Misleading trailers/posters -- movies marketed as entirely different genres

[baumer]

Godzilla is about Godzilla, it's not misleading.

MOS is about Superman, not misleading. 

Kramer vs Kramer is about divorce and how much it sucks for all involved, not misleading.

 

The trailers and posters for Waitress made it look like a comedy about being a waitress, when in reality it's a drama about life and marriage and food.....misleading.

 

See the difference?

[Fancyarcher]

I think you are seriously missing the point of this.

 

I guess I'm kinda confused. Is it about misleading marketing in the sense of how a studio sells a movie at first, or it is misleading marketing for a film (old or recent) when it get released to DVD / Blu-ray?

 

If that's the case then I imagine there are several examples of older movies featuring then unknown stars that were later sold on DVD as starring said star, such as The Mazes and Monsters example with Tom Hanks. While he's top billed in the film, that picture is from the 90's, and the movie was made in 1982.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Pokearcher

[Fancyarcher]

Eh.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Pokearcher

[Punishment]

Godzilla is about Godzilla, it's not misleading.

MOS is about Superman, not misleading. 

Kramer vs Kramer is about divorce and how much it sucks for all involved, not misleading.

 

The trailers and posters for Waitress made it look like a comedy about being a waitress, when in reality it's a drama about life and marriage and food.....misleading.

 

See the difference?

 

The marketing for Godzilla was for him to be the villain which was very much misleading.

[baumer]

The marketing for Godzilla was for him to be the villain which was very much misleading.

 

Yes, you are correct.  I take back Godzilla.....

[Plain Old Tele]

Godzilla wasn't misleading in this context at all. It was advertised as a Godzilla movie -- it was a Godzilla movie.

[Ethan Hunt]

Bridge to Terrabithia

[Fancyarcher]

Eh. Gotta keep thinking.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Pokearcher

[vc2002]

Im pretty sure all of you aren't really getting the point. 

 

Then enlighten us please.

[grim22]

I imagine the Chinese (or whichever this country is) people who bought this DVD must have been mighty disappointed.

 

[filmlover]

Georgia Rule (the godawful Gary Marshall-directed film starring Lindsay Lohan right before both her career and life officially imploded, Felicity Huffman when it seemed like she was gonna start appearing in movies after her Oscar nomination, and Jane Fonda in her second questionable role after an over decade long hiatus from the screen) was sold as a comedy/drama about three generations of women understanding each other when in reality it was a drama about incest.

 

Granted, it was still somewhat of a comedy (and fails miserably in trying to find humor in stuff that is never funny- this is a movie that thinks "funny" is Huffman trying to decide which weapon to kill sexually abusive husband Cary Elwes with and thinks that "touching" is Lohan trying to seduce Dermot Mulroney by wearing his dead wife's perfume), but...

[Fancyarcher]

 

Sure, its a horror film and the DVD cover doesn't hide that, but Eisenberg has about less than five minutes of screentime in total in the film, so I imagine people picking the film up were mighty disappointed.

 

It was so bad, that Eisenberg actually sued Lionsgate / Grindstone entertainment for trying to capitalize on his name.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Pokearcher

[AniNate]

You guys are naming movies that didn't live up to a hype or certain exceptions. None of those films mentioned had misleading marketing. Any movie with any sort of twist (90%) of movies have misleading marketing.

 

I wouldn't expect a movie with this kind of marketing treatment 

 

 

to involve the Irish Catholic Church cruelly preventing parents and their orphaned children from ever seeing each other.

Edited August 21, 2014 by tribefan695

[ddddeeee]

I remember hearing how The Howling was marketed as a pure slasher movie and people were shocked that there was a werewolf in it.

[Jessie]

The Village. Went in expecting a monster horror, instead I got a drama with no monsters what so ever.

[CJohn]

People saying that Godzilla's marketing wasn't misleading didn't either see anything of the marketing or didn't see the same movie as everyone else. I loved the movie. But the marketing sells it as a disaster movie where the evil force is Godzilla and the main character is Bryan Cranston. In the movie, the other creatures are the evil, the movie is about monsters fighting and Bryan Cranston dies 30 minutes after the movie starts.  

Edited August 21, 2014 by CJohn

[The Panda]

Philomena was pretty misleading, I think. There really isn't a whole lot of humor in the film and the story is quite tragic.

What it was advertised as: A dramatic retelling, emotional of a class origin story.What it was: Brainless Destructo porn.

[ChD]

Godzilla wasn't misleading in this context at all. It was advertised as a Godzilla movie -- it was a Godzilla movie.

 

It was a Godzilla movie, but not the one it was advertised as. Godzilla is the bad guy and stuff like that. The trailers were made for it to seem like that. It was misleading in every single way possible. Also, Cranston was advertised as being the main character...

[Plain Old Tele]

Misleading is naming a dark, character-driven adventure drama SORCERER.

[John Marston]

The Village without a doubt. Marketed as a scary horror movie but it was actually a drama. 

 

 

 

Signs is also a good example. It was marketed primarily as an alien invasion horror movie and while there are elements of that, it is mostly about a man trying to regain faith and the aliens just there as a plot device.

 

 

 

The first teaser for Super 8 made it look like a Cloverfield type of movie and with an "evil" type of monster. The actual movie is a Goonies/ET type of movie. The kids are no where to be found in that initial teaser, however the later trailes were more honest about the type of movie that it is. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by John Marston