Well, one film that was marketed terribly was Scorsese’s Shutter Island – completely deceived audiences into expecting a “Sixth Sense” twist at the end of film. Blah, audiences are sheep.
I haven’t seen Cyrus, but I’ll check it out (and I won’t expect it to be Superbad of course).
Most big budget films have to show some kind of action or romance to appeal to mainstream audiences. The New World poster, for example, shows Colin Farrell engaged in some action pose fighting off some tribesman. Of course, this is not at all like the overall film.
Trailers are often pretty poor in conveying the film, especially with films that blur the line between mainstream and arthouse.
“Black Snake Moan” got a poster that played up every 70es sleaze angle you could think of, with Christina Ricci clinging to Sam Jackson’s leg. On that level it is a funny poster, but the film is really a very dark satire on some levels, and Ricci reportedly was furious at how the film was marketed, as she had lobbied hard to play that role.
“Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” got a new english-market title from the original “Men Who Hate Women” and the poster is a bit much Addams Family, with Blomquist the journalist in a chair in front of a fireplace and Lisbeth staring at you from the floor. The freak angle is an easy sell, but that is only part of the story here. They could have maintained the wild contrast between the two in any number of other ways and still “sold the product.”
Check out this poster for Slumdog Millionaire:
http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2009/01/slumdog-millionaire-poster.jpg
Boy, I’m sure when that audience saw the opening scenes of Dev Patel being tortured, they wondered whether they walked into the wrong theater.
Also, I remember seeing a trailer for Sweeney Todd and it was structured in such a way where you would not know it was actually a musical. This was during a time, I think, when musicals were not very hot and they thought the gothic horror audience was a safer bet.
Claus: it’s the same image on the Swedish poster, fyi. I thought Cyrus wasn’t that bad at marketing, but then again, I know the Duplass bros. They wouldn’t sell-out and do a Superbad thing.
Sam,
Yes, I have seen the poster in several languages; it just feels a bit cheap considering the material.
I think Adventureland also suffered from the SuperBad effect, it was pumped up “by the director of SuperBad,” but it was a very different, and much better, film.
& Uli Cain, I agree. This is why I don’t look into the marketing that much of films and completely erase all expectations when I walk into a movie. Too many times either myself or someone I know has been let down because they expected/wanted it to be something that it’s not. It’s almost impossible for a great movie to convey the same feeling in a single poster or 2 minute trailer clip. So now, even though I’ll check out a trailer here and there, it’s mainly reviews and word of mouth that makes me watch a movie (plus, the talent behind the films too). I didn’t need to watch a single Greenberg trailer to know that I’d like it since I’m a big Noah Baumbach fan and the reviews solidified my feelings before going in.
Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.
I’m sure everyone remembers that….
How about A Single Man, which has marketing that very clearly avoids bringing up the homosexual relationship that is at the core of the concept itself?
Bridge to Terabithia was severely mismarketed as a Chronicles of Narnia rip-off. The trailer looked escapist and bland and overplayed the CGI, when the movie itself is a pitch-perfect look into the grief of losing a friend at a very young age (something that, uh, I can relate to very well thank you very much).
—PolarisDiB
Harold and Maude
You really think Eyes Wide Shut was marketed bad?? I don’t know the whole picture because I was only like ummm… lemme think, like 6? and I don’t ever remember seeing anything about it but I’ve watched the trailer on youtube and thought it was pretty close to perfect…Kubrick mostly always has the coolest trailers..All it needs to do is say KUBRICK in big white letters across the screen…nothing else.
I’ve got one.
Gregory Nava’s 1997 picture WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE? was marketed on TV as a sort of dopey, lowbrow “ghetto” comedy…
…..and it is anything but. It is truly an excellent picture in nearly every way, and has depth that the trailers never revealed.
Yes, Eyes Wide Shut was marketed bad.
It was marketed in such a sensacionalist way, exploring the sexual side of it.
Kubrick would never allow that… they just took advantage of his death…
Good to hear that Cyrus is not what it looks like.
SPOILER ALERT! Supposedly Psycho was marketed SPOILER ALERT in mexico as “the mother that wasn’t”. Could be an urban legend, but talk about “spoiler alert.”
ahh now I see how EWS was marketed bad… You are right.
“I thought Cyrus wasn’t that bad at marketing, but then again, I know the Duplass bros. They wouldn’t sell-out and do a Superbad thing.” – Sam
Do you mean you know them personally? Or do you just base this on their previous work?
I really hope Cyrus is much better than what it has been advertised as. After watching the Puffy Chair and their short films I couldn’t have been more interested in what they were up to next (although I still haven’t gotten my hands on Baghead). But the marketing for Cyrus, along with the news of their stoner comedy with ed helms and jason segel, made me believe they were more focused on working out of the typical hollywood confines than challenging themselves again. I hope my assumptions prove to be wrong. These guys are way to talented to be churning out the same stuff that any run of the mill director could.
@Adam; No, I wish. That was worded badly. I meant that I think I know their work well enough (and from interviews) that they wouldn’t forsake their style to get bigger audiences.
Surreal Comedy Nothing (2003) was marketed as a Horror-Thriller.
Also Monster a-Go Go (1965) – marketed as “Here’s the Picture that grabs the screen and shakes it” when it should have been “The Film so bad people will get up to shake the screen in anger”
Jirin
I saw Cyrus the other day based on recommendations. I had a lot of reservations about seeing it based on the advertising. They set it up as a war between Jon and Cyrus, and they focused on two scenes in the ads. One where Cyrus is standing with a kitchen knife and no pants, gesturing to Jon saying “Come here”. And one where Cyrus is holding up signs to him saying “YOU’RE GOING DOWN”. Both of those scenes are shown completely out of context and come off as being completely different than they actually are.
They think they can get a mainstream crossover audience because the movie has Jonah Hill in it. So now a lot of people are going to see it expecting it to be Superbad, and they’re going to hate it because it doesn’t have a grossout joke every thirty seconds.
The focus of the movie isn’t on ‘hard laughs’ or gags. It’s smart and subtle, about emotional manipulation and attachment issues kids have when their parents coddle them. So I enjoyed it, and I almost didn’t see it because of what the ads made it look like.
Why do movie studios feel the need to market every movie like it follows the same formula as every other movie? That way, the people who see it aren’t going to like it, and a lot of the people who would like it aren’t going to see it. Worse than that, if you form false expectations for a movie, people are going to watch the movie looking for those expectations to be met, and might overreact against it when it doesn’t meet them.