SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR – See the New-and-Improved Eva Green Poster Approved by the MPAA

     June 6, 2014


Remember those puzzles 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 AlbaMickey RourkeRosario DawsonJoseph Gordon-LevittJosh Brolin, Bruce WillisJaime KingDennis HaysbertChristopher MeloniJeremy PivenRay LiottaJuno Temple, Stacy Keach, and Julia Garner, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For opens on August 22nd.  Hit the jump for both posters and to see if you can tell them apart.

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.


Around The Web
  • doctor_robot

    violence good. boobies bad. smh

    • Redjester

      Welcome to America, where your child seeing the shadow of a boob is infinitely worse that your child seeing a characters head explode. Idiocracy, indeed.

      • The Flobbit

        I see it this way: the violence IS fake. It’s just stuntmen and CGi and fake blood. But the boobs ARE real. So there is a difference, and the MPAA has a point, although they way overreach themselves.

      • Redjester

        Yeah but unlike fake violence, nudity doesn’t cause children to go out on massive shooting sprees.

        Also, if it’s legal for women to walk around topless in public where children are surely to be (which in every state that I’ve ever lived it is), it should be equally acceptable for children to see topless women on posters and in films.

        Granted, I might be a little radical in this regard, but I honestly feel that the world’s condemnation/embarrassment over the female form and the need to have it covered has actually increased sexual tensions between men and women and consequently increased incidents of sexual assault and rape. If we lived in a world where women walked around topless in public just as much as men do (the beach, a hot day, etc) and bathrooms/locker rooms were gender neutral, I truly believe the sexual stimulation and general discomfort of such a situation would wear off really fast and before too long it would be as commonplace and accepted as minorities using the same bathrooms and in the same locker rooms as majorities (aka, Caucasians) and in the near future gay men using the same bathrooms/locker rooms as straight men, etc. And yes, I feel this is one of the few things Starship Troopers (the film) got absolutely right, lol…

      • The Flobbit

        That is quite frankly, an absurd suggestion. I am all for destroying the laws designed to make nudity the enemy, but to have public toplessness and nudity would go against the purpose of breasts in the first place. We are not animals, and our genitalia are called “private” or “intimate” for a reason.

      • Redjester

        We already have legal public toplessness. Why is it deemed socially and morally acceptable for men to walk around topless and not women? Quite the double standard.

        Anyway, I told you that you would find my anti-Puritanical beliefs radical. To be honest though, I think the way our culture currently handles the different sexes and the biases that go along with it are even more absurd.

        There is a connection between sexual deprivement/double standards in terms of male and female body concealment and inequality of the sexes/sexual tensions/sexual assault/rape.

        If you can’t see that I don’t blame you, though. Most of the world can’t either.

      • Redjester

        I’d also like to apologize for discussing societal problems and politics in a movie forum. I’m usually able to refrain from doing so.

      • Bo

        Why apologize? How can one intelligently discuss films without addressing societal problems and politics as that is what, or should be, films are about. I enjoyed reading your comments and discussion with Flobbit and thought them intelligent and sophisticated and true. So, please, for me at least…there’s no need for you to apologize. I thank you actually. You might want to scoll above and see my remarks to Flobbit and his ‘church’ induced views he expressed and argued with you about.

      • The Flobbit

        The difference between a topless man and a topless woman is very different. A man’s breasts serve no sexual or reproductive function, while a woman’s does.

        But I do agree with the double standard. Take Game of Thrones for instance, where the male nudity to female nudity ratio is something like 4 to 1. The only mainstream film that might outdo male to female toplessness is 300!

      • Soumya Dham

        the film is going to show her topless anyways. so why the fuss over the poster.

      • Bo

        Well, my my my. Your beliefs have been so instilled into by the Church that it is really astonishing. That is where your beliefs come from, you know? The Church declared them ‘private’ parts that must be covered up and thus made the body and sex a dirty, nasty thing while the Crusades and the Church slaughtered and raped their way through the lands fighting for control over the masses and how they think and behave. I’m sorry, Flobbit…but your views are so antiquated and absurd someone has to point that out to you.

      • Lisa

        Where have you lived? I have never lived in a state where women can just around topless.

      • Redjester

        Where have you lived? It’s only illegal in Utah, Tennessee, and Indiana.

      • Bo

        Very well, said!

  • thinker365

    Eva Green is a goddess. Can we at least agree on that?

    • Clay

      I concur.

  • Logan Gray

    The MPAA is just a bunch of sensitive pussies.

    • Cjv95

      I’m a bit surprised they didn’t also replace her handgun with a walkie-talkie or a banana.

      • Clay

        They like violence, but boobs make them cry.

  • Neo Racer

    Earth saved!!!

  • Ruprect

    Hmmmm. I think I’ll taaaaake …. rejected, please.

  • mattritchey

    eyeball. roll.

  • Hey…HEY!

    Still real. Still spectacular.

    voulez vous coucher avec moi, indeed.

  • Jim El

    What’s wrong with showing the female form, but it’s perfectly OK to show hand-held killing machines? Are we that afraid of acknowledging our sexualities that we favour murder over lovemaking? Seriously? I honestly think our generation has become the most prudish and repressed.

    • Hey…HEY!

      Won’t someone think of the children?

      (They like tittays, too!)

    • YodaRocks

      Showing hand-held killing machines makes these machines ‘cool’ and encourages youngsters to go buy these machines which results in profits for manufacturers of these machines. On the other hand, nudity “might” result in more sex or more masturbation for the individuals which profits no corporations. Hence violence > sex and nudity. MPAA logic.

    • Guy

      The girls of my generation aren’t prude. They’re downright slutty. Just look at the music videos for Miley, Rhianna, Gaga, Bey, and others. This poster is tame by comparison. The MPAA is fuked. I bet they just wanted a little extra money under the table. Look at how they treat Indie films compared to standard Hollywood fare. It’s unbelievable. Side boob, oh the horror.

      • Charlie Hudlard

        It is strange that Miley Cyrus’ labia is all over the internet every half a day, yet this image caused furore. Not unexpected, though.
        An even stranger sign of a society that has regular mass shootings and murders making the news, though: to still be so anti-sex and yet pro glorification of guns and violence. They’re all necessary to the context of this story, but in general- the worship of guns and demonisation of sex in society’s baffling.

  • CJ

    Remember kids, boobies are evil and God always knows what you are thinking..

  • World’s Finest Comments

    Airbrushed photos, the boner’s worst enemy.

  • alk

    Wow. Behold the sorcery of the MPAA. Truly a wondrous sight! All they did was blur the contour of evas beautiful breast… Not much of a difference really…
    and even blurred, its still pointless since any child who sees the poster would assume she’s naked already underneath. So MPAA, fail!

    • Charlie Hudlard

      Somebody’s naked under their clothes?! Outrageous!

  • tarek

    I don’t see much of a difference. I am trying hard on stopping my hard on.

  • DougyRT

    Eva Green is UGLY!! She has zombie eyes. Not even cute

    • Sebastian Rooks

      I could make love to her eyes all night long, and I m pretty sure she s at least 1400% cuter than your delicious gf…

      • DougyRT

        its sad that you think she is pretty just because she is in movies. this chick is ugly. but then I guess you are probably some old fat ugly guy too

      • Sebastian Rooks

        Non, j’ la trouve mignonne juste parce qu’ elle l’ est.
        Et oui, je suis moche, gros et super vieux, touché…
        Réponse en français dans ta gueule, “Doug”.

  • zonver

    the rating systems are such a joke.. here in germany stuff like “million ways to die in the west, hangover 1-3, bridesmaides, bad teacher..” its all rated PG12 … do these people even know what kids today see on the internet.. without guidance ..

  • PresidentObama

    One thing for sure, extra free advertisenent for Dimension, win-win for them!

  • Daniel O’Reilly

    Oddly the changes only serve to make her look more angelic than she did all ready.

  • marcomc2

    America is mentally ailing. At least in this regard.

  • TrekBeatTK

    I actually prefer the new one. The very obvious breast definition in the first image strikes me as almost impossible given the light source. Where is the light coming from that her boob is so clearly defined but the arm behind it is invisible? It’s all photoshopped designed to say BOOBS!! While I’d prefer we not constantly airbrush nipples out as if nobody has them, I like the overall look better for the second as I find it more believable.

  • Strong Enough

    And the gun is still there lmao

  • Adam Cross

    meh, it’s a terrible poster either way.

  • Redjester

    Sometimes I feel like I was born a couple centuries too soon.

    Why couldn’t I have been born in a future century where nudity and sex were no big deal and guns and violence were a very big deal. Why, ‘god’, oh why?!?

    • ikn0wn0thing

      You may be able to find a country in present times with those attributes.

  • The Flobbit

    Because the first one is R-Rated XXX material. The second poster I would show to my grandmother. Thank you MPAA! You’ve just saved Christmas!

    Note: dripping sarcasm.

    • Redjester

      Dripping sarcasm noted.

  • Lax

    Character 1> let’s kill some babies.
    Character 2> well, i wouldn’t say no to a little murder.

    MPAA: Approved

    Screenplay #2
    Character 1> let’s kill some babies.
    Character 2> well, I wouldn’t say no to a little murder.
    Character 1> You know what? Let’s do it while we naked.

    MPAA: Disapproved

    Why? Too much sex appeal, no good for children.

    No shit…

    • Redjester

      Sadly, I’m betting that conversation has actually been had.

  • Ace
  • LEM

    MPAA initially wanted her to have a bigger gun and smaller boobs.

  • Jamie Teller

    Honestly, the way this all played out, I assume the poster was released, TWC said it was “too hot” for the MPAA, the MPAA went “wait, what”, actually bothered to take a look at the poster and went, “Uh, sure, yeah, that’s a little racy”, had it altered, then went back to their naps.

    I want to make movies just so I can piss off the MPAA by submitting them and then releasing them unaltered whatever the verdict. Or not submit them at all.

  • Lex Walker

    It’s stunts like this that make me hate the Weinstein Company. Fabricating controversy for all of their movies is pathetic.

  • Pingback: Entertainment Link-Off: All in the Stars | The Lowdown Blog()

  • Grendal Sven

    Guns er good! Boobs er bad!

    Murica, FUCK YAH!

  • Jack le Critic

    Just what is wrong with showing a heavier, luscious, more sensual boob? Are they scared of an increase in masturbation among teens? Surely the pistol is more offensive to the public? Surely? :s

    • Redjester

      One would think. Alas many don’t (think).

  • ikkf

    That new poster makes me feel so much safer.

  • matt murdock

    Okay, little or no nipple?

  • JudgeMethos

    Good grief! *Kramer’svoice* ‘Soooooo LAME!’

  • Jack le Critic

    The poster could only have been improved if that flimsy gown had been removed :)

  • Scurvy

    Sounds like another Weinstein manufactured controversy to raise awareness for a film. This isn’t the first time they have done it.

  • enzofloc

    A clear demonstration of how trivial and absurd are America’s morals. That slight curvature is a deal-breaker and MUST be censored. Nonsense,

  • Pingback: The Zero Theorem Poster Banned in the US()

  • Warloc

    I’m going to buy the rejected one.

  • Warloc

    I’m going to buy the rejected one.