The Ninjabot

Eva Green’s MPAA Approved SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR Poster

Posted on June 6, 2014 at 6:56 pm by David "Snackbar" Edmundson


Remember that children’s game where two images are laid side by side and you have to spot the differences? Well, that’s kind of what the new Sin City: A Dame to Kill For posters featuring Eva Green are like, just with more boobs. If you’re just getting caught up on this little controversy, it all started when the MPAA rejected a risque poster for The Weinstein Company film. Green herself then responded to the non-news story in full support of the film and the poster. The latest (and likely last) news on this issue is that the MPAA has approved a slightly photoshopped poster that’s more to their liking.

Also starring Jessica Alba, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Josh Brolin, Bruce Willis, Jaime King, Dennis Haysbert, Christopher Meloni, Jeremy Piven, Ray Liotta, Juno Temple, Stacy Keach, and Julia Garner, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For opens on August 22nd.

Take a gander at the before and after posters for Sin City: A Dame to Kill For below (via Page Six):


What a scandal, huh? Glad we got that sorted out. Now we can get back to focusing on the important things, like whether the Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez co-directed picture is any good. Looks like we’ll have to wait until early reviews on the sequel roll out closer to the late August release date.

Here’s the official synopsis for Sin City: A Dame to Kill For:

Co-directors Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller reunite to bring Miller’s visually stunning “Sin City” graphic novels back to the screen in SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR. Weaving together two of Miller’s classic stories with new tales, the town’s most hard boiled citizens cross paths with some of its more reviled inhabitants. SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR is the follow up to Rodriguez and Miller’s 2005 groundbreaking film, FRANK MILLER’S SIN CITY.


Follow Snackbar on Twitter @snackie_cakes for all your Geek News

    • zapharus

      I don’t mind the first one at all, I
      like it, but there is one thing that bothers me about it, and it has to do
      about how light behaves when it hits an object. The approved photo is more
      accurate on how light should behave when it hits her sheer gown and body because
      it takes into account that there is an arm blocking some light that would have
      otherwise shone on the sheer and breast. The original image seems to assume
      that her arm (the one holding the revolver) is transparent, thus allowing for
      light to pass and creating a visible silhouette of her right breast (right
      breast from her point of view, left for ours), which violates the laws of
      physics in exchange for sex appeal. Don’t get me wrong, I love the original
      poster and I’m 100% a fan of the sexy look, but it is inaccurate when it comes
      to the way light behaves. And yes, I realize it is fiction and therefore has
      the freedom to take some liberties on not following the laws of physics.

      But I’m 100% certain that the MPAA did not reject the original poster for
      inaccuracies on the laws of physics but rather due to a matter of prudeness and
      an antiquated view toward the natural nudity of the human body.

    Sharing the Legacy on Flickr

    See all photos