve to be punished. There are hundreds of real fimmakers out there who have to play by the rules, or not, but nobody can have it both ways. If Spielberg makes a torture porn film, submits it to the MPAA and is given an NC-17 rating and told his ads aren't allowed to be put up as is...do you think he'd risk the rest of his career and put them out anyway? No. Either he'd cut the movie to an R and make the ads acceptable, or he'd release it directly to DVD. You can argue all you want that ads for Hostel and Saw are just as bad, but they were alloed and this one wasn't, yet there it is. I personally don't have an issue with the ad. I can see where one of those images as an ad might have been allowed, but all of them together was probably seen as too much. Fine, again, a different arguement. These guys were given the rules and instead of releasing this directly on DVD, and placing those ads in "adult" magazines, they flaunted the ad out there anyway, and now want a rating decision. F them. That company and this hack director do not have the right to do whatever they want without suffering the appropriate consequences. Who decides what is too risque for a billboard is another arguement that should be decided seperately. ~ÐL
April 1, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST
by Frank Black
There seems to be something else involved here because this isn't even a real issue deserving of this much venom and attention. The only picture that comes close to being questionable is the hook/nose thing and it isn't even as bad as the Saw ads that were everywhere. Now, instead of the movie just dying on the vine for being the yawn fest the trailer implies, this site and the MPAA are giving it a lot more attention than it would have ever seen. Oh well, at least for once people are going after violence (which I like a lot less) than nudity & sex in movies.
April 1, 2007, 1 p.m. CST
Then punish the company and not the film. Publicity is still publicity and this film will make a profit, possibly even a greater profit, due to all the conversations over the ruling. I agree with a few of your points and do think that Solomon needs a "beating" over this but this will continue to happen, whether anyone likes it or not. He is not the first and will definitely not be the last
April 1, 2007, 1:04 p.m. CST
I mean kids look at this site, you know. Maybe because it's no big fucking deal. Weren't you guys recently praising the Hostel poster with the naked, headless girl? Gimme a fucking break.
April 1, 2007, 1:11 p.m. CST
Big difference between this and the Hostel 2 poster? Do you see the Hostel 2 poster with Bijou Philips holding her head viewed for mass public consumption via massive billboards adorning the streets of any city? I don't think so.
April 1, 2007, 1:15 p.m. CST
...the REMOVETHERATING bullshit. These guys have shat upon the indiependent scene for decades. A Troma movie can never have a major release, even a chance at one, because the MPAA pretty much refuses to rate their films without completely disembowling them. Hell in Terror Firmer they had Lloyd cut a scene of him eating a taco, no innuendo there, he was eating a TACO! And as for these other fucktards, we're talking about fiction here people, I see no rating over the nightly news to protect children, but the only news the left wants to ban is Fox News. I for one am almost tempted to see this steaming pile in the theater, and buy the dvd simply because these jack holes are making the whole masogony argument. No one is forcing you to see these movies, you have free will but you want to take our ability to see this stuff away because it offends your sensibilities. If you don't like it don't see it, but god damnit you have no right to block my ability to see it. As for Joss, look I have no problem with lesbian action, sometimes I even pay for it. But for someone who put it on a prime time show, on a broadcast ,not cable, network (even if it was only the dubadubaduba-wb) where it could easily be seen by children, and offend the sensibilities of parents who might watch or make them answer hard questions asked by said children then, I find him to be the biggest hypocryt of them all. How can you put on something like that and then have some kind of mealy-mouthed objection to this shit. You can't have it both ways, free-speech for all or you end up with free-speech for none. I for one choose having it for all, even if that includes Rosie O'Donnel.
April 1, 2007, 1:17 p.m. CST
Preach on....The Whedon comment was spot on.
April 1, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST
You *might* have a point if, A: After Dark had told the MPAA *beforehand* that they intended to place the ads anyway, B: they had argued their case to the MPAA and, when confronted, voluntarily withdrawn their film as protest, and C: they were currently lobbying for change in the MPAA. If you find me evidence that these three things, or some combination of them, have occurred, perhaps you have a point. But the fact is, After Dark did *not* make some kind of protest, they simply *broke the rules*. And, again, if they're protesting the MPAA's ruling, they must be prepared to face the consequences of breaking with the MPAA. I'm not saying they should never have filed wiht the MPAA--I'm saying that if they planned on disobeying the MPAA, they should have the balls to make it a fight and take their punches. They're not victims, they made their choice.
April 1, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST
... like in a writers strike for example........ watch how the industry CRASHES down. Errrm...
April 1, 2007, 1:39 p.m. CST
by Quake II
As a father of a 5 year old, I prefer not to have graphic images thrown up in public places like that. He's a smart kid and I have explained how movies are pretend but that ad campaign is offensive and I have no doubt that the film is aweful. I find the SAW posters a bit graphic as well but they somehow passed the MPAA. I'm no prude (I own They Call Her One Eye, I Spit On Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust, the Ilsa movies, Fulci stuff etc) but do I want to see the Cannibal Holocaust poster with a women impailed on a stake from her vagina to her mouth plastered on bus stops? No.
April 1, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST
I don't think anyone has denied that the MPAA ratings process is kinda bullshit. But that sure as hell does not mean that they should rate movies for studios that refuse to cooperate with them. If the MPAA had seen the movie and refused to rate it because of content, that would be one thing. But that isn't what happened.
April 1, 2007, 1:47 p.m. CST
The issues being, A. There have been far worse posters/billboards put up by major movie studios. B. That it's a company's job to police it self based on your children and parenting skills (not calling you a bad parent but I think you get my drift). There are far worse signs/billboards/posters lining the streets of LA and Hollywood even more-so, ads for porn companies and strip clubs, drive the 405 and count how many spearmint rhino ads there are. And they have every right to be there, because you and your child do not have a right to not be offended. Look, there are things that I look at and go, wow they're doing that, hell I get pissed every time Rosie opens her damn pie hole, but you know what, I don't watch the view, I hear about it on the news and if I get sick of it, I turn the channel. If I had kids I would explain that she's a nut job, but that's what a parent is supposed to do. And there is just as much objectionable content on prime time tv that might have you explaining some hard facts to your child, I would say even more than what might get raised by that poster.
April 1, 2007, 1:48 p.m. CST
Apologies, I definitely made a half-ass statement there. I had to run over to the mat and finish my laundry. I will ask aqain, have you seen "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"? Because after seeing it last night my guts are in a twist. So much in a twist that I've begun writing letters. I'd rather not right a 3000 word disertation here, but the short version is that the MPAA is dirty, run by the major studios, and accountable to none of the people the are supposedly serving. At this point I have zero respect for any decision they make, including this one. Clear Channel and CBS own a majority of the billboards that grace the American roadways. They alone should be responsible and held accountable for what is posted on them. ESPECIALLY because I find it HIGHLY unlikely that they didn't know about the MPAA's decision on the ad before it was posted.
April 1, 2007, 1:51 p.m. CST
Now I gotta fold! But I kinda did it again. Added to what I said above is most important point - no film stands a chance without an MPAA rating. Not in theaters. Not these days. And they DO NOT have to explain why when they make that decision. As is pointed out in the doc, we would probably be better off if the government WERE rating the films themselves. Because then there would be some transparency to the process. Some oversight. Right now, there is none. You don't even know what you HAVEN'T seen in many cases, all because of the MPAA.
April 1, 2007, 1:51 p.m. CST
Look, if this was Sony pictures, they would have goten a hefty fine and a slap on the wrist. These guys are getting completely fucked. Did they try and buck the system, yes, did they break the rules, yes, but it needs to be an even playing field when it comes to punishment, it needs to be fair, firm and consistent. If you would punish Sony, Fox or Warners one way, or allow them to put up equally disturbing images for posters (Hills 2 and the dragging a corpse poster anyone) than an indie studio or smaller major should be able to do the same and get the same treatment.
April 1, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST
Worrying about this is sadly a complete waste of time. In the end the MPAA is going to do whatever they want to in this situation no matter what any of us think, so until they have set guidelines for how they judge films and advertisements, there's no point in racking my brain about it. People voicing their opinions for one side or the other isn't going to change squat because the MPAA doesn't care what you think. Fact is, if Captivity and The Wristcutters were major studio releases with ads like this floating about, we wouldn't be having thsi conversation. That's what's unfair about the system. I'm not going to voice my opinion about whether or not what After Dark Films has done is right or wrong because I don't feel the need to involve myself in that part of the discussion. I will say again, however, that is this were Paramount or Universal putting these ads out this situation would never have occurred. After Dark Films has no clout with the MPAA and like most indie filmmakers and companies it is getting attacked 100 times more than a major studio would be for its actions.
April 1, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST
people stand up against the mpaa ALL THE TIME! i see far worse movie posters in the local theatre. right in front of thousands of kids faces. are we gonna let the mpaa remove all those, too? you guys are always promoting eli roth's disturbing imagery; and standing up for robert rodriguez when he tells the dga and the unions to screw off. you guys are hypocrites. get yer stories straight, bub...
April 1, 2007, 1:53 p.m. CST
I see a lot of people making a point that I'd ALSO like to apply to this conversation. The MPAA does not allow you to site other films as argument. There is no president that is allowable in the process. It's whatver they decide NOW. Even in the appeals process, NOTHING! You cannot mention other films, ads, etc. It's just whatever they feel like slapping on your film today. I highly recommend everyone see this doc.
April 1, 2007, 1:56 p.m. CST
See the documentary, and you'll understand more why that system needs to go.
April 1, 2007, 2 p.m. CST
I think alot of this has to do with a lack of support alot of these guys in the industry (Mori included) did not get for their projects. MOH2 got a poor push from Anchor Bay, Serenity we can all agree didn't get the support it needed, and well Alexander is a steaming pile but that aside, I think there's a certain amount of jealosy here against a hack of a film maker/producer. But hacks get pushed all the time, look at Michael Bay.
April 1, 2007, 2:02 p.m. CST
like this and that we have to argue over rating it. These films are sick, pure and simple.
April 1, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST
But these days, controversies are caused by celluloid compost such as this, er, "film" or Eli Roth's oeuvres. How sad it is.
April 1, 2007, 2:13 p.m. CST
( . Y . )
April 1, 2007, 2:14 p.m. CST
by Mr Bonefish
are you riding around L.A. with your kid without the windows blacked out? The imagery around that town isn't fit for any kid under 10 anyway. I suggest you move.
April 1, 2007, 2:17 p.m. CST
I may be in the minority but I think his stuff is horrible, and I like Troma immensly. Granted I don't think his stuff is bad from a content standard I think it's bad from a film-making stand point. It's just not good stuff.
April 1, 2007, 2:17 p.m. CST
Continuing to repeat the same statements is just going to cause me to do the same in turn."After Dark defied the MPAA"Clearly"They should pay the consequences for breaking the rules"Clearly.I have no intrest in the ad or the film,its the controversy that matters.I give a fuck about After Dark as a company.Id never EVER say they were some type of "victim"here.Thats crazy talk.I, like you, and Mori care about the children.We dont want future occurences like this that you must admit,the MPAA CAUSED,because AD felt they were treated unfairly and attempted to generate some controversy/publicity here.Controversy like this has its advantages when properly debated like this.My original point is still unchallenged-How will we get the MPAA to readdress their evaluation process without an incident like this?People keep re-stating they should have decided to just release the film direct to DVD.What are you hoping for there?Some MPAA shmuck is going to be at blockbuster and see this movie on the shelf and ponder"Why didnt they submit the film for a rating?My feelings are hurt,It might be time to reconsider our evaluation processes"I know,thats absurd.(Its my attempt at humor dont attack that)If(in a crazy world)hordes of filmakers decided to follow suit and just bypass the MPAA when they dont care for a ruling is the opposite affect we want here.We want the filmakers to know that theres consequences for disobeying the MPAA and that its a necessary tool for protecting our youth.But we also want the MPAA to know that the current state of affairs in your orginization is inadequate.
April 1, 2007, 2:18 p.m. CST
Join the US Army!
April 1, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST
had the ability to ban Charlie Sheen from making children's clothes.
April 1, 2007, 2:30 p.m. CST
I agree with both of you that the MPAA is a pretty fucked system. No argument there. But oppose them for *that*, not for the perfectly rational action of refusing to work with people who break their agreements. If a big studio did the same thing, we don't know what the result would be, because the big studios support the MPAA. And if they did, they'd either: A: have the balls and professionalism to decry the MPAA outright and actually challenge it, or B: do everything they could to make amends. After Dark's done neither, and that's why they're in the wrong.
April 1, 2007, 2:35 p.m. CST
Again, I did NOT say they shouldn't have submitted the film for a rating in the first place. I said that once they disagreed with the MPAA's decision on the ad, they should have voluntarily withdrawn, they should have issued press releases, they should have scrapped their original billboard and put up one talking about how much the MPAA sucks. But they didn't do anything like that. They didn't *fight* the MPAA, they *ignored* them. That doesn't provoke change in the MPAA, just annoyance. How is what they're doing in any way promoting change in the MPAA? You think the MPAA will suffer if they don't rate the film? Not a whit.
April 1, 2007, 2:36 p.m. CST
Look at the poster, compare it to the poster for hills have eyes 2. Is it any more or less disturbing, I don't think so. Difference, Fox put out HHE2. That's the problem, we've seen worse from major studios and it gets a pass. Everytime a major studio does anything against the MPAA it gets a slap on the wrist. I agree that After Dark should have some kind of punishment, but it should be the extent of a fine, not a flat out refusal of the rating, negating that the film will ever get a theatrical release. It's economic black-listing by not rating a film, and when you have people who run theater chains and major studios on your appeals board for your ratings then yes, it is censorship, yes it is black listing because those people have the direct ear of the MPAA and have decision making power in the process of rating a film. Watch the documentary, and I think you'll find that the MPAA has a double standard when it comes to the big 4 and the smaller studios.
April 1, 2007, 2:45 p.m. CST
"That doesn't provoke change in the MPAA, just annoyance. How is what they're doing in any way promoting change in the MPAA?"Shining a spotlight like this might cause the MPAA to reevaluate the process.Set a standard thats clearly defined.Im not looking to annoy them or cause them to "suffer" somehow.Also take what RevSick just stated about HHE2 and Fox and the comparrison that its clearly unfair one is acceptable and another is not.Now add ontop of that one of the Presidents of FOX searchlight is on the MPAA appellate comitee.Foul
April 1, 2007, 2:58 p.m. CST
Every time a film maker these guys like gets hassled for something their out crying foul, I still think at the end of the day this all comes down to Mori hating Courtney Solomon.
April 1, 2007, 3:23 p.m. CST
by SPECTRE Agent
that some marketing guy realized proudly boasting about "abduction, confinement, torture, and termination" would put asses in the seats. And we only have ourselves as filmgoers to blame.
April 1, 2007, 3:37 p.m. CST
Again, I agree it's not a fair system. But After Dark didn't say that. They didn't complain about the unfairness of their billboard being rejected, they didn't challenge the MPAA in any way. they just *ignored them*. If there's a spotlight being shined on the issue, it's not my After Dark it's by people who dislike the MPAA and bash them whenever they come up. As for the fine idea, 1: the publicity here will end up totally negating the effect of the fine should the film get a wide release, and why should the MPAA allow them to profit from their disobedience? 2: If After Dark then refuses to pay the fine, would that be grounds for refusing to rate the film? And if so, why is one grounds, but not the other?<br><br>Listen, what it comes down to is that as unfair as the MPAA rating system is, these filmmakers agreed to work with them, then rejected them. And that's fine, if they felt like they were getting screwed. But if you're going to fight the power, fucking fight it, don't just try and get away with whatever you can, which is what they did.
April 1, 2007, 3:39 p.m. CST
"Every time a film maker these guys like gets hassled for something their out crying foul, I still think at the end of the day this all comes down to Mori hating Courtney Solomon." ...Somehow this reminds me of the south Park episode where Cartman tries to have Family Guy taken off air. Because it's um.... "offensive" to Muslims... Yeah, that's it. >>>>>>>>>"Big difference between this and the Hostel 2 poster? Do you see the Hostel 2 poster with Bijou Philips holding her head viewed for mass public consumption via massive billboards adorning the streets of any city? I don't think so.">>>>>> No, the big difference between the two posters is the one here shows nothing much at all, and the Hostel 2 one is extremely graphic. This whole contraversy is retarded.
April 1, 2007, 3:47 p.m. CST
How is the right way to fight the system, a system that's corrupt, that is completely un-accountable for their own actions, that isn't beholden to any oversights at all. What is the right way to fight anything then? Do what they say and complain later. A fine is a perfectly acceptable punishment for this action, just because your dog shits on your floor doesn't mean you shoot it. That's essentially what the MPAA is doing to this film by not rating it, they're shooting it dead before it has a chance to come out. You fine them and if they refuse to pay the fine, then you refuse the rating.
April 1, 2007, 3:50 p.m. CST
Since you'll never have kids,being a hermaphrodite and all,you don't know shit from shinola. This crap shouldn't just be thrown out there for the world to have to see. Different things offend people in different ways,so to throw Mor under the bus for not wanting his kid to have nightmares about something plastered on the bench by his bus stop. He's just stating the facts. I remember when people were pissed about the rating for The Passion of the Christ and advertising for it.Different strokes people.
April 1, 2007, 4 p.m. CST
The film companies have no responsibility to explain or protect you or your kids from shit, that is your responsisbility. And it's bullshit for you or anyone else to say you have some sort of right to not be offended by something. I think alot of people agreeing with Mori don't live in LA, haven't lived there, or driven through there, so they don't realize that there are full billboards for porn companies and strip clubs. Hell drive a few blocks down Harbor Blvd just past Disneyland and look at all the hookers hanging out in front of the hotels where families stay, life aint pretty, it's up to you to raise your kids to be strong. If you want your kid to be weak that's on you, but for me I'd rather teach my kids when I have em to be strong and roll with the punches and not let stupid shit like billboards pee in their cheerios.
April 1, 2007, 4 p.m. CST
I told you, the right way for After Dark to fight this would be to make a public statement listing their complaints, use that same billboard space to call out the MPAA for its hypocrisy, or withdraw the film from ratings review themselves and focus their attention on special engagements and DVD sales using the controversy as hype. Hell, they might even be able to sue the MPAA for economic discrimination. But they damn well should not just diddle along ignoring their commitments. <br><br>As for shooting your dog--the MPAA is not killing the movie. Are they making it more difficult? Sure. But that's their option, because these folk didn't keep their commitments. And, let it be known, the MPAA's own press release on the matter said "It is now up to After Dark films to restore good faith with the MPAA." I think that's exactly correct. The MPAA has suspended the ratings process until After Dark indicates they're willing to work with them. If After Dark doesn't take the initiative, I see no reason that the MPAA should move forward with the process.
April 1, 2007, 4:10 p.m. CST
Check this out, this is what Soloman actually said about the issue, linked from the movie's website: http://tinyurl.com/29l65p <br><br>If After Dark really is being this cooperative about it, and it really was an accident, then I'd support, as you say, some kind of fine as a penalty. However, this does totally undermine the idea that After Dark was in any way "fighting the power" with this action. Either they made an honest mistake, or they tried to make a publicity buzz and are now backpeddling hard to avoid paying the price for it.
April 1, 2007, 4:11 p.m. CST
There's no other game in town, they HAVE to go through MPAA. They have no other choice, either deal with the MPAA, which we all seem to agree horridly corrupt, or not get rated, er-go not get your film into wide release. I would be singing a different song if there was more than one game in town, but there isn't. As a film maker you want to make your art, and you want to make money making your art, and the way the system works there is no way to make money if theaters or video chains won't take your film if it's not rated. So their choices are either to play ball and bitch about it or not have their film rated by choice. That doesn't sound like a very sound strategy to me. Sometimes you have to say fuck you, sometimes you have to buck the system when the system is corrupt. Who is the MPAA to insist that you have to have good faith with them, what is that, that's the kind of argument that can easily be applied to do the same thing to anyone who speaks out against the MPAA. The MPAA doesn't have to like a film, they don't have to like the film maker, it's about content, they don't have to have good faith with anyone, that's not their job. Their job is to RATE FILMS, if they get away with this kind of argument they can apply to any film maker they don't like.
April 1, 2007, 4:13 p.m. CST
..to see the documentary. I understand your points, they're very well made. But I'm not sure that you have the complete picture regarding just how powerful the MPAA truly is. Or just how little (which is to say, not at all!) they are held accountable for their actions. I do not agree with this decision in any way. It's selective censorship and it's wrong.
April 1, 2007, 4:16 p.m. CST
I never said it wasn't a publicity stunt, but there's a larger dialouge to be had on this issue. They said no to that poster but yes to one of a corpse being dragged in a plastic bag, or the mirad of other posters and publicity materials that also could be deemed offensive for major studios. There's also the dialogue that stuff like this shouldn't be seen in public places because someone might have to explain something to a kid, which was the original issue with this argument with Mori, is that it's not their responisbility to protect his kid, it's his. It's also his to explain it to him not the film studio.
April 1, 2007, 4:17 p.m. CST
Ive done nothing but concede to the point AD should be held accountable in their action Zb.Mori states-"What right does After Dark Films or Courtney Solomon have to put that imagery in front of my child?"They have no right.The MPAA was created and exists to this day to protect your child."Or any child?"It takes a village Hillary,I get it."Or me, for that matter?"This is where you FUCKIN LOSE ME BUD!!YOU?! Your a grown fucking man with a fully developed adult brain capable of processing these images as an ADULT!They have the rights granted to them under the Constitution to "subject"your adult ass to stacks of guantanamo ass pyramids!Mori posts a link to Remove the Rating,that has a lin to Jill Solloway's blog on the Huffington Post.Jill states that she also sees the images while driving with her child.But the goes on to state SHE had a NIGHTMARE,not her child.ANOTHER ADULT!!Then this bitch goes on to claim that the graphic images were so disturbing,the following day she takes an alternate route to work,affraid to confront the images again.Again,unlike a child,you have FULLY DEVELOPED ADULT BRAIN your no a child!!You honestly need some proffesional help that the MPAA cant provide.Maybe when this dust settles your sorry ass can lay down a proper lawsuit and even get them to pay for it.Fucking retarded twat.GROW UP!I cant protect you!I cant hold a grown womans hand and explain Tony Todd is an ACTOR!"Its all a movie okay??He really got stung by those bees tho"SUCK A BAG OF DICKS
April 1, 2007, 4:21 p.m. CST
I must agree with Jaka on this, you really need to watch that documentary. Even if Solomon wanted to defend the poster in an appeal, you can't site precident like a court case, he wouldn't be able to bring up posters for other films, in fact you can't talk at all, so it's a stacked deck against you in the appeals process. Hell they gave Orgazmo a film with next to no nudity (couple of male buttcheeks), or graphic violence a NC-17 for language basically, and gave Scary Movie where a guy gets stabbed through the head with a cock and shoots a geysure of cum at a chick an R.
April 1, 2007, 4:23 p.m. CST
LA gets all the crazy stuff.
April 1, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST
You seem to be saying, basically, that the MPAA should be obliged to rate every movie, regardless of circumstances. Fair enough, but they *aren't*. Again, you can fight for reform in the MPAA all you want, but that doesn't change that in this case After Dark is wrong.
April 1, 2007, 4:28 p.m. CST
Ahahahaah! Thanks to all for not pointing out that I said "president" instead of "precident". Bwah!
April 1, 2007, 4:28 p.m. CST
Why are all you people complaining on here about boobs and naked women? It's a HUMAN body. Violence is much worse than normal human body parts. Americans are so fucked up and sex repressed. If parents let their kids have healthy attitudes instead of repressing their sexuality, maybe we'd all be better off. In Europe they censor the violence in films, not the sex. Comments posted by many here prove my point that many Americans have wierd sex hang-ups but are perfectly willing to let their kids watch The Terminator mow down countless nameless faceless "bad guys" with big ass guns. I ask you all to use your heads and think about which is worse? A naked man or woman or blowing everyone up? Think people. THINK.
April 1, 2007, 4:32 p.m. CST
They don't need to limit themselves to appealing to the MPAA, they have the money for a billboard, use it to call them out, that'd be a damn sight more effective than just ignoring them. Further, as the article I posted stated, After Dark is IN NO WAY battling the MPAA. They claim the whole incident was an accident and that they not only want to cooperate with the MPAA, but they'd like to be signatories one day. Well, y'know, that certainly makes it seem like the punishment shouldn't be so harsh (provided they actually act in a manner that backs up their words), but it sure as hell proves they're not interested in entering any dialog about the role of the MPAA, and they don't plan on "fighting the power".
April 1, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST
I've heard this being cited as an example of the MPAA allowing far worse imagery into the public forum. I don't know if this has been mentioned, but you do know the MPAA forced them to alter their posters, before okaying it, right? So, they are applying the same standards. On another note, you don't even know if the MPAA refused the billboards, they just weren't submitted. This isn't an arguement about censorship, its a whiny corporate bitchfest about contractual agreements. The MPAA no doubt screws the independant scene, but I wouldn't lump a big budget Elisa Cuthbert film with enough cash to take out giant billboards in the same boat as Troma anyway. I think the big misconception that is dividing opinion here is that the MPAA exerts power over the public, when it's actually the movie going public that supports the MPAA. If Pirates 3 were to hypothetically go out this year with a rating, how many cinema chains would break MPAA rules and screen it? If massive amounts of the public demanded uncut troma films to be available in mall cinemas and blockbuster, the MPAA would either change or collapse. Of course, you could argue that the MPAA controlling advertising limits the amount of knowledge the general public will have about a film, but thats only because the general public is content reading shitty tabloids and watching T.V., commercials and all. So, in closing, blame the unwashed masses, as usual.
April 1, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST
by Barry Egan
The people who are really acting as sensors here are the movie theater chains, the newspaper publishers, the television networks and the home video retailers who won't support the NC-17 rating. If the NC-17 rating were commercially viable and not a death sentence in the market place there would be a lot less controversy. I agree that parents should have at least some general idea about the content of what their kids are being exposed to. As far as the publid billboards are concerned, this is the old titty bar argument: if a person chooses to go into a titty bar that is their perogative as an adult with free will. However, if a person does not choose to enter a titty bar they shouldn't have one forced on them.
April 1, 2007, 4:39 p.m. CST
The point isn't that there's a problem with sex. I have no problem with porn, or boobs, of strip clubs. The point is that there are people who have no problem with ads by directors they like, they have no problem with billboards for strip clubs or pornography companies, but have an objection to this. This billboards somehow has gone to far. But I also have no problem with violence in cinema either, I have more of a problem with the violence they show on the news than anything in film. To me it's equal grounds to offend anyone, but as I've stated you have no right to not be offended, you have the right to ignore it, to not watch it, but you have no right to prevent me from enjoying it. It's not a matter of what's worse sex or violence, it's about the hypocracy of people calling out for this film to effectivly be banned for a billboard, but trying to defend mainstream films when the MPAA tries to do anything similar to directors and films they like or look forward too. It's about guys like Joss Whedon who are perfectly willing to put lesbian sex onto TV screens during prime time and telling people they should be ok with it, but this has gone to far. Look I understand they think horror films are mysogynstic, they don't like them, that's fine, they don't have to watch them, but the level of vitrol they are spewing is un-called for and frankly hypocrytical. It's alot easier to explain away a billboard than a scene of two girls making out to a child. And before someone cries homophobe I have no problem with lesbians scenes in movies nor a problem with gay scenes in movies or tv, the point is you can't have it both ways and force people to accept one thing that might offend them but then call for something that offends you to go away.
April 1, 2007, 4:39 p.m. CST
See the documentary <br> This Film Is Not Yet Rated <br> See the documentary <br> This Film Is Not Yet Rated <br> See the documentary <br> This Film Is Not Yet Rated <br> I'm quite certain some minds would be changed regarding at least a portion of the arguments being made in this thread, if not a majority of them. Other than that, I've no more desire to talk about this in circles. No offense meant towards anyone, this is actually a really good TalkBack. But there are pieces to this discussion that are missing if you haven't seen it. <br> And regarding the doc itself, I liked it (and I regularly watch documentary film work, both short and longform). It's not the best doc I've ever seen. But it was well made and the subject matter should be incredibly interesting (not to mention educational) to any film geek. Very enlightening regarding some of the inner workings of Hollywoodland and, clearly, the MPAA. It's also filled with a TON of great interviews from people like Matt Stone & John Waters (to just name a couple, there are many more).
April 1, 2007, 4:43 p.m. CST
Totally agree there needs to be a ratings board in the US. But I don't believe the MPAA is it. Not without being completely overhauled, made publically accuntable for their actions, and being made to publically explain the reasoning behind their decision , at the very least.
April 1, 2007, 4:46 p.m. CST
I said "accuntable"! (writes that down)
April 1, 2007, 4:47 p.m. CST
by Barry Egan
I am not saying that the MPAA isn't in need of a serious overhaul either. It just seems to me that there should be an adults only rating that is commercially viable for the filmmakers and studios to go with. I love how Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 titles but will carry the unrated versions of films which would largely contain the same material.
April 1, 2007, 4:49 p.m. CST
Imagery is forced on people all the time that they don't like. It doesn't mean it should go away. For every person who's offended by images of violence there's someone offended by images of sex. For every person who is pro gay and lesbian marriage there is someone who is offended by it. Does that mean it shouldn't happen or exist or be seen because someone is offended by it. Does it mean that black people shouldn't be alloud to marry white people because there are people offended by that too. Does that mean neither should be depicted in advertising, or film, or tv, cause there are people it offends. The bottom line is that you speak with your wallets, if you dissagree with their advertising, don't buy the dvd, don't see the film in theaters and that will be the end of it. But calling for it to be pulled, not rated, not shown is bullshit and you know it, I will close by repeating what I've said a dozen times, you have no right to not be offended. Great TB everybody!
April 1, 2007, 4:52 p.m. CST
by JimmyJoe RedSky
...from people that say this sort of advertising (the billboard in question and the like) doesnt bother them - and that they dont have kids - and thats basically why it doesnt bother them - the images dont personally freak me out - and i dont have kids - but i can see how they might have a negative effect on a 5 year old - i dont need kids to understand that - i wouldnt want to have to explain the ad to my nephew - and i shouldnt have to - but because these such ads/images are now prominently displayed where EVERYONE can not only see them but cant miss them - i (or my brother) might have to explain them (when and if asked by the kid) - to those that are fine with this shit because they dont have kids - i hope that if you ever do (and its a girl) you dont walk in on her one day and catch her skipping school so she could stay home and blow her older unemployed boyfriend while hes sitting in your recliner watching "captivity" on your tv - oh and to the guy that asked "if its so offensive why post the image here" - im not sure, but i dont think this site is a big hang out for little kids
April 1, 2007, 4:54 p.m. CST
I should add, while I support the arguement that the MPAA can refuse the rating of this film, and its affiliates can refuse to advertise or carry it, I don't find the billboard content the least bit offensive. It's actually the nature of the invasive and annoying billboard advertising I dislike. They are in the same boat as telemarketers and door to door bible thumpers. I've watched all the horrific real life beheading videos out there and I've sat down and enjoyed films like Hostel and Saw. I'm just not going to be offended by something so mundane. But other people are, and they should have the choice wether they want to be presented with this material or not. So, like someone above me said, rather than talk in circles, I'll leave it with the opinion that perhaps the best antidote to a system you feel is broken, is to start supporting an alternative system. The more people that frequent venues that screen unrated material, the less people that rent from blockbuster, the more viable an option it will be to release larger budget unrated or NC-17 films.
April 1, 2007, 4:56 p.m. CST
No matter how evil the MPAA is, After Dark is still wrong, and the MPAA is still within their rights to refuse to work with them. The MPAA could be wrong in every ruling they make, they could be guilty of every crime of influence imaginable, and they still would not be obliged to perform services for people who refused to work with them. Walmart's really fucking evil, too, but they're not obliged to serve someone who enters the store with a "Fuck Walmart" shirt on just because saying "fuck Walmart" is an appropriate response to Walmart's business practices. No matter how bad they are, they have the right to turn away business from people who don't play fair.
April 1, 2007, 5:10 p.m. CST
Ok I know said finale thoughts but I have to cry bullshit on the walmart analogy. The guy in the "fuck walmart" shirt isn't forced to shop at Walmart. If you are a film maker and you want to go theatrical you have to have a rating, to get a rating you have to go through the MPAA, you have no other choice on the matter except don't get your film rated. If "fuck walmart" t-shirt guy lives in a town and there's no other choices for shopping other than walmart and he gets kicked out and refused service he starves. But the thing is reguardless, he still has the option to go to Target, or Best Buy, or Ralph's. Film makers do not have that option to shop around for a better more fair rating system.
April 1, 2007, 5:16 p.m. CST
is this guy eating at Best Buy??That guys fucked,hes totaly gonna fuckin starve!
April 1, 2007, 5:20 p.m. CST
There's nothing inherently offensive about the images on the billboard. You'd have to understand the concept behind it to draw any conclusions about what's happening. Try thinking.
April 1, 2007, 5:25 p.m. CST
>>>>>>>>Violence is much worse than normal human body parts<<<<<<< You clearly haven`t seen Teri Hatchers nude scene in Heaven's Prisoners. Those saggy tits destroyed more childhood fantasies than this billboard ever could. How should I explain to a child that the former Lois Lane didn´t really have "spectacular boobs" as praised in that old Seinfeld Episode? AND why should i explain?! If the MPAA had done their job and cut this scene out of the movie it never would have happened. Think, people...THINK!
April 1, 2007, 5:27 p.m. CST
second try. stupid talkbacks without edit button. *narf* ------Violence is much worse than normal human body parts------ You clearly haven`t seen Teri Hatchers nude scene in Heaven's Prisoners. Those saggy tits destroyed more childhood fantasies than this billboard ever could. How should I explain to a child that the former Lois Lane didn´t really have "spectacular boobs" as praised in that old Seinfeld Episode? AND why should i explain?! If the MPAA had done their job and cut this scene out of the movie it never would have happened. Think, people...THINK!
April 1, 2007, 5:34 p.m. CST
That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the MPAA doesn't have an obligation to rate films. Again, if you wish they did because of their monopoly, fair enough, I tend to agree. But until the government either incorporates the MPAA or something similar into a government-controlled-or-sponsored agency or tries to break up the MPAA for unfair business practices, that's not how it is.<br><br>It's important to correctly identify the problem in these situations--the problem is NOT that the MPAA refuses to rate the movie, that's within their rights as a private organization. The problem is that lacking a rating is crippling to a movie's box office success. Is that the MPAA's fault? Sure. go ahead and complain about them for that. But this decision is not the issue.<br><br>Nice talking to you all, this has to be one of the most civil and reasonable Talkbacks I've ever seen.
April 1, 2007, 5:38 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... are just determined to drag in four hundred other arguments here. <P>I'm guilty of it, too, I suppose. I am offended by this ad campaign. I've been offended by others, too, but ultimately I don't spend a lot of time or energy bitching about them because of one HUGE difference between those campaigns and this one. <P>As I've said... repeatedly... the fundamental issue is this: <P>The MPAA is, for better and for worse, the regulatory body of this industry. <P>All advertising for public consumption has to be cleared through the MPAA. <P>This ad was submitted. And rejected. <P>And then After Dark used it anyway. Intentionally. Solomon's "accidental" argument is insulting and stupid. Yeah, he "accidentally" printed the wrong billboards and then never looked at them before they were slapped up all over town. Sure. And a guy caught by his wife in bed with another woman just "tripped" and "accidentally" landed with his dick in her. Sure. <P>The penalty for these actions HAS ALWAYS BEEN to have your rating denied. <P>I'm asking for After Dark to be answerable for their actions. Just like any other signatory company would be. <P>Yes, as a parent, I think Solomon is a scumbag for using this campaign. But the reason to penalize him is because, as a filmmaker, I am bound to follow the rulings of the MPAA. And so is he. <P>And he just made it harder for everyone else the next time someone deals with them on a horror film.
April 1, 2007, 5:51 p.m. CST
"as a filmmaker, I am bound to follow the rulings of the MPAA. And so is he." <br><br> "And he just made it harder for everyone else the next time someone deals with them on a horror film." <br><br> And those two points are largely what my argument is based around. I'll not make (and haven't) any of the arguments that could be made for parents having control over what their children see and how they explain to them what it means, because I DON'T have any. But I've not seen a video game that was any LESS violent than that billboard in quite some time. Many childrens films have more violence in them than that billboard, but because they are "cartoonish", it's allowed. But I digres, my point is that the MPAA's system is clearly flawed, antiquated and possibly dirty. As a filmmaker, Mori, I don't understand how you can be on this side of the argument. I really don't.
April 1, 2007, 5:53 p.m. CST
by Mickey The Idiot
That if you don't like a system, you should work to change it. Very few filmmakers do (Mori being one of a very few honorable exceptions). Is the ad offensive? Yup. And provocatively so? Yup. But in deliberately breaking the rules, did Solomon also know he would be butting heads with a paper tiger? You-fucking-betcha. Does that make him a cunt? Well I'm a daddy too, so I won't use the word... just think it, eh. Yet meanwhile, a piece of hack work by a director who obviously hasn't eaten for fuck knows how long will now make serious coin - if not theatrically then on DVD (always it's natural home). The MPAA system is once more exposed as a joke. Who's winning here. Think about it, because it ain't the censors/guardians/moral minority. Really, it ain't. And however much you loathe the MPAA, it sucks.
April 1, 2007, 5:57 p.m. CST
<p>...if 400 other arguments exist. I hate it when someone tells me something, and I come up with a way to discredit it by pointing out another example, and someone tells me that I'm just looking for ways to disagree with them. DUH!</p> <p>I don't see the problem with these billboards. I think they're quite tame compared to anything that these kids can get their hands on now days. I've seen stuff put up on this very site that's just as offensive, and ANYONE can have access to it. Sad Kermit, anyone? Not that I'm complaining. I loved that shit. But how is that different from some stupid billboard that has some risque image on it? Better not let the kids walk down the magazine aisle at the supermarket either, they'll definitely get an eye full of something a whole lot worse than that billboard.
April 1, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST
campaign,and have been by others in the past.So when your offended again in the future, by an ad that was approved ,thats acceptable?Because as flawed as the system is its the one we use?
April 1, 2007, 6:27 p.m. CST
"And it’s one thing to get the impulse. I understand... they’re a little company. They made a presumably shitty HOSTEL knock-off." You say that like HOSTEL was a good movie.
April 1, 2007, 6:41 p.m. CST
....is the talkback. Good points by many.
April 1, 2007, 6:43 p.m. CST
Or read a newspaper. We're a culture of violence. Films like "Hostel," "Touristas," and "Saw" aren't scary and really, they're not that gory either. Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento films have way more in the way of grotesque, horrible imagery you can't get out of your skull (the dude stabs a beating heart in "Susperia!") Really, torture and violence and death have become a tantalizing aspect of the post 9-11 experience and just the suggestion of it is enough to stir the passions. That's what's fucked up, not some stupid poster. Also, the fucking poster for "Hostel 2" is way more disgusting. This is just lame airbrushed shit.
April 1, 2007, 6:54 p.m. CST
read the title.
April 1, 2007, 7:01 p.m. CST
what you are promoting is in effect censorship and you must know it because I don't think you're stupid. The entire system set up at the MPAA is, in basis, economic sanctioning for anyone outside of the mainstream. to deny this movie a rating IS to censor it. There is no theater within 40 miles of me that will show this film if it is released unrated. now, if the studio were clever, they would keep advertising it as "this film is not yet rated" release it without a rating, then re-release it once it does get a rating with an added tag line about "the film the MPAA didn't want you to see" or something like that.
April 1, 2007, 7:08 p.m. CST
I saw this ad outside of The Knitting Factory a few weeks back after a show from "The Briggs" (who rock btw, they're the next big thing) and I was offended. I was disgusted and I wasn't the least bit intrigued by the movie. But censorship of the film itself instead of the advertising (which, being in a public venue has valid reason in being censored) is not the answer.
April 1, 2007, 7:29 p.m. CST
by El Borak
i'm listening to hendrix's "MAY THIS BE LOVE" at 8:30 at night in fl and i'm having an aural experience. even though it's dark i'm seeing sunsets and rainbows. ok not really, but "think good and pure" and your life might be better. end sermon.
April 1, 2007, 7:29 p.m. CST
by El Borak
April 1, 2007, 7:33 p.m. CST
by El Borak
aliens ...if they existed ... would frown upon our fascination with death and killing. and then shoot us with ray-guns.
April 1, 2007, 7:37 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
It's about the fact that you can't ignore the rules, then ask to benefit from the comfort of having an MPAA rating. <P>If Solomon wants to be edgy and challenge the system and release his film unrated, giving him the right to run any ads he wants, it's totally different. <P>And Ed... do you see me putting up talkbacks about every ad I don't like? Nope. Because it's a different situation.
April 1, 2007, 7:42 p.m. CST
I still haven't had anyone explain to me why the censorship is at the hands of the MPAA and not the actual theatres refusing to run the film. The MPAA cannot in of itself pull the film from theatres. It's the fact that theatres kowtow so vehemently that causes this problem.
April 1, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST
Is that people can CHOOSE to watch or not watch the Sad Kermit movie or whatever movie is out there. People can choose what they want their children to see in different ways on TV, in movies, on the internet, etc through ratings, blockings and simply monitoring. But when it's a billboard, that choice becomes nonexistant. There is no choice in the matter. If the billboard is on the way to your kid's school, or on the way to soccer practice or any number of places, your kid is probably going to see it, and you have no control over that. If your kid's school bus rides by the billboard, you can't prevent your child from seeing that. There is a huge difference between a piece of art that people can choose to view and a piece of art that is unavoidable. What Moriarity is proposing isn't censorship, it's exactly what the "marketplace of ideas" suggests: all ideas should be put before the public, and the public will choose the best from that "marketplace." In this case, the MPAA (not a goverment agency) enjoys the power to say "we're not going to rate your movie, good luck to you" and send them on their way. You people who are saying otherwise need to read some Milton and do some thinking.
April 1, 2007, 7:46 p.m. CST
lets make movies about demon aborted fetuses with ads that run on showtime at any time of the day fuckers
April 1, 2007, 7:49 p.m. CST
by Darth Thoth
April 1, 2007, 7:49 p.m. CST
by El Borak
i watch movies with my mother sometimes.. like we used to, so i try to distinguish the contents on that little rating description bar... movies that have no mention of nudity... HAVE FUCKING NUDITY, and movies like SIN CITY have no REAL description of the wanton bloodshed and violence in it. and then i'm like FUCK! i wasted my money on this,(these) movies and i had no idea what was in them. if it was me by myself it wouldn't much of a problem, but what if it's your parents, children, friends who may not be comfortable with it? DSISPLAY THE CONTENTS OF THE FILM ON THE RATING LABEL...
April 1, 2007, 7:49 p.m. CST
Oh, look, the MPAA smacking down a torture porn movie. Big frickin' deal. That whole genre is sadistic crap, anyway. So the torture porn freaks don't get to see their freaky bullshit posted on a big freakin banner. Boo-fucking-hoo. Really, who cares, this movie is so gonna get creamed by Pirates, Spidey 3 and Shrek anyway.
April 1, 2007, 7:49 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... you mean Showtime, the pay cable service that you have to choose to have piped into your house? That one? <P>And before you start crying about the film even more, as I said in the article, Wal-Mart chose not to stock the film. At all. They rejected it not based on content, but because of the title and the cover. <P>And that's fine. You haven't heard me bitch about the decision once because that is their right. We created the film we wanted to, and they made a choice about whether or not to sell it based on what they felt were the best interests of their customers. <P>But, yeah, otherwise it's exactly the same. Ahem.
April 1, 2007, 7:50 p.m. CST
Do I think those ads should've been put up? No. Do I think the ad has any redeeming value? No. Do I think Captivity should be granted a rating? Hell yeah. Just imagine the ads AFTER they've been denied the rating: "THE MOVIE THAT WAS TOO EXTREME FOR THE MPAA", or something stupid like that. It's exactly what they want. They knew the possible consequences for disobeying the MPAA fucktards, and went for it. That's the only chance they had to adequately promote a potentially awful film (haven't seen it, but things don't look good), that would otherwise fall under the radar. Just give them the rating and give them some other penalty, whatever. They don't deserve the honor of being denied a rating by the MPAA. <br><br> Now...what really scares me is Mori's reaction to this blatant publicity stunt. Come on...it's so obvious. And what really OFFENDS me is not the Captivity ad, it's Captivity being described as a Hostel knock-off. Excuse me? Hostel, that derivative SHIT excuse for a movie, directed by one of the DEPLORABLE directors that has gained unwarranted levels of exposure recently, Eli Roth? You've got to be kidding me, Mori. Which brings us to a point that people have raised in other messages: the Captivity ad, tasteless as it is, isn't any worse than the ads for Hostel and the Saw movies. And boy, we've seen those everywhere, haven't we? It's a shame that Roland Joffe isn't buddies with the AICN crowd. Or maybe it's a blessing, really, since the hype Captivity's been getting is priceless. The "they disobeyed the MPAA" argument is worthless regarding this issue, and so is the "think of the children" card. Let's just judge the ads alone and think which is worse. They're all the same.
April 1, 2007, 7:54 p.m. CST
by Mickey The Idiot
If Solomon now sues the MPAA on 'restraint of trade' grounds - in that they're refusing him a rating not on the basis of the content of his film, who do you think will win? Tough one, huh (and far from clear, if the MPAA rules are considered an unfair restriction on constitutional rights)? And tougher still, if the process shows up just how fucked up the MPAA is, whose side would you be on? Nightmare scenario, yes, but not unimaginable.
April 1, 2007, 7:58 p.m. CST
cause she said so. That's about the extent of conversation this movie should get, anyway. "Cutherbt show her boobs?" "Nope." "Okay, moving on..."
April 1, 2007, 8:03 p.m. CST
by El Borak
PROPER DESCRIPTION OF THINGS IN THE RATING BAR!!!!!
April 1, 2007, 8:05 p.m. CST
most importantly is the fact that if the slippery slope arguments such as this continues then what next? Yes I pay for Showtime, but for all the channels, including the family verison. So whats the difference when we flip through channels and for a split couple of seconds my child may be exposed to something that I did not want him to see? Its life and despite the fact that it is a deporable ad, dont suggest that we should ban it or have it rejected just on a personal principal ( which is exactly what the mpaa does). What about the people who are offended by the Grindhouse ads or the 300 ads? See? Slippery slope....
April 1, 2007, 8:05 p.m. CST
by El Borak
she won't show
April 1, 2007, 8:09 p.m. CST
even though it is a disagreement I still loves ya jonnycakes ( I mean Mori). Because I figure that the next stage would go to us debating if there should be nudity on billboards and all that..
April 1, 2007, 8:22 p.m. CST
...expound some on your statement that "The penalty for these actions HAS ALWAYS BEEN to have your rating denied." I'm sure I'm not the only one who remains ignorant of other instances of said penalty being delivered unto another film under like circumstances. Has this happened before? Or are you simply stating the MPAA's existing terms that bind all filmmakers and exhibitors once undertaking the process on behalf of a film?
April 1, 2007, 8:36 p.m. CST
The MPAA would have no power at all if it weren't for the implicit threat of government censorship. The MPAA stays in business because its industry backers are afraid that if it goes away, real censorship will fill the void. It's a fucking stupid worry to have, because that would never happen, but the institutional memory of Hollywood is long and they still think it's the 20's. So you want the MPAA to use a power that would not exist if the studios didn't fear illegal and immoral government action to punish people for public speech you didn't like. We're not talking about some sort of purely private boycott action [which I wouldn't support, but would acknowledge you'd be perfectly within your rights to undertake] because the cabal formed here by the studios, the theatre chains, and the newspapers would not exist or be able to maintain its authority if filmmakers and theatre owners could trust their government to not be cunts.
April 1, 2007, 8:43 p.m. CST
No I dont see you posting a talkback for every ad you have an issue with-my point is=Whatever ad you had an axe to grind with prior to this one was approved by the MPAA when you saw it.And thats the thing that makes it acceptable to you?Not trying to put words in your mouth ,not even sure Id have a beef with that.You might see an ad that you find offensive and say"Damn thats weak the MPAAA approved that but aint shit I can do about it"And to everyone else thats also talking previous ads,I can claim several that werent film related at all-I live in good ole Tennessee now so dont get me started on the dead baby fetus billboards.Or my personal favorite=When I lived in Milwaukee WI for a while ,there was an ad on a billboard depicting a cartoonish/comic book style man in a skimask lurking in the dark to attack a cartoon lady,and the context of the billboard was Rape.
April 1, 2007, 8:54 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... and, yes, the difference here is that a company intentionally posted these after they were rejected. <P>I'm not calling for censorship based on my personal tastes. I'm calling for one standard to be applied to everyone who wants to get that MPAA rating. <P>And I have many, many, MANY problems with decisions that the MPAA have made over the years, and with the power they have over the industry. But like it or not, that's the regulatory body we deal with in the film business. And if we don't regulate ourselves and people pull more stunts like this or the ATHF Boston thing, then we risk someone else stepping in, and that would no doubt make it worse. <P>Fluffy, if you seriously think there would be no government involvement, I'm curious what you base that on. There are local standards boards in some places as it is, and if we had to have each film pass a local censorship or standards office, film distribution would be a fucking nightmare. <P>What do you think would happen? Films would just play without any ratings at all, and no one would care? Dude, that's the delusional belief.
April 1, 2007, 9:01 p.m. CST
by I Dunno
while people are still talking about it. How much money would the thing have really made in the theater anyway? And the DVD's obviously going to be unrated so what's the big deal?
April 1, 2007, 9:02 p.m. CST
Books sell everywhere without any ratings at all. Magazines sell everywhere without any ratings at all. CD's and video games would sell without any ratings at all if the production companies weren't pussies. The fact is that the men running Hollywood at the time the MPAA was created grew up in an America where you could get "Tropic of Cancer" banned. That America no longer exists. Even the present Supreme Court of Douchebags wouldn't support a local government that sought to ban a film from its jurisdiction. It's already next to impossible to get a ban for material depicting live sex acts. You think they're going to be able to do it for Wedding Crashers 2?
April 1, 2007, 9:20 p.m. CST
"I'm calling for one standard to be applied to everyone who wants to get that MPAA rating."--All I needed to hear from the jump.I couldve shutthefuck up 14 posts ago and did some laundry today had that come sooner.
April 1, 2007, 9:42 p.m. CST
is a form of economic censorship. but otherwise you are right.
April 1, 2007, 9:45 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... you're high. <P>Your contention that it's impossible to ban sexually explicit material is just plain wrong. There are plenty of places in the US where you can't sell anything explicit at all. <P>And ultimately, I'm not going to argue in favor of something I'm not in favor of. I've written about the problems with the CARA and the MPAA for years on this site. This is not a call for all horror films or even all torture-based thrillers or whatever to be held to some standard. <P>What an adult wants to watch in the privacy of their home or in a theater is fine. I think there are some standards we should observe for areas that we all share, and that's just society. <P>Some of the most extreme films of all time have found ways to advertise without resorting to this horseshit. And many of them also managed to do so within the guidelines of the MPAA. <P>But instead of acknowledging that the whole world is geared to you and your hardcore sensibilites, you choose to call anyone who practices any responsibility "pussies." Great way to make the point. As long as we're going to indulge in name-calling, the children on this thread who seem to advocate slapping graphic imagery up everywhere just for the sake of it are, frankly, morons, and they're the reason there needs to be some sort of regulation of what is used to advertise.
April 1, 2007, 9:48 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
I'll absolute agree with you that the MPAA regularly practices economic censorship. And there's a lot of great filmmakers who have run afoul of the system. <P>Again, though, the difference is that they either abided by the MPAA decisions or chose to release their films unrated. <P>I'm on the commentary track for Kirby Dick's THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED, a film that addresses the need for reform of this system. I have repeatedly written about flaws in this system. <P>But in this particular case, you have someone who wants to defy the system and then benefit from it by still being part of it. And that is the contradiction at the heart of the entire debate. At least, it is for anyone focused on the actual issue instead of drifting off into broader ideas that don't apply here.
April 1, 2007, 10:15 p.m. CST
...is the real heart of this debate. As has been said before here, a LOT of movies with of greater quality and levels of intensity have enjoyed success after adhering to the ratings system. Why can't these assholes do it, too? Gee, maybe it's because they know their movie sucks and pulling a stunt like this might drum up some business. Personally, I think all this "torture porn" stuff is disgusting, but what's worse is being so arrogant as throwing a tantrum while the spotlight's on you and hoping for the best. Fuck these shitheads. Bury their movie, and maybe then they'll learn a little maturity and knowledge of how to live and work in the business world as adults.
April 1, 2007, 10:15 p.m. CST
That last paragraph of Moriarty's pretty much sums it up.
April 1, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST
He's right.....read his stuff closely, and deal with it.
April 1, 2007, 11:16 p.m. CST
I'd be more apt to allow a billboard of naked women than violence. I think the public's acceptance of violence in films over sexual content is indicative of what's wrong with American sensibilities. "His head blew up and splattered his brains everywhere? Cool! But he showed his penis? TOO FAR!" For the MPAA to take this stand against violent content is fine by me.
April 1, 2007, 11:18 p.m. CST
by Rainbow Cotton
April 1, 2007, 11:19 p.m. CST
It's funny how nobody will ever work up the courage to strike down a decision that purports to be "protecting children".
April 1, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST
"I encourage the MPAA to refuse to give the film a rating of any kind." What a fucking brilliant idea. Let's get the MPAA to act more petulantly than they already do. Listen, I get it: This ad crossed the line, and for that it deserves scorn. The movie is probably going to suck, so don't see it. But this advertising flap is quickly becoming old news, and this faux outrage, this manufactured indignation is quickly becoming tiresome. Nonetheless, I sort of agree. Kids shouldn't be exposed to this sort of thing. But where do we draw the line? I remember vividly a time when I was a kid, and my dad and I were at the video store. I must have been about six, and I ran across this large cut-out ad for Child's Play. It featured Chucky, looking menacing, holding a bloody knife. As a kid, I was terrified by this thing. Filmmakers and marketers certainly have a responsibility. However, when you start expecting a governing body to look after the best interests of society, you tread into murky water. It becomes a slippery slope. Society does a pretty good job of looking after itself in instances like this. People should voice their dissent, and that alone will hopefully prevent this sort of stupidity from happening again. I mean, people are outraged now, but we shouldn't allow our ephemeral desire to teach these filmmakers/marketers a lesson cloud our judgment. The purview of the MPAA should not be extended. Finally, I want to say this: You realize that you repeated yourself four or five times in that massive piece, right? As you state (humbly, no doubt) you are a writer (I can't wait for Mortal Kombat III by the way), so you must understand that sometimes less is more, especially when you want to make an especially trenchant point. You could have trimmed 400 or so words. Why do so many of the articles on AICN read like LiveJournal entries in which the writer has but a tenuous grasp of proper sentence construction and syntax? Seriously, I don't need to read a 1,300-word long, poorly punctuated, sloppily constructed missive to understand that you are displeased with After Dark. Anyway, I fully realize the irony in my writing that, after the epic post I've written.
April 2, 2007, 12:36 a.m. CST
So when someone steps up and fights MPAA, it's wrong? It's the first time I've seen an american complain about violence, so I'm wondering if it's because you can barely see some breast on the last slide there? If you're going to be pissed by something, check out MTV. They're sending videos filled with sexual content 24/7, and videos of how cool it is to be a "gangstah". So if I it were up to be, that billboard is fine. Chances are most kids won't even see it, well, maybe now because everyone is talking about it. But I'd rather have a kid see that, get scared for a minute, forget about it, than have MTV frack you kid up for a lifetime.
April 2, 2007, 12:40 a.m. CST
faulty constructs. The MPAA is an invalid starting point because it is obviously unfair. I'm tempted to bring in Judith Butler's arguments on gender roles for a comparison, but that would be too pretentious for a discussion about a (sure to be) crappy horror film. Yes, within the constraints of accepting the MPAA your point of view holds water. But, even releasing a film without rating is still working within the artificial structure of the MPAA. MPAA rules and regulations are still enforced on unrated films, thus it isn't really an alternative in the truest sense. Also, it is immoral to accept a system that you know is fundamentally flawed as well as poor rhetoric to use that system to mount an argument. In practicality, yes, you are right. BUT, I am young and reserve the right to be an idealist, so you are wrong. But really, yes, you're right.
April 2, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST
by Undead Neverhood
the fact this movie is going to suck beyond critical comprehension. The fact this whole beatings ones chest shoutng free speech argument, even being applied to this turd of a movie is hilarious.
April 2, 2007, 1:41 a.m. CST
by Undead Neverhood
They sell tickets to everyone for an"R" rated movie. I saw a group of 3 unsupervised junior high kids walk up to the ticket counter and purchase tickets for "Hostel" with no problem or hassle at all. The day when they asked for ages or I.D.'s died of like 10 years ago or so. So no matter how much they "Censor" these ads, anyone from age 2 - 99 will get sold a ticket by the yawning gerbil working the ticket booth.
April 2, 2007, 2:12 a.m. CST
One of my favorite things to do while working at a theater during college was asking for ID from the obviously underage kids. Nothing like seeing how pissed off they get, not to mention the fact you usually get to kick them out when they buy tickets for something else and try to sneak in.
April 2, 2007, 2:21 a.m. CST
Here in Europe they also don't give a flying fuck who buys the tickets. It's almost like in the South Park movie - I've seen these things happen. On the other hand, concerning all this stuff: isn't the MPAA a bit obsolete. "To give parents an indication of what movies their kids should see." Isn't that the task of the parents? And forbid a kid to see a movie... guess what? They're gonna see it anyway. Believe me, as soon as a teen or a kid hears he (mostly a he) can't see a movie, it's the starting point of a quest to see that precise movie! But that's beside the issue here at hand: it's about America's Holy Cow, advertising. I say, fuck it. Do a few more like this and no one couldn't care less. Today's taboo will be tomorrow's common sense. It's all a big pile of steaming bullshit from parents.
April 2, 2007, 2:39 a.m. CST
April 2, 2007, 2:53 a.m. CST
they asked for MPAA's approval, they didn't get it. that really shouldn't matter? the advertisements don't have much to do with a rating? and personally, i wish i saw more sick shit around, maybe we wouldn't retarded teenage girls and boys thinking the worlds a safe fucking place. if the parents aren't going to expose them to it, fuck, i say let the movie do it. and third, it shouldn't be too big of a deal to explain that to your kid. "that's an ad for a movie son." wow. 7 words NO parent should ever have to say, huh? and i get it, your kids too young to understand movies, and advertisements. but if he was like, 5 or 6, you could have a wonderful discussion about movies, erupt from this ad, where because of your fatherly decision to say something unpleasant about it, it would make your kid think, wow my dad's right, that's a shitty ad. i'm going to watch movies with my dad now. i knew what faces of death was before i even got out of elementary school, because my dad rented movies, and i happened to see it in the store. a lot of movies i was introduced to like that, faces of death, i spit on your grave, other such sleaze flicks. it's just natural. i think the ad isn't far enough, i don't want to see the movie because it looks like sordid churned out crap, and that "super violent\sexy" ad, isn't selling me. and i'm sold by violence and sex. so i'm guessing it wasn't far enough.
April 2, 2007, 4:41 a.m. CST
Now that´s a good ad
April 2, 2007, 4:49 a.m. CST
April 2, 2007, 5:37 a.m. CST
by Tuanimus Prime
April 2, 2007, 5:57 a.m. CST
Mori. You didn't have three seconds to spare to tell your kid "This is make belive and not real, just like the stuff daddy makes"? Are you saying that you can't tell your kid right from wrong or real and make belive? MPAA is a dinosaur and something that shouldn't even be around anymore. It amazes me to no end when people blame companies, music and movies for the behaviour of their children. They are YOUR children. It's YOUR responsiblity to tell the right from wrong not theirs and sertanly not the MPAA. These posters are kick ass, especially the one where the chick is burried in sand and looks like she's stuck inside the ad box at the bus stop. There is NOTHING in them that's offensive. Treat your kids with respect and know they are a hell of alot smarter than you think they are.
April 2, 2007, 6:14 a.m. CST
So your Problem is that ---in this particular case, you have someone who wants to defy the system and then benefit from it by still being part of it.---- Ok, than what would you say if a Series on a network-televisons airs an episode thats pushing the envelope in HBO Style ...or just shows a pair of tits? Lets say Heroes on NBC for example. Would you join the PTC and demand that this smut should be taken off the air for breaking the rules or would you applaud the producers for their balls?
April 2, 2007, 6:15 a.m. CST
for that Kirby Dick film?..... Small joke there.
April 2, 2007, 6:19 a.m. CST
by Some Dude
No fair pretending to be nice now. Anyhow, if the public sphere is to be free from all offense, how come I have to look at morbidly obese people? Seriously. Or see buildings emblazoned with a symbol of torture and execution?
April 2, 2007, 6:21 a.m. CST
by Some Dude
Defend this movie and in the future your daughter will blow her unemployed boyfriend while he sits in your recliner watching the movie... Are you sure this isn't a fantasy of yours?
April 2, 2007, 6:34 a.m. CST
It's such a simple issue. They were told by the regalatory body that they couldn't display this add. They did, they shouldn't, now they get punished. It's easy. As Mori said censorship is a different issue. What we're talking about here is following the rules set and no matter how much you want to rage against the man if you want a rating you got to go by the rules.
April 2, 2007, 6:36 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
Do you think network shows just air before anyone sees them? Really? <P>The only way that works is if a network show were to put together an edit featuring something that obliterated standards and practices, like graphic sexual content, and then submitted it to the network. Then, when the network rejects it, the show just airs the episode anyway. <P>And even then, it's not up to me to set the penalty. Of course, the network would never let those producers on the air again, because I'm sure the network has a set of rules for that situation. <P>The MPAA has a set of rules, and a penalty that is supposed to be applied. That's all I'm advocating. <P>It's not about balls. That's such a lame Hot Topic pose to strike, buddy. But by all means, please stretch to make your point again.
April 2, 2007, 6:39 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
The MPAA has final approval over all trailers and one-sheets for every film released by a signatory company. <P>And you really wish you saw more "sick shit" around? What a mature, considered, intelligent position to take.
April 2, 2007, 6:43 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
My favorite example of that was a night a high school kid tried to bring his date to an R-rated movie. When we carded them, she was 17, and he wasn't. We explained to him that she was not his legal guardian or parent, so he couldn't go in, but she could. <P>He wigged the fuck out, and even she ended up laughing as we escorted him to the parking lot, sans refund.
April 2, 2007, 6:46 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
Yeah, I reread the article. I'm really sorry for that paragraph where I wrote, "Man, that talkbacker named SomeDude is a total assmonkey." <P>Oh, wait, I didn't write that. You must be referring to the part where I wrote, "Anyone who disagrees with me can go fuck themselves." <P>Hold on. I can't find that, either. And I'm not really sure what you're talking about. But if you want to take offense at my opinion, I'm sure you'll find a way.
April 2, 2007, 6:47 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... but Rocky Morton and Anabel Jenkel don't have anything to do with CAPTIVITY, so why are you blaming it on them? <P>Roland Joffe, on the other hand, is the director of this, and what's really depressing is that this guy is a two-time Oscar nominee for THE KILLING FIELDS and THE MISSION. <P>In-fucking-sane.
April 2, 2007, 6:48 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
Did I mention that I'm on the commen... <P>Oh, bother.
April 2, 2007, 7:15 a.m. CST
by Sit and Watch
In a day and age where we are exposed to film and entertainment news multiple times a day via it gushing through the internet, television, newspapers, and magazines- who sees a billboard and says "oh yeah,I should see that movie!"? Not me. Do you see movies based on billboards? Censorship, horror, film industry, and all rules aside- CHOP DOWN ALL BILLBOARDS. I fucking hate them all. The US was built on beautiful land. We couldn't ask for a nicer continent. Then we took what we had and filled the shit up with industrial and commercial garbage.
April 2, 2007, 7:15 a.m. CST
by Tuanimus Prime
is a funny guy!
April 2, 2007, 7:16 a.m. CST
LOL. Just... LOL.
April 2, 2007, 7:18 a.m. CST
whe did this ad go up? Did they think April first can give them some cushion into doing this?
April 2, 2007, 7:32 a.m. CST
Good try but you didn`t say if you would act as harsh in said scenario as in this case. Of course the producers would get kicked, but the question was if you would be as pissed of by tits or a bloody headshot in a primetime network show as by this lame billboard. Both things aren't allowed by the mpaa/FCC and parents also have to explain it to their children. Or lets take the case when CBS' Without a Trace aired an episode with a teenage orgy scene in some states before 22.00 and was fined 3,6 Mio because the PTC started a campaign. http://tinyurl.com/yo4gdq Do you think every fine is right just because they don't follow the prude rules of the FCC? The Point i'm trying to make(in my bad english) is that it seems that you (and Whedon as well) are using double standarts and only react like that because your personal taste is offended ...or cause you hate that Solomon guy. I don't say that the ad campaign is clever or that the producers shouldn't get a fine for that but it would be completely out of proportion to destroy the complete movie by refusing a rating. btw. I'm from germany and never even heard from Captivity (in most countrys it surely will go Direct to DVD) before your little rant.
April 2, 2007, 8 a.m. CST
Everyone has a constitutional right to free speech, except yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. <p> Voltaire said something like I may not agree with what you say but I will defend unto the death your RIGHT to say it. <p> Pretty simple. <p> You don't like it don't watch it. <p> But never, fucking never, deny others the right to see or act the way they choose. <p> The child excuse is the lamest argument ever. <p> It is a REPUBLICAN logic for censorship.
April 2, 2007, 8:15 a.m. CST
If MPAA were to ignore this film it would make itself EXACTLY THE KIND OF MORALISTIC WATCHDOG that we want MPAA to stop being. So I sincerely hope that MPAA DOES NOT listen to you because than it would set a pretty fucked up precedent. So why don't you just admit that you are angree at "After Dark" films and that anger makes you biased. P.S. I believe that the "Hostel 2" poster is about 100x worse andis in a worse taste than this one.
April 2, 2007, 8:57 a.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...and, while I think the billboards were completely without sophistication or imagination (something they obviously made up for with marketing savvy, given the impact they had), I can't agree that this is where the line was crossed.<p>The thing about censorship is, once you decide to do it, you should do it the same way in every instance unless you want to be perceived as a fickle fascist state (sorry -- I know that's trite -- but you know that's where folks will go once this ball gets rolling).<p>I'm not personally offended by that billboard in any wazy, but I sure don't want to see it every time I drive past a certain spot.Not because it's shocking or upsetting on its own, but because I know there is a demographic that can see and understand the marriage of images and words but doesn't possess the discerning rationality to understand that it's a cheap marketing gimmick. Thinking about those stupid people disturbs me more than the material itself. But I don't know that that's a reason to ban the ad.<p>Let me put it to you another way: I drive past a family planning clinic every day on my way to work. And three out of seven days, there's at least one asshole standing on the street corner with a giant poster of a violently aborted late-term fetus. It's disgusting. It put me off my breakfast the first few times I saw it, but it hasn't changed my mind on a woman's right to choose. Any more than someone holding up a giant, unflattering poster of the inside of a vagina would make me anti-sex (note that you can do the former, but not the latter...that in and of itself is a double standard).<p>Point being, if you want to take down publicly displayed images that are potentially going to disturb or scar children, how about starting with those aborted fetus posters and then moving on to the obviously staged depictions of violence?
April 2, 2007, 9:30 a.m. CST
The problem is, no one is talking about the government banning this billboard. The content of the billboard isn't even the issue. The problem is that After Dark's billboard was rejected, then put up anyway. The MPAA has the right to not rate a film if the studio doesn't play by their rules.
April 2, 2007, 9:30 a.m. CST
Ratings apply to a movie, not an ad. Removing a rating from a movie because of an ad doesn't make any sense, because the movie hasn't changed just because of something to do with the advertising. They should be fined, yes, but the rating should be left alone - if it hasn't been rated yet, it should still be rated, but only after they have paid their fine.
April 2, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
this poster is tacky, and not particularly shocking. If the MPAA want to effectively economically censor the crappy little d-movie for a marketing campaign and not for the movie then surely they can. However, I find it bizarre that Freedom of Speech will be used to justify a particularly unpleasant piece of bandwagon jumping. <p>I don't mean to criticise as I am from the repressed little country that bought in the video nasty Act and still has Child's Play 3 banned, but there seems to be a double standard. It is all very well saying that there is no mandatory censorship, but it seems to me (in my uneducated opinion)that for a film to be screened it requires the MPAA certificate. Therefore, if this certificate is withheld the film will not be screened. Therefore, there is an entrenched form of voluntary censorship whereby the filmmakers themselves act as the censor. This is daft (better than in britain but still daft) as the film makers tend to be large corporations, and the market will start to dictate the only product to be produced- which will inevitably be LCD films aimed at the teen/ family audience. This reminds me of the Cronenburg interview when he was bitching about blockbusters and corporate censorship- and how he didn't want to be coerced into making family films. Which leads me to draw the conclusion that Freedom of Speech in cinema is (or will become soon) very dead. <p>All this fuss for a nasty, sordid little poster, bizarre.
April 2, 2007, 10:34 a.m. CST
You are a hypocrite and full of crap. But, that's just my personal opinion. I'm sure your family loves you and your friends admire you. You may have some talent and may be a very successful screenwriter, moviemaker, smoothie-taster...whatever. This is not a personal attack. But on this issue with the argument you laid out...you are full of it. Please spare me your holier than thou spoutings about protecting children, following the rules...etc, etc, etc when you work in an industry and for a website that runs afoul of said spoutings every chance they get.
April 2, 2007, 10:35 a.m. CST
Freedom of speech in cinema is alive and well, as independent films are growing more popular and DVD allows even films with small releases to make money. Further, the fact is, you can say and show more in major films these days than in more or less any other point in the industry's history.<br><br>And yeah, the free market effectively censors any media--but the thing is, no one, not even the MPAA, can stop the film being made and screened anywhere that chooses to screen the film. What they're doing is hurting profits, yes--but there's no amendment that states you must be given the money to fund your speech.
April 2, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST
by Cult Exiter
IT IS (WHEN THEY HAVE THEM) THE "PARENTS FAILURE" (INCLUDING ALL EDUCATION AND HUMAN CONTACTS) -- OR SIMPLY JUST THE KIDS GROWING CURIOSITY! NO DIRECTOR, WRITER OR PRODUCER OF ARTS/ENTERTAINMENT IS TO BLAME - UNLESS THEY SELL IT AS SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS! YOU DO KNOW, YOUR SON WILL SEE AND DO WHATEVER HE IS PERSONALLY ATTRACTED TO, ANYWAY, EVENTUALLY. JUST LIKE YOU HAVE DONE. AS AN ADULT, OR AS A TEENAGER. I'D RATHER WATCH The Future of Food (2004) AND THINK AGAIN. PEACE...
April 2, 2007, 11:24 a.m. CST
Exposing your kids to something you don't want them to see is messed up and when your the parent you understand these things. I had a dumb ass lady bring her 5 year old kid to the theater when I was watching American Wedding,when the kid repeated Stiffler by yelling "cock block,cock block" she smacked him.Her fault, she was a shitty parent.My point is it's hard to be a parent now adays without exposing your kids to junk on the way to school. If you do it yourself(like the cock block lady) your the dumb ass,but if some shitty film company does it they should be fined.
April 2, 2007, 1:44 p.m. CST
Thats fucking brilliant. I dont really agree with Moriarity but I can see his point. I live in Austin, Tx and we have no billboard movie advertisements that i can recall. http://tinyurl.com/pv8do
April 2, 2007, 2:02 p.m. CST
First,-When Mori says bullshit like this will make it harder for the filmaker next time.Thats just beyond my scope.Having seen This Film is not yet Rated I cant imagine what "harder" is.I just cant imagine the possibilities because Im not a filmaker.That leads me to Second-The ad is just lazy and not creative(Proves its a duck move)If asses in the seat are the goal thats not how you sell a movie.The reason why?I think marketing got lost to most filmakers along the way.Ads for films tend to sell you the product.McDonalds doesnt sell you the product,they sell you a lifestyle.Stupid kids cruisin in cars munchin on MikeyD's...If they sold you the product"Big Macs taste great"They would fail,because you know Big Macs taste like shit,youve always known.If I were After Dark I would have put Cuthbert in a shinny bedazzler dress smilling big with a runway wave ,and put the crazy Captivity Font on the bottom.Thats the shit that makes people interested.Make it look all chickflick/romcom with the image ,but with a R rating and that crazy Title"Captivity".Thats something that makes people want to find out "Whats that movie?".Black Christmas?Get someone to paint a Norman Rockwell style Santa smilin all Santa stupid and call that shit BLACK chirstmas..Theres ways to sell the film itself beyond the content.Thats really another reason the MPAA exists,even if a kid was drawn to the Santa image "Its Rated R son,,"A better example rather than my made up ones is the Death Proof ad,that posters just plain slick ,and effective.Made you want to find out about the film not only see it
April 2, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST
by Frank Black
To see where it had gone in 2 days and there are a lot of good points here but none of it has changed my position. LA is a cesspool and some of the ads passed by the MPAA are far worse than the one in question and the faux outrage is selective and personal at best. I can see both sides of the issue from every angle but think the MPAA shouldn't be in a position to bitch slap any one let alone dictate a film's ad campaign. That said, I am tired of brutally violent material reaching the eyes of innocent youngsters and would much rather see a no one under 17 years of age allowed into a R rated film policy (even with a guardian) because parents and theaters don't give a damn whether their kids see inappropriate films or not. (Many parents take their kids to R rated films not even knowing what kind of content they are exposing children to.) Slippery slope, is what it is.
April 2, 2007, 2:32 p.m. CST
This is all part of a publicity campaign for the film. Have you ever heard of an organisation that got formed because of an add? It's all part of the campaign. By talking about it in this manner people will seek it out and see it for themselves. What better way to promote a horror film than to make people believe that folks are outraged by their adds. This is exactly what After Dark wants. Well good job Mori, you did this well. Now more people will see this because of this. How much did you get?
April 2, 2007, 2:36 p.m. CST
We as adults may find these things as distastful. We have the judgement to decide whether or not we want to see something like this. Children don't. Lets say a childs parents were killed, and he walks down the street and sees something like this and it brings him right back to those feelings? Censorship is one thing. Good taste is another. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's good. Why subject ourselves to feed on bullshit like this? Is there not enough hate and violence in our world already that we have to have it forced into our face everyday? People in this world get off on violence. Wouldn't it be better if maybe we stopped making stuff like this and worked toward actually making a difference. We are the Generation of Apathy. If it's not about us, we don't care. We are the lamest generation.
April 2, 2007, 4:02 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...from the specific to the general. I understand that what Mori is calling for is an economic sanction, but the debate had turned to censorship. I was simply saying that the image itself was not particularly revolting or even very shocking by the standards of things I encounter every day. I apologize for not being more A to B specific in my explanation of my reaction to the discussion.
April 5, 2007, 2:33 p.m. CST
I guess Moriarty, offended by me posting in a public place, thought that I deserved a bitchslap, too. Sorry about that, Head Usher McWeeny.
July 14, 2007, 1:54 a.m. CST
by Mr. Anderson
I just now heard about this whole billboard controversy (somehow it completely missed my radar) and was linked to this article through another site, so you can imagine my surprise when upon reading this article for the first time tonight (July 13, I swear I'd never heard of any of this until just now) I also noticed the interesting advertising choice AICN has made. I especially like how you can even see the EXACT SAME IMAGE FROM THE BILLBOARD just a few inches up the screen. I know it's unlikely anyone will ever read this, but I just wanted future Internet archaeologists to know that some of us in 2007 still appreciate the concept of irony.
July 17, 2007, 2:56 p.m. CST
I grew up in the days of hte original "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" and I think that these new "horror" films are aptly named "torture porn." In the old B-horror flicks of my day, there were shocks and then people trying to avoid future shocks. For example someone gets hacked up in a brief but shocking sequence so that you know what can happen, and then you're invested in the characters who are trying to avoid getting hacked up. Suspense was the main ingredient--when is the next shock going to happen? These films today take those brief shocking moments and expand them into lenghty torture sequences, usually with victims who have no hope of escape. Where's the scare or the suspense in that? The only pleasure that could be derived from this kind of prolonged, depraved bullshit is the pleasure of watching another human being being humiliated, debased, dominated, and basically reduced to a thing. And only a sick fuck takes pleasure in that. If you took that element out of these films, there would be little left, just like if you took the boning scenes out of a sex porno. And I don't want to hear any more bullshit from hacks like Eli Roth who claim that it is fine to make films that focus on torture because torture happens in real life. That's a bullshit argument. I guarentee you that someone somewhere is fucking a goat up the ass right now, but that doesn't mean there should be an entire movie devoted to it! God damn. The Idiocracy is now.