Horrible Poster


This isn't a comment on the quality of the film itself, but I have to say that the poster (which I currently can't escape on the London Underground) is one of the worst I've ever seen. It looks like some horrible children's book or magazine cover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Main_portrait.JPG

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2792592896/tt1130980

It's so bad it almost puts me off seeing the film, making it look like some immature farce (which, for all I know, it might be..). And all the primary colours...ugh! Bad marketing? Or have I missed the genius of it?

reply

I agree, it looks like a made-for-tv movie that I could find in a discount bin.

reply

The marketing of this film has been nothing short of a disaster. It is getting bad PR because it has chosen to seemingly trivialise a very important subject and as for the posters - cant agree more with the comments above.

I think the marketing team on this got it badly wrong.

reply

Whilst the poster is terrible, the film is also poorly focused. The switch between the deaths under the tube and the gentle comedy of the relationship between the characters is poorly handled. Compare to A Fish Called Wanda for example on how it can be done effectively.

reply

I don't mind the poster - I can definatly think of worse ones.

I think that focus on the London Tube and suicide has been blown way out of preportion.
How many films have you seen involving murder or killing? Is that not insensitive towards people who have had a friend or family member murdered to have that in films?
Somehow we find a murder in a film socially acceptable (because it's just a film), but a guy throwing himself under a train not? (because it's insensitive).

Should we just protest about all films involving death because it's insensitive towards people who have had a loved one die?

Let's review other suicide films:

Heathers - Kids killing themselves at school/murder
The Virgin Suicides - Kids killing themselves (again)
2:37 - Student suicide
The Bridge - people killing themselves by jumping off the golden gate bridge

and lastly

Dead Man on Campus - a COMEDY about students looking for a suicidal room-mate (if he kills himself they get straight A's).

I certainly don't remember a huge fuss over Dead Man on Campus using suicide in a comedy? In fact i don't remember much of a media fuss over any of them?

I think people need to remember that it's just a film. The only real difference between Three and Out and these other films is that ASLEF is kicking off about the method of suicide used.
From what I saw in the film, most of it was set outside of London and in the lake district. There was proabably less that 5-10 minutes that was actually in the tube.

Remember people..

1.)it's just a film
2.)if you havn't seen the film you're in no position to make an educated and informed comment on it.

Peace

TB

reply

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "if you havn't[sic] seen the film you're in no position to make an educated and informed comment on it." line. I think the public have a perfect right to form an opinion on what a film will be like based on the pre-release publicity - in this case the poster and trailer - because that is what said pre-release publicity is for. If the public get a false idea of what the film is about, then that is the fault of the film-makers and publicists - not the public.

As I've said in another thread: I haven't seen the film, but I have seen the trailer, and I thought it was in poor taste. It was certainly bad enough to put me off wanting to see the film. Like me, I'm sure that many of the ASLEF protestors have also seen the trailer, so I can understand why they might be upset.

From other comments on this board (including yours), it does appear that the trailer does not accurately represent the film as a whole, but as I said earlier, that is the fault of the film-makers who have to take responsibility for misleading advertising and stop blaming people for innocently taking it at face-value.

reply

I don't believe that people should be able to trash a film based purely on what they think it's about. I've had enough of religious and moral leaders getting on their high horses and decrying a movie, television series or videogame without ever having experienced it for themselves or even understanding what it's actually about. Of course the public is entiteld to their opinion, and I agree that the marketing for this film was off the mark. But I enjoyed the film. It ended up reflecting heavily on what it means to be responsible for someone's life and death and shifted from a comedy to almost a serious drama.

_____________________________
"Knowing how the world works
Is not knowing how to work the world"

reply

If the writers had actually talked to any LUL train drivers they'd would have known that this scenario was impossible, so I suppose if you want to imagine that this is LUL in a parallel universe where we don't get taken off the trains for a month of counselling after a "one under" then it's believable, otherwise the central premise of the film falls at the first hurdle.

You can get compensation though it's only around £1K depending on the incident but you can normally stay away from work on full pay for three months.

reply

*poke*

It actually turns out in the end that his collegues were joking about the "three and out" rule.

reply

Well that's a tragically embarrassing comment from Maxbeaird.

reply

"I don't believe that people should be able to trash a film based purely on what they think it's about. I've had enough of religious and moral leaders getting on their high horses and decrying a movie, television series or videogame without ever having experienced it for themselves or even understanding what it's actually about. Of course the public is entiteld to their opinion, and I agree that the marketing for this film was off the mark. But I enjoyed the film. It ended up reflecting heavily on what it means to be responsible for someone's life and death and shifted from a comedy to almost a serious drama."
- chubbykipper

Actually, I agree with you there. The problem is that that's not the scenario we're talking about with Three and Out. The criticism has not come from "moral leaders" trying to create a strawman arguement to further their own ends, but from members of the public who have based their opinion of the film on what the film-makers have told them.

IMO, for those involved in the film to get on their high-horse and have a go at the public for misunderstanding the film, when that misunderstanding is in fact the film-makers' fault, is just as dishonest as the public moralizing that you are quite rightly condemning.

The film-makers would have saved themselves a lot of hassle if the trailer had been more honest about the film's tone and content. But then, presumably they wouldn't have got so much publicity, would they?

reply

Are the filmmakers responsible for the marketing? I think it's probably more the producers that are to blame rather than the scriptwriters/directors. I suppose producers also fall under the umbrella of "film-makers", but I always tend to view the money-men as quite seperate from the creative process

_____________________________
"Knowing how the world works
Is not knowing how to work the world"

reply

I absolutely agree - it is an awful, awful poster. The first thing that came into my mind when I saw it on the side of a bus was: pantomime!

Shudder...

It is definitely one of the reasons I don't want to see the film. Which is silly, thinking about it, but cannot be denied. I think it could well have contibuted to the film flopping so badly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7373558.stm

reply

Not to mention it's been getting loads of bad reviews across the board ...

"Jean Louise. Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing." - Rev. Sykes

reply

I have just got home after seeing this film at the cinema, and I thought that it was great. A really good comedy, with an original storyline and great acting.
Many Thanks.
Developed Through Technology

reply

I saw the poster again on my way into work tonight, and I have to say that it is awful. It just screams cheap crappy comedy. Really poor job on the marketing.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed-it gives the wrong impression to waht is a mostly serious and moving film. The jaunty wording makes it look like a carry on film!

reply

While I agree that the cover looks kind of idiotic overall, Gemma Arterton looks smoking hot on it. Totally rocking that beret.

"There is no escape, John!"

reply

The poster is awful, but the film is worse.

reply