Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MillerCreek

BUT, it's false advertising, no doubt about it and every.blasted.time a studio/distributor resorts to this type of -- even overtly in this particular instance -- misdirecting adverttising, consumers should KNOW they're being misled for whatever other reasons, but that there is certainly some ulterior purpose to a title.

Otherwise, why the false, misleading ad campaign at all? Studios resort to this type of plastic-advertising-surgery to present product that would otherwise be outright passed over by people searching for decent entertainment.




They pulled the EXACT same trick with Million Dollar Baby-promoting it as a feel-good, female version of "Rocky". Fortunately, I heard Limbaugh and a few others expose the ending, so I was spared being enraged. That new movie with Sara Jessica Parker is the same thing. The previews look like a toatally different movie. I think this type of false advertising pisses me off more than ANYTHING else about Hollywood.


92 posted on 01/24/2006 1:15:11 AM PST by The Foolkiller ( We're only trying to help people make right decisions-with the full force of government, of course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: The Foolkiller

I avoided the Jessica Parker movie because I heard it was promoting liberalism. I haven't talked to anyone who actually saw it.


93 posted on 01/24/2006 10:42:49 AM PST by Dr. Scarpetta (Democrats would vote against Jesus Christ for the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

To: The Foolkiller

I agree. The false advertising by Hollywood is really, really offensive. Moreso than even Hollywood seems capable of understanding, unfortuantely.

I had the same reaction to "MILLION DOLLAR BABY," and actually did not even like the ad campaign, though, yes, after I eventually saw the film, I agree that it was also misleading. Some of Eastwood's films do advertise in a somewhat indirect fashion -- part of his appeal -- but I'd never seen one that was this inaccurately presented. I only saw the film after I bought the DVD and avoided it in the theatres because I'd read the story line and found it offensive (I still do, but Eastwood as director was incentive to purchase the DVD, which I don't regret but I also don't consider this film to be one of his worthy ones).

About the Parker film, I didn't see it and don't know nor have even heard of anyone who has.

It's like "Sex In the City," I knew no one who even watched that, all those years. The only people I ever knew who loved that series and Parker in it are gays on the internet who assumed everyone else felt similarly (but who didn't). The series was largely written by homosexual males from the perspective depicting females living and behaving as drag queens, for lack of a better expression and I got that pretty early on about the Series and avoided it (what was the point of watching).

Knowing the industry a bit, the homosexual culture is pretty well saturated in the television projects that eventually are produced. It's a noticable and still offensive characteristic to my view and certainly why the industry is flailing.


94 posted on 01/24/2006 4:49:35 PM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson