In a way it's kind of funny because the film may end up not doing well as far as box office. "Snakes on a Plane" had tons of pre-release buzz and fizzled.

I know folks in the industry like to bash the MPAA, perhaps rightly so in some cases, but here I think the MAPP is right. In the wake of the Boston bomb scare advertising debacle I can see lots of so-called "cutting edge" ad companies taking the bad boy approach to movie marketing, and I think that's a bad direction to head in.

Vic

Reply

Uh, why, pray tell? The Boston idiocy didn't help ATHF in the ratings whatsoever, so your entire point is moot.
If you even had one besides the seeming inability to recognize that 99% of America ignores billboards as a way of life.

Reply

Let's see. When something awful is shown in the theaters, some always say, "If you don't like it don't watch it. Of course, there are those movies that are deceptively advertised only to be more violent than what they show in the ads.

When they show something awful on TV, some people say, "If you don't like it, change the channel.I Of course, along comes a surprise slip of nudity or an inappropriate ad in the middle of a family show.

So now, they have bill boards and taxi ads and the same people say, "if you don't like it don't look." You've got to be kidding me!

Reply

I'm all for free speech, and one should have the right to openly proclaim their opinion and present the material to the public. However, this right is not without its limits. Advertising scenes of torture are not something that should be shown on venues that reach people of any age. I don't find it appropriate to put these images in situations where they would easily be seen by children. You can give me the whole "children aren't like they used too, its not that bad, etc." but I find that to be a defeatist point of view. You're accepting that these kids will be used to these images prior to them becoming used to them, so you're self-fulfilling the argument. These images should not have been broadcast so indiscriminately, and the company that did so was irresponsible and deserved to be sanctioned.

Reply

LRS62,

Yeah, you're right. They may as well put up billboards of closeups of oral sex since only 1% of the population looks at them.

And what do you mean my "point is moot"? I stated that even a lot of pre-release buzz doesn't guarantee an audience... your statement SUPPORTS mine.

Vic

Reply

You did miss one vital bit of the backstory... the "controversy" has been engineered by a small group of feminists, mostly Hollywood writer types. They set up a blog with their form letter and campaign against Captivity here:
http://www.removetherating.blogspot.com/

More interesting is the comments section where they communicate among themselves. It seems that having the ads removed and the having the the MPAA refuse to rate the film are only the beginning. Seems they want to keep the film from ever having a theatrical release. After that they plan on going after other films, starting with Wristcutters and anything else they deem "misogynistic" or "torture-porn". One of the group is Marti Noxon (former Buffy writer) who has gotten Joss Whedon to send a letter to the MPAA.

Check out what they're up to here:
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7948453518828638604&postID=8588158473780772705
as they (their words) "hatch more plans".

Reply

If they put up something illegal then the local government should stand up and take care of it like Boston did with ATHM (I now think Bostonians are retarded by the way). That said, the MPAA should mind their own business. If a billboard owner agrees to advertising on his billboard or if a Taxi cab company agrees to advertising on their cabs, that should have nothing to do with the MPAA or the rating of the film.

Reply

I'm sorry, but while being insensitive might be legal, when one is blatantly insensitive and offensive, one of the repercussions is catching a lot of flack over it.
Using images of torture is, at the very least, insensitive, and whether it's "a small group of feminists, mostly hollywood writer types" commenting and trying to get it stopped, I find the idea of using such images for publicity absolutely revolting, and further, if the earlier writer thinks that feminists created the controversy, I think that writer ought to take some sensitivity training. TORTURE IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT!!! - even fake acting torture for a movie. It's deplorable that we've stooped so low as to think that people will pay money to be entertained by such things.
I wonder if the victims depicted were teenaged boys instead of women if that writer might feel a little differently about this subject as "entertainment".

Reply

I don't think scenes of torture should have to be seen by ANYbody - not just children - without their consent. You can't avoid seeing something. You can look away once you've seen it, but you have to see it first to get offended by it. Abduction, confinement and torture as entertainment? What are we coming to?

Reply