HOME TRAILERS 2022 SCHEDULE 2023 SCHEDULE SHORT FILMS REVIEWS PODCAST INTERVIEWS NEWS FEEDS ABOUT US

POSTERS

Weinsteins' Spark Buzz with Sexy MPAA Banned 'Sin City 2' Poster

by Ethan Anderton
May 29, 2014
Source: Page Six

Just a little over a week ago, we got a look at five new character posters for the sequel Sin City: A Dame To Kill For. However, what we didn't see was a poster featuring the titular woman played by Eva Green, and now we know why. Page Six just debuted a new poster featuring the actress, but it was deemed to be too sexy for a sanctioned release by the MPAA “for nudity — curve of under breast and dark nipple/areola circle visible through sheer gown.” Clearly this is just The Weinstein Company trying to stir up some controversy to get some buzz around their late summer release, but you can't deny that's a damn sexy poster. Look now!

Here's the sexy, unapproved poster for Sin City: A Dame to Kill For from Page Six:

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is directed by Robert Rodriguez who co-wrote the script with William Monahan (The Departed) and Frank Miller, creator of the graphic novel series and co-director of the first film. Dwight (Josh Brolin) is hunted down by the only woman he ever loved, Ava Lord (Eva Green), and then watches his life go straight to hell. Chronologically, this story takes place prior to "The Big Fat Kill" (seen in the first Sin City) and explains how Dwight came to have a dramatically different face. Jessica Alba, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Mickey Rourke, Juno Temple, Jaime King, Rosario Dawson and many others star in the film being shot in 3D and Dimension Films will send the sequel to theaters on August 22nd this summer. Excited?

Find more posts: Hype, Posters

33 Comments

Oh no! Not boobs!!!

Nielsen700 on May 29, 2014

I call them "Fatty chest protuberances"

TheOct8pus on May 29, 2014

Men = got you some bitch tits! Women = bitch you got some tits!

Akirakorn on May 29, 2014

I am excited! The trailers look fantastic!

Tyler Cobaugh on May 29, 2014

Fucking puritans. IF it were some fat man with fucking C cups that would be fine but sheer beauty? yeh censor that shit.

Brian Sleider on May 29, 2014

Exactly. Seriously, who the fuck decides what i can and cant see. Such bs.

Sascha Dikiciyan on May 29, 2014

Watch the documentary NC-17

Josef Saltpeppaketchup Woods on May 29, 2014

Pretty much a council of unnamed puritans.

Brian Sleider on May 29, 2014

I'm in love with Eva Green. Ever since Dreamers I have been down right obsessed with her. She's beauty to the perfection.

SpideyLex on May 29, 2014

Really? Have they ever received a Victoria's Secret catalog in the mail, or seen the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue at the supermarket magazine rack? It's nothing but blatant T & A.....i can't believe these prudes.

TheOct8pus on May 29, 2014

Yes, in my mail at my house. Not in public. Even SI and other shameless mags have some standard as what can be on the cover. I grew up with HBO, Skinemax and worse in the house and nobody cared. In public it's a different story. After all. It's inappropriate to pick your nose, fart, burp and scratch your itch in public.

Akirakorn on May 29, 2014

This was in the magazine rack at my supermaket. Tell me that the movie poster above is MORE revealing and racy than this magazine that was out in the open among children and grannies.

TheOct8pus on May 30, 2014

That magazine cover is basically porn. I made awkward eye contact with the overweight middle-aged lady at the checkout counter while I was buying my bottle of water and cat food. She knew I was staring at that magazine and drooling, like every other dude in the store...personally I think it's an awesome cover, by the way....haha

TheOct8pus on May 30, 2014

Blood splatter, guns, explosions, man nips... All ok. The slight suggestion of a fem breast (not even full on) and it's banned. No wonder the French make fun of Americans.

McWetty on May 29, 2014

The MPAA are so hypocritical. Why do they continue to bow down to these do-gooder Christian lobbyists and NeoCons? Such double standards and hypocrisy - when most media conglomerates freely allow murder and mayhem to be shown in all its guises through film, TV, video games, and heck, even the six-o-clock news. But show the slightest hint of a boob on a movie poster, and it's not fit for public consumption. I'm sure if she was wearing a Burka there'd be public outrage from Christian groups for not showing enough of her body. Fuck MPAA censorship.

Trey Wilson on May 29, 2014

You gotta be kiddin me. SMDH. The MPAA needs to find them something better else to do already.

John on May 29, 2014

I gotta agree with Ben. Unless your theater caters to mature(r) audiences or separates theater areas by age, yep this shouldn't be next to a Despicable Me 3 Poster. Turning a kid into a beast!? Talk about being weird. Actually it would avoid awkward discussions and misunderstandings, that could lead to very inappropriate situations in the immediate future. Let kids be innocent and enjoy life without hormones, phobias and social hangups. At least until puberty (tweens).

Akirakorn on May 29, 2014

Yep spitting bullets at unseen other humans, werewolves, furniture, pokemon. If there was gore, death and violence on the poster yes, you'd make your point just fine. Best argument: I bet some of those who want to shelter their kids to the horrible antics of others are the ones bringing their strollers to R-rated movies.

Akirakorn on May 29, 2014

Isn't she lovely?

DAVIDPD on May 29, 2014

I really wish this could become an alternate cover for the Blu-ray release.

Cal J. on May 29, 2014

Who ever didnt approve for this loves the cock.

redskulllives on May 29, 2014

Eva Green is just gorgeous in every way.

Chris Groves on May 29, 2014

This poster was obviously never going to make it to theaters. I manage a 16 screen theater, and if I had this poster up I'd have 10 complaints by noon. Weinsteins got some great publicity out of it, and we all get the pleasure of seeing it. So I say hooray for the Weinsteins.

MrFoo on May 29, 2014

Even if it had passed the MPAA no exhibitor would have put it up. It certainly wouldn't go up at any of the ones I run. It's unnecessarily sexual and anyone who says different is deluding themself. They did this for the publicity knowing full well it couldn't be shown.

Andrew on May 30, 2014

Unnecessarily sexual for a poster that is to be displayed in public areas with young children was obviously what I meant. They KNEW the poster would never be approved.

Andrew on Jun 1, 2014

Murder and guns are cool, but sexuality is an absolute No No. Spoken like a true puritan

J Damon on Jun 1, 2014

No, spoken like someone who works as a theatre manager and knows that this poster would never be allowed to be used. I'm about as far from a Puritan as it gets but nice try.

Andrew on Jun 1, 2014

No, you don't "get it" this isn't about my opinions of sex or nudity and what children should be exposed to. This is about me knowing that no theatre would post this picture because of the complaints they would get and Weinstein knew that when they commissioned it.

Andrew on Jun 1, 2014

Eva Green is one of the most sexiest actresses evah.

capitandelespacio on May 30, 2014

Wouldn't know it from Penny Dreadful though. They certainly waste her.

norcal1953 on May 30, 2014

I like to think that she improves that show.

capitandelespacio on May 30, 2014

I've been wanting to ask this to someone with a different opinion from mine: What exactly would be wrong with kids seeing boobs? I don't mean specifically this poster. Also, don't get me wrong: I think highly sexualized images would have a bad impact on a children's view of his/her own identity and that of others. But you can have highly sexualized images without nudity and nudity without a scarring sexualization or objectification. Is there a reason nudity in itself might be a bad thing whereas images of violence and non-nude objectification are still ok?

Snev De la Fontaine on May 30, 2014

One can only agree with the subtitle.

Snev De la Fontaine on May 30, 2014

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.