digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at filmschoolrejects.com —

More MPAA Troubles for Zack and Miri Make a Porno

filmschoolrejects.com — Kevin Smith may have won the war a few weeks ago when he successfully appealed his new film ’s rating from an ‘NC-17′ to a commercially viable ‘R’, but he’s apparently lost the battle. The MPAA has officially rejected the new poster for Zack and Miri Make a Porno for its sexually suggestive imagery, and EW.com caught up with Smith to get his thought

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tom10803, on 09/03/2008, -3/+57Its just a movie!
    • simoncallesen, on 09/04/2008, -6/+5It's*
    • RadiatedAnt, on 09/04/2008, -4/+1A porno movie :D ... I likes
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 09/04/2008, -2/+3It's just a poster for a movie at that. Who gives a crap?!
    • skellener, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Forget the movie, it's just a poster!!
  • Kinsbane, on 09/03/2008, -2/+61I could understand their ire if, say, less clothes were involved. In which case, if there were less clothes on Seth Rogen, then I wouldn't want them to put out that poster either.
    • Laminarcissus, on 09/04/2008, -0/+25The only thing the MPAA has to be mad about is how effectively they're being played for free publicity.
  • gavinhudson, on 09/03/2008, -4/+116If that's "sexually suggesting imagery," then the folks at MPAA need to get out more often.
    • dirtyhipster, on 09/04/2008, -15/+4what? I was able to spank it to that easily...
    • fadetoone, on 09/04/2008, -0/+33Welcome back to Puritan America.
  • gdeanu, on 09/03/2008, -13/+17it'd be a crying shame if a parent had to explain to their child why there is hair at the bottom of a poster.
    • buckrogers1965, on 09/04/2008, -0/+24"They are just being silly." There, that wasn't so hard was it?
    • PosedMagnet, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7I sure hope you're being sarcastic...

      This "omg think of the children" BS is getting WAY too out of hand.

      Sooner or later adults are gonna have to live in secrecy of their normal everyday world just to isolate and "protect" their children. Yikes.
    • TaylorSPL, on 09/04/2008, -0/+9This reminds me of the time I was at the San Diego Zoo and saw some kind of monkey jerking off with some kids watching. Comedy gold I tell you.
    • Logicexe, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5You mean parents might actually have to talk to their children about sex in an open and frank manner... OH NOES!!!
    • domdunc, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2actually it'd be pretty lulzy
  • scottmbeggs, on 09/03/2008, -3/+69So we think the children are going to be asking, "Mommy, what's at the bottom of that poster?" and not "Mommy, what does 'porno' mean?"

    Way to suck again MPAA!
  • ScrewedThePooch, on 09/03/2008, -4/+71***** THE MPAA!
    • RolltheStampede, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1I think If they were indeed getting ***** they wouldn't have a problem with the Movie Poster
  • Tochi, on 09/03/2008, -2/+81The good luck Chuck movie poster mentioned in the comments (which is worse):

    http://www.impawards.com/2007/good_luck_chuck.html
    • bullsfan03, on 09/04/2008, -1/+28I just threw up a little in my mouth.
    • btschul, on 09/04/2008, -1/+6That was the ***** creepiest thing I have ever seen. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a dismembered head.
    • lordtyros, on 09/04/2008, -0/+14That is the official reference for the term "*****-eating grin"
    • TheWorm, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6??? How does that fly with the MPAA but this one doesn't?? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
      • pixelate, on 09/04/2008, -0/+8The MPAA is notorious for being much more intolerant of (even the visual suggestion of) oral sex on females in movies than oral sex on males. Maybe that's part of it.

        It's ridiculous, anyway.
      • bman1984, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4If I had to wager a guess, I would say the MPAA does not like what Kevin Smith puts in his movies. Since they are not able to control content, they just harass him with every other aspect. Pure lunacy is the only way to describe this.
      • domdunc, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1i think pixelate hit the nail on the head. female pleasure during sex seems to be an MPAA hot-button.
    • zewm, on 09/04/2008, -1/+24I hate Dane Cook.
      • Cowmin, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3I personally like him. For instance, here's my favorite Dane Cook joke ever...
    • below413, on 09/04/2008, -0/+12I bet that's a long-haired blond dude.
    • darthjure, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1I predict Zack and Miri will do about as well in theaters as Chuck. I hope they're enjoying the attention now.
    • kocurejd, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4The only bad thing about that poster is the quote: "There's something funny about Dane."

      No, no there is not.
  • tomh218, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Sounds like an awesome movie.
  • thrikulam, on 09/04/2008, -6/+15wah wah wah ITS A MOVIE ABOUT MAKING PORN FOR CHRISSAKES

    does anyone really have a complaint about this -_-
  • Trav3133, on 09/04/2008, -21/+5seth rogan is boring.
  • Ryan32, on 09/04/2008, -2/+53This is blatant retaliation on the MPAA's part... It's absolutely ridiculous that there is a private organization that can decide what is/isn't kosher. Nothing should be banned, instead it should be up to the theatres and advertisers whether or not something should be posted in certain locations....

    Besides, I've seen horror movie posters that are 100x worse than that. MPAA just keeps making more and more enemies.
    • insomniac8400, on 09/04/2008, -7/+14The worst part is that the org is full of Sarah Palins. A bunch of people that feel God compels them to force their beliefs onto everyone else.
      • Ryan32, on 09/04/2008, -11/+3As if the rest of digg didn't have enough Palin crap... You just had to spin this in that direction...

        Also can you please cite sources that show where Palin has voted on anything that pushes her personal beliefs? She has a right to believe in whatever she wants just like anyone else, but to my knowledge she has never voted to force her views on anyone.
      • insomniac8400, on 09/04/2008, -1/+6Being anti-abortion is a huge one. She wants to control everyone else's lives.
      • DreKor, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1I guess I'll be an ***** and continue this off topic political bickering.

        "She has a right to believe in whatever she wants just like anyone else, but to my knowledge she has never voted to force her views on anyone."
        Why would you want to elect someone who doesn't act on their beliefs? Someone who's personal convictions are so secondary that they don't stand up for them isn't strong enough to be in a position of power.
      • insomniac8400, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1I don't think you get it.
        Pro-choice = you can be for or against abortion, but people can make their own choices
        Anti-abortion = you are very against abortion and because of that no one else can get one either.
        If someone is willing to control other peoples lives over abortion, I doubt they will stop there. That is why anyone who is anti-abortion is scary in politics. You cannot trust them with power.
    • Laminarcissus, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3Settle down everybody, the MPAA is just being used by the movie company to get free publicity.

      They intentionally go to far, the MPAA says no, everybody has a (widely promoted) hissy-fit, and then the movie company caves with some (widely promoted) indignation about the state of our country (and be sure to come see the film if you hate everything the MPAA stands for!)

      It's why PR flacks get the big bucks.
      • TaylorSPL, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5Yeah, they went WAAAAY too far with those tufts of hair down there.
      • Laminarcissus, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1For something that will be distributed nationally and displayed publicly in every corner or the country (like the Bible Belt) it is too much. The MPAA represents the most conservative common denominator among fall 50 states.

        It's not my values, I don't care, and I live in New York City so big deal, but the film company knew full well it wouldn't pass the Mobile, Alabama test, while still being provocative enough to be distributed to every corner of the Internet.

        The art of beautifully executed free film promotion should be the point of this story.
      • jameskong15, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1The idea that movie posters in my area have to pass the "Mobile, Alabama test" makes me sick. Just another example of morality pushers doing their thing.
      • Laminarcissus, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1@jameskong15:

        Why? They can't (always) produce new materials to reflect social standard in every area.

        And anyway, Mobile, Alabama's science textbooks have to pass the "rest of the country" test, and they're not always happy with that. Would you have the "pushers" lay off there too?

        This is a country, we live together, finding a center ground on values is part of the point.
    • ptheroux, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2The MPAA isn't really a private entity. Yes, it is privately owned and run, but it was created in the 60s by the movie studios under pressure from the government. The government basically said, "Start censoring yourselves or we will." So the movie studios created the MPAA. The culprit is the long arm of government, not the right of private organizations to do what they want.
  • GregFD3S, on 09/04/2008, -3/+10I'll see it, I don't care what the rating is.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3thats the problem. you won't be able to see it, because most large theatre chains as policy will not show an NC17 film, so it will only be in small indie places. Theatres will be sqeamish to show a film that has such a harsh rating.
    • bagboyrebel, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3You missed the point, the rating was already lowered to an R. The problem now is that the poster is apparently "too sexually suggestive".
  • hhswatkins, on 09/04/2008, -0/+37Am I the only one who didn't even notice the comical use of the hair and the "coming soon" at the bottom until reading about it in the article?
    • jordansky, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2I was just about to comment on that, but you get my dig instead.
  • everlast88, on 09/04/2008, -1/+8kevin cannot catch a ***** break can he?
    • Velnich, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Not regarding anything sex related in the US he can't.
  • CobaltBlue, on 09/04/2008, -0/+13I imagine they are very upset about the free publicity.
  • KingPsyz, on 09/04/2008, -0/+36Yes posters for the Hostel series, Saw series, etc. are so much more acceptable.
  • P1um, on 09/04/2008, -1/+9Seth Rogen is pure win
  • doublefelix, on 09/04/2008, -3/+7
    For those who haven't downloaded the entire movie already. The Trailer:

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008989-10008989- ...
  • wwwonka, on 09/04/2008, -0/+16Who's to say that the top of the heads don't belong to people in a wheelchair? That's what I see. but they are naked of course.
    • Animal, on 09/04/2008, -0/+7Good point. Personally I thought they were having someone tie their shoes for them.
  • tiberone, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7'Do either Seth Rogan’s or Elizabeth Banks’ expressions look familiar? If so, which one?'

    Umm...I dunno?
    • tidu, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Seth Rogen has a "Who is sucking my dick?" expression
  • Lynxplus, on 09/04/2008, -7/+6It's win the battle lose the war. The other way makes no sense since the war is the greater instance of the two. Buried for -headline skills.
    • tiberone, on 09/04/2008, -2/+2Good point.
    • syndustry, on 09/04/2008, -1/+5yes but the war would be getting a theater appropriate rating...not a ***** poster.

      buried for- douchebagginess
    • NotOptium, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2You missed the point. They know the saying. They switched it on purpose.
  • doritostapatio, on 09/04/2008, -17/+8Who gives a *****, Kevin Smith hasn't made a good movie since Mallrats and Seth Rogan hasn't been funny since 40 year old virgin...yeah I said it.
    • acomj, on 09/04/2008, -5/+2oh please people. Knocked up? Not funny or good. He's right about Seth Rogan and its just an opinion. Stop digging him down. I thought some of Kevin Smiths movies were good after Mallrats...
      • Protoss, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3See, people have these things called 'opinions', sometimes they are different than yours.
    • SRSco, on 09/04/2008, -5/+2Kevin Smith has never made a good movie.
    • triont, on 09/04/2008, -0/+4Superbad?
  • ap1983, on 09/04/2008, -1/+7Seriously, is there one person here who wouldn't see the movie simply based off the poster?
    • synystar, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2I'll raise my hand. I'll watch it if I'm very bored or if enough people convince me that I'm not wasting my time. I won't go see movies even if the trailer kicked ass. Puts money in those assholes pockets and I come away $30-$40 bucks poorer because someone said it was good.
      • Cowmin, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3What kind of fancy ass town are you from that makes you pay $30-$40 to see a movie?
      • ZenLa, on 09/04/2008, -0/+0man, I always forget to tip my projectionist $20-$30 dollars
    • goosegoosegoose, on 09/04/2008, -3/+1Me, and that's because Kevin Smith had some input, which means it's going to suck ass.
  • c010rb1indusa, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3That's the best movie poster I've ever seen
  • Striff, on 09/04/2008, -5/+2America (my country) once again proves why it FAILS!
  • PosedMagnet, on 09/04/2008, -4/+19HAN SOLO AINT NEVA HAD NO SEX WITH PRINCESS LEIA IN THE STAR WAR.
    • mrinsanity, on 09/04/2008, -0/+3I know i'm gonna get dugg down for acting like Buzz Killington but.... is that from something? I'm out of the loop on this one :(
  • DigitalHippie73, on 09/04/2008, -10/+5Who cares, can any of you even remember the last good movie Kevin Smith made? The guy is more overrated than a girls gone wild video.
  • BikerDude69, on 09/04/2008, -8/+5Marketing gimmick. Buried.
  • DeuceDiggalow, on 09/04/2008, -5/+1lol the poster for the is funny
  • jerrycurley, on 09/04/2008, -8/+2Kevin who?

    Is this the mid 90s?
  • Breeto, on 09/04/2008, -4/+1Who gives a ***** if Kevin Smith hasn't made a good movie in a while, it's not whats being argued. The poster should stay the way it is and parents need to stop censoring their kids from stuff they probably don't understand
  • AWBoy666, on 09/04/2008, -8/+2I'm sorry, but I really wouldn't want my 6yo little sister asking me why their heads were there. The poster, in my mind, is obscene. I can see why the MPAA didn't approve it.
    • Daggorath, on 09/04/2008, -1/+10Just lie to her like you do about santa claus, the easter bunny, and God... :P
    • WiretapStudios, on 09/04/2008, -2/+1Let me explain it to her then. I promise I'll be gentle.
  • Socratores, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5I think the MPAA has an axe to grind with Kevin because he appeared in
    the This film is not yet rated doc.

    Just a guess.
  • FatBird19, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1Seth Rogen on the right, you're doing it wrong...
  • blacklilyninja, on 09/04/2008, -0/+5can we just create a new system and leave these MPAA idiots out of the equation?

  • RAEP, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3A) It's a Kevin Smith film. B) It's got "porno" right in the title. C) RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE
    • h4mx0r, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE! ARRRRRRRRRR!
  • fxu1989, on 09/04/2008, -1/+11OH GOD!! Will somebody please think of the children!!!????

    Thank God the MPAA caught this before many children see this and pop a boner!!!
  • hexydes, on 09/04/2008, -2/+7This is stupid. Next time, don't use the Hollywood system. You have plenty of money at this point, Kevin Smith. Just make a good movie, get a website for it, and post it online and set up a voluntary payment system, a la NIN. As long as the quality was good (720p or higher), I'd probably drop $5-10 on it to download and watch on a Friday night. As it stands, I go to maybe 4-5 movies in the theater per year, and I can't honestly say this is going to be one of them. Sorry, but I just hate the whole experience that "going to the movies" has become, from the cost, to the other theater patrons. I have a nice home theater setup at home for a reason, and it'd be great if one of those reasons could be "to watch the new Kevin Smith movie".

    Oh, and Digg, FIX YOUR STUPID JUMPING COMMENTS BUG. GOD THIS IS ANNOYING!
    • mrinsanity, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Dugg for the jumping comments bug. Seriously, can we get that fixed? I can haz bug ficks plz?
  • TaylorSPL, on 09/04/2008, -0/+6***** them. Release this ***** unrated. I'll go see it still. I'm going to go download a movie in protest now.
  • DarkSideofMoon, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Kind of unrelated... but I got tickets to An Evening With Kevin Smith in Edmonton! I'm sure he'll bring up the story with this one.

    Anybody else here going?
  • unknownsoldierX, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Nobody points out the obvious error in the description? He won the war but lost the battle?
    • Spudster, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2The poster is not the war, getting the movie into theaters with an acceptable rating was the war.
      • LilJimmyNordin, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1Freedom of expression is the war, and America loses. Again. You guys must like having rich white Christians continually tell you what you can't have because it's for your own good.
  • cruzer2727, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2Good free PR.
  • physicalzero, on 09/04/2008, -1/+5Dugg for making me think about Elizabeth Banks' vajayjay.
  • mrwoo, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1Why is it alright to suggest people getting blown up, shot or any other violence but suggesting oral sex, this is not alright. I seriously don't understand it. Why is sex seen as a worse thing than violence? Maybe the MPAA should try it.

    You know i think kid's are damaged more by seeing a guy pointing a gun at someone than they are if they see a guy or girl apparently positioned for something pleasant!

    Seriously is it just me that feels this way?
  • 1CON, on 09/04/2008, -0/+0Really I mean really? They could just be getting their shoes polished!
  • IamNOTmrT, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1To me it looks like they're both on an escalator. What's the problem?
  • megadan76, on 09/04/2008, -0/+2It's (another) good day to be Canadian.

  • SaintDeuce, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1Just a friend tying the shoe of a friend, if you ask me.

    Right before they give each other head.
  • h0ser, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1why do they listen to the mpaa. It's a poster, get a third party to put it up and you won't be liable.
  • griffyfan, on 09/04/2008, -1/+0They're crucifying Rogen on this. He's made a crap load of hilarious movies (like my new favorite, Pineapple Express! lol) It's a freaking poster, they're reading WAY too much into this.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.