Dear Hollywood, Americans aren't as stupid as you think (I hope)
I just saw the movie "The Ringer" (Tronster had it on while I was making dinner) which was a movie that, when I saw the previews, I immediately decided I would never see. For those of you who don't remember or never saw these previews here's a little reminder. A guy, Steve, decides that he is going to rig The Special Olympics by entering as a contestant himself (no, he is not disabled but one must wonder if the writers are) the previews then go onto show various innane clips from the movie: Steve's attempts at a retarded charcter, a water balloon being thrown into his crotch and him saying he wet his pants, him fallilng down, etc. Basically giving the impression that this is one of those movies where the humor is far below slapstick and below fart jokes even.
Ok, so the actual movie was nothing like that. **spoilers ahead if anyone actually cares** So the real premise of the movie is that Steve's friend loses his insurance (because Steve has to fire him) and then gets into an accident where he looses 3 fingers. Now unable to pay for them to be reattached and unable to work to pay for the procedure things look pretty grim. Steve tells this story to his uncle who comes up with the plan to have Steve enter the Special Olympics and the uncle will bet on him to pay off his large gambling debt and also pay for the operation. Steve hates the idea but is pressured and pressured and eventually gives in. Most of the rest of the movie is about Steve dealing with how bad a person he is for doing that. Some of his fellow competetors figure out that Steve isn't "special" but ask him to continue competing to help put the reigning Special Olympic champ (who's a jerk) in his place. Throw in a touch of romantic comedy as Steve falls for one of the volunteers and you have a movie that really isn't half bad. Very little of the movie is crude humor and none of it is particularly degrading to the handicapped (apparently the real Special Olympics gave their seal of approval or something) and some of the humor is actually more for the thinking person. Steve takes on the persona of "Jeffy" as his Olympic athlete when asked what his last name is he says "Dahmer". You can't be a crude 13 year old to get that joke.
So my question is, why is the advertising so different than the actual movie? Are they trying to get a certain demographic (and pushing away others)? The lowest common denominator? Is this particular movie so different or the central plot point so overpowering that no other type of ad would really be feasible? And exactly how often does this happen? I had refused to watch "Anchorman" until the second set of ads came out. The first set depicted it as just a stupid movie hoping to get by on Saturday Night Live talent with a plot line that Adam Sandler would turn down. The second set (and the movie itself) showed it to be more satire and social commentary. In one month the movie went from 13 year old insipid comedy to 30 year old thinking mans comedy. How many good movies have I missed because advertisers market comedies like these in such a miserable way?
Maybe I should give "White Chicks" a chance...
Then again, maybe not.
Ok, so the actual movie was nothing like that. **spoilers ahead if anyone actually cares** So the real premise of the movie is that Steve's friend loses his insurance (because Steve has to fire him) and then gets into an accident where he looses 3 fingers. Now unable to pay for them to be reattached and unable to work to pay for the procedure things look pretty grim. Steve tells this story to his uncle who comes up with the plan to have Steve enter the Special Olympics and the uncle will bet on him to pay off his large gambling debt and also pay for the operation. Steve hates the idea but is pressured and pressured and eventually gives in. Most of the rest of the movie is about Steve dealing with how bad a person he is for doing that. Some of his fellow competetors figure out that Steve isn't "special" but ask him to continue competing to help put the reigning Special Olympic champ (who's a jerk) in his place. Throw in a touch of romantic comedy as Steve falls for one of the volunteers and you have a movie that really isn't half bad. Very little of the movie is crude humor and none of it is particularly degrading to the handicapped (apparently the real Special Olympics gave their seal of approval or something) and some of the humor is actually more for the thinking person. Steve takes on the persona of "Jeffy" as his Olympic athlete when asked what his last name is he says "Dahmer". You can't be a crude 13 year old to get that joke.
So my question is, why is the advertising so different than the actual movie? Are they trying to get a certain demographic (and pushing away others)? The lowest common denominator? Is this particular movie so different or the central plot point so overpowering that no other type of ad would really be feasible? And exactly how often does this happen? I had refused to watch "Anchorman" until the second set of ads came out. The first set depicted it as just a stupid movie hoping to get by on Saturday Night Live talent with a plot line that Adam Sandler would turn down. The second set (and the movie itself) showed it to be more satire and social commentary. In one month the movie went from 13 year old insipid comedy to 30 year old thinking mans comedy. How many good movies have I missed because advertisers market comedies like these in such a miserable way?
Maybe I should give "White Chicks" a chance...
Then again, maybe not.