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

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » MPAA Pulls 'The Hangover: Part II' Trailer From Movie Theaters? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

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

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-06-2011 04:39 PM

What was the "last joke"?

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 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?

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 04-08-2011 08:48 AM

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

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Althaus
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: Bedford, TX
Registered: Dec 2008

posted 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

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.)

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.