notoliberals

notoliberals OP t1_ja4grqv wrote

I am judging the movie on the criteria that I wasn't given what I was promised. If I were at a restaurant and ordered a steak to receive a salad instead, I would judge that salad on how good it is as the steak I ordered. When choosing a movie based on the trailer, you expect the movie to be what was promised in the trailer. I got something totally different. Something I didn't want to watch.

−2

notoliberals OP t1_ja4ffo1 wrote

> Trailers are allowed to be creatively misleading for marketing purposes, that doesn’t reach the threshold for false advertising.

That sounds like something a lawyer defending the fraudsters in court might say. The point is that it didn't honestly depict the product that was actually there. I got something other than what I was promised in the trailer.

−28

notoliberals OP t1_ja4emne wrote

I mean...it is like whoever was in charge of marketing realized that the real movie would appeal to very few people and instead presented it as a Guy Richie-type comedy that many people would have been glad to watch.

I have made this post mostly because I was furious at getting tricked into wasting 2 hours watching something totally different from what I was promised. For over an hour, I watched the movie waiting for the depressing bit to end and for the fun comedy action to finally start, and never got it.

−12

notoliberals OP t1_ja4dv4d wrote

The tones are mismatched. That is probably the greatest problem. I imagine that most people when viewing the trailer are looking at the tone and judging if it would match what they want to watch. In "The Bruges" the tone is completely off. So much so that I would go on to call it false advertising. Whoever are the audience for the film as it is presented in the trailer (like myself), are unlikely to be the audience for the movie as it really is.

−24