Johnny Kool, a REAL tit man.

Um, yeah... Carry on.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

So I agree wholeheartedly with Mori on this one.

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

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?

Mori is right 100% in my opinion.

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.

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?

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

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.

"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-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.

...but to the topic at hand, its a poster that isnt really that bad...maybe Im overally de-sensitisied, but I dont see nothin wrong wit the poster...I mean, if u take your kid to a video store, theres TONS of movies wit covers that will fuck your kids head up (unless he or she aint "a lil bitch bout it")...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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!

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.

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).

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.

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).

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?

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.

All this fuss for a nasty, sordid little poster, bizarre.