Thursday, January 8, 2015
I've complained before about the use of only the most steamy images to advertise a movie, especially in situations where the movie is not remotely steamy. It's a concession to the reality that sex sells.
But this week I encountered the silliest example I've seen in a while. Silly enough to warrant its own post, methinks.
My wife borrowed Moon from the library this week, forgetting that Duncan Jones' 2009 masterpiece is actually a part of our permanent collection. As much as it might interest me to watch a BluRay version of the movie -- our copy is DVD -- we needless to say have not thrown it on. (Perhaps "needless" only because I am in the throes of finishing my 2014 ranking season.)
In gathering the rentals up into a stack, however, I did notice the back of the packaging, which includes the image above as one of three "typical" shots from the film.
Those of you who have seen Moon will know that it has very little to do with Sam Bell's relationship with his wife -- or at least, not a relationship where they are both physically present. Sam is isolated in a moonbase, going slowly (rapidly?) crazy as his four-year deployment winds down into its final two weeks. He imagines returning home to Tess, his wife, and there may be a flashback or two to when they were together.
But anyone who rents this movie thinking it will be an erotic space opera will be sorely disappointed. It's not that kind of "moon."
The sad reality, though, is that tactics like this are necessary when a movie doesn't perform as well as its distributor felt it could have. It's the same reason we get the ridiculous video poster for The Matador rather than its sublime theatrical poster (see here for that particular discussion).
I guess some sexy advertising is a small price to pay for the movie getting made as the director intended it ... and for the sexy material not getting inserted into the actual product.