misleading film posters
Amanda_Raymond
Posts: 2,294
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Has a film poster ever mislead you into thinking you were getting a different type of movie to what you got and making you think someone has a bigger part then they do.
There's a film called "Empire State" which has Emma Roberts on the poster and one of the people credited on the poster, I watched the film and she was in 5 mins if that, film was obviously made before she made it big but came out after she became famous and they must have tried to use the fact that she was in the film to make money at the box office, terribly misleading
There's a film called "Empire State" which has Emma Roberts on the poster and one of the people credited on the poster, I watched the film and she was in 5 mins if that, film was obviously made before she made it big but came out after she became famous and they must have tried to use the fact that she was in the film to make money at the box office, terribly misleading
0
Comments
winners n sinners , and my lucky stars ,,,,,,,,, he's in em for about 10mins
but of course , his mug is plastered all over the box/poster
They can make bad movies look good.
This is one of the best examples I can think of. Falling Down, Michael Douglas movie from 1993. Despite it clearly NOT being a vigilante movie, that did not stop the publicists from emphasising that angle.
The poster is a construct...if you know the movie, the character never attained that weapon until later in the movie. But...never underestimate the power of a poster/dvd/blu ray cover with a man holding a gun on the cover. Even today the same is true.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=falling+down+movie+poster&rlz=1T4TEUA_enGB573GB573&biw=1093&bih=490&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=y23NVPS5DoP5Us3HgIgM&ved=0CCAQsAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=wjniWvn6z3AX6M%253A%3Bs0XkDrRbiZ1rjM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fbenjaminradford.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2012%252F06%252FFalling-Down.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fpixgood.com%252Ffalling-down-movie-poster.html%3B1000%3B1450
One of the most notable was the trailer for The Incredibles having that "I'll just have a salad" scene and it never even featured in the film.
Not only does that scene not occur in the movie but it makes Robby look like the villain of the movie.
I wouldn't say that's misleading at all. It's a great poster for a great movie. I can't see anyone being dissapointed watching the film based on that poster.
I have to say I agree with you, nothing on the poster that doesn't happen in the film.
drawing (not a photo!) of Barbara Shelley screaming,
wearing a bra and either panties,or a skirt.
No such scene happens in the film, nor does it need
to. Its a perfectly made little horror film, with Shelley
there basically as the ' token woman' scientist, which
was typical of a lot of the films made in that period!
There was a similar thing with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind I believe, the trailers were cut to make it look more like a full-on comedy (and I suppose the presence of Jim Carrey helped sell it like that). Can't remember the posters, but I know when we saw it in the cinema we were a bit surprised by the actual vibe of the film (pleasantly surprised, I should add).
london burns whilst helicopters take on dragons!
except you only ever saw one dragon on screen at any given time and it was a slow and ponderous film.
i remember the advertising got a lot of flack for this
There were loads of dragons in the final London scene.
I get what the OP said though - I too was disappointed that it wasn't a dragon-packed CGI fest from start to finish. There were elements of this, I suppose, but it was pretty meagre, and not at all as impressive as the poster suggested it would be.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=King%20Kong&gws_rd=ssl#tbm=isch&q=king+kong+1976&revid=1260776299&imgdii=_&imgrc=1TdPjWsWw2IzzM%253A%3B6gBuXhRX4WpwYM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%252Fgodzilla%252Fimages%252F0%252F0f%252FKingkong1976.jpg%252Frevision%252Flatest%253Fcb%253D20130625013908%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgodzilla.wikia.com%252Fwiki%252FKing_Kong_(1976_film)%3B594%3B836
If you have had the misfortune to see this one, you will know that the poster is pure nonsense, compared to the film itself...
Not sure if it happens much these days, but one trait which used to crop up was the often misleading quote of a single word culled from an otherwise middling or negative review.
"Amazing." - The Times, i.e. the locations are amazing but overall it's a dud.
So how is this an example of a misleading poster?
Found this after a quick google
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2017024/Billboards-that-twist-reviews-will-lead-to-jail.html
The poster shows them as a cosy smiley happy family...
Well...not quite.
The original poster shows two SEPERATE pics of Hoffman and Streep with their child, and with the title itself I would have thought it was clear what the movie is about...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kramer+vs+kramer+poster&rlz=1T4TEUA_enGB573GB573&tbm=isch&imgil=5igIv2jHk10UDM%253A%253BQpmGiApe8SQ-aM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fimgkid.com%25252Fkramer-vs-kramer-poster.shtml&source=iu&pf=m&fir=5igIv2jHk10UDM%253A%252CQpmGiApe8SQ-aM%252C_&usg=__iMurPMmnrEmP28-6fYStfvGKaNU%3D&biw=1093&bih=490&ved=0CDIQyjc&ei=tQHQVLP_PIe67ga6jIG4Bg#imgdii=_&imgrc=5igIv2jHk10UDM%253A%3BQpmGiApe8SQ-aM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pastposters.com%252Fcw3%252Fassets%252Fproduct_expanded%252F(JamieF-MAL)__KramerVsKramer(1).jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fimgkid.com%252Fkramer-vs-kramer-poster.shtml%3B1050%3B794
Looks like there have been other variations over the years, probably for home video/dvd.
That said, it's a very bad idea to make a judgement on what you think a movie is about based on the poster alone. Especially these days, when it's very easy to find out the basic premise of a movie on your phone.
I think the idea is that they used to be. Now it's a legal battle.
There are different versions of the poster and I'm obiously referring to the one I mentioned. Comprende?
So...what exactly did you think the title meant then?
Does Kramer vs Kramer sound like a love story to you?