Movie posters have become increasingly more controversial in the past decade, or else people have become a lot more sensitive. Either way, it seems like there’s a new and controversial movie poster or billboard being banned somewhere. Usually it’s for one of two reasons: sex or violence, with violence being far more popular. One of the first sexually banned posters I could find was 1981’s For Your Eyes Only, which featured an A-frame design that was banned. It wasn’t so much the vaginal roof as it was the exposed buttocks, so they had to release a retouched version that covered more derriere.
It’s been more than 25 years since that poster was sent back to the drawing board, so why do posters keep getting banned? Marketing people know that controversy can turn into a marketing campaign of its own, so maybe they’re pushing the boundaries in the vein of “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” With that in mind, here’s a look at controversial movie posters from the past several years. Prepare your innocent eyes and take a look after the break.
…Read more
Despite having the best Wednesday ever, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix earned a relatively small sum of money for a five day release. Here’s how a handful of scribblers spun the numbers:
To Box Office Mojo, the big-Wednesday, small-weekend phenomenon is a sign of “burning off demand”–that is, the huge fans showed up at midnight on Wednesday, and there’s little to no potential for the sequel to build on word-of-mouth.
But don’t tell that to Paul Dergarabedian, the industry blurb whore recently targeted by New York Magazine who hints that the release of the final Harry Potter book next Saturday could
actually reinvigorate ticket sales. “They’ll be walking book in hand into the movie theater,” he promises. Gag.
So many blockbusters in the marketplace leave little room in the writeups for attention to indies, but there’s always space to gloat over the failure of torture porn. The New York Times devoted two paragraphs to Captivity’s sub-top-ten debut; Nikki Finke’s sole sentence on the matter can be reduced to two words: “how nice.” Meanwhile, HecklerSpray asks the rhetorical question that’s surely on everyone’s mind: “[License to Wed] is still in the weekend box office top five and a film where Elisha Cuthbert has to drink a milkshake made out of mashed-up eyeballs isn’t?”
The Motion Picture Association of America (AKA the MPAA, AKA the mysterious cabal that sits somewhere on the crux of government, religion and commerce, whose primary function is to devise movie ratings) has been paying an inordinate amount of attention to Captivity, a low-budget torture flick that opens this Friday. In March, the MPAA threatened to withhold rating the film unless the studio releasing it, Lionsgate, removed a series of billboards that were drawing complaints. Lionsgate complied, but still allowed Captivity producer Courtney Solomon to mouth off to the New York Times about how the premiere party for the film would feature cage fighting, torture rooms, and Suicide Girls as on-the-clock “dates” for select fans.
That party happened last night, and according to FishbowlLA, the MPAA threatened to pull Captivity’s R-rating after learning that Solomon and his party planners had actually used the discarded billboards to wrap the outside of the Sunset Strip club where the party was to take place. After receiving a call from the MPAA’s Marilyn Gordon a few hours before show time, Solomon says he had the billboards moved inside the event venue, but is nonetheless “expecting a call” from the ratings board this morning to learn his punishment.
If the MPAA were to remove Captivity’s rating, the teen-targeted pic wouldn’t be able to screen in most multiplexes when it opens on Friday. So obviously this is a big deal for Solomon and Lionsgate–but do the MPAA really have the jurisdiction to pull ratings based on the marketing materials used at a private event? Where’s Kirby Dick when we really need him–and would he even care about a breach of ethics involving torture porn?
