Phone Booth spoiler on the cover!

Why on Earth have they put a massive last-two-minutes-of-the-film SPOILER on
the cover? If you've seen it, you'll know what I mean, if you haven't...well
just somehow try not to actually look at the cover before you watch.

Phil7101

"Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
news:...
> What about the cover is a spoiler? The cover I saw showed the three
> leads. The publicity for the movie made no attempt to hide the identity
> of the three actors on the cover or their roles in the film.

I see what he's talking about.
Spoiler space....










While I would even argue that the front cover could be considered a spoiler
(it was obvious that Kiefer was the voice, but that gives away that he will
actually make a physical appearance in the movie), the back is even worse.
Anyone who looks at the back cover will know that Kiefer is going to wind up
in front of an ambulance at some point in the movie. Once the movie gets
going, it won't be too tough to somewhat telegraph the ending from there...

Brandon Fisher

Brandon Fisher wrote:
>
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > What about the cover is a spoiler? The cover I saw showed the three
> > leads. The publicity for the movie made no attempt to hide the identity
> > of the three actors on the cover or their roles in the film.
>
> I see what he's talking about.
> Spoiler space....
>
> While I would even argue that the front cover could be considered a spoiler
> (it was obvious that Kiefer was the voice, but that gives away that he will
> actually make a physical appearance in the movie),


I'd hardly call that a surprise. I look at like this, if they put
Charleton Heston's face on the cover of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"
that doesn't ruin the movie just because he doesn't make a physical
appearance until the end; since we know from the start he's in the
movie. Similarly, presumably most people know (if they've seen any
advertising) going in Kiefer's in the movie. That fact was in no way
hidden. Moreover, 99.99999989% of people know the picture on a
DVD/video box is not necessarily a scene ripped from the movie;
particularly if it consists of head shots of the cast. Now if this was
"Se7en" then I'd agree, don't put the killer's face on the box...

Arthur Lipscomb

"Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Brandon Fisher wrote:
> >
> > "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > > What about the cover is a spoiler? The cover I saw showed the three
> > > leads. The publicity for the movie made no attempt to hide the
identity
> > > of the three actors on the cover or their roles in the film.
> >
> > I see what he's talking about.
> > Spoiler space....
> >
> > While I would even argue that the front cover could be considered a
spoiler
> > (it was obvious that Kiefer was the voice, but that gives away that he
will
> > actually make a physical appearance in the movie),
>
>
> I'd hardly call that a surprise. I look at like this, if they put
> Charleton Heston's face on the cover of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"
> that doesn't ruin the movie just because he doesn't make a physical
> appearance until the end; since we know from the start he's in the
> movie. Similarly, presumably most people know (if they've seen any
> advertising) going in Kiefer's in the movie.

Actually, I had no idea he was in it. I had read a little bit about the
movie, knew that Colin Farrell starred and had a vague idea of the plot, but
even the voice didn't give it away as Sutherland. When he appeared in front
of the ambulance I only half-recognized him - I didn't know he was in the
movie.

That fact was in no way
> hidden. Moreover, 99.99999989% of people know the picture on a
> DVD/video box is not necessarily a scene ripped from the movie;
> particularly if it consists of head shots of the cast.

Yeah, but they don't include head shots of people who only do voices, do
they?

Scott Lemon

Scott Lemon wrote:
>
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Brandon Fisher wrote:
> > >
> > > "Arthur Lipscomb" <> wrote in message
> > > news:...
> > > > What about the cover is a spoiler? The cover I saw showed the three
> > > > leads. The publicity for the movie made no attempt to hide the
> identity
> > > > of the three actors on the cover or their roles in the film.
> > >
> > > I see what he's talking about.
> > > Spoiler space....
> > >
> > > While I would even argue that the front cover could be considered a
> spoiler
> > > (it was obvious that Kiefer was the voice, but that gives away that he
> will
> > > actually make a physical appearance in the movie),
> >
> >
> > I'd hardly call that a surprise. I look at like this, if they put
> > Charleton Heston's face on the cover of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"
> > that doesn't ruin the movie just because he doesn't make a physical
> > appearance until the end; since we know from the start he's in the
> > movie. Similarly, presumably most people know (if they've seen any
> > advertising) going in Kiefer's in the movie.
>
> Actually, I had no idea he was in it. I had read a little bit about the
> movie, knew that Colin Farrell starred and had a vague idea of the plot, but
> even the voice didn't give it away as Sutherland. When he appeared in front
> of the ambulance I only half-recognized him - I didn't know he was in the
> movie.


I had a similar experience. I didn't recognize his voice either. I
intentionally keep myself in the dark before seeing most movies. But
Kiefer was out doing publicity for the movie. His presence in it wasn't
kept secret; not even close IMHO. And the thing at issue, isn't is
Kiefer in the movie, but do we *see* him in the movie. I can't think of
a single movie where I went in wondering if I would see one of the cast
members on screen or not. This whole thing seems like a non issue to
me. I am anti spoiling movies for others. I usually avoid spoilers
myself; but I can't see how I would be spoiled by knowing in advance
that I'm going to see Kiefer at some point during the movie. When I
watched the movie seeing him did *not* come as a surprise to me.


>
> That fact was in no way
> > hidden. Moreover, 99.99999989% of people know the picture on a
> > DVD/video box is not necessarily a scene ripped from the movie;
> > particularly if it consists of head shots of the cast.
>
> Yeah, but they don't include head shots of people who only do voices, do
> they?


But Kiefer didn't *only* do a voice over did he? We *see* him in the
movie...
Just the other day I saw promo posters for some animated films. The
actors only do voices, but they showed their faces on the posters.


This is how I look at it, someone reads the paper, which has an add that
reads, "Go see Phone Booth, staring Kiefer Sutherland" then watches the
tonight show or David Letterman and sees Kiefer doing an interview
saying "Go rent my movie Phone Booth staring me, I'm in it..." Before
walking out the door a commercial comes on that says, "Go rent Phone
Booth staring Kiefer Sutherland." This person walks to the video store,
picks up the box and says, "My god! That's Kiefer's face on the box, I
now know I see him at some point during the movie, it's ruined!" Now if
someone has kept his or herself so in the dark, that they have
absolutely no idea that Kiefer's in the movie, then when they rent it
they should have no expectations to be ruined. They're certainly not
going to say, "My god! That's Kiefer's face on the box, I now know I
see him at some point during the movie, it's ruined!"

Arthur Lipscomb

The "Phone Booth" logo on the cover reminds me of a box of laundry detergent
for some reason.

Remove "moc" to reply.

Sydney Assbasket