Misleading marketing

[An tSaoi]

We all know that if a studio deems a really worthy film to have a fairly narrow appeal, they'll use marketing to hide the real themes, and represent the film as something else. If you've got a slow psychological thriller than happens to have the odd bit of fisticuffs or a car crash, you can guarantee those elements will be given pride of place in the trailer, so that it looks like a balls-to-the-wall explosionfest. But as trailer footage tends to come from the film itself there's only so much lying they can do. For pure unadulterated bullshit, however, you can't beat posters, as they can be completely invented.

Take this bland monstrosity for example:



Looks like your typical crappy romcom. Ewan McGregor probably plays some uptight young lawyer or Wall Street bastard with a ropey American accent, but Tara Fitzgerald teaches him to open up and -- hold on a minute, is that Brassed Off? The touching comedy about the struggles of coal-miners and their plucky brass band Oop North? That may be the least coal-minerish picture of McGregor that it's possible to take. And her hair is completely different in the film. I don't know about you, but that poster would make me less likely to see the film.



In this poster they've taken Harry Caul's obsessed destruction of his flat at the climax of the film and turned it into something resembling scenes from The Poseidon Adventure, complete with an off-kilter floor and hot flying spark action!

_{Did we have a thread on this recently? Edit: argh fuck we did. Oh well, 90 days rule and all that.}

[CaledonianGonzo]

When was the last time that a Woody Allen movie was really advertised as such?  Seems like the PR and marketing bods have pretty much removed him from the enitre process of selling the movie.  Granted, he doesn't act in the films much these days, but most times you'd need a magnifying glass to see his name on the poster.

Look - it's Love, Actually:



This is actually one of the less egregious examples.  I think it was Melinda and Melinda (or maybe Vicky Christina Barcelona) where you really needed to strain your eyes to detect the presence of the Woodster.

[shiftwork2]

Fans of Mike Leigh's Happy Go Lucky may be surprised by the Region 1 DVD cover:



The guy is on screen for around 3 minutes and he's really only there to provide a contrast to Eddie Marsan's uptight driving instructor.  I think this would have been much better:



EN RA HA.

[Serge]

How much screentime does Clooney have in this film? About five minutes. Most of which is also in the trailer.

[kidsick5000]

It's those Region 1 chaps again.
Infernal Affairs. An excellent police corruption drama, turned into The Departed by Marty Scorsese.
According to the cover, some kinky James Bond style spy thing centring on the sexy agent in hotpants.

No problem that the promiently featured girl isn't in the film.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

That infernal affairs one is unbelievable.  I don't remember her in the movie at all, in fact!



Only released in the US a while after the US remake came out, the R1 cover seems to be part of the attempt to bury the original (and superior) Japanese version as much as possible.  No image on the cover at all, and apparently trying to say "yeah this film does exist, watch it if you must, but you're better off watching our one".  And the name Ringu annoys me, it's simply the Japanese pronunciation of the word Ring, what with their need to end words on a vowel.


Here's a particularly shocking one:



Region 2 this time, and the distribution company seem to be concerned that an existential film in which Van Damme plays himself being taken hostage in a bank robbery and NOT kicking the shit out of everyone around him might not appeal to his fans.  I don't remember exploding cars appearing anywhere in the movie, or an exploding helicopter.

[greencalx]

Two films I recall being completely not captured by their trailers were:

(i) Lost in Translation, the trailer for which has a line about "Join me on a prison break to get the hell out of this city" or something like that, followed by lots of shots of the two protagonists running through Tokyo. Makes you think that's roughly what the narrative of the film was going to be, and fast-paced at that. Turns out the whole mood of the film was totally different.

(ii) Belleville Rendez-vous, whose trailer gives you the impression it's going to be a musical, so one's somewhat surprised when one sits through essentially a silent movie.

On the other hand, a misleading trailer is perhaps better than one that gives away all the major plot-points (or, in comedies, the punchlines), thereby ruining the whole film.

[Harpo Speaks]

(ii) Belleville Rendez-vous, whose trailer gives you the impression it's going to be a musical

Whereas on the other side of the coin, the Sweeney Todd trailers included nothing to indicate that it was a musical at all.

[Ignatius_S]

Personally, I would say trailers can be far more capable of giving a far more powerful false message – because people are watching clips from the film, they naturally think this is representative of the movie itself.

When I saw the trailer for East is East, it looked like it was a light-hearted comedy, rather a comedy-drama (personally, I would say that it's largely a drama) that featured domestic violence.

Lucky Break, both in the trailer and posters, was made to look like a feel-good film, particularly when it's The Full Monty connection was exploited (e.g. "An escapist comedy from the director of The Full Monty."). The unkind suggested that all the funny bits were put in the trailer, but more than a few people felt the film was unsure in tone, particularly with one character who ends up committing suicide.

I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire or Marley and Me myself, but one former colleague who had – and I've heard several people echo these comments, so I'm happy to take this on trust – found their trailers to be unrepresentative. In the case of Marley and Me, it looked like it was romantic comedy when it wasn't – oh, and

Spoiler alert

the dog dies

[close]

. With Slumdog Millionaire, they found the police bits both harrowing and not what they had been expecting in the slightest. Certainly, with SM (and I'm pretty sure with M&M), they had read at least one review so weren't just going on the trailers, but didn't find anything to indicate to indicate that the marketing was misleading. In both cases, she had gone with a friend and her daughter, who has learning difficulties and who became quite distressed (so much so, they had to leave Slumdog Millionaire).

... Here's a particularly shocking one:

Region 2 this time, and the distribution company seem to be concerned that an existential film in which Van Damme plays himself being taken hostage in a bank robbery and NOT kicking the shit out of everyone around him might not appeal to his fans.  I don't remember exploding cars appearing anywhere in the movie, or an exploding helicopter.

Personally, I would be inclined to disagree with that one being particularly shocking – for one thing, I think it would be actually very hard to produce a cover that really reflects the film well.

If you do go in thinking that this is going to be a normal Van Damme flick, then odds on you're not going to feel ripped off or short-changed by what you actually get – in fact, I suspect that wrongly anticipating a different film makes it more impressive.

Arguably, if it did manage to somehow reflect what the film was about, then I think it rob the viewer of quite a lot of pleasure – the first viewing is great, because how the story unfolds is so unexpected. So if it is misleading, I think it's in a good way.

All that aside, the first time I was aware of the film was when I received it as a present (either the day or the day after, when it came out on DVD). Now possibly, I knew the person wouldn't have got me a 'normal' Van Damme film, but from the tagline on the cover, I didn't think it was going to be.

[Famous Mortimer]

Best viewed at a distance, when you can only make out certain words. I love this bit of advertising.

[Cohaagen]

Though I think I've posted it before, it's worth showing this US trailer for Naked once again:

Criterion Trailer 307: Naked

I'm sure there are seismographs that are sensitive enough to pick up the impact from jaws hitting the floor whenever two or more people who've seen the film watch that for the first time. Jesus Christ. The only thing it doesn't have is The Russian Dance playing in the background and the title spelled out in that bold, blobby typeface they use on the posters of Jack Black movies.

[Lt Plonker]

I've never seen a cover so badly miss the mark.

[Bad Ambassador]

I've never seen a cover so badly miss the mark.

It doesn't help that they've also misspelt Robert Duvall's name.

[VegaLA]

"Van Damme's best film for 15 years" made me laugh more than it probably should.

[kidsick5000]

I've never seen a cover so badly miss the mark.

What are you talking about? Everyone knows To Kill A Mockingbird is the prequel to Day Of The Jackal

[waste of chops]

Whereas on the other side of the coin, the Sweeney Todd trailers included nothing to indicate that it was a musical at all.

That's like when you see a trailer for a foreign-language film which conspiciously doesn't include ANY dialogue scenes whatsoever.

I could be misremembering but I'm sure there's a trailer on the DVD of Gladiator which paints it as a love story between a slave and his wife. Now it's been a while since I last saw the film but I'm fairly sure romance takes a back seat to scenes of hacking and slashing in the Colosseum.

There's one film I watched recently where the misleading marketing was almost part of the fun -- you expect it to be one thing so sit down to watch it with zero expections, but it confounds those expections right from the start. The trailers make it out to be dumb, trash cinema when it's not really anything like that; some might even say it's overly pretentious (although I really, really enjoyed it). I won't say what it is for fear of ruining the fun, but as a nod and a wink to those who have seen it, I'll just say: "No reason".

[Pepotamo1985]

Whereas on the other side of the coin, the Sweeney Todd trailers included nothing to indicate that it was a musical at all.

We've had this debate before, but the trailer I saw featured Johnny Depp doing fuck all else in the trailer but sing.

It's also a famous musical......

[Harpo Speaks]

It's also a famous musical......

Yeah well obviously I knew that prior to seeing it. I think there were indeed trailers that featured some singing, the ones I tended to see were along these lines though:

Second Sweeney Todd Trailer!

[thecuriousorange]

In 1981 Jim Carrey appeared in a cheapo TV movie called Introducing Janet. He was not the star of this thoughtful comedy drama. This is the cover of the VHS released with a new title to make a quick buck at the height of Carrey's wacky gurning 90s pomp:

[thecuriousorange]

Malcolm McDowell is trapped in the past. He's being pursued by a cyberpunk from the future.



Not in this film he's not, as he has little more than a cameo.

[Angst in my Pants]

There are some posters advertising the current West End production of "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" boasting the following review:

"I'm dying to see it" - Baz Bamigboye, Daily Mail

How is that effective marketing?  If the only comment worth using is from someone who hasn't even seen the show, what does that say of the show itself?  They're even using it on the official website.

I know nothing of the show, so I'm hoping I'm missing some sort of cleverly crafted pun, but I doubt it.  Seeing the poster twice a day on my commute has elevated my anger over this to ridiculous extremes.

I may write to the... etc.

[thecuriousorange]

This one is just insulting:

[The Roofdog]

"I'm dying to see it" - Baz Bamigboye, Daily Mail

Is that a real name??

[Obel]

The trailer to the Nick Cage film the Weather Man makes it look like some dumb American comedy and is the reason I didn't watch it until somebody forced me to, it's actually quite a depressing (but great!) movie, beautifully shot too. Don't watch the trailer, go see the film.

[An tSaoi]

Malcolm McDowell is trapped in the past. He's being pursued by a cyberpunk from the future.

I'd give that one a pass for the use of the word "Cybordellos".

[Blumf]

I'd give that one a pass for the use of the word "Cybordellos".

You're up for the Mechano-whores though?

(I know I am)

[2 Light Ales Please]

I've never seen a cover so badly miss the mark.

I wasn't expecting to burst out laughing, but I did.  How long does the scene where Atticus shoots the dog even go on for?

[Ignatius_S]

There are some posters advertising the current West End production of "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" boasting the following review:How is that effective marketing?...

Well, it's by Kneehigh Theatre, so I can easily forgive them for that.

I think a problem here is that, from the reviews I've seen, they can't pull out similarly snappy lines. It's not a case of the production being badly received, but the benchmark was set incredibly high by it's adaptation of Brief Encounter and I think that's reflected in just about every review. Even in the positive notices, there isn't a sentence that one would really put on a poster.

Kneehigh also did a version of A Matter of Life and Death, very much from an war is simply awful perspective and that got absolutely slated, so its sucess rate adapting films for the stage has been mixed to put it politely.

...Best viewed at a distance, when you can only make out certain words. I love this bit of advertising.

Ha, that's great.

Malcolm McDowell is trapped in the past. He's being pursued by a cyberpunk from the future....

Not in this film he's not, as he has little more than a cameo.

It is very much a cameo, but I suppose one could argue that McDowell is still the star of the film as he's the bigger name and Hollywood has been pulling this kind of stunt for years.

With Stranger on The Third Floor (1940) Lorre has the most prominent billing in terms of text and his picture on the poster – and I think just about every review I've read has him down as the lead, certainly all the marketing at the time pitched it was Lorre being the star. However, he's in two consecutive scenes nearly at the end of the film and I'd be surprised if he's in it for five minutes... bah!

[The Roofdog]

I've never seen a cover so badly miss the mark.

You're getting confused because the film has nothing to do with the book. In the film Gregory Peck's character must hunt down notorious serial killer Anthony Mockingbird.

[2 Light Ales Please]

What's this? One of Jackie Chan's Hong Kong films?  You'd think so, but no.[nb]Should've seen it coming really, it was only a quid or something.[/nb]  "Jacky" Chan (as he is listed in the film) is barely in this and whenever he is on-screen, the camera pans across, so you never seem to see more than 50% of him - or anyone else. This adds the element of "what the fuck is going on?" to every scene.

Still, I don't know if they'd really want to put that on the DVD cover.