This has been touched on in several threads, but I wanted to discuss it specifically in one thread. It seems more and more lesser known films, and even some big ones, are being misrepresented by the studios. They seem to be so intent on cramming every movie into one of three or four categories, thinking it will improve their popularity. In the end, it seems to me that they actually usually hurt them. Last year, Donnie Darko was marketed as a Horror film, when nothing could be further from the truth. This year, Heaven is market as an Action/Thriller when it is actually a very quiet, philosophil film. The Good Girl was marketed as a mainstream DVD just because Jennifer Aniston was in it. As a result, data was wasted on a full screen transfer and the transfer itself is completely screwed up. So, the general public hates the film because they might be expecting the standard Aniston light comedy and many film fans don't buy the disc because the transfer sucks. My point is, when a very deliberate and extremely unconventional film like Heaven is marketed as an Action/Thriller (The cover even says it is a thriller and has a shot of the two stars running from a huge explosion, which doesn't ever happen in the film) then people who rent it are looking for an action film. Their minds are in that mode and when they get this quiet, slow little multi-lingual film, most of the time they will not like it. Even if they might have liked it if that was what they were expecting. They say bad things about it and others who might have given it a shot don't as a result. Take Solaris, for example. Several times I have been at the rental store to hear customers and even employees saying how bad it is, or how bad they heard it is. I think a big reason for this is because the studio marketed is as a romance, wich it isn't. So viewers come away angry, thinking it is a bad movie. Also, the studio just assumes they have a blockbuster simply because it stars George Clooney. They spend far too much on a film designed to have limited appeal, the snowball starts, they make it worse by misrepresenting it, and it flops. Take the example of the prequal to The Exorcist which recently completed principal photography and has been discussed in another thread. The execs fast-track a screenplay, dump a pretty substantial amount of money into it, end up hiring both a director annd star known for doing unconventional, independent films and bristle and try to kill it when they see what they got. To make matters worse, reportedly in this case, they got exactly what they paid for, but none of them ever actually read the screenplay and were just assuming they would have "spinning heads and projectile vomiting." The fact is, if they actually watched the original, it is a pretty slow moving film and maybe they should stick with that. FWIW, what I have read about the prequal actually sounds quite good. So, I think execs, by trying to homogonize the movies they release and represent them in these few "safe" categories are actually doing the exact opposite of what they intend. It seems they see themselves as a lot smarter than the public and that everyone will believe whatever they claim. Like someone is going to watch Heaven and think it actually was an action movie. Any comments?