Posterwire.com is a movie poster weblog. From images of the latest Hollywood one-sheets to vintage movie posters, this film poster weblog hopes to offer a bit of insight into film key art.
By now most of you have probably heard about the controversy surrounding Captivity billboards as part of the film’s outdoor ad campaign in Los Angeles and New York. Captivity is a horror (some say “torture porn”) film starring Elisha Cuthbert. The billboards (featuring key art designed by Art Machine Digital) depicted four panels with the headlines “Abduction, Confinement, Torture, Termination” along with the appropriate modern horror florescent lighting color scheme and scary visuals:
This film outdoor campaign outraged some residents in the Los Angeles area. In some sort of modern ad speak for “My dog ate my homework”, CEO Courtney Solomon of After Dark Films (the studio that produced the film) claimed the wrong files were sent to the printer and all the executives were in Las Vegas attending ShoWest at the time. We have no idea whether this was the case or not, but we don’t think the Adobe InDesign final production mechanicals sent to the printer were labeled “TOO SCARY. PLS DO NOT USE. FOR YOUR FUN ONLY!”.
And if you have wondered how film execs really talk, Solomon went on to muse:
Personally, I wasn’t going to go with this campaign. I thought it was OTP (over the top). Nothing like this can ever happen again.
Is this “OTP” quote meant to publicly lay blame elsewhere, like he (the CEO) was some sort of “lone voice of reason in a wilderness of ‘oh no, we’re producing this sucker whether you liked the comp or not’ ad design approval craziness”?
Although the offending outdoor billboards were eventually removed (and replaced by a not-as-OTP “Captivity Was Here” billboard), the proverbial outrage pile-on had already begun.
Speaking of pile ons, one thing that is being held captive is a rating for the film. The MPAA has put a one month hold on the ratings process for Captivity, which puts the May 18th release date in jeopardy. According to MPAA Senior VP of Advertising Marilyn Gordon:
“The sanctions in this case are severe because this was an unacceptable and flagrant violation of MPAA rules and procedures. After Dark Films presented their ads for approval, as all companies are required to do if they wish to receive an MPAA rating. However, their ads were summarily rejected for their graphic depiction of a woman’s torture and death. Yet After Dark proceeded to post them on billboards anyway, and these ads appeared in some of the most prominent public locations in Los Angeles and New York. It is now up to After Dark Films to restore good faith with the MPAA.”
The MPAA is technically a trade group — it was created to “advance the interests of movie studios” (it sues alleged movie file sharers on behalf of the film studios, for example). What most people do not realize is that those “interests” being represented are those of the six major studios: Sony, Disney, Paramount, Universal, Fox, and Warner Bros. Since the smaller studios responsible for Captivity (Lionsgate and the producer of the film, After Dark Films) are not “signatory” agencies of the MPAA (and this sort of ad approval controversy has happened before), it’s not surprising the MPAA came down hard on the “little guys” in this case. All studios voluntarily submit films (and ad materials) for review by the MPAA, otherwise they cannot advertise in most outlets or be shown in many North American theaters. It remains to be seen how this will effect the release of Captivity, or if this bit of publicity will help the film gain any useful “OTP” exposure.
Rap star and actor 50 Cent is revisiting the controversy from a year ago when Paramount Pictures (and Clear Channel) decided to take down billboards for his film Get Rich or Die Tryin’ due to protests. Critics and activists accused the film’s outdoor billboard ad (featuring the back of “Fiddy” holding a microphone and a gun) of promoting gun violence.
Fast forward to the present, and apparently 50 Cent hasn’t forgotten about the gun ad controversy. According to the entertainment news service WENN, the rapper is bothered by the Casino Royale posters for the new Daniel Craig James Bond film:
50 Cent is accusing Hollywood of double standards after seeing the new James Bond holding a gun in posters for Casino Royale – a year after billboards of him sporting a weapon caused a furore.
The rapper — real name Curtis Jackson — is appalled by the fact no one has raised a fuss about Daniel Craig’s gun-toting posters when he was castigated for posing with a weapon in billboards for movie Get Rich Or Die Tryin’.
He says, “Get Rich Or Die Tryin’ comes out and they want to protest because they see a gun in my hand but James Bond comes out or Mr + Mrs Smith will come out with guns and it’s acceptable.
“You can see any kind of gun there is to see on the covers of films. You can go in Blockbuster and see every gun that was ever made.”
The rap star calls for one universal ruling about weapons in movie posters – and he’ll accept whatever the Hollywood film police decide.
He adds, “Let’s not start with 50 Cent and stop with 50 Cent. Let’s do it everywhere else and make it unacceptable period. I would gladly join the rest of entertainment if we get there.”
50 Cent (correctly) points out that there is no standard as far as the depiction of guns on movie posters. The MPAA and studios don’t really have clear guidelines with regards to guns in key art. In fact, what is and isn’t allowed on domestic one-sheets isn’t always clear and tends to change with the times (and political climate).
For example, as we’ve mentioned in the past, studios sometimes avoided showing a character wielding two guns on a U.S. domestic movie poster. This is why Angelina Jolie is holding the trademark “akimbo” dual pistols, but it is implied as only one hand gun is visible on the Lara Croft Tomb Raider movie poster. You’ll notice Jolie’s left hand and pistol conveniently fall into a shadow on the one-sheet. Times change, or more accurately, the lack of consistency continues, and everyone from Jada Pinkett Smith to Kate Beckinsale happily wields two pistols.
Another example of “gun control” in posters: Back in the 1970s, Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry character would happily point his trademark .44 Magnum directly at the viewer on a Dirty Harry movie poster. But in later years, some studios avoided showing a large gun barrel pointed directly at “camera” on a one-sheet. Enter James Bond and the Goldeneye teaser poster, and suddenly it became acceptable again to point a large firearm directly at the viewer. Then everyone from George Clooney to Bruce Willis started giving the proverbial “stick ‘em up”.
Sometimes the rules can change as a movie poster is being produced. In 1999, shortly after the Columbine high school massacre, Sony Pictures was set to release the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film Universal Solider: The Return. Before anyone could even think to complain, the studio suddenly became “gun shy” and quickly revised the Universal Solder: The Return movie poster by removing all the rifles from the small row of soldiers at the bottom of the poster and had it reprinted.
Is 50 Cent right? Is there a double standard with regards to firearms on movie posters?
In the new documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, filmmaker Kirby Dick takes a look at the MPAA and controversies surrounding the film ratings system. The documentary investigates why the mysterious MPAA film ratings board can be an endless source of frustration for filmmakers. From the film press release:
This Film Is Not Yet Rated asks whether Hollywood movies and independent films are rated equally for comparable content; whether sexual content in gay-themed movies are given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts; whether it makes sense that extreme violence is given an R rating while sexuality is banished to the cutting room floor; whether Hollywood studios receive detailed directions as to how to change an NC-17 film into an R while independent film producers are left guessing; and finally, whether keeping the raters and the rating process secret leave the MPAA entirely unaccountable for its decisions.
The IFC web site (the Independent Film Channel is releasing the documentary) is hosting two This Film Is Not Yet Rated movie posters. The two one-sheets each feature a naked torso (one male, one female) with the film title treatment (based on the design of an MPAA ratings logo) being branded into the subject’s skin. The IFC web site and promotional materials featured these copylines about their print campaign:
“Take a look at the ad they wouldn’t let us place.”
“See the poster they wouldn’t let you see only at ifc.com”
With headlines like that, one might assume the “they” in this case would be the MPAA, which approves all theatrical key art for films being rated. This movie poster approval process can result in one-sheets being banned, which we have covered several times in the past. In the case of what the IFC is calling their “uncensored” This Film Is Not Yet Rated movie posters, were the female branded and male branded versions of the one-sheet submitted to (and rejected by) the MPAA’s Advertising Administration?
The answer is no, these ads were never submitted to or censored by the MPAA. The “they” referenced above turns out to be various newspapers and media outlets around the country refusing to run the ads. According to Evan Shapiro, executive vice president and general manager of IFC:
The NY Times and The LA Times (among many others) both rejected our ads, because they said they were “vulgar”. Also, we had to alter the artwork for outdoor, as Clear Channel would not allow a clear shot of an ass.
However, Premiere Magazine and Time Out NY allowed the ads, as is, as did all of the alternative weekly publications, such as the Village Voice and the Boston Pheonix.
Originally This Film Is Not Yet Rated was given an NC-17 rating, meaning it could not play in many theatres around the country. After a failed ratings appeal to the MPAA’s CARA (Classification and Ratings Administration), the producers decided to release the film (natch) unrated. With the movie being unrated, the film key art is not subject to any approval by the MPAA, since the film and it’s advertising do not carry an MPAA rating.
This “ad they wouldn’t let us place” claim seems a bit misleading — while making statements like “the poster they wouldn’t let you see” and labeling these posters as “uncensored” may be technically true, wouldn’t many assume they were referring to the MPAA given the film’s subject matter? The LA Times refusing to run an ad featuring a bare female ass isn’t exactly the same thing as an unchecked governing body censoring content from the public.
A documentary film about problems with MPAA ratings system, which is being released unrated because of the very ratings system it criticizes, being marketed with “uncensored” movie posters “they wouldn’t let you see”… Is this what advertising executives refer to as branding?
The Washington Post reports that The Road to Guantanamo movie poster (for the new documentary film about the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison) has been rejected by the MPAA:
The image that ran afoul of the MPAA is tame by the standards set by the amateur photographers of Abu Ghraib. It shows a man hanging by his handcuffed wrists, with a burlap sack over his head and a blindfold tied around the hood. It appeared in advertisements for the new film “The Road to Guantanamo,” a documentary with some reenacted scenes, that follows the fate of three British men imprisoned at Guantanamo for more than two years before being released with no charges ever filed against them.
What’s with all the banned film advertising lately? As we have mentioned before, the MPAA approves all print advertising material related to any film that carries an MPAA issued rating. Like most forms of regulation and censorship, the guidelines the MPAA follows are not always clear, but big no-nos for one-sheets include “depictions of violence, blood, people in jeopardy, drugs, nudity, profanity, people in frightening situations, disturbing or frightening scenes.” We’re pretty sure that the actual Gitmo doesn’t follow those same guidelines, however.
Italian officials have agreed to remove a Da Vinci Code banner from the renovation scaffolding facade of the church of St. Pantaleo (located near Rome’s historic center) because it has been “causing a problem”. The large outdoor Da Vinci Code billboard (featuring the Mona Lisa key art) has been the subject of complaints from church clergymen:
“It advertises something that is against Christ and against the church,” St. Pantaleo’s rector, the Rev. Adolfo Garcia Duran, told The Associated Press.
Buildings and scaffolding serving as outdoor advertising spaces is nothing new, and is not limited to Europe. (And complaints about large The Da Vinci Code billboards is not new either.) A large vinyl banner/billboard on the side of a building is known as a tall wall, and is quite common in large cities, especially in Los Angeles.
No word if anyone was offended by The Da Vinci Code outdoor banners featuring Tom Hank’s new hairstyle.
Ang Lee’s new film, Brokeback Mountain, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, isn’t your run-of-the-mill western… or love story. Commonly referred to as the “gay cowboy movie” (although the film’s trailer and Oscar buzz imply it could rise above that label), the film could prove a tough sell to certain audiences.
For the Brokeback Mountain movie poster, the film’s producer James Schamus wanted to emulate the one-sheet for the biggest film of all time — the ultimate “chick flick” — the Titanic movie poster.
When it came time to design the poster for the film, Schamus didn’t research posters of famous Westerns for ideas. He looked at the posters of the 50 most romantic movies ever made. “If you look at our poster,” he says, “you can see traces of our inspiration, ‘Titanic’.”
In this case, “traces of our inspiration” means “traces of an exact copy”.
Comparing the two posters side-by-side, the similarities become clear — the layout of Heath Ledger’s shoulder even matches the clothing “steam iron” ship of the Titanic one-sheet.
Several months ago we mentioned that the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has approval over advertising used to market films, including theatrical key art. Just like the film rating process, movie promotional materials such as movie trailers and one-sheets are reviewed by the MPAA. To illustrate this point about MPAA approval over key art, we cited the original Saw 2 teaser poster.
Today The Hollywood Reporter reports that the Saw 2 teaser poster and other promotional materials have not been approved, and the MPAA has ordered the studio to have them withdrawn from distribution. “It is essential that film distributors comply with the rules of the Advertising Administration so that parents retain the confidence they have in the ratings certified by CARA and that advertising and publicity material associated with rated films is appropriate for all audiences.”
Since the MPAA ratings board will withhold giving the film a rating until the studio is in compliance, it’s no surprise that a new (and less gory) Saw 2 teaser poster was quickly released today by Lion’s Gate. Perhaps a simple “snip” of the picture via a tighter crop will make this new Saw II one-sheet more acceptable to the MPAA’s Advertising Administration. With all this attention, I doubt Lion’s Gate or Art Machine, the design studio that created the one-sheet, are sweating this bit of free publicity. Movie poster collectors are also happy, as the MPAA just made the original teaser poster a collector’s item. We’re willing to bet actor Cary Elwes isn’t a fan of the Saw 2 campaign, however.
Warner Bros. has released the new poster for the upcoming film The Dukes of Hazzard. All of your favorites are here: Bo, Luke, Daisy, Uncle Jesse, Boss Hogg, and most importantly, the General Lee. But is The Dukes of Hazzard movie poster missing some other aspect of the Dukes visual lexicon?
When discussing the original Dukes of Hazzard hit TV series (which ran from 1979-1985), many people think of two things: Daisy Duke shorts and a reddish orange 1969 Dodge Charger marked “01” with a very large Confederate flag painted on the roof. And while Jessica Simpson seems to be filling in the “Daisy Dukes”, the familiar Southern flag seems to be missing in action — no where to be seen on the film’s poster or the movie’s official site. Is the studio going out of their way not to display the “rebel flag” on the roof of the General Lee car? Is what was once used to decorate toys now a symbol of history or hatred?
From the December 24, 2004 Wall Street Journal:
Despite the car’s enduring popularity, Warner Bros. executives were concerned about it — or more specifically, about the giant Confederate flag painted on the roof of the Dukes’ Dodge, a person involved with the film’s production said. Some studio executives were afraid that a lot of potential viewers would see it as nostalgia for the old segregationist South.
The filmmakers fretted they’d lose the show’s spirit and anger old fans by ditching the flag and the car’s name (or the horn, which honks “Dixie”). So they struck a compromise with the studio: Show the flag, but include scenes where it’s derided as an inappropriate symbol of the dark past, the person involved in the film said.
Setting aside the civics argument about the Confederate flag, it’s interesting how what was once considered a visual asset in selling a TV show 20 years ago is now suddenly a liability.
IGN FilmForce has released the teaser poster for the upcoming horror sequel Saw 2. The Saw 2 poster is a sequel in itself, following the look of a previous series of one-sheets from the first film. For such a gory concept (digits as digits), there isn’t much blood to be seen in this horror film poster. Why?
One thing you may not know about movie posters (and film trailers) is that the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has approval over them. The film industry trade group, which assigns film ratings to all U.S. domestic films bound for a theatrical release, also has control over the content of one-sheets and trailers sent to movie theaters. As with all matters involving the MPAA, this involves some de facto censorship on the part of film studio marketing departments in an effort to comply with undefined and arbitrary rules imposed on advertising.
For example: Blood.
The MPAA hates blood, and doesn’t want to see much of it on one-sheets and in film trailers. Have you ever wondered why Miramax spent countless dollars to digitally change all of the red blood to the color black on Uma Thurman’s yellow jumpsuit in trailers for Kill Bill: Vol 1? To avoid a “red band” trailer label from the MPAA, Uma goes from being a bloody mess to just a mess.
The MPAA also isn’t a fan of guns. Sometimes they choose to impose a rule that a character cannot be holding more than one gun at a time. (Example: One of Lara Croft’s trademark dual pistols conveniently falls under a shadow in the Tomb Raider poster to meet this requirement.) But like all oversight by the MPAA, these rules are not consistent. (Example: Is Niboe free to hold two guns in The Matrix Reloaded?)
But getting back to films like Saw 2, it’s interesting to note that the (literal) life blood of horror films is largely absent in recent horror film movie poster artwork.
In 1989 Paramount Pictures released a teaser poster for the horror film Friday The 13th Part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan. The poster depicted hockey masked killer Jason Voorhees slicing a large knife through the well known I LOVE NY logo. This was a fairly effective movie poster design which gets the “killer tourist” plot point across quickly. (In reality, the Jason character only spends the final few minutes of the film in New York City.)
But Jason Voorhees was no match for the New York State Department of Economic Development, which owns the trademark to I ♥ NY. The state tourism office demanded the poster be pulled. Paramount quickly replaced the poster. This was probably for the best, since the state of New York spends a lot of time suing anyone using any variation of I ♥ [blank].
The I LOVE NY logo was designed in 1976 by legendary graphic designer Milton Glaser. The logo is said to be the most imitated logo in history. It was part of a campaign to pull the state of New York out of its economic slump in the 1970s.
