Do you think think the person who placed the New Zealand snipe on this Australian one sheet had considered placing the ''A'' censorship rating in the centre of the red circle at any stage? Sound Judgement surely would indicate you don't cover up part of an image, when you could place the snipe in the red circle or even on the light blue background, which there is an abundance of.
Good comment from Ves. Make up your own mind if you believe the cover over was deemed offensive or not ? Looking at the original image it certainly appears New Zealand most likely would have found the image offensive.
I am assuming the original image is from an international poster? Is the same on the Aussie one? At work today, so restricted access to some things so can't take a sneaky peek to compare, but will try to remember to check tonight.
If it is, I reckon it was about censoring the image. There are plenty of other places you could have put the snipe, but they chose not too.
Which makes me think. I am assuming the NZ snipes were added at some central agency or the like before sending out? Is that right? Or was it up to individual cinema owners to add them to the posters? Anyone know? Queue Lawrence
I am assuming the original image is from an international poster? Is the same on the Aussie one? At work today, so restricted access to some things so can't take a sneaky peek to compare, but will try to remember to check tonight.
If it is, I reckon it was about censoring the image. There are plenty of other places you could have put the snipe, but they chose not too.
Which makes me think. I am assuming the NZ snipes were added at some central agency or the like before sending out? Is that right? Or was it up to individual cinema owners to add them to the posters? Anyone know? Queue Lawrence
The Australian daybill, with the same image appearing on it that was covered by the N.Z. censorship sticker on the Australian one sheet.
I will endeavour to contact someone I know in New Zealand to ask about who in N.Z would have been responsible for attaching the snipes to Australian posters. In the meantime don't we have some New Zealand members who could possibly throw some light on this matter.
Fantastic editing and very entertaining and will be viewed again. Name all the principal dancers and the films they appeared in? Don't freak out - only kidding.
Yeah it's very cool. The trail up the mountain is man made, but the rock formation (the opening) is natural. Their kind of similar to the red rock formations found in Sedona, AZ and at Red Rocks in Colorado.
Good comment from Ves. Make up your own mind if you believe the cover over was deemed offensive or not ? Looking at the original image it certainly appears New Zealand most likely would have found the image offensive.
I am assuming the original image is from an international poster? Is the same on the Aussie one? At work today, so restricted access to some things so can't take a sneaky peek to compare, but will try to remember to check tonight.
If it is, I reckon it was about censoring the image. There are plenty of other places you could have put the snipe, but they chose not too.
Which makes me think. I am assuming the NZ snipes were added at some central agency or the like before sending out? Is that right? Or was it up to individual cinema owners to add them to the posters? Anyone know? Queue Lawrence
Received a reply back from a contact I have at the New Zealand classification office. A condensed section of his reply follows.
'' I can confirm that the N.Z. Chief Censor had the power to censor film posters / advertising, however we don't have any records of these decisions unfortunately. It does appear that the certificate information has been very precisely placed to avoid offence - although it certainly makes the image look ruder than it is.
I'm not able to research your second question in any depth, but looking at the regulations it seems unlikely that the snipes were applied by a central agency during this period. Rather they would have been applied by distributors or cinemas.in a manner outlined by regulations. Presumably, the cinemas would ultimately have been been liable for not displaying the censorship symbol snipes or for displaying them incorrectly. I recommend taking a closer look at the regulations to clarify this. Note that if the snipes were applied by individual cinemas you would expect a fair amount of variation in how they were placed - it could be that the strange placement of the snipe in the attached images reflected the sensibilities of someone running a cinema, rather than the official requirements by the chief Censor of Films''.
Back to me and what we really need is another image of an Australian one sheet or daybill, which has the same image appearing, to see where the A snipe appears on the poster. I feel it was the distributor who applied the censorship snipes to the posters before being dispatched to cinema owners. I base this on multiple censorship snipe placings on other posters of a same title as they always seem to appear in the same spot on every poster. If it had been the cinema owners there surely would have been some variations in placements at times.
Comments
No one here...but I swear, you would think that they would make your life easier to buy from them and not harder, AND not be a dick about shit either.
Sorry to hear that Ves..hope it works out and they come to their senses
Lacking any kind of motivation to do ANYTHING today...
That's not a bad thing, cause I'm doing the same.
Jandals and a Vegemite sandwich kinda day.
*****
Nothing in poster world comes close:
Do you think think the person who placed the New Zealand snipe on this Australian one sheet had considered placing the ''A'' censorship rating in the centre of the red circle at any stage? Sound Judgement surely would indicate you don't cover up part of an image, when you could place the snipe in the red circle or even on the light blue background, which there is an abundance of.
Good comment from Ves. Make up your own mind if you believe the cover over was deemed offensive or not ? Looking at the original image it certainly appears New Zealand most likely would have found the image offensive.
I am assuming the original image is from an international poster? Is the same on the Aussie one? At work today, so restricted access to some things so can't take a sneaky peek to compare, but will try to remember to check tonight.
If it is, I reckon it was about censoring the image. There are plenty of other places you could have put the snipe, but they chose not too.
Which makes me think. I am assuming the NZ snipes were added at some central agency or the like before sending out? Is that right? Or was it up to individual cinema owners to add them to the posters? Anyone know? Queue Lawrence
The Australian daybill, with the same image appearing on it that was covered by the N.Z. censorship sticker on the Australian one sheet.
I will endeavour to contact someone I know in New Zealand to ask about who in N.Z would have been responsible for attaching the snipes to Australian posters. In the meantime don't we have some New Zealand members who could possibly throw some light on this matter.
Oh yeah...I reckon it's definitely deliberate then compared to some of the other ones they censored.
And thanks for enquiring on my other question. Interested to know now!
To cute not to share:
https://youtu.be/M1F0lBnsnkE
Man made I presume?
Cool pics!
...and must of had good phone reception up there.....
Looks lile breaking bad territory!
Received a reply back from a contact I have at the New Zealand classification office. A condensed section of his reply follows.
'' I can confirm that the N.Z. Chief Censor had the power to censor film posters / advertising, however we don't have any records of these decisions unfortunately. It does appear that the certificate information has been very precisely placed to avoid offence - although it certainly makes the image look ruder than it is.
I'm not able to research your second question in any depth, but looking at the regulations it seems unlikely that the snipes were applied by a central agency during this period. Rather they would have been applied by distributors or cinemas.in a manner outlined by regulations. Presumably, the cinemas would ultimately have been been liable for not displaying the censorship symbol snipes or for displaying them incorrectly. I recommend taking a closer look at the regulations to clarify this. Note that if the snipes were applied by individual cinemas you would expect a fair amount of variation in how they were placed - it could be that the strange placement of the snipe in the attached images reflected the sensibilities of someone running a cinema, rather than the official requirements by the chief Censor of Films''.
Back to me and what we really need is another image of an Australian one sheet or daybill, which has the same image appearing, to see where the A snipe appears on the poster. I feel it was the distributor who applied the censorship snipes to the posters before being dispatched to cinema owners. I base this on multiple censorship snipe placings on other posters of a same title as they always seem to appear in the same spot on every poster. If it had been the cinema owners there surely would have been some variations in placements at times.