Letter Writing Campaign

Oops! There I go, yackin' away before I have all the facts - again!

DocJohn is right.

It is not so much the subject of the movie that is or may be offensive, BUT the marketing strategy that is being planned is WAY OVER THE TOP - even for our society!

Let's hope we can stop this before it gets started! I know that I, for one, would definitely be triggered to see such a graphic advertising campaign.

I can only imagine what it will do to those who are so close to the "edge" and without help at this point in their lives.

What about the kids? How on earth will they perceive this?

So hard to stay positive in this world when things just seem to be getting more and more extreme. I am extreme to begin with, so how do I protect myself from following further down this path? How does any one? Attrition is so hard to fight all the time!!!


Altered State

As I said, I do agree the marketing campaign is offensive.

I find some of the t-shirts at this site offensive, specifically, the ones that make fun of people with mental problems or personal issues, such as the ones that say, "Daddy Didn't Love Me," "Give Up," and "Self-Help." I do believe they have the right to sell these shirts, because of free speech, but that doesn't mean they're not distasteful. I'd like to mention, though, that although this site is run by an atheist group, I believe most atheists would find these t-shirts offensive.

I made the necessary changes and have two letters ready to go out in the mail in the AM

With all due respect, while I agree that the proposed marketing strategy is tasteless and insensitive, I can't offer an opinion for or against something that isn't out there yet or that I haven't seen. Have been "gotcha'd" too many times with stories about things that prove to be untrue or highly dramatized for the purpose of getting people overly upset or afraid, panicky.. I don't like it.

Should I see such a horribly offensive billboard or sign s(hanging from telephone poles and trees??! hmmm, is that even legal?), I would be glad to write, call, to whomever to express my outrage.

Thanks for the heads up!

Excellent post, Echoes!

In many situations I'd agree, but once they're up it's too late - people at risk may have seen them.

Again ... they've warmed their target market up with this sort of prequel to the campaign.

The marketers will be loving all the free publicity of all the MySpaces et al ...

I don't think seeing those images should be forced down people's throats, and if they're hanging all around a city, that's what they are.

how disgustingly distasteful that most ppl care more about $$ than human feelings & ethics.......makes me absolutely sick how these ppl strive to profit from others' pain.

nice world we live in.

How irresponsible! Just thinking about it distresses me greatly. I'm going to make my voice heard too.

If you let them distress or upset you then you're giving them the power.

I know it's very difficult but ... something to try and remember maybe?

kia kaha
be strong

It's a difficult topic for some people. It's free speech; being offended is not a reason to disallow it. However, harm may be. That said, there are some people who are "triggered" by images that others are not. Some women who have lost a child may be triggered by images of children. Some people can't look at pictures of spiders. What about those anti-abortionists who use graphic images of aborted fetuses (which some claim are fake) in pieces? Many people complain about that last one. Some images are hidden, for the most part. Sexually explicit images, while sometimes sent to cellphones and computers without the users' permission, are, in general, not posted on billboards and in the general public. Still, graphic violence is much more available.

must say i agree with what echoes and maven said and about what drunksunflower said about it simply being a strategy to get free publicity. the same thing happened with the da vinci code. it wasnt even a good film but it made so much money because of the 'scandal' around it.
i get triggered by spiders and was so upset to be assaulted by a trailer for charlottes web in the cinema. i sat there and winced and cringed with my eyes closed until it was over and i was furious that id had to endure that. i came out raging that they should have put a warning before it since so many people are triggered by spiders. but while the emotion was real the idea they would put up a warning was a joke because what right have i to insist that others look out for me and take care of me? thats my own responsibility and i wouldnt sacrifice anyones free speech for my own comfort.
that said i think it was maven who made the very good point that a triggering or offensive campaign is not something i feel i have a right to try to ban but one that causes actual harm is another matter... im not sure which this one is until i see it...

my take on this is to wait til the film is released, then make your mind up, at present all you are basing your objections on is part of the story line and not the overall context of the film, sure it is going to upset some people, but it will educate others, ok educate maybe to strong a word, inform others that this is a growing problem, and by watching the film you has a layperson watching the film will / might be able to see when your friends, neighbours, relatives are in the same boat and be able to help in ways that you dont know how to at the present time

that was my my 2 cents, the other 8 cents were for free.

Mellors, the thing people are complaining about is the marketing of the film, not the film itself. Again, I agree it sounds like it will be very tasteless, but I will wait until I see it before I consider taking action. And I probably won't, because I believe free speech allows a lot that others disagree with.

While I respect peoples rights to protest against something that they feel strongly about I don't appreciate their use of rhetoric in trying to persuade others to join in the campaign. For example:

> obnoxious, inappropriate promotion of a movie.
> makes fun of people who are grappling with suicide.
> alarming “shock and awe” advertising campaign
> alarming and dangerous.
> cruel and offensive
> an issue of public health.

I'm sure that everybody would agree that if the advertising campaign is 'an issue of public health', 'cruel and offensive', 'alarming and dangerous', an attempt to 'shock and awe', 'makes fun of people grappling with suicide', and is an 'obnoxious, inappropriate promotion of a movie' then it should indeed be stopped.

I would imagine that the precise point of controversy is whether those descriptions are the best way to describe the effects (whether intended or otherwise) of such a campaign. For example, if there were to be a court case over this I'm sure the precise issue would be whether the ad campaign is in fact accurately described in this way.

I would find it understandable for people to describe the campaign and then inform people on how to protest if they found it protest worthy.

What I resent about this is the attempt to persuade people to classify it similarly through the use of emotionally charged rhetoric rather than simply describing and allowing others to make up their own mind.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...db08aaf5b3f8a3

Looks like they are beginning to deal with it more responsibly:

After Dark Films co-owner Courtney Solomon said late Friday that while the film's promotion may feature images of people jumping off a bridge, electrocuting and hanging themselves, they would be displayed as traffic-style stop or yield signs with a barring-style circle and line over the illustrations, along with hearts to reference the film's romantic story line. He said the campaign may change before its mid-July rollout because of the outcry.

Solomon intends to offer screenings or DVDs of the film to concerned organizations in the next few weeks, then discuss the campaign with them and ask for their input. "The movie takes place in purgatory, and its message is that love is better than suicide," he said, adding that the film may even help prevent suicide. "Our job is to get people into the theater in a way that's accessible to them. There are many different ways to skin a cat. God forbid someone was considering committing suicide. This film may change their opinion."

I still come at it from my marketing background and I think it's been quite a carefully planned campaign.

It may be that they never intended to market it as originally described. Saying you're going to do that is enough to create an uproar, gain publicity for your movie, and also ease people's concerns by going with a pre-planned, less-offensive marketing strategy.

That's exactly my thoughts Maven

It's viral, cheap (a few press releases etc), and creates a storm of publicity.

Plus it warms up your audience (common strategy to gain most cutthrough on above the line promotion like the posters).

Not very moral, but certainly effective.

*speculation*

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
drunksunflower said:
That's exactly my thoughts Maven

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

We're so smart!

Word :>

but it is so much more fun to assume malevolent intent...

sigh.

.. so then, where is the outrage over everyday television material??!

Every show seems to be about women and children as victims, mostly murder or abuse and murder. Or just people treating other people very badly. (Yay for the Animal Planet channel and the Food Network).

The advertising to get us to watch this stuff or that supports it financially, commercials and infomercials, further batters our intelligence and common sense with insults and mistruths.

Yeah we can turn it off. And we can not go to movies. But for the majority of people, TV is on all the time and so is more pervasive. The things people allow into their homes via TV wouldn't be welcome if it was real life.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
ECHOES said:
.. so then, where is the outrage over everyday television material??!

Every show seems to be about women and children as victims, mostly murder or abuse and murder. Or just people treating other people very badly. (Yay for the Animal Planet channel and the Food Network).

The advertising to get us to watch this stuff or that supports it financially, commercials and infomercials, further batters our intelligence and common sense with insults and mistruths.

Yeah we can turn it off. And we can not go to movies. But for the majority of people, TV is on all the time and so is more pervasive. The things people allow into their homes via TV wouldn't be welcome if it was real life.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

That's where I disagree with you. You can read the descriptor of the TV programme, you can flick the channel quickly.

Public advertising such as this which is so deliberately strategised as they apparently plan to is not giving people ANY option to avoid it.

Hey I think it's a clever media mix, but in this case I feel like from what I've read it would simply shove it in people's faces.

The fact they are backtracking in the way the link I posted suggests that it really is a drama llama strategy ...

I have nothing against the movie, in fact I'll probably go and see it when it comes out here

i agree with des, ppl should be more aware of how certain films affect certain people. the fact that ppl could find ppl struggling with suicide remotely funny disgusts me and worries me. if people are sick enough to want to watch people killing themselves, then what the hell is wrong with them? they should be aware that this type of film is unsutiable for a very large amount of people, and the ones who it is sutiable for are very unsavoury characters.it teaches a false romance of suicide to kids and adults alike, and may cause more suicides in the long run with people believing that it is some great thing to laff over.

Have you actually read the plot summary?

why bother reading the plot summary when we have already been told how to feel about it?