Hancock ad complaint (possible spoilers)

[Caretaker]

I haven't seen Hancock yet, but thought maybe I'd rent it. I heard there was a twist, but read nothing about it.

What did I see on television this afternoon? A commercial for the DVD. And what does this particular ad show? The twist revealed in all it's glory. So now I ask... what the hell? What were the ad wizards at Sony possibly thinking?

I know a lot of people didn't care for the film, but this just bugs me. Anyway, just had to rant.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

What was the twist?
And Did HandCock join the Xmen? What with that Xmen outfit he wears?

 

[cylkoth]

Insane Sony ad department...

Hancock:"I'm the only one of my kind.."

Spoiler: from ad

"YOU'RE LIKE ME?!"

 

[nx1701g]

^ Yeah they didn't seem to think this one through...

 

[Trent Roman]

Piffle. It was such a weak twist, and telegraphed far enough in advance by whats-her-name, that they're actually doing the movie a favour by making it clear the film is actually about these two (as opposed to the original marketing campaign, which seemed to be about a superhero and his society coming to a reconcilliation, only to be completely diverted in the second half by this ill-thought plotline).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Aragorn]

Trailers that give away EVERYTHING -- Look up Arlington Road, Snake Eyes, Cast Away, Double Jeopardy, What Lies Beneath, Ransom, The Italian Job and Office Space, for starters. Of course, if you haven't seen them yet, don't look at them.

Or, just look at the DVD cover for Charlton Heston's Planet of the Apes.

 

[Forbin]

Actually, it kind of pissed me off even though I hadn't seen the movie. From the movie's ad campaign, I had no friggin idea Charlize Theron was in it! How can they leave a star of her magnitude out of a trailer?!?! I hadn't really cared to see the film until I saw the DVD ad with her in it. Will Smith I don't care about, Charlize I can watch eating crackers for an hour.

 

[Siwilliams]

Hancock is a funny movie (though it gets serious half way through), even though the ad spoiled the movie, it is still worth renting or buying, hope there is a sequel

 

[theenglish]

Actually, I have to go the other direction on this one. I was mildly amused by the first half of the movie and bored to tears with the second part. It was really like two different movies. I am so glad I didn't pay to go see it in the theaters.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

I did not particularly enjoy the second-half shift. It could have been far more interesting to continue on the path they were beginning to take rather the one they eventually choose.

 

[wamdue]

dont DVD ads normally give away far more about the movie than the cinema ads?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Piffle. It was such a weak twist, and telegraphed far enough in advance by whats-her-name, that they're actually doing the movie a favour by making it clear the film is actually about these two (as opposed to the original marketing campaign, which seemed to be about a superhero and his society coming to a reconcilliation, only to be completely diverted in the second half by this ill-thought plotline).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

I agree, I wish I had known before I went to see it. Normally, I would applaud keeping the twist covered but I suspect the original marketing people had ulterior motives rather than doing the public a favor.

What I've heard about the scenes of the unrated version sounds rather WTF as well.

 

[Good Will Riker]

This is the way I interpret this marketing ad:

The movie bombed at the box-office with a bad word of mouth with no repeat viewers and with potential new DVD buyers/renters driven away by their friends who have already seen it in theaters...so might as well put Charlize Theron on the front cover so that the pretty blonde could attract more potential buyers and renters of this film.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^^ #4 for the year, $227M Domestic, $642M Worldwide, I don't know if that's a bomb.

 

[Jax]

^^ #4 for the year, $227M Domestic, $642M Worldwide, I don't know if that's a bomb.

From a $150 million budget but with a weak 2nd half and no rewatch value, then the DVD's will probably sell poorly but hey they've made there profit already.

 

[theenglish]

Yes, it did very well, but I don't know if they consider that well when Will Smith is in the lead role or not.

 

[Jax]

Yes, it did very well, but I don't know if they consider that well when Will Smith is in the lead role or not.

Am pretty sure Will Smith was chosen because

He is the only actor in history to have eight consecutive films gross over $100 million in the US domestic box office

9 if his next movie does it but for I don't think it will.

 

[Forbin]

What's Charlize, chopped liver?

I'm boggled that they left her out of the ad campaign!

 

[Aragorn]

Star billing is weird. There are movies where actors are billing before the title but on the poster their name isn't one of the big above-the-title names (Gary Sinise in Snake Eyes, Gene Hackman in The Firm, Gary Oldman in Air Force One, Alec Baldwin in Mercury Rising, Charlize Theron in Hancock).

Supposedly, Vin Diesel didn't return for 2 Fast 2 Furious because he wanted sole title billing.

I understand Will Smith being the main selling point, since he is currently the No. 1 box office draw, but I don't understand leaving Charlize Theron out of the marketing.

 

[Siwilliams]

This is the way I interpret this marketing ad:

The movie bombed at the box-office with a bad word of mouth with no repeat viewers and with potential new DVD buyers/renters driven away by their friends who have already seen it in theaters...so might as well put Charlize Theron on the front cover so that the pretty blonde could attract more potential buyers and renters of this film.

The movie was a success