amusing

[interstice]

I find it hard to believe that I've never seen a shot like this in a movie.
(It only applies to advertising material not the movies themselves.)

http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/the_mpaa_thinks_youre_stupid

Sourced from this interesting site: http://www.theagitator.com

Comments

[suicide-sam-e.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, in general I would say that pointing a firearm at anyone is poor advertising. (Though the effect loses something if done with a bow.) No one wants to be shot at. Look at "Join the Army of One" ads--severely downplay the "people shoot at you" aspect of military service.

Aside from that the MPAA 1. Sucks. 2. Is probably right, on at least a few levels in this case. I do not see how this is really an issue. I guess making the general public feel threatened is a key component of the atmosphere they're building for the project?

[suicide-sam-e.livejournal.com]

They should riff off of "Uncle Sam"! Have the poster assassin pointing at the viewer and holding a ready weapon in the other hand, like they're raising it to fire.

Damn, I should be an art director; I'm so damn clever!

[random-walker.livejournal.com]

The truth is in between our apparent gut reactions. It was actually a scene in a trailer and not a poster. I still have trouble seeing how it can be OK for the movie itself, but not for the trailer. Since trailers themselves have ratings, the trailer should just get whatever rating that scene earned the movie (probably PG, since it was after all a firearm and not a tit).

Then again since the actual movie is not unduly affected (beyond, again, the stupidity of the rating system and its puritanical mores) it isn't really worth a notice anyhoo.