In the 70s Corman used to cut a scene of an helicopter explosion into every trailer… More lies!
I believe the Coen Brothers made a “trailer” for Blood Simple in order to secure funding before they even did primary shooting on the film itself.
It depends on the footage, if there’s something that I really noticed that’s not included it does sometimes annoy me. But most of the time it’s mostly not a big deal.
As long as the trailer does not give away too much of the story, the director can edit in anything they want. There is a lot of footage in the trailers for Inglorious Basterds that did not make it into the final cut, probably to cut down the running time:
The shot of the German officer taking off his hat to reveal the swastika. That was cut shorter.
The shot of the guards ganging up on Brad Pitt. That was cut shorter.
The shot of Brad Pitt saying “Oh yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!”, I assume was shot only for the trailer.
In the process of editing a film the editors have to sift through a lot of takes and it is not surprising that alternate takes should make it into the trailer. I preferably like it when alternate takes are used in the trailer. I don’t like it when I am watching a movie for the first time and feel as if I’ve already seen it.
As an aspiring artist myself, I would like to use the trailer almost as a vignette, almost as a supplement to the larger film, rather than just taking recycled pieces from the completed film, but rather adding new information that is vital to the characters, and keeps the artist from having to do to much in the way of explaining and setting up stuff once the audience is in their theater.
This is a widely employed practice, and does work, because it doesn’t spoil as much, but on the other hand, District 9. The trailer made the film look nothing but a mockumentary AND did not include the protagonist Wikus.
Funny People did this.
it ensured that all the jokes were fresh.
a good policy for comedies.
I am not a fan of this. I think it is a bit deceiving. I think the trailer is used to publicize a movie and when they show you scenes that aren’t in the movie its false advertising. After all, the trailer is all of, what, 30 seconds? Can they not find 30 seconds of footage from the film that characterizs the film you are going to be seeing? If the trailer is meant to show give you a picture of the movie and entice you to go see it then why should it include shots that aren’t in the film? If the scene was not essential enough to make the 100 minute cut, then why should it make the 30 second cut? Now the technique of making a trailer that is almost entirely composed of material that is not in the film, I have no problem with. In these types of trailers it is made clear that this footage is not material from the film, but rather supplementary material used to get you to go see it. (I can’t think of any example of this but I knowe I have seen it before.)
btw I do hate it when good jokes are put in the trailer and therefore are not as funny when you see the full picture. I also hate it when key plot elements are shown in the trailer, therefore spoiling the movie.
Don’t forget that marketing may start on a film long before a final print is finished for theatrical distribution. Often times, editors will have access to ALL of the footage when cutting a trailer, sometimes just specific sequences. It’s a collaborative effort where they approve whatever is used, but this is why alternate takes or even jokes are used in trailers… because at the time, there may not have been a final one created.
Yes, it’s best with comedies, although still funny that it irks people. I can remember Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls being my first memory of quoted jokes from the trailer and then not being included. Now, you’ll have a visual gag like in Knocked Up, and in the final version, we see a nude version obviously not in the commercial spot (Rogen on the bed waking up after his 1 night stand.)
>>In the 70s Corman used to cut a scene of an helicopter explosion into every trailer… <<
The use of alternate takes in trailers for Hollywood films dates back at least to the 1930s.
Well it was already running at 2 and a 1/2 hours mind you. But yeah some lines where cut here and there. The Back story for Shosanna getting the cinema was considerably removed, and I noticed some jump cuts here and there. Like the automatic cut to the Vets from La Loisiana. But over all its wasn’t that noticeable to most I think. I just have an eye for that sort of thing.
I always want to see the scenes that were in the trailer so that I can see what lead up to them. I felt deceived by District 9 and Inglorious Basterds (even though District 9 did not disappoint).
I don’t like QT or his movie IB, but I have no problem with the general practice, and in fact am in favor or it.
I always want to see the scenes that were in the trailer so that I can see what lead up to them. I felt deceived by District 9 and Inglorious Basterds (even though District 9 did not disappoint).
I always want to see the scenes that were in the trailer so that I can see what lead up to them. I felt deceived by District 9 and Inglorious Basterds (even though District 9 did not disappoint).
I prefer this to suspense films that include spoilers in the trailers and comedies that include all the good jokes in the trailers.
The trailer on the Kwaidan Criterion showeds some deleated scenes. I was pissed.
Trailers are a marketing tool. Nothing more. Some are Good Marketing tools, some are not. The teaser for Superman Returns was a good tool.
I recently watched Contempt on Bluray. The extras included a trailer amongst other bits and peices – I think it was the trailer that showed a completely different take of the scene in the projection room where Jack Palance pushes over the canisters of film. He then kicks some around and picks one up to throw it like a discus – but he doesn’t throw it – in the actual film he does throw it!
Other IB trailer differences include Eli Roth saying set hut eyes forward, only says set hut in the movie and its during the title card, Chapter 2, Inglourious Basterds not a closeup. Nazi doing the nazi salute with cars driving by. During the Hugo Stiglits intro there is a part where one of the basterds slits a germans throat, in the trailer it shows the basterd throw his knife up and catch it or something like that afterwards. Well those are the ones I remember anyway
I like it because it means less stuff in the film that I will have seen in the trailers. Works for me!
MovieFreak4702
I was thinking just now about the scene in the Inglourious Basterds trailer where one of the Basterds is running down a hallway with a gattling gun, firing and screaming, and it occurred to me how common of a trend it is when studios use deleted scenes in the trailers for films. In the case of Basterds, I expected a childish action film from the trailers and was completely surprised by how much I enjoyed the film. In fact, I have to admit that I’m glad that scene was left out of the final cut, seeing as it may have dumbed down the pace of the film. My question is this; when the studios use unused footage to cut trailers, does it piss you off, or do you just see it as clever integration of otherwise useless shot footage? I’m all for the use of cut scenes in trailers because it’s almost as if the director gets to show more of his work to the world. The Dark Knight trailers used this technique, and it was brilliant because when you eventually got to see that film it was as if you really didn’t know what was coming next, or how it would look.