Home Cool News Coaxial Reviews Zone Chat Contact Us Sign in

Talkbacks

first
by misnomer
Mar 31st, 2007
06:15:10 AM
i totally agree- theres got to be a line...especially when it comes to advertising
dvd covers on the other hand
by misnomer
Mar 31st, 2007
06:16:43 AM
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!
Did they use in the US the Saw-poster with the man...
by DerLanghaarige
Mar 31st, 2007
06:25:40 AM
...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.
Not SAW, I mean HOSTEL!!!!
by DerLanghaarige
Mar 31st, 2007
06:25:58 AM
Sorry
I agree and Disagree
by Captain RawBeard
Mar 31st, 2007
06:33:53 AM
I agree in that if they were told not to put up the posters they shouldnt have and should be punished for it.
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.

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.
Well said!
by WildcatWildcat
Mar 31st, 2007
06:36:32 AM
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.
You're right, Mori
by Stollentroll
Mar 31st, 2007
06:46:19 AM
Don't care about the movie anyway, but this kinda stuff should not be shown in public.
The only thing that offends me...
by johnnykool
Mar 31st, 2007
07:06:24 AM
...about that billboard is her nasty fake tit defying gravity. What the hell is that? Yuck!

Johnny Kool, a REAL tit man.

Um, yeah... Carry on.

To anyone who is going to side with After Dark...
by jollysleeve
Mar 31st, 2007
07:14:19 AM
...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.
MROI: I'm not gonna call you names... read on:
by silentbobafett2
Mar 31st, 2007
07:23:30 AM
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...
Oh and....
by silentbobafett2
Mar 31st, 2007
07:24:52 AM
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.
Horse poop
by Gangar
Mar 31st, 2007
07:26:58 AM
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.
A certain film reviewer lets his little nephew..
by AvengingFist
Mar 31st, 2007
07:44:50 AM
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.
ahhh.. a certain Blade 2 review
by AvengingFist
Mar 31st, 2007
07:48:51 AM
the highest literary approach to match the same artistic level of the movie.
Censorship...
by ShitFilter
Mar 31st, 2007
08:00:56 AM
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?
Fuck you and fuck your kids
by mascan42
Mar 31st, 2007
08:03:44 AM
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.
thank you drew.
by fknjeffoakley
Mar 31st, 2007
08:11:15 AM
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.
Agenda
by GermanCity
Mar 31st, 2007
08:15:53 AM
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.
Gangar and ToddBoddy
by feckdrinkarse
Mar 31st, 2007
08:18:08 AM
Well done, sirs.
On second thought....
by GermanCity
Mar 31st, 2007
08:19:54 AM
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.
Calming down
by Gangar
Mar 31st, 2007
08:21:37 AM
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.
Tood Body--
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
08:33:56 AM
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.
The posters had their effect
by I Own You
Mar 31st, 2007
08:40:02 AM
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.
Wait a minute... Roland Joffe directed this?!
by jimmythesaint
Mar 31st, 2007
08:47:48 AM
The director of The Killing Fields has sunk to directing sub-torture porn trash? Aw man, that's gotta hurt...
Nah, no flames here.
by gotilk
Mar 31st, 2007
08:57:38 AM
You actually helped change my opinion on this one. I see your point.
Lazy damn parents and the censorship they promote.
by HollywoodBob
Mar 31st, 2007
08:58:14 AM
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.
Complete and utter BS
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:00:13 AM
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.
You people have no subtlety
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
09:08:11 AM
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.
Rated ILOAKRWLPHSIGIWO
by longevitymonk
Mar 31st, 2007
09:11:46 AM
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!
Witholding benefits
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:13:23 AM
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.
And thus, the torture porn debate continues
by kinghenryVIII
Mar 31st, 2007
09:13:50 AM
I can see the outrage but there are far more offensive posters out there.

Take War of the Worlds - a deformed baby hand gripping my balls.

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.

bredon7777
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
09:18:41 AM
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.
Not at all
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:23:21 AM
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.
Oh, and--
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
09:27:28 AM
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.
Not giving it a rating
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:32:27 AM
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.
Umm--
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
09:32:44 AM
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.
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.
Definitely fine them, but don't refuse to give...
by rbatty024
Mar 31st, 2007
09:33:15 AM
them a rating. That's de facto censorship. Hopefully the fine is high enough that they think twice about doing this a second time.
LOL @ the "Bambi's Mom" argument...
by jollysleeve
Mar 31st, 2007
09:33:41 AM
...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.

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.

Umm, no
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
09:37:20 AM
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?
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?
More publicity for their film
by Rupee88
Mar 31st, 2007
09:37:50 AM
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...
and torture porn is about as cool as kiddie porn
by Rupee88
Mar 31st, 2007
09:40:25 AM
And just about "healthy" to watch.
*rolls eyes*
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:40:44 AM
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.
Aha
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
09:45:07 AM
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?
"I for one will be going to see..."
by jollysleeve
Mar 31st, 2007
09:47:44 AM
"...the movie in the theater now to support this company..."

I can't believe how easily manipulated some people are. Somewhere, PT Barnum is smiling.

And who made a lack of rating the kiss of death?
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:50:31 AM
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.
Welcome to the Terrordome
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
09:55:15 AM
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.

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.

Plus have soft corn play during the daytime, just like in Holland.

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.
Look, Im all for punishing them
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
09:55:26 AM
for breaking the rules. But removing the rating is the equivelent of beheading someone for jaywalking - ridiculously over the top.
So instead--
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
10:05:22 AM
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!
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.
The Hills Have Eyes II
by DewMan
Mar 31st, 2007
10:08:40 AM
The MPAA has no problem with that poster? A body being dragged is good.
Oh, bullshit.
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
10:15:11 AM
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.
"Soft corn porn"
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
10:20:26 AM
Heh, I like that.

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.

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. ;-)
doesn't seem that bad to me
by jccalhoun
Mar 31st, 2007
10:21:00 AM
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?
How about instead of calls for censorship...
by Sledge Hammer
Mar 31st, 2007
10:27:07 AM
...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.

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.

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.

The sad part is
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
10:36:42 AM
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.
The sad part is
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
10:38:36 AM
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.
Mori probably won't read this TB but...
by performingmonkey
Mar 31st, 2007
10:40:10 AM
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.
Is it content.. or more likely..
by ZeroWolf
Mar 31st, 2007
10:46:21 AM
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
torture flims = pedo films
by AvengingFist
Mar 31st, 2007
10:58:31 AM
pure evil
Haven't I seen this before.....
by CACross2
Mar 31st, 2007
11:19:25 AM
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.
Fines? Ha!
by jdixon1972
Mar 31st, 2007
11:23:58 AM
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.
First off, I don't give
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
11:24:52 AM
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.

I'm gonna take this frame by frame:-

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.

Frame 2: I've seen scarier emo chicks. Fuck it, I've DATED scarier emo chicks.

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.

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.

Conclusion: BAAAAAAN DIIISS TRASH NOW!
What a pathetic over-reaction.
by Blarney-Man
Mar 31st, 2007
11:28:18 AM
I fucking despise Moriarty.
Fuck AfterDark
by Ohiofile
Mar 31st, 2007
11:31:53 AM
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.
Haven't I seen this before.....
by CACross2
Mar 31st, 2007
11:34:14 AM
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?

Surprisingly, I'm with Mori
by KCMOSHer
Mar 31st, 2007
11:45:29 AM
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.
A Decent site would have presented the other side
by DannyOcean01
Mar 31st, 2007
11:59:09 AM
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???
power
by ryan74
Mar 31st, 2007
11:59:31 AM
Ehy don't be anti-gay!!!
I Knew It
by TheRealMoriarty
Mar 31st, 2007
12:00:08 PM
I knew I'd get the angry geek response, "Well, you're just a bad parent!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No rating for CAPTIVITY. It's the only logical conclusion.

What is this about?
by DewMan
Mar 31st, 2007
12:36:04 PM
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?
They should also ban Evan Almighty
by Puñeta
Mar 31st, 2007
12:46:36 PM
For that horrible new poster universal put out.Dont throw RELIGION AT ME!
Here's the real problem
by chrth
Mar 31st, 2007
12:48:48 PM
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.

So I agree wholeheartedly with Mori on this one.

Sorry Mori, you're still wrong.
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
01:02:00 PM
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?"
"we don't behead people for jaywalking" - they do in TX
by chrth
Mar 31st, 2007
01:03:15 PM
Those who disagree with Mori havent seen them in person
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:09:57 PM
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.
"Bad parent"??!?
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:11:52 PM
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.
Here's my unrelated question...
by DarthCorleone
Mar 31st, 2007
01:14:58 PM
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.
ATTENTION ***Question about the TUBES IN NOSE scene***
by Gwai L0
Mar 31st, 2007
01:19:23 PM
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?

Is that scene even in the movie?? I downloaded a bitTorrent of "Captivity," but I don't want to watch the whole thing.

Thank you for hopefully answering this question!!! 9

The underlying point is...
by Turnquest
Mar 31st, 2007
01:20:12 PM
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.
Mori has changes his tact a little bit
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
01:20:26 PM
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.

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.

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.
Moriarty, you might be right, but...
by DarthCorleone
Mar 31st, 2007
01:20:29 PM
...the MPAA still sucks supremely.
Stupid broken keyboard- that SHOULD read
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
01:21:05 PM
Mori has CHANGED his tact.
I think Moriarty is right.
by Cory849
Mar 31st, 2007
01:23:00 PM

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.)

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.

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.

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?

"Hilarious fake snuff" - "get their jollies"
by Some Dude
Mar 31st, 2007
01:23:13 PM
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.
Isn't it "tack," not "tact?"
by DarthCorleone
Mar 31st, 2007
01:24:56 PM
Just asking. I agree the thrust of his argument was altered in his second statement.
ok then bredon7777
by Talkbacker with no name
Mar 31st, 2007
01:25:30 PM
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.

Mori is right 100% in my opinion.

"What's so offensive about this?"
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:27:37 PM
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.
i think the brouhaha is utter bullshit.
by occula
Mar 31st, 2007
01:27:52 PM
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.
Ok, Drew
by Thorstrongstone
Mar 31st, 2007
01:28:24 PM
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.
Heh...
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
01:29:54 PM
By Jove, I think Darth Coreleone is right! Way to discredit anything I have to say from the outset.

I guess admitting I liked "I Spit on Your Grave" earlier in the talkback did that though. ;-)
occula
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:32:39 PM
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?
as a parthian shot...
by occula
Mar 31st, 2007
01:32:54 PM
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.
I agree with Mori's point, but not how he makes it.
by Daddylonghead
Mar 31st, 2007
01:33:24 PM
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.

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.

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.

Censorship is one thing
by Talkbacker with no name
Mar 31st, 2007
01:35:22 PM
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.

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?

occula
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:35:27 PM
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.
*tee hee*
by occula
Mar 31st, 2007
01:35:41 PM
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.
The Way I Look At It...
by RomeroZombie
Mar 31st, 2007
01:36:12 PM
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.
One last thing
by Thorstrongstone
Mar 31st, 2007
01:36:14 PM
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.
Wow
by SebastianHaff
Mar 31st, 2007
01:36:14 PM
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.
I live in LA
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:38:48 PM
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.
Coreleone? Man, I am off today
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
01:38:50 PM
Blame it on the twenty mojitos and lime daiquiris I had last night.
Fuck After Dark
by Saluki
Mar 31st, 2007
01:38:59 PM
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.
I think we need to hear from DEMON DAVE on this issue!!
by Daddylonghead
Mar 31st, 2007
01:39:01 PM
He will open the door to ultimate evil and COMSPIC POWER.
bong...
by occula
Mar 31st, 2007
01:39:18 PM
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.
Coreleone? Man, I am off today
by seppukudkurosawa
Mar 31st, 2007
01:39:50 PM
Blame it on the twenty Lime Daiquiris I had last night.
demon dave would juggfuckle the sitch
by occula
Mar 31st, 2007
01:40:21 PM
no DOUBT.
and yes the billboards were vile
by Daddylonghead
Mar 31st, 2007
01:41:44 PM
no getting around that fact.
So Full of Shit
by Saluki
Mar 31st, 2007
01:42:18 PM
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.
"Torture porn" does not exist in theaters.
by Some Dude
Mar 31st, 2007
01:42:42 PM
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?
Oh and P.S. FUCK the children
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:42:59 PM
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.
Gross, gross, gross
by tucson
Mar 31st, 2007
01:43:29 PM
And I remember when Lionsgate used to be the vangard for GOOD films, not slasher trash.
correctly
by Some Dude
Mar 31st, 2007
01:43:45 PM
duh
Not to mention
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:48:15 PM
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?
Salukiyou said it all right there, bud
by Talkbacker with no name
Mar 31st, 2007
01:48:56 PM
I agree!

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

I take that back, partially, about rom-coms
by Bongalongadingdong
Mar 31st, 2007
01:50:38 PM
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.
do
by rdsxfan8
Mar 31st, 2007
02:05:51 PM
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
Like it or not...
by Sledge Hammer
Mar 31st, 2007
02:06:17 PM
...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?
Besides...
by Sledge Hammer
Mar 31st, 2007
02:12:37 PM
...Kurt Russell was laughing at this poster pretty hard, so I guess that makes it okay.
Hypocrite
by ev1ldead
Mar 31st, 2007
02:25:40 PM
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.
ev1ldead the filmcrew and actors
by Talkbacker with no name
Mar 31st, 2007
02:33:59 PM
I asumme have already been paid...if that is what you were getting at
Joss Whedon's Letter
by Talkbacker with no name
Mar 31st, 2007
02:40:43 PM
To the MPAA,

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.

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.

Thanks for reading this, if anyone did. Sincerely, Joss Whedon.

This is lending more credence to the movie
by Jack Burton
Mar 31st, 2007
02:45:39 PM
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.
Urmm
by lionbiu
Mar 31st, 2007
03:28:22 PM
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..
Why..
by ev1ldead
Mar 31st, 2007
03:31:04 PM
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.
Bredon7777--
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
03:31:10 PM
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.
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.
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.
Hey DerLanghaarige
by 12-GAUGE
Mar 31st, 2007
03:41:03 PM
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.
I am in total agreement with Mr. Bongalongadingdong
by woxel1
Mar 31st, 2007
03:57:43 PM
What an awful, tasteless advertisement campaign it's been.
Of course it's censorship
by mvario
Mar 31st, 2007
04:01:49 PM
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.
The idea that the MPAA has no power
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
04:15:43 PM
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.
No Mori, your argument is shit
by RevSick
Mar 31st, 2007
04:29:23 PM
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.
Want to "become a concerned citizen"? Have a kid
by FilmCritic3000
Mar 31st, 2007
04:32:05 PM
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.
Hey it comes out the date that...
by kafka07
Mar 31st, 2007
04:50:54 PM
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.
wow
by rdsxfan8
Mar 31st, 2007
04:55:56 PM
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.
i wasnt that bothered. but i guess you still
by Mr_X
Mar 31st, 2007
05:06:19 PM
have problems seeing janet jacksons nipple. //won't someone please think of the children?
COURTNEY SOLOMON
by Mirajeff
Mar 31st, 2007
05:14:59 PM
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.
Anyone who said 'bad parent' was just joking
by performingmonkey
Mar 31st, 2007
05:20:09 PM
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.
Solomon sucks
by Ohiofile
Mar 31st, 2007
05:41:48 PM
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.
performing monkey
by rdsxfan8
Mar 31st, 2007
05:44:41 PM
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.
Moriarty is a fucking hypocrite
by Mr_Incredible
Mar 31st, 2007
05:53:20 PM
'Nuff said. And remember, folks... It's only a movie.
The problem is the way you rate movies
by kuryakin
Mar 31st, 2007
06:37:40 PM
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???
We're livin' in wierd times indeed.
by glodene
Mar 31st, 2007
06:38:05 PM
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.
Ohiofile
by RevSick
Mar 31st, 2007
06:39:39 PM
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.
sorry
by kuryakin
Mar 31st, 2007
06:40:44 PM
the BBFC is not a government funded body. Just talking shit here folks
Bredon7777--
by zb.brox
Mar 31st, 2007
06:45:29 PM
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.

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.
This is ridiculous
by The Future King
Mar 31st, 2007
06:46:44 PM
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.
Future King
by RevSick
Mar 31st, 2007
06:54:29 PM
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.
success in alerting me to a movie i never heard of
by reckni
Mar 31st, 2007
07:40:49 PM
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.
Umm, folks...
by The Southerner
Mar 31st, 2007
08:04:49 PM
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).
Zaphod, you just dont get it.
by bredon7777
Mar 31st, 2007
08:05:52 PM
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?
I disagree with this...
by nonsensical
Mar 31st, 2007
08:07:06 PM
First let's look at Mori's statements...

"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?"

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.

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.

"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?"

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.

MOVE!

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.

"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."

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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-