Film, List, Opinion



Since the dawn of the internet we have been living in a world where information is more widely and easily available than ever before. This has made pretty much everything more competitive, especially in the entertainment industry. It is harder than ever before to get a film made, and even if a great film is backed by a studio it will still bomb if it isn’t marketed in a way that gets people interested.

Advertising is in itself a huge business, and there are people out there who have dedicated their entire lives to working out what it is that sells things to people. It turns out that we as the human race are not an overly imaginative bunch, and mainstream cinema audiences are more likely to react to marketing that they recognise – be that a notable actor/actress or a typical narrative, marketing experts will generally gear advertising material about a film to fit certain quotas.

PicMonkey CollageThis can often lead to misleading marketing material that more often than not doesn’t actually represent the product that is being sold to us. This can work both ways, either selling an indie film as more mainstream fare (Me, Earl and the Dying Girl earlier this year was very much marketed as a YA adaption in the vein of The Fault in Our Stars in spite of being a vastly different film, for example) or tricking audiences into seeing a generic flick.

The ways in which marketing material can be misleading varies in a number of ways, but most tactics generally centralise around the ‘bait and switch’ idea where material will lure audiences in before turning out to be something totally different – this is done with actor/actresses, notable directors and trailers, as well as posters and even titles of films.

The thing is, advertising works. As much as many of us would like to believe that we are not susceptible, but with advertising being a multi-billion dollar industry the odds are stacked against us, and a lot of what makes marketing material work is the fact that it can sometimes operate on a subconscious level.

This post will look at these tactics in more detail using various examples of real life marketing material that was essentially misleading in the representation it provided of the film in question.


PicMonkey Collage

Posters are one of the main forms of marketing when it comes to movies – they generally set the tone and establish the stars of the film, as well as generally alluding to what the film is about. However, there are plenty of examples of times where distributors have provided movie posters which quite drastically misrepresent the film in some way.

A notable example from earlier this year was Legend, which made the headlines when it was revealed that it had strategically placed a two star review from The Guardian to look like it was a five star review. The review, from critic Benjamin Lee, was decidedly less than complementary about the Tom Hardy starring gangster biopic, yet the way the stars had been placed in the poster made it look like it was yet another excellent review of the film, leading to Lee himself writing an article about the dangers of misleading advertising. He pointed out that this was far from a one off, and the practice of taking critics quotes or ratings out of context and placing them in marketing material is a surprisingly common.

Other examples of posters which were essentially misleading include one of the US posters for The Aviator (2004) which tries to entice fans of Saving Private Ryan type films by taking an action still completely out of context, or the Spanish poster for The Godfather (1972), which was based on an early draft of the script which involved a spaghetti restaurant and just ends up coming across as promoting stereotypes.

Here are some of more examples of misleading movie posters…

  • PicMonkey CollageKramer . Vs. Kramer (1979) – shows a happy family even though the film is the depiction of the breaking up of said family
  • Drugstore Cowboy (1989) – selling a movie about drug addicts is always going to be hard, but the main characters on the poster are much chirpier than they appear in the film.
  • My Sister’s Keeper (2009) – Much like Drugstore Cowboy, marketing a movie about cancer is difficult, but this poster contains a lot more smiling than we ever see in this tearjerker


PicMonkey Collage

It goes without saying that a movie title is one of the most important elements, as it tends to be a consumers first point of contact with the product. A poor or bland title is unlikely to entice audiences, and sometimes quirky or unusual trailers can be used for generic films, or vice versa. Titles differ from other marketing materials in that they are often taken from other mediums – for example, if a film is based on a book the title will often be retained.

However, there are examples of films based on books where the title was changed, presumably as part of the marketing strategy. This would include the likes of Slumdog Millionaire (2009), which was based on Q&A by Vikas Swarup. From a marketing perspective the name change is quite obvious – the idea of a slumgod millionaire is much more evocative than a Q&A session, and it immediately gives the consumer a bigger insight into what the film is about.

Love, Rosie (2014) is based on Irish author Cecilia Aherne’s second novel, entitled Where Rainbows End (2004) and is another example of a title change, with the movie title nodding more towards rom-com material.

trainspottingFilms such as Trainspotting (1994) retained their book titles, but no longer make sense in the context of the film. The book contains a line which alludes to the act of trainspotting and also acts as character development for the pyschotic Begbie, who was immortalised on screen by Robert Carlyle. However slight this alluding to the title was, it was still present, and no such instance occurs in the film, essentially making the title obsolete. This did nothing to impact the overall quality of the movie however, and it was going to be a hard task for the marketing strategists to come up with a title for a film about Edinburgh based heroin addicts and sociopaths.

Film titles can also change from country to country, the most famous recent example being the Avengers/Avengers Assemble instance in 2012. The culmination of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was markered in the US as The Avengers, whilst in the UK it was distributed as The Avengers Assemble. This was done due to the existence of a TV show titled in The Avengers in the UK, making it crystal clear to audiences that they were not the same thing.

Other examples of differences between the US/UK movie titles include…

  • Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone_postersHarold and Kumar go to White Castle (US) became Harold and Kumar get the Munchies (UK) due to the lack of White Castle fast food chain in the UK.
  • Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (UK) became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (US) – there is much debate as to why this was the case, but it is generally deemed to be because the idea of a sorcerer was one that implied ‘magical’ more than philosophers in to the US market.
  • Dracula 2000 (US) was changed to Dracula 2001 internationally due to the fact that it was released the year after. Apparently audiences wouldn’t buy that a film about Dracula was set a year in the past.

Whilst these title changes are not misleading in themselves, it shows how important titles are as part of the overall marketing strategy, with distributors being willing to actually change a title if they feel it will sell a movie better.

More examples of titles that are misleading…

  • The Squid and the Whale (2005) – It’s not about a squid, or a whale, though dioramas of both are seen in the film at the American Museum of Natural History. Does this count?
  • Antichrist (2009) – Whilst it may sound like your run of the mill horror/possession/exorcism movie, its actually part of Lars Von Trier’s overly depressing depression trilogy.
  • 12 Monkeys (1995) – It’s not about 12 monkeys, ok?


PicMonkey Collage

The old bait and switch is one of the oldest tricks in the book – marketing a film with a well known star at the forefront of all the material, only for them to hardly appear in the film itself, which people will only find out once they have already paid to see it. It’s a concept thats still around because it works, and despite social media making it easier and easier for audiences to deduce what is going on before a film comes out, we are still being collectively duped more than you would think.

Just this year the marketing material for Suffragette (2015) had us all thinking that Meryl Streep was in the main cast as the notable real life campaigner Emmeline Pankhurst. She featured heavily in all the material including trailers and posters, but turned out to only be in the film for a grand total of about five minutes. There was no reason to believe that Streep had anything less than a leading role, but it turned out that Cary Mulligan was the lead, with Helena Bohem Carter appearing in a supporting capacity. Streep was really no more than a cameo, making her appearance in the marketing material extremely misleading. It’s clear why this was the strategy however – Streep is one of the most famous and successful actresses of all time, and whilst Bohem Carter and Mulligan are both respected they in no way carry the level of traction that Streep does. Featuring her heavily in the marketing was also a clever move in enaging with US audiences, who will recognise her much more than the British Mulligan and Bohem Carter.

One of the first notable uses of the bait and switch of a star was in Alfred Hitchcock’s Pyscho (1960), which was marketed with Janet Leigh as the lead. She is then killed off in the first half an hour of the film, a feat that was famously repeated by Wes Craven with Drew Barrymore in Scream (1996). Both films were hugely successful – arguably partly due to the marketing of famous actresses Leigh and Barrymore as respective leads.

Other examples of this in practice include…

  • 273894_oriLeprechaun (1993) – The DVD release of this horror film capitalised on the fact that Jennifer Aniston, who has a relatively minor role in the movie, had struck gold as Rachel Green on Friends (1994-2004), and she is featured on the cover design.
  • Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) – Sean Penn is implied as the lead but it actually just part of a larger ensemble cast.
  • Halloween: Resurrection (2002) – Marketed almost wholly on the grand return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who is then killed off in the first half.
  • The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) – Marketed on Ryan Gosling and Bradley Cooper’s names, completely leaving out the other half which focuses on their sons, played by the then lesser known Dane DeHaan and Emory Cohen respectively.


PicMonkey Collage

This is a trend that is slightly less obvious, but is still prevalent across Hollywood marketing material. Once a director has made a name for themselves, sticking their name on a poster or in a trailer is a surefire way of convincing people that a movie is worth seeing. The thing is, advertising will tend to stick a directors name on it even if their involvement with the film was not in a very large capacity, as it is easier to sell a picture on their name than that of a newbie or a less established film-maker.

Guillermo del Toro is a director that has had his name attached to several films, to the point that he actually spoke about it in an interview, saying:

“I only do it when – (a) I am introducing a filmmaker to the world, but (b) I endorse and say I believe in this movie very, very strongly. For whatever reason, it’s a more risky proposition in one way, but it’s one that I believe needs to continue to support first-time filmmakers. . . . I only do it when I fully believe I was involved in the product in a way that is meaningful.” 

del Toro was attached to Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (2013), which was directed by Troy Nixey and The Orphanage (2007), directed by J . A Bayona. Regardless of the reasons why a director may choose to allow their name to be attached to a film, there is no doubt that it is both an effective and misleading marketing tactic. Audiences are going to see something based on the fact that they know and like the work of the director appearing on the poster, which can sometimes lead to them seeing a rubbish movie bolstered by the name, or give an up and coming film-maker a chance by viewing it, albeit under false pretences.

Other examples include…

  • The_nightmare_before_christmas_posterNightmare Before Christmas (1993) – Generally marketed as Tim Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas. Whilst the king of kook is responsible for the concept and is credited as a producer, the film was actually directed by Henry Selik.
  • Hostel (2005) – Splat pack director Eli Roth’s super violent torture horror film had Quentin Tarantino serve as an executive producer, and it was his name that the film was marketed on in spite of the fact Roth both wrote and directed the film.
  • Sanctum (2011) – Advertised as coming from executive producer James Cameron ‘the creator of Avatar and Titanic’, the way it is written on the poster makes the words James Cameron, Titanic and Avatar the ones that stand out. Considering they are two of the most financially successful films of all time, it is little wonder that is the slant the marketing took, in spite of the film being directed by Alister Grierson, who has no such accolades on his CV.


PicMonkey Collage

Trailers are increasingly becoming the most important part of the marketing of a movie, providing without a doubt the biggest insight into what the film is going to be about. However, like everything else that has been explored in this post, they can be edited in a way that totally misrepresents the narrative and overall tone of a film.

The films of Nicolas Winding Refn are notable for being marketed in ways that do not fully represent the final product. Three examples are Valhalla Rising (2009), Drive (2011) and Only God Forgives (2013). Valhalla Rising’s entire marketing campaign piggy-backed on the success of Zack Snyder’s 300 (2006), right down to the DVD cover and posters. However, the film is actually a deep study of a norse warrior. Drive is a neo-noir crime thriller that was marketed as a Fast and Furious style caper, whereas the final product is something much darker and broodier. Only God Forgives was advertised as a marital arts flick, but again was a thriller where marital arts was only a component factor. The marketing of these films, along with the fact that the very bankable Ryan Gosling (who is also featured heavily in the advertising) starred in the latter two allows them to be accessible to mainstream audiences in a way that they may not have without these elements.

Some other examples of misleading trailers include…

  • 126166377_iron-man_406735cIron Man 3 (2013) – the one that left comic book villains the world over bitter, the trailer advertised famous Iron Man foe The Mandarin as the big bad, only to pull a bait and switch and reveal Ben Kingsley’s character to be an drunken actor.
  • Magic Mike (2012) – Steven Soderbergh’s film was a deep character study marketed as a flashy chick-flick based around male strippers.
  • The Grey (2011) – capitalised on the Liam Neeson as an action lead phenomenon that began with 2009’s Taken, but The Grey was actually a study of the human relationship with death that is surprisingly light on the action.
  • Cabin in the Woods (2011) – marketed as a run of the mill teen slasher flick, but Drew Goddard’s Cabin in the Woods takes the idea of meta-horror to a level that makes Scream (1996) look as though it lacks self-awareness.

Which films do you think had misleading marketing campaigns? Let me know in the comments section!


Film, List


One of the best things about film is the fact that most movies, especially the best ones, are open to interpretation and have various different meanings. Some metaphors and theories are so well-known and talked about that they have become accepted as basically being the truth, such as the idea that Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is about segregation in the USA. Others are much less discussed and more unexpected, and here are five that I find to be the most surprising…


DragmetohellSam Riami’s 2009 outing was released to critical acclaim and it considered a return to the directors roots, with his early outings being the cult classic Evil Dead films. Despite this being the case, a surprising amount of people write the film off as being camp or un-scary, apparently forgetting the cult B-movie  appeal that Riami became known for in the first place. Drag Me To Hell tells the story of Christine Brown (Alison Loham), a young woman living and working in LA who has a curse put on her by a creepy gypsy woman Sylvia Ganush (Lorna Raver) which will see her being literally dragged to hell in three days. It all seems like something that could be taken at face value, but one more interesting interpretation of the film is that it us actually depicting a character being consumed by an eating disorder. There is actually quite a bit of evidence to support this idea throughout the film. There is very prominent fly imagery throughout the film, which holds heavy connotations with death and the decay of flesh. We see a picture of a younger Christine who is overweight, and an attack tends to take place whenever food is introduced on screen.  Any attacks or incidents that take place in Christine’s home always take place in the kitchen, and when the spirit that is harassing her is shown in shadow form it has pig hooves, again playing into the idea of Christine’s insecurities. The incidents that occur throughout the film are always related to the mouth or including vomit, again creating the idea that Christine is suffering from an eating disorder. Ganush shows many attributes of bulimia sufferers such as poor nails and rotting teeth. Christine is also never shown to eat throughout the film, and the time that she tries to she is attacked. This genuinely just scratches the surface of the idea, and Youtube and the internet is filled with much more detailed analysis of the film which lend even more credibility to this very interesting theory.


Toy_Story_3_posterI know, I know, how can a PIXAR film be about something as horrific as the holocaust in any way, shape or form? But there is no doubt that a lot of the parallels are there, and Pixar has made its name by providing beautiful animation with a range of deeper meanings which contributes to its universal appeal. Toy Story 3 saw the toys we had all come to know and love dealing with the fact that Andy is all grown up and going to college. The fact that the film came out in 2010 meant that the generation that grew up loving the first two movies (AKA me) were also growing up and therefore found it very difficult to control their emotions come the films end (if you didn’t cry you are heartless). All the misty eyed emotion that comes with viewing the film means you may not have noticed some of the distinct parallels the it holds with the treatment of Jews in the holocaust. One of the more on the nose references comes when Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) suggests that the toy gang hide in the attic to avoid being given away. This can be seen as a direct reference to the famous story of Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl who hid along with her family in an attic during the second world war, with her diaries becoming famous across the world following the end of the war. Looking at the narrative in a broader sense, we see the toys being taken away to Sunnyside Daycare. What seems like a utopia soon reveals itself to be a fascist dictatorship at the hands of Lotso-Huggin-Bear (Ned Beatty). This can be taken as a metaphor for the treatment of Jews and concentration camps during the Holocaust. It’s an interesting theory which gives a much deeper meaning to an already emotional film. I’m going to stop writing about it now, I think I have something in my eye…


Batman-Returns-batman-returns-14752890-655-492The second Batman film directed by Tim Burton, released in 1992, actually went so far as to ignite a debate about antisemitism regarding Danny DeVito’s performance as primary villain Penguin. The film sees Penguin introduced as a grotesque baby who is sent down the Gotham Zoo river in a basket by his wealthy parents, thus growing up within (adopted by?) the city sewers and eventually unveiling a plot to kill the first born in every Gotham family. This can be seen to directly parallel Exodus from the Bible – where Moses was sent down a river in a basket, adopted by the Pharaoh, with God later unleashing plagues which included the death of every first born child in Passover. The fact that Penguin, the films villain, is carrying out these actions is what led to the antisemitic accusations, as well as the arguments that DeVito’s character depicts many Jewish stereotypes. Howeve Wesley Srick, the (JEWISH) screenwriter of Batman Returns, was adamant that this was not the case and said he had made deliberate reference to Exodus/Passover in the script. Personally I thought that this reference seemed rather obvious once it was pointed out, and I can’t believe I hadn’t already made the connection in my mind on my own.

2 – THE GREY is about DEATH

The-GreyThe Grey was released in 2012, with the marketing material having a field day capitalising on Liam Neeson’s post Taken popularity as an action hero. The actual film turned out to be much more than an Alaskan based alpha-male/wolf action fest however, instead proving to be a sombre look at the nature of death. The film depicts the journey of oil-rig workers who are faced with trying to survive after a plane crash lands them right in the middle of a wolfpack (not The Hangover kind) death-zone. No matter what your take on the movie, The Grey does not make for comfortable viewing, and my interpretation is that this is because we live in a society where death is a major taboo, and it is therefore no wonder that when we are faced with a film that tackles the subject in such a head on matter we are bound to feel slightly awkward. In the film we see Neeson’s character Ottoway tell a mortally wounded casualty of the plane crash “you’re going to die”, and we see everyone else react in a mixture of shock, horror and discomfort that we the viewer are also experiencing. Looking deeper into the subtext however, and The Grey is really about the way in which people deal with death, and the fact that no matter how we handle it, it’s inevitable. The wolves represent death in this context, a constantly lurking presence that is ready to strike at any time. The film looks at three ways of dealing with death – running from it, accepting it, or fighting it. We see these played out in the actions of all the characters, some of whom desperately try to escape the wolves, whilst others such as Diaz sit down and accept what is coming to them. Then we have Ottoway, who isn’t going down without a fight (it is Liam Neeson, of course). As depressing as it may be, there is no doubt that The Grey is a surprisingly deep and interesting study of the way we as human beings deal with the inevitability of death.


TrumanshowThe Truman Show is a truly excellent 1998 film which starred Jim Carrey as the titular Truman. The film has a lot to say about the nature of reality, reality television and the whole ‘big brother’ concept, but it also draws some quite interesting parallels to the life of Buddha.

Both were raised in a life of comfort which they came to deduce was not a true reflection of real life – Buddha lived in the security and wealth of a palace whilst Truman was brought up in a manufactured ‘American Dream’ reality – which was constructed by a father or father figure. Both went on to gradually reject the environment in which they were raised, going on to pursue a path to enlightenment. It’s quite a cool idea, though it can be argued that the messages being put forward in The Truman Show are universal and can also be applied to other concepts such as Plato’s Cave Allegory.


I have to admit some of these are extremely grim, so to end on a happy note here is the barmy but interesting Pixar Theory, which creates a timeline which argues that ALL of the Pixar films exist within the same world. Some points are really stretching the material, but it is still a really inventive and fun theory. You can check it out below, let me know what you think in the comments section!: