Last month the MPAA banned the movie's poster for being too raunchy. That was a huge red flag. The company responded by thumbing its nose with a cute little riff on the controversy, and continued on its merry way, marketing-wise.

But ads for the film were still getting banned across the country. Now it seems to be sinking in that the very title of the movie could prevent it from being properly marketed and advertised, dooming it to box office failure:

The public outcry has left the film's director and distributor flabbergasted. "I can't believe this is happening in the 21st century," says Mr. Smith. "When was the last time you saw a porno with the word porno in the title?"

"Anyone who takes the title seriously is missing the comedic aspect of the movie," says Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of Weinstein Co.

"This is the one time I don't want controversy. This is a big, broad, fun Seth Rogen comedy," he says. "Hopefully people will see the movie for what it really is."

Do we detect a touch of nervousness in Harvey's quotes? As dumb as American puritanism is, you'd think that a company in Weinstein Co.'s position would go out of its way to make sure that a promising film actually succeeds financially. If Zack And Miri tanks because of a careless title... well, let's just hope it doesn't. For Harvey's sake!

“After waiting in an area with an open bar and a DJ, we walked up a driveway illuminated by fluorescent lights to a darkened room where we saw 40 nude women. Most of them were wearing strange masks made of wool. “The models stood in the middle of the room - black girls at the front and white girls at the back. Then the entire album played without any introduction or explanation.”

This is the new standard for everything. Maybe not so fun for the ladies, though.

[via LA Rag Mag. Further...art shots at Kanye's blog]

Ads for the movie are being rejected across the nation! Boston ads drew complaints. Philly banned them altogether. And in Los Angeles, the dastardly marketing scheme is preventing children from understanding a baseball strategy in which a runner on third base breaks for home as the pitch is thrown and the batter simultaneously bunts, which can pay off in a run unless the batter misses the bunt, in which case it's almost surely an out at the plate:

One complaint came from a man watching a game in September with his young son, who did not understand a suicide-squeeze bunt the Dodgers tried, Rawitch said.

"He was explaining to his son what a squeeze bunt was. Commercial break, the ad comes on, and the kid asks, `Dad, what does porno mean?'" Rawitch said. "Dodgers baseball has always been about family, and we've always been sensitive to the type of advertising that runs on our games."

Is there nothing Seth Rogen's sex drive cannot destroy? [AP]

*Americans, please unclick this post.

[via Adfreak]

Australia's national tourism group is spending $38 million to partner up with a new movie called Australia, starring Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman.

Other movies have boosted tourism. The number of visitors to New Zealand increased 30% after "The Lord of the Rings" showcased the country's vast mountain landscapes. Some wineries in the Santa Barbara area saw a 300% increase in visitors after the film "Sideways" featured two men hitting the local wine scene. And thousands of visitors annually still flock to a baseball field in Iowa to get nostalgic about the Kevin Costner film "Field of Dreams."

Weird right? But how can people not drop thousands on tickets to Australia once they see this epic:

"Australia" follows two characters, played by Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as they drive cattle across the continent on the eve of World War II.

Naked, I hope.

[LAT]

In '99, it was revealed that the paper's magazine had come up with a plan to share the revenue from a special (flattering) issue about the city's Staples Center with the Staples Center, in exchange for advertising help. Which, needless to say, was a breach of the storied Chinese wall between the editorial and business sides. There was a huge uproar! Some quotes from the time:

"Something this blatant, this bizarre, something that is just so compromising - this was a monumental error," said Stanford journalism professor William Woo...

"The whole tone is, "How can I believe what I read now?' " [Times columnist Patt] Morrison said. "That hurts. Reporters don't pass bar exams; we don't get board-certified like doctors. We're hanging our asses out there everyday. For all of us, this is 10 or 20 or 30 years of our lives put in jeopardy to add another 3 cents to somebody's dividends per share."

Will there be a huge public uproar this time around? No! Because everybody in the newspaper industry knows that their business model is dying. And while they might not like it, they'll grumble quietly, or just go ahead and retire. Because we're far past the days when complaining about jaw-dropping things like this would do any good.

'Entertainment Weekly' Declines Hollywood Humor Campaign [Adrants]

Horseplay: A Streethorsing Retrospective [WESC]