Predators Shrink Ray Zapped My Movie

The Grocery Shrink Ray is so powerful its scope spreads beyond grocery store aisles and into movie theaters, where it reduces the number of bloodthirsty villains in action movies.

Readers complained about sexed-up trailers that misled viewers as to what would be in the movie.

Chris wrote:

This might be completely ridiculous, but I thought it was kind of interesting. I saw the movie “Predators” today and there was a major difference between a scene from the trailer and the scene in the movie.

In the trailer, there’s a scene where Adrian Brody is standing facing what what we believe to be many predators based on the the multiple targets that appear all over his face and torso. (The targets being those 3 red dots used by the predator’s shoulder mounted weapon). Yet in the movie itself, in that exact same scene, there’s only one target on Adrien Brody.

Now I can recall times where I’ve seen a scene in a movie trailer that wasn’t in the movie. I realize that filmmakers are constantly editing up to the release. But in this case, that’s not possible. The movie only had four total predators (three of which were hunting the humans). So basically, it was completely bogus and intentional to make it seem that there were perhaps a dozen or even more based on the scene from the trailer.

I don’t know what you would call this. Is this false advertising? It’s certainly deceptive.

David, who was also miffed, complained to 20th Century Fox and got this response:

We’re sorry you were disappointed in the film, and will send you the $4.80. Could you please send me your address, and I will send you a check as soon as possible.

Clever reply there, admitting no guilt while taking care of the problem.

Because ad campaigns often launch before movies are completed, it’s never a guarantee that what you see in the trailer ends up in the final cut.

What movie trailer has left you feeling the most burned after you saw the movie?

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Yankees368 says:

    But these trailers run AFTER the movie is complete and is running in theatres. I noticed this same exact thing in this movie. It’s one thing to have a scene in a trailer a few months before release, but to keep it in commercials and trailers after release is something else all together.

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      And like the OP stated, there are only 4 predators in the movie. There was no way at all for Brody to have that many predators pointing a weapon at him.

      On a side note, wouldn’t the predators have some type of laser site that only they could see?

    • MattAlbie says:

      This is very wrong. Even the tv-spots that are designed to run after the movie comes out are typically cut *months* in advance. They cut the first trailer, and then often cut a variety of TV spots from that trailer. The only thing they leave until the last minute is the “This movie is great!” quotes from newspapers and stuff. The actual footage, though, has been locked for ages.

  2. UniformOfDestruction says:

    You saw the new Predator movie, and that is your *ONLY* complaint? Nothing about the boring plot? Nothing about the substandard acting?

    On a serious note though : I do recall the scene you are talking about. And, I also recall thinking the exact same thing as I was watching it. Do I feel cheated by it? Well, now that you bring it up — yes, I do. Thanks. You gave me another reason to hate the movie :)

  3. ktetch says:

    $4.80? This isn’t 1998

    The average US ticket price, according to the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO – not bigging themselves up at all, are they!) was $7.50 last year

    • Yankees368 says:

      I saw it on a Tuesday, which is $5 Tuesday here. Only good thing about the town I live in, the movie theater is GREAT

    • ktetch says:

      Second thoughts, maybe it’s the ~55% they get from it they’ve refunded, the other 45% goes to the theater.

      • craptastico says:

        maybe they just refunded him for the missing predators. if he expected 7 and only got 4, he should be refunded 3/7s of the ticket price.

    • eccsame says:

      I can explain, since it was my refund. I wrote to them and explained that I felt misled by the advertising. I explained that the trailer promised more predators than the film delivered. Since I paid $6.00 to see the movie and the trailer promised, at minimum, 15 predators it ended up equaling 40 cents per predator. Since there were three predators in the film (four, to be honest, but one doesn’t count), I figured they only owed me $4.80.

      • DangerMouth says:

        I think I love you.

      • Traveshamockery says:

        Winner of the day. That’s awesome.

      • Cruise says:

        That is amazing.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        Are you using the money shot of Adrian Brody being targeted by the Predators as your evidence? I see only nine laser targets in that particular screenshot.

      • jnrcorp says:

        I absolutely love your explanation! I remember when watching Jurassic Park in theaters, when the gang was in the Jeep being chased by the T-Rex, Malcolm made a joke about the fact that the side-view mirror said, “Objects in Mirror are Closer than They Appear” and I thought it was very cleaver, but when I saw it again on DVD that couple second scene was removed. I was very disappointed. I know its different, but its irked me to this day!

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        Wow, geek victory. Are you throwing a celebratory party in your parent’s basement?

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        i think the fun part is knowing that it will cost someone at least $20 worth of time to explain that to the accounting department and probably $30 worth of someone’s salary to cut the check and get it in the mail

      • dcaslin says:

        I’m a bit upset that Phil edited out what would have been the funniest part of this article (the whole $.40 per Predator bit, that is).

    • sanjaysrik says:

      $7.50 last year, $15.00 this year, at least in NY. They could at least have made it 3D. At least that way the crappy acting might have been ignored by the laser blasts and crappy special effects.

      i was watching this movie and when they came to the edge of the cliff and see the multiple moons, etc., I was thinking “Well, this is what they blew their budget on.”

    • El_Fez says:

      1998? Try 1993. Movie prices havent been THAT low for over fifteen years now.

    • teke367 says:

      Well, he has to pay for the four predators in the movie. He was expecting six, so they have to prorate the ticket price.

  4. Murph1908 says:

    The Sherlock Holmes trailer had a glimpse of Rachael McAdams flashing her old-tyme stockings. There were no such sexy bits in the actual movie, to my disappointment.

    • ToKeN2k6 says:

      that whole movie was a disappointment! All the action scenes were in the trailer..and it was so god-awful boring!

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      If they’d cut her scenes entirely, the movie would have been improved. Admittedly, I’m a little impressed that someone could display even less vocal inflection than Scarlett ‘Big Boobs and Three Facial Expressions’ Johansson and still be considered an actress.

  5. Traveshamockery says:

    This really bothers me because io9.com reported that Rodriguez actually filmed that scene specifically for the trailer, and knew it didn’t fit the film and would never make it into the movie.

    http://io9.com/5584437/why-did-predators-trailers-lie-to-us

    MTV asked producer Robert Rodriguez about this, and he said that shot was indeed created specifically for the trailer, and he didn’t feel it was deceptive. “A lot of my movies have trailer shots that I shoot just for the trailer, so that people haven’t seen the movie already but they get the feeling of what it’s supposed to represent.” So there ya go.

    • eccsame says:

      BS – the shot was in the film – but he digitally added more of those “Predator” red light things than there were in the film. This isn’t a case of a scene only appearing in the trailer. The scene appeared in the film but was altered for the trailer.

      • Traveshamockery says:

        If you insist on splitting hairs, maybe you should focus on improving your reading comprehension

        A lot of my movies have trailer shots that I shoot just for the trailer, so that people haven’t seen the movie already but they get the feeling of what it’s supposed to represent.”

        Either way, that’s a huge change to the scene, and an intentional misrepresentation of what you’re going to see in the movie. If you don’t have a problem with it, that’s fine, but I do.

        • seishino says:

          Rodriguez’s position makes sense. Trailers attempt to give a sense for the movie, rather than just literally translating them. Since you don’t want to put a large group of Predators on-screen at once (it just wouldn’t be frightening), you need to imply them somehow, and the use of multiple beams is a strong way of doing that. Movie trailers do that all of the time.

          If anything, the problem with the trailer is that the particular moment was so iconic. I remember cheers going up through the theater when all of the other beams came on. Instead of just being a cool but forgettable moment in the trailer, it became iconic to the film for a lot of people. I did have a friend who was sitting through the entire movie waiting for that scene to happen.

          This is the trailer. The moment is around 1:15 in.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u8vZwvP57Y

          • Rectilinear Propagation says:

            Rodriguez’s position makes sense. Trailers attempt to give a sense for the movie, rather than just literally translating them.

            1) That the movie is called “Predators” implies that there’s more that one so I don’t see how it’s necessary to change footage from the movie to get that point across.

            2) Even it was necessary, it’s not necessary to imply that there are more than four predators in the movie.

    • NephilimNexus says:

      I lost all interest in seeing the movie the moment I heard the name “Robert Rodriguez.”

  6. KillerBee says:

    Yeah, io9 pointed this out last week. http://io9.com/5584437/why-did-predators-trailers-lie-to-us

    What a crybaby. If you didn’t like the movie, that’s one thing. But this is ridiculous. It’s a freaking trailer. Get over yourself. It’s not like the movie turned out to be a sappy love story instead of an action movie.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I agree. The only way this would be a legitimate complaint was if you didn’t get any Predators at all.

    • Traveshamockery says:

      So what level of deception is acceptable in a trailer?

      For example, the faked Iron Man 2 “jumping out of the airplane scene” indicated a budding love story for Pepper and Tony. The scene as it appeared in the movie was nowhere close to the same, and the movie didn’t have a lovey element until the very end. That certainly may have misrepresented their love interest as being a major subplot of the film, which it wasn’t.

      • Mary says:

        The difference is the scene in Iron Man was filmed and used in the trailer because it was intended to be in the film, but the director and producers changed it at the last minute because the scene/arc wasn’t working.

        The Predators shot was a deliberate deception on the part of producer Robert Rodriguez. He intentionally put in this shot that he knew, from day one, wasn’t in the film and couldn’t be in the film due the fact that it went against the very basic facts of the script (the number of predators). He says he wanted a shot that was more like a poster and captured the feel of the film rather than the actual facts of the film. But basically the film didn’t deliver that feel either, and everybody was mad because they went in expecting one thing based on that shot, and got something else.

        Not enough that I would write in to the studio about it, but enough that I wouldn’t see that producer/directors work in the theatre again based on his trailers since I now know he’s intentionally deceptive and shady about it.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      ‘Crybaby’ seems to be the new popular term to dismiss anyone with a complaint. And nothing makes the person complaining about that complaint look ever so mature quite like such a playground insult!

  7. VOIDMunashii says:

    Four movies with misleading trailers in the last year come to mind for me.
    “The Lovely Bones”; the trailer makes it seem like the movie is about the girl trying to get her murder solved (I had not read the book).
    “The Box”; the trailer makes the movie look very fast paced and action-y (had I realized it was the same director as “Donnie Darko” I would have known better)
    “Splice”; another action-y trailer for a movie that doesn’t get remotely action-y until the last twenty minutes.
    “The Time Traveler’s Wife” The trailer makes this look like a movie that focuses on the poor woman being left behind while her husband goes gallivanting around time against his will. This is the one case where the movie was a lot better than the trailer made it seem (IMO, obviously)

    • Mike AKA MonolithTMA says:

      The worst case of this for me was Bridge To Terabithia. Absolutely nothing in the trailer to indicate that we should have brought a whole box of Puffs.

      • littleAK says:

        I 100% agree. I hadn’t read the book and the trailer made it seem like a fantasy film. It really wasn’t!

        • Conformist138 says:

          Agrred. I rented it hoping for “Harry Potter Lite” and got “My Girl” with extra CGI. Good movie, just not the mood I was going for at the time.

    • AlabastaJoe says:

      Shutter Island also had a fairly misleading trailer, I never would have seen it based solely on that. Luckily I had friends drag me along and I very much enjoyed it.
      I was also dragged along to Splice, but that turned out substantially worse.

  8. RickN says:

    I mentioned this scene (or lack thereof) to my son when we were walking out of the theater. Unfortunately, this movie-trailer disconnect is far too common.

    But, we enjoyed the movie and it made for a nice I’m-not-working-but-instead-hanging-out-with-my-sons afternoon.

  9. sanjaysrik says:

    I was wondering where that scene went as well. Not a good movie any way.

  10. hymie! says:

    Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion

    Trailer:
    “We are not the ones who got fat.”
    “We’re pregnant.”
    “We are not the ones who got pregnant.”

    Movie:
    “We are not the ones who got fat.”
    “We’re pregnant.”
    “Oh yeah? Well, I hope your babies look like monkeys! “

    What made this incident particularly egregious is that, even though I knew the punchline in advance, if they had left this joke in, it would have been the funniest line in the whole disappointing movie. But they took it out.

    I can’t believe I remember this (with a little help from IMDB) 15 years later. FML.

  11. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Wow, that’s pretty darned misleading – Can’t believe it, but I’m actually reconsidering seeing it in the theater…

    • Morte42 says:

      Really? Because the hyped the trailer? Jesus Christ, you people pick some stupid shit to get upset about.

      • Traveshamockery says:

        That’s a lot of profanity you dished out criticizing someone for what you clearly think is an unimportant issue. Maybe a chill pill?

        • Morte42 says:

          One word is now a lot of profanity? If you find one utterance of the word shit to be a large amount, make sure to never spend any time around me. I daresay you will be overwhelmed with the amount of what you perceive to be profanity.

          And as to your other statement, clearly I find this issue very important. This issue, of course, referring to just how ridiculously anal-retentive our country has become, where people are upset that movie trailers are different from movies, felt tapestries in Home Depot require calls from corporate offices, and a single “shit” is enough to cause someone to attempt to analyze another person on the internet.

          As for Loias, I can understand where he is coming from, but to expect an all-out war between humans and predators is simply ignoring the way the source material has always existed. When 5/6th of an elite commando unit die fighting one Predator, and the survivor being Ahnuld himself, and seeing as how the Predator mentality has always been in the hunt, not the assault, expecting anything else, even after seeing a trailer that implies otherwise, is simply taking leave of your senses.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        No, not because they hyped the trailer – it’s pretty much a guarantee that a trailer will be “hyped up” abd made to look at awesome as they can make it.

        I was looking forward to a movie about a cadre of criminals fending off against a legion of Predators. To then find out it’s only 3-4 really drops the interest for me.

        It’s like being told that for $20 you get admission to a theme park with 55 different exciting rides, only to get there any find out there is only really 25 rides. $20 admission might still be a great deal, but suddenly your expections for the event are shattered.

  12. El_Fez says:
    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      I love that web site. There are some good examples on the movies page though a couple are flat out wrong. Someone complained that “Pan’s Labyrinth was marketed as a family friendly” when it wasn’t and that the trailers for Sweeny Todd “said nothing about it being a musical” even though most, if not all, of the trailers included some of the singing.

      But movie trailers didn’t always lie. Why did they start lying?

      • wonderfibre says:

        My memories of the Sweeney Todd trailers included no music whatsoever (in the UK at least). I knew it was a musical though and wasn’t bothered as I saw it as the equivalent of when a foreign language movie gets trailed with just a dramatic voice-over and no dialogue from the movie.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        I love that site too, but if you’re a writer, don’t read it because it will make you feel like an unoriginal hack no matter what your genre!

        You’re right; they used to be pretty close to the film and we would always look for shots from the trailer. It was a fun game and I always felt clever when I spotted one.

        • VOIDMunashii says:

          I already knew I was unoriginal; I accepted that years ago. I discovered that site about 70% of the way through writing a novel-length story and had fun looking for all the tropes that I used without even knowing what they were.

    • Sparkstalker says:

      And at the very end of the movie page….they link tto this very article…

  13. Smashville says:

    Odd. When I went to see it, Chris Hanson popped out and I got arrested.

  14. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    Yeah cut or flat out fake scenes being in trailers is nothing new though maybe it happens more often now.

    What I hate more than that though are trailers edited to make it look like one type of movie when it’s really a completely different kind of movie. Usually it’s trailers that make something look like an action movie when really there’s no action until the last five minutes and most of it is just talking.

  15. Dallas_shopper says:

    I always fall asleep at the movies…most of them suck. I can snooze at home for free and spare myself having to listen to people wheeze down a bucket of Coke and a carton of Junior Mints with a side wheelbarrow of buttered popcorn.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      And we at the movies can be spared from your snoring.

    • Traveshamockery says:

      That’s the most creative “I make my own ______ at home” comment I’ve seen yet. But it’s still obnoxious and useless to the discussion at hand.

      • Dallas_shopper says:

        Not really. It speaks to how boring and uncreative movies are nowadays, and how the entire experience is unpleasant with a dull uninspired film on the screen and the chorus of lip-smacking and ice-rattling going on all around you.

        • JulesNoctambule says:

          Not really. It just speaks to your personal opinion, not the experience at large. But keep telling yourself how much better you are than those mouthbreathers who like things you don’t!

        • Rectilinear Propagation says:

          But that still has nothing to do with movie trailers.

          • Dallas_shopper says:

            I think it does. Movie trailers lie for the express reason that they don’t want you to know how fucking boring the actual movie really is.

    • GrandizerGo says:

      Another person that thinks that their commentary is germane to the discussion at hand, but is in fact wrong, and demonstrably as well.
      So getting use to seeing this here…

  16. ShruggingGalt says:

    Remind the OP to NOT see “Machete”. I don’t think it’s going to match the original trailer. Heck, I don’t remember seeing Lindsay Lohan in the original trailer as a gun-toting nun.

  17. valkyrievf2x says:

    Um, I must be living under a rock…. I didn’t even KNOW about this movie!!! Seriously? Did they do any major advertising or anything? I just checked imdb.com and saw that it came out on the 9th, but I don’t recall seeing ANY ads for it at all….

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      You must be living under a rock – or your TV has been switched permanently to Lifetime or the Hallmark channel. I saw the trailers everywhere. They targeted men, though, so you’re more likely to find them aired during police procedurals and ESPN broadcasts.

      • valkyrievf2x says:

        Interesting. I mostly watch stuff like Hell’s Kitchen, Supernatural, and House. I would have expected some ads there. We only have the basic poor man special cable channels, and we never saw it.

        Quite interesting, though.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          I think those three shows have a significant female audience, though. I certainly watch House and Supernatural – but also, those shows have been on hiatus for quite some time – there wouldn’t really be a point to buying ad time to show a trailer during a repeat episode. The trailer was shown at least six times during LeBron James’ big team announcement. Aside from that, I bet it also got heavy rotation on Spike TV and during wrestling (though I have no evidence, since I don’t watch either Spike TV or wrestling).

          Also, it’s been all over the internet. I’ve seen the banner ads for it everywhere. Then again, I also knew about this movie a year ago.

  18. jaybeebrad says:

    The trailer for Clueless had TONS of material that was not in the final cut. The two things that I remember most vividly: Josh and Cher are watching TV ahd Josh says “Now you made me blush” to which Cher replies “See, girls need makeup for that!”

    And then there was some kind of entire scene cut where Dionne and Cher are in the bathroom and Amber comes out of the stall, and Cher says “Did I miss something? Is big hair back?” and Dionne sort of lets out this guffaw.

    In this case, it didn’t effect my movie watching pleasure :) I saw it in the theater, like, four times. Duh!

  19. dolemite says:

    I say it’s ok to have scenes in the trailer that aren’t in the movie, as long as they don’t misrepresent or change what happens in the movie. When you show 10+ Predators in the trailer, but there are actually only 3 (+1), that is deceptive. When I saw the trailer, I thought to myself “damn, he’s got all those laser sights on him? I’m dying to see how it’s possible to get out of that situation. That guy is SO dead.” Then when the scene happens in the movie, you are like “umm…yeah, this is not what they showed in the preview.” and that situation never really occurred.

    It’s like if the trailer for some drama shows a father in the hospital, and the doctor says “it’s terminal cancer, he has 3 weeks to live”, then you see the family break down and start crying, but in the movie, the doctor says “it’s indigestion, here’s some tums” and the father says “Ok, that’s the last time this family eats pizza!” then the family starts laughing.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      I would like a refund of 40 cents for your horribly fallacious analogy.

      If the trailer shows a person dying of cancer, but the movie explains that it is really indigestion, that is a blatant lie, as it completely alters the complexity of the plot.

      If a trailer for a move about killer aliens shows a man with two laser sights to his head, and the movie shows only one, it changes nothing.

      And there is absolutely no way you saw that 3 second snippet of the trailer, processed it as you say you did, stored it in memory, and then months later, when you actually saw the movie, were able to recall that precise scene, differentiate the number of laser sights, and then react with disappointment.

      • dolemite says:

        *spoiler alert*
        Well, I was hoping to avoid a spoiler but…it’s actually a significant plot twist that occurs. In the trailer, you see 10+ predators sighting the hero of the movie. Virtually inescapable death.

        In the movie, there is 1 laser sight, and it is Lawrence Fishburne. The hero was in no danger at all it turns out.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          Except that 1) In a trailer, scenes are not presented in context. That’s why they are sometimes called “teasers.” Whether there was 1 or ten laser sights, 99% of the time Hollywood heroes find a way to survive.

          And, (spoiler)

          2) Laurence Fishburne’s character attempted to kill the group of heroes. They were most certainly in danger, albeit in a different way than was portrayed by the trailer.

      • AI says:

        Actually, it’s totally possible for a person to person to notice the difference between 1 thing and 9 things. That scene was the only thing I remember from the trailer, specifically because of the number of predator targeting dots on the guy. I would certainly notice if in the movie, there was only 1 set of targeting dots.

      • wonderfibre says:

        Yeah, but it was FIFTEEN targets! I can’t speak for dolemite but I certainly registered that scene in the trailer and wondered how Brody would get out of it.

  20. Link_Shinigami says:

    This has already been covered. IO9 made reference to it and got a response, basically it was a “This was a trailer shot. Not a film shot. Movies do this all the time. Please grow up and take the stick out”

    Seriously, usually you don’t see something in the movie that was in the trailer, you assume it was a trailer scene or a cut scene.

    This is the first time I’m saying grow up. This isn’t a big deal at all and you were out of line filing a complaint.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      “Out of line”? Really?

      Sounds like you’re the one who needs to remove the stick.

    • dolemite says:

      Er no. It isn’t a case of a scene being cut. It’s a scene being completely redone to mean something completely different, and something that is relevant to the plot.

      I’m not saying it deserves a refund, but this is something different from “scene cut and can be seen on dvd extras”. The scene actually happened in the movie, but it didn’t happen the way it was presented in the preview, and it lead you to believe something different about the movie.

  21. crackblind says:

    You know, that happened to me with Shining. The actual movie in no way resembled this trailer:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA

    And they didn’t even have any Peter Gabriel on the soundtrack!

  22. OSAM says:

    “Get Him To The Greek” (Jonah Hill, Russel Brand) had a terrible trailer: I’d say only about 10% of the trailer was in the actual movie. Not that I minded: the movie itself was quite entertaining. Just wish the trailer represented it better.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      I also thought the trailer was terrible, but that was just because of Jonah Hill and Russel Brand being in it at all.

  23. pantheonoutcast says:

    If the reason you went to a movie was a scene you saw in the trailer, then you don’t know anything about movies. In fact, if you went to see a movie wherein lizard-headed aliens battle a culturally diverse group of armed-to-the-teeth ruffians (and it wasn’t a re-release of Aliens), and then you complained about one missing scene, then you need to get out more.

    • cmdr.sass says:

      You should read the linked article to io9 to see what a difference that trailer scene makes for the plot of the film before spouting off.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        I did. It makes no difference. It’s a 3 second, out of context scene. And the plot is precisely the same as the very first Predator movie.

  24. Daggertrout says:

    The trailer for A-Team had one of Hannibal’s lines as “Give my team a minute, they’re good. Give them an hour, we’re unbeatable.” While in the actual movie it was something like, “Give me a minute, I’m good. Give me an hour, I’m great. Give me six months, I’m unbeatable.”

    How much of a refund is that worth?

  25. johnrhoward says:

    $4.80?

  26. cmdr.sass says:

    With movies being as crappy as they are, these deceptive sales tactics are one of the few ways they can get bodies in the seats.

  27. basilwhite says:

    Know what the “Predators” franchise needs? Sam Raimi.

    When there’s nothing to do with a genre but make fun of it, that’s when you make a parody.

  28. wasabipeas says:

    I’m still sore about the trailer for 1987′s “batteries not included,” which a much younger version of me thought was going to be a kids’ movie about a family of tiny robots, after watching the previews. Instead, it was a mostly depressing story about an aging couple (one of whom had advancing Alzheimer’s) and their motley, equally unhappy tenants being bullied by a ruthless developer to vacate their apartment building, with a family of tiny robots on the periphery. Definitely not what I had expected.

  29. jwrose says:

    The X-files movie from 2 years ago had numerous examples of this. In the trailer, they made blood look like the black oil, they made a body falling down an elevator shaft glow- as if it was an alien or something, and it seems like there were a few other altered shots i can’t recall now. It made me think that they story tied in to the series… it turned out that it had nothing look to do with the aliens from the series. :

  30. sumocat says:

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If they put all the good scenes in the trailer, people complain that all the good stuff was in the trailer or that it gave away too much. If they leave out the good scenes, it can fail to draw in an audience. If they change scenes for the trailer, people complain it’s not accurate. There’s no perfect solution.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      I remember the first trailers for Terminator 2: Judgment Day. All it had was a silver background and the title. As the first was an iconic and extremely popular film, further shots weren’t necessary. EVERYONE wanted to see it.

      After the movie opened they released a trailer with stuff from the film, but it wasn’t as good as that first one. The anticipation was better than any trailer and it was one of few sequels to a successful film that was actually good.

  31. godai says:

    I was miffed at The Golden Compass.

    They left out like the last 3 chapters of the book. They had scenes from the last 3 chapters in the trailers.

    All for the sake of a happy ending. Bah.

    That and they sorta removed all the religion from the movie which was a feat. Will sort of be hard to do if they ever make the sequel as angels start showing up.

  32. MrAgen10 says:

    This sort of thing happens all the time in trailers, but just in this case, it was quite blatent.

    I worked for a trailer house for going on a decade, and this is commonplace for nearly every project we worked on, just usually on a much more subtle scale.

    Most commonly, lines are re-read for the trailer that are slightly different than what ends up in the final cut of the film. Usually because the line in the film doesn’t quite work to drive the storyline of the trailer along, so it needs to be modified a bit.

  33. Sian says:

    Inglourious Basterds

    Trailer: I’m Brad Pitt and I’m awesome and I kill natzees!

    Reality: I’m Brad Pitt and I’m the movie’s B-Plot!

    Still, not really disappointing, just terribly misleading.

    • FreestyleDoctoress says:

      Also, there’s the scene in the trailer with Hitler screaming “Nein nein nein!” and Brad Pitt replying with “Oh yes yes yes.” Hitler and Aldous never even meet. I thought it would’ve been a great scene, but it didn’t make me like the movie any less. It did stick with me, though.

  34. ITDEFX says:

    What the hell?!?!?! Consumerist felt that this was a news worthy story to post on their site? Like the others said, the trailer usually contains a rough cut of the film. A lot of the special effects have not been completed. These trailers are just meant to hype/promote the movie anywhere from 3 to 6 to 12 months a head of time. Sometimes some scenes don’t work out and have to be re-edit for the final cut (either the director doesn’t like it or test audiences didn’t like it or the studio execs didn’t like it)…..

    Oh my gosh…maybe I should write to the studio that released despicable me and complain that I was expecting to see a movie about yellow gibbering talking peanuts and instead ended up seeing a movie about a dude who wants to steal the moon. oh my gosh I smell a class action lawsuit…. *sarcasm*

    • eccsame says:

      You misunderstood. The scene was in the movie – but they digitally “enhanced” the scene to make it seem like it was a different movie.

      Imagine a trailer for Jaws where they show a scene where a person is being attacked by fifteen sharks. That’s what happened here.

      • dolemite says:

        I’m with you. I understand some scenes might be cut, others are changed, etc…but the multiple laser targetting systems goes completely against the plot of the movie. Was that scene filmed before they even had a script?

        They are halfway through the movie with 15 predators running around the planet..the cast has killed 2, but they realize…damn, we still have 13 predators to kill off. The director pulls the writers aside and says “look, 15 is just too many, how about we redo the entire script and shoot the rest of the movie with just 3?” Somehow, I doubt that happened. They obviously added the multiple sights to misrepresent the movie.

  35. adam395 says:

    Man, Inception was such a deceiver. The trailer made the movie look like it was jam packed with crazy dream special effects, but really it was a lot of cutting and pasting from other, better movies, and filling the empty air with a lot of science mumbo-jumbo.
    Not a bad movie, but really, the trailer made it look like a whole different animal.

  36. SilentBob says:

    I agree with the comment about 4.80. I paid 20 bucks for 2 people to see this yesterday.

  37. cpkook02 says:

    I did notice that glaring difference between the trailer and the movie as well. It also defies the movies premise that “predators always hunt in three’s.” I wish I had seen Inception yesterday instead, but I hate a crowded movie theater more than AT&T.

  38. Bye says:

    I love it when trailers lie to me.

    I hate that many trailers end up giving away all of the essential plot points and surprises so I wish everybody would populate their trailers with false scenes to throw people off and not actually give away what’s crucial to the story.

  39. nakkypoo says:

    I think of trailers as a visual review of a movie, and not an excerpt. They are often out of order, sometimes contain scenes that aren’t finished or don’t make it to the final cut. A trailer should give you a feel for the movie, the mood and some of the plot, it shouldn’t be considered a condensed or “spark notes” version of the movie.

  40. TVGenius says:

    I believe the proper term for the crap they put in the trailer but not the movie is ‘trailer trash’.

  41. Garbanzo says:

    “El Mariachi”. The trailer made it look like a light-hearted romance, with a little bit of fighting. Instead it was a violent action movie with an astronomical bodycount, with a little bit of romance.

  42. silas says:

    What movie trailer has left you feeling the most burned after you saw the movie?
    “An Inconvenient Truth”
    Was advertised to be full of scientific fact.
    It was full of something alright,but very few were facts…

  43. findkip says:

    OK chris here it is!

    They shoot as well a write way more than you will ever see in the movie. titanic the “ruff” cut was nearly 24 hours long. i will type that again the ruff cut of possibly all master shots 24 HOURS long. so they write and shoot tons of footage. that is part one.
    Now in order to get a trailer out before the film is released 8 to 12 month later and have good sound color and all that good stuff they take the first “canned” shots and send them to a trailer house to make some trailers. costly and part of the P&A budget to help promote the film and get your money. Happens all the time.
    so after shooting tons of footage and rewrites and changes they probably had a 4 hour movie on their hands. they cut it down and make a 1.5 or 2 hour movie for you. but the first big WOW shots were sent to the trailer house way before the final film was “canned” and you see extra stuff in the trailer.
    now go waste more money on the Last air Bender!!!

  44. coren says:

    MTV asked producer Robert Rodriguez about this, and he said that shot was indeed created specifically for the trailer, and he didn’t feel it was deceptive. “A lot of my movies have trailer shots that I shoot just for the trailer, so that people haven’t seen the movie already but they get the feeling of what it’s supposed to represent.” So there ya go.

    From sister site (formerly) io9.

    Nevermind that though. The movie has a grand total of 4 predators (3 of whom could have participated in that scene). So it never could have been an accurate scene, and no one can claim “oh it just got changed in post” – that’s 5 times the actual predators in the movie – did they rewrite and refilm the whole movie since that trailer came out?