MovieChat Forums > Small Soldiers (1998) Discussion > Misleading marketing - still ticks me of...

Misleading marketing - still ticks me off.

posted 12 years ago by mjl1966
45 replies | jump to latest

I saw this when it originally came out in the theaters. I remember my 6 year-old responding very strongly to the marketing for this film that was aimed point blank at him and other kids his age. When I took him to the theater, I didn't pay much attention to the PG-13 rating. Boy, I wish I would have. This was *not* a film for children. I wrote a letter to Dreamworks regarding the matter, I was so upset. It would have been fine if the marketing had been somewhere close to the truth, but they were pitching ice cream and wound up serving tequila shooters. To this day, I refuse to watch Joe Dante movies and I'm hard pressed to watch anything by Spielberg, who should have known better.

[–] demache92 12 years ago

I only read this in some other guys post here (so it may or may not be true, I have no sources).

Apparently, this was originally slated to be a family friendly movie. The marketing deals and such where all done before the movie was officially finished (as with most movies). And then the movie came out to be far more adult than originally anticipated and it was too late to fix it since they had a deadline to meet.

So yeah, mismatched marketing and creative direction. I guess you had every right to be mad, since you went in expecting something completely different.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

I saw this movie when I was 9, I loved it, what was the problem with it?

[–] Chad-Warden 12 years ago

Nothing was wrong. OP is probably just old or religious

Hey son! Over here! I'm over here. At the banyan trees.

[–] Royalcourtier 11 years ago

Don't criticise OP. The film was marketed for a younger audience than it was suitable for. It would be fine for a 12-13 year old - or an adult. But not a 6 year old.

[–] Defenseman13 11 years ago

A PG-13 movie for 6 year old?

GEE, IF ONLY THERE WAS A WEBSITE THAT ONE COULD RESEARCH THIS AT.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] Rowol 11 years ago

YES, in 1998 researching movies on the internet was everybody's first action when taking their child out to a movie that was marketed for children.

Since you know, the internet was just as prevalent back then as it is now.

[–] stephenmonachello 11 years ago

When you see the trailer and it states this film is rated PG-13 you should know better. Even back 1998 they had film ratings in the movie trailers. Parents should always research before allowing their children to be exposed to something that may not be age appropriate.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/

[–] Chad-Warden 10 years ago

It would be fine for a 12-13 year old - or an adult. But not a 6 year old.

The movie was PG-13.

[–] IceboxMovies 12 years ago

To this day, I refuse to watch Joe Dante movies and I'm hard pressed to watch anything by Spielberg, who should have known better.

You have got to be kidding me.

You say your child was 6 years old? Okay... and? Did he/she like the film? Don't you think the film offered a message about the important of learning ("I'm also programmed to learn," says Archer) and standing up for what is right ("If we hide, we will still lose -- no more hiding!") that a 6-year old might actually find to be very interesting?

And... wow. Boycotting Dante and Spielberg, huh? How about this: DON'T. You're missing out on great, intelligent cinema from both of them. I am sorry to be so hostile, but you really need to wise up.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] hindsboro1 12 years ago

So it's Dreamworks fault you didn't pay enough tension to the PG-13 rating and took your 6 year to it. So if a PG movie is ice cream and a PG-13 movie is a teguila shooter, then i am assuming R is a hardcore porn movie / snuff film?

lol

[–] kevin_soler 12 years ago

Dat logic. I hope your kid thinks harder than you do.

[–] FrankBooth_DeLarge 12 years ago

I was 9 when this came out and I remember thinking the marketing made the movie look vicious and sadistic. I saw the movie in theaters and loved it, but at the time it was less violent than I anticipated. So while I can understand some parents thinking it would be more of a family film, I don't think they ever hid the fact that it's a PG-13 movie with a darker tone than Toy Story.

My Top 40 Metal Albums

http://youtu.be/-2LxLPHZtxI

[–] christoffersen366 12 years ago

Kinda funny that Leary's role wants the Commandos to be like in the commercial, while the movie itself, is not :D

[–] harmisjack 11 years ago

To your response, I don't think you had a right to complain since it really is your fault you didn't pay attention to the rating. Don't you remember that originally this movie had a PG rating. But a week before it's theatrical release, they changed it to PG-13 for numerous reasons. So, don't think that Dreamworks wasn't aware of what this movie had to offer to audiences of young ages.

Don't you know history repeats itself? Hmm Sid?- Scream 2

[–] luigitornado 11 years ago

My aunt and uncle took me too se it when I was 9. It was my first PG13 movie, and I loved the hell out of it.

[–] KramerTM 11 years ago

OP's complaint is actually pretty ironic considering the film in question is about toys, marketed for 6-year-olds, turn out to be quite inappropriate for them. I think DreamWorks was just leveling us all.