Comments on: MPAA Censors Gitmo

By: Movie Poster of the Year « Posterwire.com « the movie poster weblog

Movie Poster of the Year « Posterwire.com « the movie poster weblog — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:53:23 +0000

[...] with?” gore of modern horror posters. There were plenty of movie poster controversies, both real and [...]

By: Hadley Rille

Hadley Rille — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:43:53 +0000

“Becky, thereâ€™s nothing about censorship that says it can only be done by governments.”

Nothing except for the actual definition an etymology of the word.

If the film’s producers object to MPAA rules they can decline having an MPAA rating on their film. Abiding by MPAA’s poster requirements is a voluntary act and as such can hardly be considered censorship.

By: Movie Poster of the Year « Posterwire.com « the movie poster weblog

Movie Poster of the Year « Posterwire.com « the movie poster weblog — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 23:09:20 +0000

[...] There were a few notable pieces of film poster key art from 2006. The “cut-out” teaser campaign for the movie Brick was interesting. A star sell here and there. The continued glut of animated films (and their posters). The “What can we get away with?” gore of modern horror posters. There were plenty of movie poster controversies, both real and fake. [...]

By: Kevin Cannon

Kevin Cannon — Wed, 31 May 2006 16:06:06 +0000

Becky, there’s nothing about censorship that says it can only be done by governments.

By: Becky

Becky — Mon, 22 May 2006 18:50:36 +0000

It’s not censorship when it’s carried out by a non-governmental organization.

By: *** Dave

*** Dave — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:21:38 +0000

I don’t think the MPAA’s guidelines do or ought to have anything to do with whether it’s a “true” scene or not. As noted, the picture above is no more (and, in some ways, less) disturbing than posters for any number of horror films (or Michael Moore documentaries).

By: admin

admin — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:12:39 +0000

I wasn’t necessarily “quick to defend” the Gitmo poster, I just think it’s interesting that the MPAA rejected it when (as some in the article point out) the image in question is no more graphic than so many horror film posters that do get approved.

As for the “claims of torture” depicted in the documentary not being true, I can’t really comment with regards to the film since I haven’t seen it.

By: The Colonel

The Colonel — Thu, 18 May 2006 12:13:22 +0000

Maybe it was rejected because, oh I don’t know, the claims of torture aren’t true. Newsweek had to recant a story about the Koran being flushed down a toilet and, as far as I’m concerned, what happended at Abu Ghraib was fraternity hazing compared to what the radical Islamists do to their captives. You seem awfully quick to defend this poster. Would you defend my right to make a poster using a cartoon of Mohammad? How about the decapitation of Daniel Pearl?