Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What do you do with risqué posters?

This is topic What do you do with risqué posters? 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=002527

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 08-20-2011, 07:31 PM:

My theatre is in a very small, fairly conservative town. And maybe this issue will be resolved for me in the next few months. But the poster for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? Yeah, there is no way I can put that out front. Surely I'm not the one with this situation? What do you do?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-20-2011, 08:07 PM:

...don't put it up. Put up stuff that is appealing, not offensive.

Posted by Ed Forth (Member # 5831) on 08-20-2011, 08:26 PM:

Agreed, you're under no obligation to advertise studio's movies if it will upset your customers

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 08-20-2011, 08:31 PM:

I totally hear you. But.... but... I'm excited about this movie! And our posters out front are a huge part of our advertising. (We're on Main Street, USA.) Sigh.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-20-2011, 08:42 PM:

How do they handle displaying magazines with risqué covers in the grocery store?

We've had the bus shelter size of that poster up in the hallway to our auditoriums for about a month now and we haven't had a single complaint. Even though this town in not as conservative as yours, we still have conservative customers who would say something if they objected to the poster.

My personal feeling is that if I'll be playing the movie, I'll display the poster. Unless the content is explicitly graphic, I feel that most people will accept that it's just advertising.

That being said, I am far more conservative about what I'll program on our lobby trailer reel. I didn't run Friends with Benefits because the content of the trailer was not appropriate for the mixed crowd that passes through the lobby.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-20-2011, 09:16 PM:

Hang it up, see what happens. You'd be surprised how little people care.

Ok just looked at the poster and will stick with the same advice, but if you feel the need to, just slap a COMING SOON strip over whatever you think is too risque

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2011, 11:39 PM:

Is this the poster:

If so, I can see where that might cause some problems. I agree with Martin, put a "coming soon" snipe across the naughty bits. (I'm surprised that got past the CARA.)

This poster continues the current, stupid trend of not putting the movie title on the poster. I still fail to see why they do this. WHY spend millions of dollars to market a movie and then not put the title on the damn poster? Even Disney, which has an expert marketing department, has fallen into this dopey pattern.

At least this one has the website, which sort of gives the title but a lot of them don't even have that.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-21-2011, 06:05 AM:

Do what they do with magazines in the grocery; use a brown bag (with the ragged edge)to cover the lower part. This will have 2 results: 1. Problem solved and 2. the imagination will sell the film.

Hollywood should have made it that way. Louis

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-21-2011, 11:29 AM:

Mike, I believe that is the international version of the poster. The American version has more shadow around her breast area, and I believe his arm has been moved lower. But still, pretty risque.

I can tell you what we do at my theatre, which is in a very conservative area... we have yet to put the Dragon Tattoo poster up, and we will not put this version up. End of story. Whether it's The Expendables or Machete or Dragon Tattoo, if it's filled with violent or sexual imagery, it doesn't go up. If the studio can't send a clean poster, it doesn't go up. End of story. I've had many discussions with distributors' exhibitor relations people, and they understand we will not help peddle their wares if they can't cooperate. Not that Dragon Tattoo is going to need a lot of promoting.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-21-2011, 01:29 PM:

The American version features Daniel Craig's arm in the same position (it's the same photo). The 12-21-11 date is set at a very large size over the middle of the poster. Parts of the numerals cover up Rooney Mara's nipples.

Do a Google Image search on "dragon tattoo poster." You'll see numerous examples of the poster.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-21-2011, 01:55 PM:

So this is the one in question.

I wouldn't have a problem putting this one up. I don't think it'd cause problems here, at least.

It's still a stupid poster though, without the title.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-21-2011, 02:44 PM:

Sometimes taking a restrained approach and making the ad statement into a riddle of sorts can do more to get attention. In this case, it's still pretty obvious this is an American re-make of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. The web site URL pretty much says what it is.

Another advantage of teaser posters: sometimes they can be more effective due to a far more simplified image. Standard movie posters can be a cluttered mess with all the credits, tag lines, various floating heads of actors, etc. Clutter turns into visual static that's easier to ignore. Refining an ad to a more simplified visual statement can allow it to "project" far faster and at greater viewing distances.

Brands like McDonald's, Target and Starbucks can get away with using only their trademark icons and ditch the lettering. I see a lot of McDonald's high rise signs that have no lettering at all, just the golden arches.

Most movies don't have the same level of "brand equity." However, with the way Hollywood loves to re-make and re-package everything and take fewer and fewer chances on completely new movies it's not hard to use the subliminal title-free approach on an already familiar property -like a new re-imaging of Spiderman or something.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-21-2011, 05:35 PM:

That is a pretty risqué poster for the States since everyone is such a prude. Personally, I think it's fantastic.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-21-2011, 06:28 PM:

I honestly didn't think it the laws of physics would allow it, but they somehow found an even uglier actress than the one in the original. The poster MUST show the boobs, otherwise people would think "That's a man, man!" I am quite serious about that. People might think it was "The Slightly Androgynous Man with the Dragon Tattoo".

Also, I didn't even know the old guy in the back was Daniel Craig until someone mentioned it.

Posted by Jerome Holmes (Member # 5013) on 08-21-2011, 06:33 PM:

You can even put a "film not yet rated" snipe across it. If its the first one, it will cover the bits you dont want, if its the second one, it can cover underneath the breasts to hide the blatant fact that she's actually naked. (they did it for us from the distrib)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-21-2011, 07:08 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I honestly didn't think it the laws of physics would allow it, but they somehow found an even uglier actress than the one in the original.

When she has normal looking hair, no metal stuff pierced in her face and normal, un-shaved eye brows Rooney Mara is pretty attractive. Still, someone needs to give her some food to get some meat on those bones. Too many Hollywood actresses seem to be living on a diet of Tic-Tacs.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 08-21-2011, 08:23 PM:

I originally thought the poster was referring to the foreign film of the same title...which I saw last year.

Mike

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-21-2011, 08:57 PM:

quote: Jerome Holmes
You can even put a "film not yet rated" snipe across it.

Better yet "This Film In English--No Subtitles!"

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-21-2011, 09:23 PM:

If I had any concerns about patron reactions to that poster, I would just do the "Coming Soon" thing and be done with it.

At the theatre where I worked when I was in college (late 1990s), we did this sort of thing anyway--each poster had a piece of paper attached to it with the dates and showtimes that the film would play. We also had some generic pre-made cards ("Coming Soon," "Starts Friday," "Held Over," "For Two Big Weeks," etc.) for films that didn't have confirmed dates yet. It shouldn't be hard to get something that looks decent if you have anyone on your staff with a modicum of artistic talent. (I have no artistic talent, but most theatres have at least one employee who does.)

As for the poster itself, I agree that not having the title is dumb. Since it has the same title as the German film from a few years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people show up expecting to see the original, not the remake. I would be reluctant to put up a poster like this in a theatre that plays lots of films aimed at children, but it would be fine in an art-house environment.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 08-21-2011, 11:34 PM:

quote: Joe F
I honestly didn't think it the laws of physics would allow it, but they somehow found an even uglier actress than the one in the original.

LOL. While I didn't find Noomi Rapace terribly attractive, I'm with you. Roomy is definitely worse.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-22-2011, 12:02 AM:

I'm actually laughing about this because this movie was a topic of conversation when I was out last night.

A female friend of mine named Jennifer was complaining about Rooney Mara being cast in the role because she was too pretty an actress to play the part. Jennifer had read the Millenium Series books before they were turned into movies. Her ex-husband is originally from Sweden and she found out about the books during a visit over there. Anyway, she has a certain image in her mind of how "Lisbeth" should really look. She's put off that Hollywood would just get a thin, pretty girl and make her look ugly. Her question: why not get an actress who truly looks like a street urchin, someone who wouldn't even look good in traditional makeup?

quote: Joe Redifer
The poster MUST show the boobs, otherwise people would think "That's a man, man!" I am quite serious about that.

This may be nit picking, but depending on the town boobs alone don't guarantee the person is a woman. IMHO, the hips and the hands are critical things to notice.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2011, 01:12 AM:

And an Adam's apple!

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 08-22-2011, 10:16 AM:

Yeah, I'll just cover her naughty bits with the title.

And for the record, Mara Rooney is very pretty! I bet it took some poor makeup artist hours to make her look awful. And she's still not as scary as Noomi Rapace, who is also quite lovely.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-22-2011, 12:18 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
This may be nit picking, but depending on the town boobs alone don't guarantee the person is a woman.

Especially in Oklahoma, where the women all look so manly in the first place.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-22-2011, 06:25 PM:

I don't know which places you're choosing to hang out, but manly looking isn't how I would describe most women in Oklahoma. There's no shortage of people with serious problems with weight and other health issues. But the Sooner State has quite a bit of "talent" when it comes to beautiful women.

Posted by Jen Pelto (Member # 6447) on 08-22-2011, 07:30 PM:

I have seen "edited" versions of this poster floating around. Not sure if it was "user-edited", and the same one is just being copy/pasted, or if the studio released a more edited version.

It's a black bar going across the female bits.

It would be wise of the studio to make a polished edit though, if it was not them!

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-22-2011, 08:55 PM:

Neither of these actresses is anywhere near a beauty and both
are somewhat anorexic looking. Waaay to skinny to appeal to me.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-22-2011, 10:42 PM:

The "Lisbeth" character in the original novel was no beauty. Just going by what my friend Jennifer told me the character was boyishly androgynous, very young yet still very rough looking. Neither film version pushed this far enough in the casting. They made safer choices with the American version even more so in playing it commercially safe. It's probably a factual statement how movie audiences prefer people to be portrayed in unrealistic, idealized ways via actors with a combination of natural good looks and additional surgical help.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2011, 11:54 PM:

quote: Melanie Loggins
I bet it took some poor makeup artist hours to make her look awful.

Why even bother when there are many starving, ugly actresses that can't land a role to save their lives? Give them a chance! People kept saying that Naomi Rapeface was pretty as well.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-23-2011, 12:54 AM:

I looked at ours tonight and found there is a "This film is not yet rated" snipe just below the 12-21-11. It mostly covers the shape of her breast so you don't notice that she's topless. The way they positioned the 12-21-11, you don't even see the nipple piercing unless you look for it, and even they you can't really tell it's her nipple.

I wasn't there the day the poster came in, so I don't know if the snipe was attached or if my employees added it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-23-2011, 09:21 PM:

Hey, there's not title -- slap the title across her boobs. But I like the idea of just letting it stand and then seeing how your audience reacts to the nipple. You know the old saying, cut a nipple off with a chainsaw and no one raises an eyebrow; lick it with a tongue and they want to hang you by the dick hairs.

Be that as it may, just leave it up and if you start getting lots of complaints, you can then slap the title or "No Yet Rated" cover-up over the offending pierced nipple. Or you can even use it for a bit of self-promotion; if you start getting lots of complaints, agree to take it down in the interest of modesty or morality or decency or whatever else seems to motivate the personally offended types. Try to get some local reporter to cover the "controversy" which taking down a sexy poster certainly will be construed as.

Whatever, I certainly wouldn't fret over it -- take it down, leave it up, you still come out a hero to one group or the another.

Posted by Tommy Zackariasson (Member # 6505) on 09-26-2011, 04:02 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
That is a pretty risqué poster for the States since everyone is such a prude.

Agree Aaron and yes it is fantastic, the original is Swedish [Cool]

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 09-27-2011, 01:07 PM:

We're not all prudes, Tommy. I like it. Makes me want to see the movie.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-27-2011, 01:24 PM:

I've watched all 3 of the Swedish language movies (with subtitles, thank you very much) and read all 3 of the books. They are uniformly excellent. I'm really looking forward to the Sony release.

Posted by Mike Rivest (Member # 5500) on 09-27-2011, 05:07 PM:

In Quebec they used to censor the movie posters.
This one was banned. http://www.impawards.com/1981/for_your_eyes_only_ver1.html

The theatre had to paint over the legs in order to get it passed, newspaper ads were also censored.
Grand opening for the Palace 6 in Montreal: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30943004@N00/4683827572/in/set-72157622950183105

This is no longer the case in Quebec
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30943004@N00/3952222570/in/set-72157614312959840

Posted by Tommy Zackariasson (Member # 6505) on 09-28-2011, 02:34 PM:

quote: Bruce McGee
We're not all prudes, Tommy.

I know Bruce, just some swedish prejudices about Americans shining through...but I know there is a lot of funny beeps and blurrs on TV over there...
Don't get me wrong, I've visited the land of the free many times and I like it, especially the people, the generosity is unbeatable!

Tommy