Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Would you have concerns displaying this poster?

This is topic Would you have concerns displaying this poster? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000597

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-15-2002, 01:00 PM:

I think the image is funny as hell, but I imagine some communities would have problems with theatres that choose to display this. Maybe Lion's Gate will have to come up with a "green band" version...

What do you think?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 08-15-2002, 01:20 PM:

We would put that up in our lobby.

We put this one up in our lobby.

We got one complaint from a lady that we dissmissed as a crank. Most people love this poster.

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 08-15-2002, 01:30 PM:

...well, at least the seams in her stockings are where they're supposed to be!

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-15-2002, 03:11 PM:

I see no purpose in them other than to debase human sexuality and entice those with perverted sexual appetites into the theatre where the debasement continues.

Bob
The Old Showman

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 08-15-2002, 03:38 PM:

But Ian, I can't assume that you have many childern in your theater being Art. Would you display this if you were in a first run or sub run with little kiddies running around everywhere?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-15-2002, 03:43 PM:

The conservative side of me says

The liberal side says

----and I am a Democrat

Ah, Politics!

-Claude

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-15-2002, 04:27 PM:

Now that I had some fun with this topic, I would like to express my true opinion about the poster. I feel that if the theatre is frequented by people of all ages including children with or without their parents, the poster is very offensive and should not be displayed in the lobby. If the theatre is an art venue with primary adult patrons, the poster can be displayed but it should be done with caution because there are many adults that might find such a poster in very poor taste.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-15-2002, 06:14 PM:

Both are good college dormroom posters but that is about it.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-15-2002, 07:02 PM:

Actually Claude, in my opinion, conservatives are typically more supportive of the whole 'freedom of expression' thing while liberals are usually the ones who worry about people getting offended or feelings getting hurt. That being said, I do not believe the stuffed animal poster should be displayed in a theatre with children, but the Secretary one is fine by me. Kids won't get it anyway.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-15-2002, 07:05 PM:

I'm sure most children have scattered and/or piled their stuffed animals in their rooms somewhere and some may have fallen into the "positions" in which they are on the poster.

Question is, would a "little kiddie" really understand what the animals are "doing" in the poster? And if they do, then the problem is not the poster, but rather at home.

Adults think like adults. They look at the poster and see sex. Kids look at the poster and see stuffed animals. Same with foul language. Once a child is taught that a word is "bad" and finds out it has shock value, they will use it. On the other hand, when someone accidentally slips up and says "F--K" within young ears' reach, that word probably means as much to that child as "rectifier" or "dolby digital."

Personally, I would display it just to see what sort of complaints (if any) I would get.

=TMP=

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-15-2002, 07:24 PM:

I came up with a different approach to bad words where my kids are involved. The idea came up when I was trying to explain why my six year old girl cant have some of my beer.

I explained that this kind of drink is an Adult Drink, and when she is old enough, she can have some too. But it is too dangerous for the body of a small child.

She accepted this and so I took it a bit further. Mostly because she was picking up on mine and her mom's swearing problems. I explained that certain words are adult words, and that children get into a lot of trouble when they use them, but adults only get looked at funny. The words really shouldnt be used and that if she hears a word from me or her mom that even she can't use, it's wrong and she can slap our hands. My hands hurt a lot at first, but it worked. She does of course not slap anyone else, but just understands that she shouldn't use the words.

I never worry about her hearing the words, or see something. She is innocent, as most kids really are. We really shouldn't be so afraid of them seeing the world. If we deal with it right, they will to.

Dave

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-16-2002, 01:56 AM:

Chad,

It appears that you are not very well versed in political science because I can cite at least three examples proving that you got your facts backward but the Film Tech forum is not a place to talk politics and I will not discuss the subject anymore and I hope everyone will also do the same. Although I was just trying to be funny, I realize now that it was wrong to make a polital joke about the poster and I hope everyone will accept my apology.

-Claude

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-16-2002, 02:39 AM:

Just for the record a conservative is one who adheres to traditional methods or views being cautious and discreet.

A liberal is one who is open minded and not strict in the observance of traditional forms or ways.

I guess I fall in the middle. poster in art house with adult oriented films is fine. in the mainstreem more caution is needed.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-16-2002, 05:46 AM:

Claude, while I agree that the discussion of Politics is an unwritten no no here, although I find the humor of politcal satire is always good for a laugh.

I studied the science of politics in college rather heavily, and learned much more about it all than most people would ever know, or care to know. It was after all my studies that I found that I prefer to not BE in any party, or behave in a way that labels me. Instead, I free think. It's rare, but there are a few of us out there, and I would hope that this site has a greater majority of them than the general population.

Dave

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-16-2002, 11:16 AM:

Regarding "kids won't get it": You would be surprised what a lot of kids "get" these days.

To me the first poster is kind of funny, but offensive. The second one is just offensive (but the lady has nice legs!)

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 08-16-2002, 12:03 PM:

Those are the legs of miss Maggie Gyllenhall.
Very nice indeed.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-18-2002, 09:08 PM:

The theatre I work for would probably not display either of those posters. I like the one for "Secretary." I think the tagline is funny and I'd probably want to see it.

Does anybody remember the original poster for the 1980s Blake Edwards comedy, "Skin Deep" ?

That poster was recalled. It had John Ritter on a brazier strap as though he were teetering on a tightrope between two enormous breasts. As I recall, there was also a standee for that design. Everything had to go back.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-18-2002, 11:00 PM:

Controversial posters are nothing new.

Anyone remember the original poster for "Kingpin" featuring two bowling balls and one bowling pin strategically placed at Vanessa Angel's feet, under her spread legs? I can understand why my DVD of the movie doesn't have the same poster art.

There was some other REALLY BAD movie that came out in 1981 with Ryan O'Neal, which capitalized on the "designer jeans" craze (and I thought I'd forgotten all about those Jordache commercials). Gawd, what was that film? <IMDB impulse search>: "So Fine." I like the buns on the poster though. Since it is copyrighted art, I won't post it here, but there is a picture of it at IMDB.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-19-2002, 06:37 PM:

Bobby:

I think that copying artwork here in this type of discussion would constitute "fair use."

~Manny (as the director intended.)

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 08-19-2002, 07:21 PM:

Good advertising attracts attention and gets noticed. If people notice and/or talk about those posters than they have done their job as advertising. A lot of movie poster art is so dull these days that its great to see someone willing to take risks. I wouldn't put them up next to an auditorium playing a kids film, but I don't think they should be excluded from the multiplex just because someone finds them objectionable.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 08-27-2002, 01:53 AM:

I've run this film and believe me, the best thing about Rules Of Attraction is the poster (and only because I like teddy bears!). Unfortunately the rules of these forums and professional courtesy keep me from divulging why I have this opinion.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-26-2003, 01:38 PM:

Anybody else get the new Scary Movie 3 poster (the Rings)? I put it up but will probably take it down if we get any complaints.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-26-2003, 02:20 PM:

Yea, but would you put up this poster?

As seen everywhere on the streets of Amsterdam. [Big Grin]

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 03-26-2003, 03:54 PM:

Funnily enough the fluffy animals poster is plastered pretty much everywhere here - not just inside cinemas but on the walls of buildings like concert posters! Not much chance of stopping kids seeing it in Manchester!

David

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-26-2003, 04:44 PM:

Ian Price and Ron Jeremy - separated at birth?

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 03-26-2003, 05:31 PM:

HAHAHA!!!

Posted by Patrick McDonough (Member # 1363) on 03-27-2003, 07:19 AM:

We wouldn't put either poster in our lobby, But we would in the projection room. Well not the last one. [Big Grin]

Posted by Ray Bernardi (Member # 1615) on 03-27-2003, 06:01 PM:

There's no way I'd put that up where I live. I'd make all the local papers...

Hmmmm, all the local papers......

Hey - Where can I get me one of those... [Big Grin]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-27-2003, 09:04 PM:

Ian - When were you in Amsterdam?

=TMP=

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 03-28-2003, 12:36 AM:

Dear Gawd Ian!!! [puke]

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 03-28-2003, 08:56 AM:

And I - as before - i find, that apologies should be spared until You really stepped in something / on someone.
Of course, Claudes political thing was a joke, and jokes should be accepted anywhere, cause they help us through work every day.

The posters are to be rated - and not to be set up to offend neither nice nor young audiences (worse: their parents), how fun and well-done they ever are.

[thumbsup]

Posted by Brent Mahaney (Member # 1090) on 04-13-2003, 07:01 PM:

You know, I think that poster would go over really well here in the middle of the Bible Belt!

I can't even begin to imagine the uproar...we would be totally [sex]

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-15-2003, 05:14 PM:

Those 2 posters up top wouldn't pass muster in New Jersey -- not even in arthouses! The Rules of Attraction poster is funny in private but not in public. The poster for Secretary is just out-and-out sexist.

Lions Gate had to come up with new posters for the actual release. The 2nd poster for Secretary looks like a comic book cover. Without that 2nd poster Secretary would have tanked.