Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: MPAA Pulls 'The Hangover: Part II' Trailer From Movie Theaters?

This is topic MPAA Pulls 'The Hangover: Part II' Trailer From Movie Theaters? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=007144

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 04-06-2011, 09:44 AM:

MPAA Pulls 'The Hangover: Part II' Trailer From Movie Theaters?

Source: slashfilm.com

quote:
This week, movie theaters across the country received a notice asking them to remove the movie trailer for The Hangover Part II from Source Code and to delete the digital trailer files from their servers. /Film reader Chris sent us a photograph of the notice, which was sent out by Warner Bros Pictures but specifically mentions the MPAA. No reason for the removal is listed on the notice. We contacted Warner Bros for

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-06-2011, 11:16 AM:

No reason may of been given, but all you had to do was watch the trailer once and you knew why. When we got the trailer on one of our trail mix's I watched it right a way. While we were laughing, once it was over I said to the other manager that was with me. This will get pulled before the weeks over, the last joke was not going to sit well with the "regular" public. We didn't go a day before someone complained about it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-06-2011, 12:31 PM:

They showed the trailer at CinemaCon but for the life of me, I can't remember that last joke. I'll have to play the trailer and check it out.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-06-2011, 04:39 PM:

What was the "last joke"?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-06-2011, 11:03 PM:

I'm with Mike and Joe - I saw that trailer at CinemaCon too but I don't remember the "last joke." Someone enlighten us?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-06-2011, 11:35 PM:

According to Yahoo News:

"Hangover" Trailer Pulled Over Monkey Sex Scene! [Eek!]

quote:
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – A trailer for "The Hangover Part II," which features a monkey performing a simulated sex act, has been pulled from theaters.

The ad was not properly vetted by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which makes sure movie advertising isn't out of sync with the ratings system, and the group has asked distributor Warner Bros. to rectify the situation.

"In our haste to meet the placement schedule for this trailer, we failed to properly vet the final version with the MPAA. We acted immediately to correct the mistake and removed the trailer from screens," Warner Bros. said in a statement.

The studio would not discuss what was being tweaked, but insiders said a scene featuring a monkey sucking on a bottle placed under an old man's sarong was a likely target.

The trailer debuted in front of "Source Code" last Friday. The revised version will debut on April 15, in front of "Scream 4," which carries the same restrictive "R" rating as Hangover." The film opens in theaters on May 26.

"In our haste to meet the placement schedule for this trailer, we failed to properly vet the final version with the MPAA. We acted immediately to correct the mistake and removed the trailer from screens," Warner Bros. said in a statement.

Please! How does WB forget to run the trailer past the MPAA!? They did it on purpose. This kind of press (read: notoriety) is crafty marketing. Pure and simple. Otherwise, somebody needs to lose their job for "forgetting" to get a trailer approved. After all these years, there's no excuse. I ain't buyin' it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2011, 12:19 AM:

Me either. You know that trailer's getting millions more YouTube hits than it would have pre-controversy.

Movie studios are always VERY truthful and forthright though, so it's probably true. [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2011, 12:31 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Please! How does WB forget to run the trailer past the MPAA!? They did it on purpose. This kind of press (read: notoriety) is crafty marketing. Pure and simple.

I absolutely agree. This indeed has to be a very CYNICAL publicity stunt. As derivative, controlled, safe and predictable as Hollywood has become (thanks in part to its publicly traded global media conglomerate ownership) no decision can be made in production, distribution and marketing without the decision being literally focus grouped to death.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-08-2011, 08:48 AM:

So why doesn't the MPAA sue Warner's arse for publicly spreading falsifications?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-08-2011, 01:00 PM:

As far as I can tell, nothing "illegal" happened here.

The MPAA was created by the studios. The censorship is effectively self-imposed and, hence, in a legal sense, voluntary.

The most that would happen is WB would be fined.

The only danger is that if WB is let off easy then other studios might feel encouraged. If the MPAA is shown to have no power over the studios -- that is to say, if the industry can no longer be trusted to exercise self control -- then they are risking external censorship, which would be beyond their control.

And they don't want that! [Eek!]

I suppose a *parent* or a "sensitive viewer" might be able to sue. The logic being that trailers have a long history of being pre-screened (by MPAA/CARA and theatre operators) to ensure that nothing offensive will appear to an unsuspecting audience.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 04-09-2011, 10:42 PM:

Trailer #3 is out already and seems worse than #2. "Hooker" was replaced with "Whore" and a period of silence was replaced with "Weenus". This is supposedly the version that is approved to be on Scream 4 next weekend

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 04-10-2011, 05:10 PM:

I'm trying to follow this - how do trailer ratings work in the USA?

In The UK trailers are view by the British Board of Classification and are given a rating, exactly the same as a full feature.

So you know that if for example you have a PG main feature, any trailers can only be rated PG or lower.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2011, 02:58 PM:

Trailers used to be suitable for all audiences, but lately the tag at the front says "suitable for APPROPRIATE audiences." So they put the duty on the theatre to place trailers with the right sort of movies. Usually the rule of thumb is to only play trailers that are the same or less rating with a movie. (I.E. if you have a PG-13 feature you would not play any R trailers with it.)

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-11-2011, 10:38 PM:

Much-a-do about nothing! People, the MPAA BELONGS to the studios. It was created BY them to stave off congressional censorship -- a temptation that we all know politicians find almost as impossible to resist as crack is to a crack-addict. The studios drummed up this organization to which they enlisted Jack Valenti, not because he had the faintest knowledge about the motion picture industry but because he worked for the Johnson Administration and was a well-known, well placed Washington insider. The studios were very much afraid that Congress was about to do some motion picture "rating" of their own and the studios figured Valenti would be a good hack to have in their pocket. Evidently they were right. He literally invented the rating system in order to trump to the censorship mood of the politicians at the time. It worked.

It's ludicrous to think that anything a studio does that may be outside the MPAA "rules" will result in anything that would seriously hurt that studio. What will the MPAA do, kick Warners out of their club? Hardly. Give them a slap on the wrist? Yah....with a CGI green screen wet noodle. This is Hollywood -- EVERYTHING is fake.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-12-2011, 02:07 PM:

Well, given the censorship alternative I would say the MPAA is a good thing overall. Sure the "artistic" film-makers cry about the ratings not being fair or whatever, but if there were no ratings they'd find something or someone else to blame when chains refused to play their films.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2011, 02:54 PM:

I think the MPAA is largely irrelevant.

Movies were by and large very sanitized before the MPAA ratings system was adopted. Once the ratings system was put into effect that freed the movie studios to release films with content fit only for adults. Premium cable networks like HBO appeared years later to allow that adult oriented content to be broadcast uncensored on TV.

Today, feature films are pretty tame compared to some programming produced for cable TV. Premium channels like HBO and Cinemax routinely show "soft core" programming that definitely get a NC-17 rating if placed into a feature film. I think the Starz TV series Spartacus established some new extremes with depicting graphic violence.

The MPAA does little, if anything at all, to protect children from naughty and bloody content. The only venue where it is effective at all: commercial movie theaters. At home the same content is highly accessible. At any time of day one or more channels from HBO, Showtime, Encore, Starz, etc. could be playing R-rated movies. Some basic cable channels like Comedy Central play certain movies and TV shows uncut late at night.

If cable wasn't bad enough, there's the Internet. Anybody can find content with truly explicit sex and explicit violence with just a little searching.

Basically, parents now have a harder time than ever before watch-dogging what their kids watch in theaters or on TV and computer screens.