Don't Tease Me, Bro!

The State Of Today's Movie Trailers

I had an epiphany about the way our nerd culture works these days ... We are similar to kids who love to rummage through their parents closets before Christmas to find presents.

With just a week to go until my midnight release of "The Dark Knight Rises," I find myself in a conflict of the ages: The never-ending fight against the nefarious spoiler. Typically, summer blockbusters are the cash cows of the movie industry, but it's getting to a point where movie marketing is batardizing the work of a film. Allow me to explain beginning with this video....



That was the trailer to the Liam Neeson 'Taken' meets 'Call of the Wild' film, "The Grey." By the way it's marketed, Liam Neeson is going to go CIA on those mother-flipping wolves to defend his fellow plane-crash comrades who are caught in the same terrible elements that he is. Now, fast-forward two hours later after watching the film, and you'll immediately start to yell at the screen during the credits, "Where's my frickin Wolf-Punching?!?!"

These tools only have a 5 second use to them

If you haven't watched "The Grey," and don't mind me spoiling a few things (this movie came out months ago, seriously, get on it) -- you'll notice a very different film than what was marketed to you, and that's not a knock on the film. After my initial uproar over what had just happened, I settled down for about 10 minutes, and reflected on the film itself, rather than the marketed garbage that was put on TV and the Internet. Sure, I found a movie that was about a group of plane-crash survivors trying to avoid being turned into wolf-shit on the Alaskan mountains, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll find a very well-acted, thematic film, that touches upon a very core fear many men face: Do you have the will to live when pitted against sure-death? Suffice to say, this film isn't an action fest featuring Liam Neeson ripping the jugulars out of the four-legged beasts, but is instead about how a man at the end of his rope copes with the realization that he wants to live. It's a fantastic film on its own merit, but many people scolded it because of the marketing...and this is what really got me thinking.

I started to analyze the way film's are marketed to us. In the case of "The Grey," audiences were duped into thinking they were going to watch a feral slugfest between Neeson and CGI wolves. WRONG! Many people left the film unhappy, when it was (in my opinion) a very powerful film dealing with the way men deal with their mortality. The point is, Hollywood falsely marketed the film from what it really was. You can't deny it. They show Neeson running up to the wolf, with his cracked mini-vodka bottles taped to his hand like he's a 6'5" Wolverine, and you're expecting to see an epic battle. But it was not to be. And that's not a fault of the film, but rather, the marketing. It led you to believe this was an action set-piece just so they could get your ass into the movie-theater. I understand the need to fill the lines at the box office, but there needs to be a sense of trust between movie-goers and Hollywood. I had the same reaction so many other people had to the film: pissed off that I didn't get my wolf-punching ... but since I'm the type of person who loves to reflect on film I just watched, I was able to come away with the bigger picture and ended up enjoying it. I can't tell you how many people I know who will simply brush off a movie because their initial reaction was simply "it sucked."

Hollywood insists on ruining what will surely be a surprise performance by Tom Hardy as Bane

This leads me to my next point. Hollywood marketing is becoming way too invasive and revealing. Gone are the days where you would watch the trailer, get a taste for what's to come, and wait until the film is released. Instead, we now have four 2-minute trailers, five TV Spots, a full 13-minute behind the scenes featurette, online publication 'set visits,' even entire prologue sequences being released. The only way I can personify the problem is that Hollywood is becoming that douchebag frat guy who is inviting you to the party of the century, but he bombards you with daily, unnecessary, facebook updates.

Wanna know how I got these scars? Watching too many trailers

Going back to my battle now with "The Dark Knight Rises." Ask anyone and they will attest to you how flippin' excited I am about this movie. The Chris Nolan Batman reboot has been astonishing for the past 7 years, and I'll be sad to see it all end on July 20th. However, I ran into a pitfall in my excitement for Nolan's 2nd Bat-outing, "The Dark Knight." There was similar hype to that film, and with it, came the endless churning of new trailers, clips, featurettes, and hell, even the release of an entire 5-minute prologue sequence that featured a tense bank-robbery sequence (which clearly pays homage to Al Pacino's "Heat") revealing Heath Ledger as the Joker. I naively watched all of these things before the film. Unfortunately, I feel it had a negative effect on my movie-watching experience because I don't think I enjoyed "The Dark Knight" as much as I could have....

That's not to say I didn't love the movie. The point is, being inundated with clips, trailers, previews, featurettes, TV Spots, and so on and so forth allows your audience to piece together the major story beats of your film. Here's what I mean (using Dark Knight as an example). Almost everyone watched the Bank-heist prologue...great stuff. Then, watching the trailers, you can start to see the semblance of plot points. Joker says stuff like "Evening Commissioner" so you know Gordon becomes Commissioner somehow. Worse yet, they spoiled his iconic line of "Why So Serious?" Then, if you're someone like me, you start reading the online articles interviewing cast and crew of the film, and they start to talk about the direction, their stunts, and so forth. By the time you get to the TV Spots, you've pretty much got a good chunk of the movie ruined for you. Not to mention as you're in the process of watching your film, you'll have that moment where you say "Oh wait, that part from the trailers hasn't come up yet."

The point of that rant is ... why spoil the fun? Just enjoy the anticipation and go along for the ride. I know that's what happened to me when I watched "Batman Begins" way back in 2005. I maybe only watched the main 3 trailers, and because of that, I was able to overlook some of the film's major shortcomings. (I'm looking at you Katie Holmes and unnecessary Batman horse-voice)

Hulk is actually whispering in Iron-Man's ear

Of course, this marketing fiasco isn't just happening with select films. I'm sure by now you've all seen "Avengers." If you re-watch the trailers, you'll notice clips that didn't even make it into the final cut of the film, or didn't play out the way they were advertised. (Look at the part with RDJ telling Cap "Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist" and it plays out differently) There's also a point in the trailers that spoils how the Hulk saves a free-falling Iron-Man, when in the movie, it was meant to play out as an emotional climax to the New York City battle. As I watched it I knew Hulk was going to save him because I saw it in the trailers.

Perhaps even a bigger crime was committed with movie trailers in recent days. I just watched the trailer to the new Judge Dredd movie and while it looks interesting, it looks like they gave away a major plot point with the possible killing of the film's alleged central-villain. See below for yourself...



Hollywood needs to stop harassing audiences to watch their movies. Advertisement is necessary, but you don't want to over-saturate us with your product to the point we're sick of it. Also, can we PLEASE stop revealing major plot points and action set pieces. If we can't come to a compromise, then I'll need to continue adopting my simple method of preparing for a film. Watch the film's official teaser trailer ... and THAT'S IT! Avoid online articles, turn your head when you see a TV spot, and flip the bird to any online trolls who want to spoil the film to you, which may or may not include clips of the film.

You just got trolled America

Surprises are not always bad. Many can be good, just look at the Batman Begins reveal of the real Ra's Al Ghul. It was a sucker punch for the ages, and no one was the wiser, and damn it if anyone is going to ruin Dark Knight Rises for me...

It's A Bird, It's A Plane...No, It's Super-HYPE

Flurry Of Pics Surfacing From Upcoming DC Movies

Set pictures. You either love 'em or hate 'em. The upcoming and overly anticipated films Superman: Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises have been releasing some exciting pictures as of late. Today was a big bombshell, with the first pic released of British actor Henry Cavill in full garb as Kal-el, or as he's better known to the world...Superman. Take a look-see...

So Mr. Kent...Will you be making a withdrawal today sir?

Refreshing isn't it? The costume looks somewhat reminiscent of Bryan Singer's take of Superman back in 2006 with the damper, less vibrant colors. There are some big differences when you look closer though. First, the iconic "S" symbol is a little higher up on the chest, and the cape is a lot longer than we're used to. Anyone reminded of "300?" A film which was no-so coincidentally directed by Zack Snyder, the same man behind the helm of this new Superman. 

The costume also shows a big difference in the texture. It's loaded with fish-like scales, similar to Spider-Man, which is sure to pop-out at people once the film is released in HD formats, and most likely 3D. But look a little bit closer at the costume, specifically at the testes-satchel area. No, I'm not admiring Cavill's bulge, but you can make out that the red underwear is gone. The producers of the film, one of which is my cinema king Christopher Nolan, said they were going to make the costume a little more solid and unique by taking out the red-over underwear. A minor gripe for devoted fanboys, but maybe it's for the better. It just makes the character look too cartoonish.

God my undies are sexy

My first impression of the picture was a little jarring. I guess I've been itching for a great Superman live-action movie since part II way back in the 80's, but I'm growing to like it. I love the primal look in Cavill's posture and pose. If you remember the first pic released back for Superman Returns, it showed Brandon Routh in the more usual iconic pose, resting his arms on his waist; very stoic. But now Warner Brothers is throwing a curve-ball. "Superman looks like he's in a Wolverine pose?" "Nooooooo!?!?" Relax everyone, this is what we need.

For too long Superman has been behaving very Dog Whisperer-like: calm and submissive. The man is faster than a speeding bullet, can punch through steel walls, and can take a beating. Go back and watch Superman Returns, and count the amount of punches he threw on-screen. That's right ... there were zero. Now, go watch any of the animated films of Superman and you'll notice the big difference in his portrayal. Fist-fly faster than E. Honda from Street Fighter, and he's always getting thrown around by baddies like Metallo, Darkseid, and even a robot-riding Lex Luthor; who I'm ecstatic is NOT making an appearance in this upcoming film. It finally seems like we're going to get a brutal take on the man who represents truth, justice, and the American way. That's not to say we won't get our typical portrayal of the Man of Steel. Cavill is after all British, which if James Bond taught us anything, means he must have some kind of charm about him. And how can you deny that beautifully stone-chiseled jaw-line? 


It looks like Snyder and company are on the right track so far. The only thing that sucks is that we'll have to wait until Summer 2013 to watch it.

Moving on now to the other 500 lb. gorilla in the DC room: Batman. The Dark Knight Rises is easily the more anticipated of the two films, considering it's already established itself as a worthy film franchise. New pics rose from the narrows of Gotham City last week, showing Tom Hardy in his full Bane costume. Don't let this pic BREAK YOU...

A lot of people, including myself, were a bit baffled when it was announced Bane was the main villain in the film. But once it sank in that Tom Hardy was playing the intellectually muscled threat...I was at ease. It looks to me that Nolan has again found a way to stay grounded in his realistic take on the comics. Hardy definitely beefed up for the role, but he's not the massive, luchador-mask-wearing wrecking ball we're accustomed to. Instead, he's got a fur jacket, a bullet-proof (maybe batarang-proof?) vest, with his combat pants topped off with that S&M mask, which is likely the source of his Venom serum. 

It just seems too coincidental

Other than his mask, there's nothing that really stands out with Bane's costume, but this is a good thing. Once you get too flashy with a villain's costume it distracts the audience from the performance of the actor. Hardy is a great actor. I know it's cliche, but he was meant for this role. Don't believe me? March your nerdy butt to your nearest NETFLIX instant queue and devote an hour and a half of your time to watch "Bronson." Hardy plays Britain's most notorious prisoner Charlie Bronson with a meticulous portrayal that pushes the limits of the character to insanity. Bronson was a bald-headed, handlebar mustachioed bulky prisoner, who loved to cause trouble for prison guards by holding them hostage, psychologically torturing them, and then buttering his naked body up so that when he'd fight them, he'd be harder to get under control. Sounds a bit like Bane right? Except for the whole mustache, naked butter thing. Whatever, you get the point.


Hardy is going to own this role. He's a fearless actor, who's not afraid to step up to the plate and deliver a notoriously villainous role in the Nolan inspired Batman universe. He's spoken on countless occasions of his displeasure of Schumacher's version of Bane in "Batman and Robin," who served merely as a henchmen who loved to mutter the word "BOOOOMMMMBBBB." He also admitted to sharing a great deal of respect to Heath Ledger's take on the Joker, but says he's not daunted by the task of following the performance, saying "Brilliant actor, brilliant work – that's it. I've got a job to do. ... It's the same with Mad Max and Mel Gibson. I'm not here to engage in a competition with their talent. It's to play the character that I've been given."(Little asterisk here, Hardy is playing the title role in the upcoming Mad Max 4: Fury Road)

Heath Ledger raised the bar when it comes to memoriable villain portrayals; now, Tom Hardy is ready to power clean it over his head, and hopefully break its sorry ass back. July 20th, 2012 is indeed much too far away.

I'm watching you July 20th, 2012 -- Watch your back (cue drum snare)