web
counter
 

20 Movie Posters that Have Been Banned Somewhere for Being Too Profane, Gruesome, Provocative, or Offensive

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (42)



captivity_banned_large.jpg

11.jpg

13.jpg

5881105_f496.jpg

5881107_f496.jpg

banned_posters_larry.jpg

banned_posters_outlaw.jpg

banned_posters_rules.jpg

shoot_em_up_ver4.jpg


Captivity02.jpg

The-Last-Exorcism-banned--001.jpg

final-destination-5-poster-banned_101012.jpg

Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side.jpg

Priest_movie_poster_4.jpg

postebnndr.jpg

banned_posters_spit.jpg

5.jpg

medium_27879-2.jpg

8.jpg

sawbnned.jpg










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



In Which We Talk A Lot About Breasts. Not Just Christina Hendricks' Breasts. But Those Too. | Perfect Sense Review: This Movie Has Something For Everyone - Both Ewan's Mc and His Gregor, and Eva's Greens









Comments

I have to say, that Last Exorcism poster is pretty impressive. Crap movie though.

So basically, blood, boobs, or butts is verboten, eh?

Posted by: Ghisent at February 2, 2012 4:06 PM

I dont get why Taxi to the Dark Side or Shoot 'em Up would be controversial. Seem very tame.

Posted by: DamnYankees at February 2, 2012 4:07 PM

I can answer that, DamnYankees. Taxi to the Dark Side was banned because the MPAA had some sort of post 9/11 rule against people with hoods over their heads. The Shoot Em Up poster was banned in the UK for aggressive violence, aka, it looks like the gun is being pointed at the person looking at the poster. Weird, yes?

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at February 2, 2012 4:27 PM

"Taxi to the Dark Side was banned because the MPAA had some sort of post 9/11 rule against people with hoods over their heads."

I just...what? I mean, I understand the words in that sentence, but it doesn't cohere. What is the connection between 9/11 and people with hoods on their head?

Some sort of collective MPAA denial of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?

Posted by: DamnYankees at February 2, 2012 4:28 PM

Something like that; the Hills Have Eyes poster was banned for similar reasons. And yes: Something to do with Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at February 2, 2012 4:32 PM

I kinda like the Teeth one.

Also, fuck head-in-the-sand, don't-admit-what's-really-going-on censorship.
(JUST. SAYING.)

Posted by: MM at February 2, 2012 4:44 PM

I don't get Thirst.

My assessment of Taxi to the Dark Side is a terrorist shouldn't be casting the red, blue and white behind him.

And I'm rather surprised that Ali G's hand is not lower so that the middle and ring finger could be perfectly out of view by being inside...

Posted by: haplo at February 2, 2012 4:47 PM

" the Hills Have Eyes poster was banned for similar reasons. "

I would have thought it would be banned for the same reasons as Captivity - it's just too horrifying. It's a well done poster, very evocative, but extremely unsettling. Well done to whoever designed that one.

Posted by: DamnYankees at February 2, 2012 4:49 PM

RE: The rule about people with hoods on their head.

So it makes a difference which cheeks you cover up?

Or as my little niece asked my zaftig sister, "Mommy, why are you wearing your butt crack under your chin?"

Posted by: BWeaves at February 2, 2012 4:49 PM

1. Heartbreaking, disillusioning, sorrow.
2. Whatever
2. Gross
4. Yuck
5. Ew
6. Did they really think they'd get away with it?
7. Funny
8. Booby
9. Not so much with the children's toys having sex.
10. Finally, a Giamatti I can get behind
11. Someone arm the N.O.W.
12. Medic!
13. Really?
14. Well, ya! DUH!
15. It just screams, "Ya, but aren't they all?"
16. So much sadness. Disgust. More sadness.
17. I've seen worse.
18. See? This is worse.
19. I got nothin'
20. And yet they can't show a nipple?

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 2, 2012 4:51 PM

Aaaaand, thank you for that.
I could live the rest of my whole life wondering what was going on in that header pic because I will not see that movie. Ever.

Posted by: daria at February 2, 2012 5:16 PM

The Shoot Em Up poster was banned in the UK for aggressive violence, aka, it looks like the gun is being pointed at the person looking at the poster.

In the UK?! HOW many James Bond posters have had images like that?

Posted by: Todd at February 2, 2012 5:40 PM

The majority of people are just too fucking sensitive! If you are offended over something like a movie poster then you have mental issues and these mental issues are not caused by movies or anything else! I am so sick and tired of censorship! If you don't like something then don't watch, listen or read it, it's that fucking simple! And what these whiny stupid worthless babies that fight for things and people that they hate to get censorsed cannot realise is that one of these days it will be something they like or even themselves that will be! Get a life you fucking offended over anything pieces of shit!

Posted by: Nancy at February 2, 2012 6:22 PM

at least the UK censors violence along with nudity. It's still stupid, but not stupid AND puritanical.

Posted by: John G. at February 2, 2012 6:30 PM

Nancy, sweetie, honey, baby, the point of a movie poster is that it is advertizing which is strategically placed in public places so it will be seen by WHOMEVER IS THERE. You know, like a small child on the subway.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 2, 2012 6:33 PM

The one that confuses me the most is Final Destination 5. It's so... not real. No gore, nothing provocative. It looks like a high school science class' fake skull with some bolts in it.

Posted by: Artemis at February 2, 2012 6:34 PM

That's funny, I was just going to say that one oddly disturbs me the most. I think because I imagined what that would look like if the skull was fleshed out.

Posted by: Alabaster Salamander at February 2, 2012 6:45 PM

The Teeth one made me cackle. What was provocative about Shoot Em Up? Guns?

Posted by: Julie at February 2, 2012 6:49 PM

Thanks, @DamnYankees, *I* did the HHE2 poster, and I was really bummed when it got pulled. I'm quite proud of it. The banning received a decent amount of protest on Bloody Disgusting - that warmed my heart a little.

You know, it just bothered me that we can apparently put hoods on prisoners during detainment without trial, but not on a body model who's getting paid and going home to a hot meal.

Posted by: Ginger at February 2, 2012 7:19 PM

The Rules of Attraction poster is good clean fun! I have a t-shirt like that.

Posted by: The Wanderer at February 2, 2012 8:31 PM

Mrs. Julien, thanks for that. I was recently in a horrible car accident and a lot of these pictures immediately make me think of that. So I am pretty much ok with not having to run into one of those full-sized on a wall when I'm not expecting it.

Also I know a lot of little kids and I don't want to have to explain any of these. Although I was wondering about the Shoot'Em Up poster too.

Posted by: Anne At Large at February 2, 2012 8:35 PM

I hope you're okay and/or healing well, Anne.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 2, 2012 8:51 PM

Artemis, the final destination 5 poster is a flensed skull being penetrated by rebar, (reinforcing mild steel bars with ridges to provide better hold to drying concrete), rather than bolts.
Ginger. Sorry your poster was banned, it was way better than HHE2.

Posted by: mohshard at February 2, 2012 9:16 PM

wowwww!!!!!!!! I found a wonderful place for seeking casual lovers and one night stand thing… it is #### casual'mingle. 'co 'm ####,What r u waiting for? sign up free and get hooked up right now!!!!

Posted by: babycat at February 2, 2012 9:43 PM

Thanks mohshard, it was a bummer, but it did make me feel a little edgy. I'm too much of a good girl in real life.

Posted by: Ginger at February 2, 2012 9:46 PM

Me: *nods and shrugs at all the posters, stops and stares at Shoot 'Em Up, now confused*

Posted by: duckandcover at February 2, 2012 10:29 PM

That is the edited Thirst poster that was allowed. The one that was banned showed her spread legs on either side of him.

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/30942/thirst-poster-banned-then-revised-korean-market

Posted by: Conrad at February 2, 2012 11:53 PM

Thanks Mrs. J.

I think it is just fascinating that the MPAA seems to rate movies more based on sex and swearing than on the violent content and then most of these banned posters seem to be more for violent imagery than sexual, unpatriotic or irreligious imagery (I'm not going to go back and count). But I gotta say, so far, I don't mind.

It makes me curious if Nancy is a fan of violent movies and is not bothered by this kind of imagery. I always wonder what the hard core horror fans think of this kind of stuff. Or if it's just so disconnected from the real world for everybody else that it's not a big deal.

Posted by: Anne At Large at February 3, 2012 12:44 AM

Nancy, honestly, how do you think that your advice of "don't like it, don't watch it" could be followed when it comes to a poster? They're put in public places, are they not? It's there, you've seen it, it can't be unseen. Or should people blindfold themselves every time they take the subway?

Posted by: Sylvia at February 3, 2012 3:21 AM

I'm a horror fan. I'll click on the reviews and check out the trailers. If they seem well-made and thought out I'll go see them in the cinemas. That doesn't mean I want to be visually assaulted by gruesome images (usually of women being tortured) in public places. Remove the context and the images do take on new meaning.

Posted by: cinekat at February 3, 2012 4:32 AM

Shoot Em Up poster was not banned in the UK. I've seen those posters at bus stops. If there was one thing that they hadn't changed in order to release them, it's the guns pointing at the person watching. Those are pretty distinctive.

Meanwhile I have absolutely no idea what is wrong with the poster for Taxi To The Dark Side. I'm inclined to presume the issue was the content of the movie rather than the content of the poster.

Posted by: fatpie42 at February 3, 2012 12:19 PM

Hey Nancy are you the same Nancy who was shaking her shame-on-you-finger at all of us for not being more compassionate to Demi Moore in the Sucks To Get Old thread, and asking us all how we'd like to have our private life invaded all the time? If so, then I would like to assert here that I appreciate not having my eyes invaded by these images against my will or without my having a choice to see or not to see them. Capish?

If you are not the same Nancy, well, might I suggest you take a Valium? Just a suggestion. Your choice, of course, love.

Posted by: klingonfree at February 3, 2012 12:35 PM

I do not watch or read horror, because it opens a door in my subconscious, and what is let out is far, far worse than anything I might see on screen. I don't want to know that my brain can go to that place, and I take great care to protect myself from that particular level of macabre imagery. Hence, I do not wish to see graphic movie posters without warning, so I don't mind that some of these have been deemed too upsetting to put on the side of a bus or a billboard on the highway. With enough warning, I can shut off my reactions and preserve the illusion that I am a decent human being who would never consider carving something up just to see it squirm.

Posted by: Reba at February 3, 2012 1:00 PM

I vote for Thirst and Rules of Attraction for best. posters. EVER.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at February 3, 2012 2:04 PM

Wow so if I would not have been the Nancy asking people if they would like to have their personal life exposed and being harrassed every single seconds of their life then I should took valium because I said to people to stop being offended over stupid things like movie posters? Okie dokie klingonfree. As for the other people who also talked to me but without being a fucking dumbass, yes I am a fan of horror movies but even if I would not be I would still say the same thing. So what if kids see these? It will not screw them up and it will not make them violent either! These posters and these movies are fiction and fiction is not real.

Posted by: Nancy at February 3, 2012 7:13 PM

It's not about censorship, it's about protection of public places from images that may offend. If I want to look at any of these I can see them on the Internet or buy them if I want to hang them in my home.

Posted by: Me at February 3, 2012 9:53 PM

It's not about censorship, it's about protection of public places from images that may offend. If I want to look at any of these I can see them on the Internet or buy them if I want to hang them in my home.

Posted by: Me at February 3, 2012 9:54 PM

Hey, is it the same shapely chick in both The People vs. Larry Flynt and Ali G posters? Looks like the same curves to me. :)

Posted by: Kimberly at February 4, 2012 1:29 PM

Protection of public spaces? Protection from what exactly? These are just posters! Posters are not alive! Posters are not dangerous! And again if you are offended over a movie poster then you have issues.

Posted by: Nancy at February 4, 2012 6:22 PM

Nancy, you may have noticed that just above Reba explains that violent imagery can affect her very badly. You have an example of someone who IS hurt by this imagery right there.

What's more, the issue here is whether the posters can be displayed publically and that includes being displayed to very young children. We have age ratings for films so that people can be informed about what they might be exposing younger people to BEFORE they see it. Children can handle a lot, but when children see something that upsets them it is their parents who have to deal with that and to be quite frank I think there is good reason to spare parents that issue in the case of some of this imagery.

Posted by: fatpie42 at February 5, 2012 11:02 AM

If you don't want to explain things to children then don't have any children! Kids asks questions, that is how they learn. No parent will die just because they explained to their child that a movie poster is just a movie poster and no parent will die because they had to explain to their child the difference between real and fake violence. And like I said if someone is hurt in any way by things like that then they have issues and these issues are not at all caused by the things that freaks them out (Reba's post is a PERFECT example of that!!!!)!

Posted by: Nancy at February 5, 2012 4:30 PM

Doesn't matter what you tell 5-year-old me, 5-year-old me is still gonna have fuckin' nightmares after seeing what is apparently a human ribcage laid bare. Boobs are fine.

Posted by: HappyGobo at February 14, 2012 11:01 AM