to not want my DS to be confronted with this large poster when we go to cinema?

[HubbaBubbaMum]

Went to cinema this week with DH, planning to take DS and his brother tomorrow for birthday treat. I can't believe that in 2016 we will be forced to walk past this poster and that they have even called the film Dirty Granpa!
www.movieinsider.com/posters/277857/

Really??? Letching older man perving young woman's suggestively raised arse whilst other man holds 'petrol nozzle' pointing at her?? I don't want my sons seeing this sexist shit.
(only one cinema in our town btw)

I don't like this poster.

I just read on the Allocine website that the poster is a reference to "The Graduate" poster - but that's the thing, ofaFrench and LordBrightside it is no longer 1967. We are offended by this stuff and have every right to say so. Your points about Monty Python and so on are interesting but it is 2016, ie 40 to 50 years later and things have moved on, thank God (and thanks to our mothers!)
As to objectification - of course it does exist, and is always unacceptable whether it's sexist, racist, religion err (ist?) religion-based or whatever.

the pic I just posted is The Graduate (1967) poster, just to be clear.

YANBU - poster is sexist and stupid. I wouldn't want my dc's looking at it either. Why is this crap still seen as normal? Argh!

"We are offended by this stuff and have every right to say so."

Yeah, that's fine, but who gives a fuck if you're offended? You're offended. So what?

And how can we know anymore whether people are truly offended or just pretending? For many people now offendedness is a leisure pursuit.

I just read on the Allocine website that the poster is a reference to "The Graduate" poster - but that's the thing, ofaFrench and LordBrightside it is no longer 1967.

Did you see the version of the Dirty Grandpa poster that is actually a reference to the Graduate one? It is anything but objectifying!! I posted a picture of it earlier.

So what if people are offended? Well, if as in this case, the offence is with regards to the inappropriate and negative portrayal of a group protected by the law (Equality Act 2010) then that's a pretty fucking big so what right there.

I wonder what choice there was on the part of the cinema.

Everything soupdragon.

Cinema chains are in the driving seat when it comes to what gets shown, when, for how long or at all.

Studios aren't. Unless they are selling something such as Bond or Star Wars, they jockey for position and they have to do what the outlet says.

It's like the relationship between Tesco and suppliers.

I'm not surprised the American images for that film are tamer. America, for better or for worse, is less accepting of sexual imagery than western Europe, Australia or Japan.

I don't usually agree with censorship but n the case of Bad Grandpa Pays Off His Tax Bill, I'm willing to be patronised.

YANBU
Objectifying.
Equally distasteful if it was a man's six pack.
I actually think they should show this females face, as from the poster that is shown, it could be of a 14 year old or 25 year old. You can't tell. Sickening.

I haven't seen the film (funnily enough) so the content of the outcome of the film is irrelevant. Its the image itself (for all the reasons covered in posts above) and the size and location of it (ie massive and in a town centre!). I'm using it as an example - I know there are lots of other things worse.

Lord Brightside - I'm not arrogant or entitled and I don't see how me holding the view that men and women should be treated equally and with respect in how they are portrayed in giant images in public places makes me "prejudiced and entitled" .

Your comments "Why do you think the world should be shaped to suit your worldview and prejudices? You know best what is good for everyone else?" are bizarre given we live in a country where gender equality is the law - it is not some fringe, radical view I hold! Some of your comments are so nonsensical and factually incorrect (unless you are not living in the UK) that I'm not going to waste more time on them.

Your comments suggest you are being intentionally antagonistic or are very ill informed re women in our society. Maybe peruse this in your lunch break to gen up a bit?

www.facebook.com/EverydaySexismProject/

"Objectification" is a load of rubbish anyway, there's no such thing is reality.

Nobody looks at an attractive woman or man depicted sexually and fails to understand that they are a person. Nobody believes that people are objects."

You said exactly the same thing last week. It was bollocks then, too.

"So what if people are offended? Well, if as in this case, the offence is with regards to the inappropriate and negative portrayal of a group protected by the law (Equality Act 2010) then that's a pretty fucking big so what right there."

That's not how the law works. The law doesn't cater to your offendedness or mine. And I'm glad of that.

I think people who want films images, books etc banned because they are offended by them are authoritarian extremists.

"You said exactly the same thing last week. "

I'm going to keep saying it.

"I ask you whether thought the mass assaults in Germany was objectifying women?"

I can't answer. I'm not well informed enough regarding this incident.

The law is made to reflect and enforce our collective and agreed offence. It is exactly what it does.

Just out of interest, why do you think it is acceptable to portray a woman without a head, face or purpose beyond the titilation of a man Lord... when it is unnecessary because there are viable alternatives?

I haven't said in any of my posts that I'm personally 'offended' by the way. My post was prompted by considering whether in 2016 our children shouldn't be growing up with these type of sexual images in mainstream media and advertising as the backdrop to their lives - whether on posters, trailers, TV, magazines, pop videos, adverts, toys etc.

The law doesn't cater to your offendedness or mine.

It does. The law against causing alarm, harassment or distress is in the Public Order Act 1986.

I think it was brought in so that the police would find it even easier to arrest bolshy pickets.

That poster might fall within that or laws covering behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Ordinarily, the police would ignore it. But you try putting it up outside a religious establishment or school and see what happens.

You'd be asked to take it down. If you persisted, you could be prosecuted.

I can't answer. I'm not well informed enough

That is indeed true.

If only there was some resource that existed, that most people could access from the comfort of their own home, that allowed them to educate themselves on issues with which they are not familiar and read experiences from the relevant demographic ...

"I wasn't being literal when I said "nobody". I'm not interested in what rapists do or how they think. How society works shouldn't be defined by the behaviour of criminals."

Mate, you seem to be steering dangerously close to saying that rapists aren't proper people. You aren't...aren't... objectifying them, I hope.

Haven't read the whole thread (meant to be working!), but had to pop on to say I HATE this film's advertising campaign. I'm normally beyond broadminded, but ever since I saw a bus side with 'DIRTY GRANDPA' emblazoned across it I've been seriously uncomfortable about it. What if it was 'DIRTY DADDY', about the hilarity of dad's perving on hot girls' asses. Maybe it is hilarious in the film, who knows, but the way it's portrayed in the ads is sexist horrible shit and I don't want my kids knowing it exists.

why do you think it is acceptable to portray a woman without a head, face or purpose

And why do these decisions still get made? I guess because there are more men (and "Cool Women") than feminist women on the marketing board for films like this. Even if they'd had the woman's ass be a whole woman, whose face we could see, that would have been marginally better than a disembodied ass. I expect they'd justify it with bullshit like "It's minimalist! Cinema-goers don't have time to take in a busier image! Trying to take in a whole woman, PLUS De Niro and Efron would waste valuable seconds!"

"why do you think it is acceptable to portray a woman without a head, face or purpose beyond the titilation of a man Lord..."

I think it's ok to portray men in a sexualised way too, and I think these things because I don't have weird hang ups about sex.

I don't want modern day prudes shaping the world for everyone else, mystifying sex, demonising sex and having things banned for everyone else because it doesn't fit with their hang ups.

"That poster might fall within that or laws covering behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. "

It doesn't.