Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Puff Puff: Shouldn't the mention of We're Back! be taken off? Because I don't know which version of the movie the contributor saw, but I not only distinctly remember the Circus of Fear and the snarling, feral dinosaurs they claim weren't actually in the movie, but being scared half to death as a kid by the villain getting eaten by crows.

Wolviepris: I just saw I think I Love My Wife and I think it falls under this trope. The finger-lickin' commercials made me think it was a No Exit comedy based off some of Chris Rock's more recent stand-up but it was actually quite dark and hard to tell whether it was a comedy or not. Nearly every funny scene is in the ads (and the only one that isn't is because they totally COULDN'T put it in an ad).
Ununnilium: It seems to me that the Robert Zemekcis one could be its own trope - I've certainly seen plenty of spoil-everything trailers.

Lale: Isn't there already a trope for that?
Does that I Still Know What You Did Last Summer count? Even though it contained no scenes from the movie, if it acted like a transition between the two films, was it really lying?

Ununnilium: I could have sworn there was a trope called Previews Always Spoil, but apparently not.

Paul A: The Spoiler page has a link to 'Previews Always Spoil', but it's to an external site, not to a trope page.

Ununnilium: Ah. Spoiler itself would probably count, though.

YYZ: Trailers Always Spoil.

Ununnilium: I just want to say that this is why the Fantastic Four 2 trailer is so good: it's a single, dramatic scene, expertly cut, from the movie. It's the main reason I'm going to see it.
Lale: I cut "Similarly, the trailer for I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is composed entirely of a scene that was shot specially for the trailer, and actually acts as a linking scene between the films" because from the description, it doesn't sound like a misleading trailer.

Lale: Like the Stephen King link, but Fan Vids can be intentionally misleading. It's suitable for their purpose and expected. You wouldn't reasonably expect official traielrs/commercials to mislead. Sorry, but it doesn't fit the trope.
Lale: Cut the Pixar example because the trailers aren't misleading. In fact, it's a very effective strategy.

Umptyscope: I remember a preview for an ep of "The Incredible Hulk" where they made it look like the Hulk was fighting Bruce Banner (Hulk throws guy, BB crashes into wall.)

Also, sometimes trailers use footage that was shot for the movie but the scene was cut (Roger Rabbit — in the trailer, Eddie Valiant has a toon pig's head. Cut scene in the DVD extras.)

Lale: Why is the Naruto example not Trailers Always Spoil?

Caswin: For that matter, why is the Terminator example listed here as such?

Caswin: Well, it shouldn't be. Hasta la vista, baby.
Rann: Removed
  • The trailer for Forbidden Kingdom makes it look like a typical but interesting martial arts epic set in ancient China. It's actually the Journey to the West crossed with the Wizard of Oz, in which a Mighty Whitey from the 20th century is transported into ancient China to save all the poor Asians and go on a fantasy journey to save the Monkey King. Ouch.
Make inaccurate comparisons and complaints about movies you don't like in your livejournal, not here, huh?

Zeta: The fact remains that they omitted the premise and main character from the trailer.

Rann: If you take a nitpickingly specific view of the premise, and missed the trailers that had the main character in it. Besides, you seem more like you're pissed that they got white guy in your kung fu than about any "deception'.
  • A rather dated example: The original "On the next" trailer for the War of the Worlds episode "Candle in the Night" showed the aliens desperately tracking a rogue device to stop it falling into the hands of the humans, asking, "Can the team use the aliens' own episode against them? A View to a kill, on the next episode of War of the Worlds!". Answer: No. Because they're not even looking for it: it's a Bottle Episode about the team organizing a surprise birthday party. The events of the trailer refer to a throwaway B-plot about the aliens trying to find a lost probe.
"The aliens' own episode"? —Document N
Capn Andy: Removed this —
  • One of the trailers for Resident Evil: Apocalypse made it look like a hygiene product caused the T-Virus. And here's the kicker; none of that is mentioned in the actual movie. Good thing, too. Sure, it was made by the Umbrella Corporation, but still, a hygiene product? Come on, it's Resident Evil, not Sailor Moon.
A hygiene product did cause the T-Virus. Umbrella was trying to make dead skin cells regenerate, to preserve youthful appearance. Worked too well.
How was Dune bothched? It's great. Can the trailer be found anywhere?

Storms-eye- Removed

  • Ichigo/Rukia fans in the states have been over their heads in delight ever since viewing the new trailer for the 3rd Bleach movie, happily anticipating their ship's supposed canon-ness finally being shown to the world. This reminds one of the reaction to the previews for the 1st movie, where they also declared the new girl to be the main characters' future daughter. (Which got Jossed hard.) Also consider that the two have never shown any hard, clear signs of being interested, and that Word of God states that the relationship isn't amorous. This non-shipper troper strongly suspects that the fans are being played like harps.
    • You're probably right. According to a summary of the movie Ichigo emphasizes again and again that Rukia changed his life, and later says that his bond with her was there long before they met, and they will be reunited someday JUST LIKE THE SIBLINGS who initiated the plot. If that is not one of the most subtle and cruel Ship Sinkings in the history of anime, I'll eat my mouse.

Please refrain from 1. Ship Bashing 2.Taking fangirls seriously in moments of silly Squee, you know they don't mean it and those that do.. 3. Taking a single section of a fandom, generalizing their reaction and playing it off as though it was a widely held believe and interpenetration.

This trope is about a trailer making the audience believe something will happen in the feature, that does not happen, in order to make the viewers tune in. This is not about Fangirls doing what they all do with regards to "all" interaction, dialogue and subtext, it just so happens it was a trailer this time.

Bonsai Forest: Someone added one of those "fake trailers" as an example. The problem with that is simple: if we allow one such example, why not allow them all? Therefore, I think examples of fan-made trailers that intentionally pretend to be a different genre do not fit and are certainly not examples of trying to mislead the actual consumer.

Rann: On that note, if a trailer now counts just because "They used all the best lines and action from the movie in the trailer!", why don't we just save a lot of reading time and space by deleting the entire example section and just putting down "Every movie trailer ever."?


Great Pikmin Fan: What? What do you have to say?

Great Pikmin Fan: I'm surprised the season-wait... hold on... checking... okay 4 finale of bones wasn't instintly darted on here.

Crazyrabbits: Cut these examples:

  • This Troper thought Twilight was an action movie, I was wrong... so wrong.

Explain this in more detail.

  • The Invisible trailer had a scene with an old man spoiling telling the Back Story to the main character. The scene was never in the film.

Should go under Trailers Always Spoil.

  • Three words: Little Miss Sunshine. The title is probably supposed to be ironic, but the trailer certainly didn't make that clear.

Doesn't explain anything about the trailer itself, which summarized the film's plot quite well.

  • None of the lines heard in the trailer for Spaced Invaders were actually in the movie.

Explain in more detail.

  • Terminator 2 featured a promotional campaign designed to play off of the motives of the T-800 model from the first film. An early trailer, made specifically for the purpose, showed an Arnold Schwarzenegger model of the T-800 being built and looking sinister at the end. The second phase of the marketing showed both Terminators, but didn't mention which one was good and which one was evil. In the end, it was the Arnold character that was the protector, and the T-1000 was the enemy.
    • As other trailers indicated, it was supposed to be a point of suspense, albeit one resolved early in the film, but consider that John encounters both of them exactly at the same time.

As the marketing campaign went on, it was revealed during the third trailer released that the T-800 was "good" and the T-1000 was "bad", which is honestly more Trailers Always Spoil than anything else.

  • There's the 1954 animated movie version of Orwell's Animal Farm which faithfully followed the novel... and then there's the 1999 made-for-TV version after a teleplay by some guy named Alan Janes, with talking animatropic animals, voiced by actors. And, um, it's apparently marketed for children, because you know... cute animals. The basic story by Orwell is still there, but the title cover and the marketing slogans both try to pretend it's a family movie in the vein of Babe, the Gallant Pig (1995). Compare the Babe cover with that of the live-action Animal Farm. See the resemblance?
    • this trailer makes it even worse, implying that it's a family friendly Babe-type movie. This trailer, however, gets the tone of the story much more accurately.

Took out the section on the box covers. This is about the trailers themselves, not any other peripheral marketing tools.

  • It's not the trailer, but the synopsis on the back of the DVD for Raising Helen is worded very carefully. The film itself is about a glamorous career woman who takes on the guardianship of her orphaned nieces and nephew. The rest of the film is dedicated to validating the expression "you don't raise children, children raise you" with a token love interest thrown in for good measure. The DVD description only mentions 2 parts of this, that Hudson is a glamorous career woman and that John Corbett is her love interest.
    • Similarly, the Netflix summary for M mentions that it's about a pedophile serial killer being hunted down by the Berlin underworld, which is being blamed for his crimes. It neglects to mention the rather significant fact that of those, the serial killer is the protagonist.
      • Oh God, don't even get me started on Netflix. Between pulling a Trailers Always Spoil on some movies (they give away the biggest plot twist of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), misrepresentations (for Talk to Me, they mention him having a gig at the White House like it's a big moment of the movie, when it's a scene that's less than 30 seconds long), an outright lies (for M, they state that the Nazis used it as propaganda when it was outright banned by them), one has to wonder if they even see the movie, or hear a vague plot summary from somebody who fell asleep every few minutes.

Whining about Netflix is not an example of this trope. If the summaries explained some of the revelations listed in these entries, it would be Trailers Always Spoil.

  • The Watchmen trailer appears to be deliberately set up to appear to spoil the death of Rorschach. However, the way it's done only seems to "spoil" it for people who've read the graphic novel. Sneaky, sneaky bastards.
    • It also makes it look like Dr. Manhattan, not Rorschach, is the point of view character.
      • In a similar vein, the trailer also seems to spoil the villain's identity, by following up the scene of the Comedian being thrown out a window with a shot of Ozymandias in full costume, made worse if you pay attention to the song lyrics.
      • And again on the official website. There's a short trailer for each character, with Ozymandias' trailer showing New York being destroyed.

Trailers Always Spoil.

  • They did this the film Prom Night. It began looking like a chick-flick comedy until the lights go out, then the true genre is revealed. Editor adds: I heard some guy in the back of the theater loudly proclaim "Didn't see that comin!".

Seems like this should be You Should Already Know This. After all, most fans of the original film knew this was a remake. I'm keeping it up, though.

  • This Troper knew of "Doogal" from friends and trailers based in Europe. The only American trailer he sees is (assumedly) a parody of those commercials that hype celebrity involvement. Cue disappontment at the re-dubbed, dumbed-down "Doogal" that was released in America.

Complaining about a remake isn't an example of this. Rewrite this so it's about the foreign perception of American trailers, and you might have something.

  • Star Trek was marketed as a prequel to the original series, using a younger cast to show teen drama and romantic conflict, with more action and special effects than a typical Trek movie, making it an attempt at a mindless Star Wars meets Dawson's Creek special effects blockbuster. Instead, it turned out to be a prequel, a sequel, a side story, a crossover, a reboot, a homage, a satire, and both does and doesn't have an effect on continuity, so it really doesn't affect sticklers for continuity even though it does.
    • I keep reading and re-reading the above entry, trying to make some sense of it... and I can't. I just can't.
    • The trailer also implied a Kirk/Uhura romance when, in actuality, she's already in a relationship with Spock.

I have no idea what the person who added this is trying to say. The film was marketed as an action-heavy film (which it was), and nowhere in the marketing campaign did the filmmakers say this was a prequel. I've kept the part talking about Kirk's implied romance with Uhura in the trailers.

  • The entry for Moon says "The trailer for Moon implies it's about a man going crazy after three years by himself on, well, the Moon only talking to his wife, co-workers (via phone) and his robot buddy kepting him sane long enough for the last two weeks to be over; in reality..." with the rest in spoiler tags. Isn't the fact that the author put the reveal into spolier tags enough to show that the trailer isn't an example of this trope? The trailer lies only in the same way that the opening of the film lies, in that the audience and the character are supposed to believe this until the reveal.
    • I probably should mention that I've not seen the film.
      • Well, it's a bit complicated. It could be argued that the trailer (or at least a trailer; I only saw one) made the film out to be psychological in nature; guy left alone too long sees weird things; what's real and what's in his head? When I saw the trailer some months (I think it was) before the film was released, I passed on it, thinking I'd guessed the plot twist that the protagonist had a clone. Then I saw the film and was very pleasantly surprised to find that yes, the protagonist has a clone, but that's not a twist, it's the premise of the movie. It's revealed a third of the way in, and the rest of the film consists of the consequences of that premise. Also, the sinister HAL-ripoff is neither sinister nor a HAL-ripoff. I guess you could say the trailer lied, but it could definitely be argued whether it had to lie to preserve a surprise, or whether it was just deceptive for the sake of being deceptive.

DoomTay: From the Flanderized Tropes page:

It's now basically turned blatantly into Complaining About Movies I Don't Like, under the excuse of "The trailer made it look like I'd like this movie, and I didn't. So it LIED!"

I just want to comment that I was worried something like this would happen

  • Not only that, it also has a ton of "the movie has certain elements/narrative changes that are not portrayed in the film." I wouldn't consider, for example, the exclusion of Shoshana from the 'Inglorious Basterds' trailers an offense, because all the rest is delivered - there's just a new facet of the movie you are not aware of, and that's the whole point of movie-going. If the trailer gave you all necessary information, there would be no point of it.

    • To summarize: this page needs a major clean-up.

Prfnoff: Removed, because the final bullet point negates this too-wordy example:
  • And even more egregious, the trailers for Coraline, a claymation film that looks a lot like a Tim Burton movie, all went out of their way to note that it was "made by the director of The Nightmare Before Christmas!" Naturally, the point was to make everybody think that it was a Tim Burton movie. Tim Burton had nothing to do with it. However, even now many people still think that Tim Burton is involved, despite the fact that the opening credits shows Henry Selick's name in great big letters and makes no mention of Tim Burton. Given the sizable High Octane Nightmare Fuel quotient of the film, however, it can be assumed that these people were covering their eyes during said opening credits and missed it. Or didn't watch the movie. Either way, they're Gannon-Banned.
    • The trailers said "From the director of Nightmare Before Christmas", but made no mention of the fact that it was Henry Selick and not Tim Burton, who everyone assumes directed TNBC.
      • Actually, the trailer states that it is made by "Henry Selick, the Director of the Nightmare Before Christmas". Ask Neil Gaiman if you don't believe me.