POSTERS

1

Oh no! Not boobs!!!

Nielsen700 on May 29, 2014

2

I call them "Fatty chest protuberances"

TheOct8pus on May 29, 2014

3

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

Akirakorn on May 29, 2014

4

I am excited! The trailers look fantastic!

Tyler Cobaugh on May 29, 2014

5

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

6

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

Sascha Dikiciyan on May 29, 2014

7

Watch the documentary NC-17

Josef Saltpeppaketchup Woods on May 29, 2014

8

Pretty much a council of unnamed puritans.

Brian Sleider on May 29, 2014

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

You're right on the money. Just what does this photo mean to do and what is it purpose other than titilation of men's sexual fantasies? These gals might as well be totally naked. Guys like Akirakorn must be in heart attack mode especially if they have children and grannies...lol... it's all so ridiulous you just gotta laugh at it all...

Bo on May 30, 2014

14

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

15

Pretty funny. Yea, nothing wrong with being a red-blooded guy that appreciates really good looking women. We just gotta learn to be cool and keep a grip on it...pun attended.

Bo on May 30, 2014

16

Man oh man do you sound like a programmed robot what with what's inappropriate to do in public. It's different in all cultures as to what's acceptable and what's not. You can't scratch your itch in public because you are so programmed not to? Wow...what a repressed person you must be. Why should we care for god's sake? Who made up these stupid rules and why do you so adamently follow them and require others to do the same? Relax man...you're not in control here...and by the way...it's all Christain related these rules you spout...poor sod!...sorry...but really!

Bo on May 30, 2014

17

I love me some boobs. But seriously, guys. Quit your whining. I don't have kids, but I'm an uncle. And I wouldn't want my 1st-grade nephew staring at this image when I take him to the theater. The MPAA really hasn't done anything wrong here. The existence of the internet (and websites like these and Reddit and the like) make all the complaints I read in this comment section moot, whilst accomplishing exactly what was intended when the image was created. Enjoy the boobs and quit complaining about public censorship.

Benjamin Hunter on May 29, 2014

18

So, it sounds like you're all for public censorship? And why in the world would you be so adverse to your 1st. grade nephew seeing this poster? What do you think, it's going to turn him into somekind of beast/monster? Man on man....I think the weird stuff is going on inside your head and not the kid's. Just sayin'...

Bo on May 29, 2014

19

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

20

Appreciate you reply, but really disagree with. What are you so afraid of? Let kids be innocent? Come on, man. Hide this from them and they will develop phobias and social hangups like you seem to enjoy. Kids will only develop social hangups and phobias if we as adults give it to them. What's wrong with discussions? Why do you label them awkward? Do you think kids don't pick up on that from you and adults like you? The fear; the inappropiate situations are created by you and other adults. Deal with it; treat kids with respect. All kids know when adults hide stuff from them. All you're doing is sending a message to kids that sex and beauty and desire are bad and thus you give them hangups about it. I'd rather my kid see a poster like this than those stupid Despicable Me movies that are nothing but lies and a false misrespresentation of life. And I stand by my statement re: adults fear of kids seeing posters of this type turning them into what?, somekine of sexual evil monsters and beasts? How can looking at a photo of a beautiful woman cause kids to have hangups and phobias? That's ridiculous! It's your reactions that will cause kids to have hangups and phobias!!

Bo on May 29, 2014

21

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

22

Context obviously plays a huge role. Boobs are intrinsically innocent. However, innocent boobs almost never happen in advertising. It's always on purpose.

Benjamin Hunter on Jun 5, 2014

23

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

24

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

25

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

John on May 29, 2014

26

America is so immature it's embarrassing sometimes to be from here. I've traveled a great deal and Europeans especially laugh at our hypocrital and puritanical views on sex and our dark, dark obsession with violence. I bet the guy below who wouldn't want his 1st. grade nephew to see this poster in a movie theatre would have no problem with the kid seeing posters with Stallone or Arnold with gun it hands spurting fire and bullets at unseen other humans. Weird stuff, man!

Bo on May 29, 2014

27

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

28

Excellent reply and excellent point re: strollers. Thanks.

Bo on May 30, 2014

29

Isn't she lovely?

DAVIDPD on May 29, 2014

30

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

Cal J. on May 29, 2014

31

Who ever didnt approve for this loves the cock.

redskulllives on May 29, 2014

32

Very funny...very funny indeed. Thanks.

Bo on May 30, 2014

33

Eva Green is just gorgeous in every way.

Chris Groves on May 29, 2014

34

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

35

Good reply and good point. Very mature and intelligent. Thanks.

Bo on May 30, 2014

36

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

37

Unnecessarily sexual? Umm...granted it was sexual. But unnecessarily so? When would you grant sexual nature to necessary vs. unnecessary? Just curious. It's actually quite a good photograph on an artistic level...and yes...very sexual...which is okay by be as I don't find it crude or in bad taste. Just a well shot photo and make its point.

Bo on May 30, 2014

38

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

39

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

J Damon on Jun 1, 2014

40

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

41

Okay, Andrew. I get it. Again, I just disagree with you. I understand you have a problem with children being exposed to life and its sexual component. That is taking the position that somehow sex is bad or evil or a destroyer of innocence. I say let the children see it. They are going to somehow somewhere anyway. Let them question me as to what it is, etc. and let me explain it to them like they are intelligent human beings, which they are. That's the way I raised my daughter. She's now an intelligent, very perceptive mature woman with a healthy outlook on all of life, including the sexual part as she's not had any problems of that nature so far...lol...Take care, I respect your right to feel as you do...I just disagree...it's cool...and you're right...it was all done for marketing purposes and seems to have worked. That type of manipulation is what I find distasteful...not the sexual nature of the poster.

Bo on Jun 1, 2014

42

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

43

Ahh...I see...okay, Andrew...'got' it!

Bo on Jun 1, 2014

44

Eva Green is one of the most sexiest actresses evah.

capitandelespacio on May 30, 2014

45

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

norcal1953 on May 30, 2014

46

I like to think that she improves that show.

capitandelespacio on May 30, 2014

47

One can only agree with the subtitle.

Snev De la Fontaine on May 30, 2014