I haven't seen this one, but if what you say is true, I have to agree with you that I find this practice a smidge annoying and blatantly misleading.

I'm not a person who is necessarily bothered by condom usage and it won't necessarily be a make or break element (although I certainly prefer without), but to me this is as much a violation of the "misleading boxcover law" as showing pictures of a scene that isn't in the movie.

Perhaps this was some kind of unintentional mistake--but I doubt this was a case of the boxcover person not knowing about final editing decisions as is the case with many of these errors. If you're going to use condoms, show them. Don't mislead people, that's just annoying. :)

Mike L.

[Link]

While this is the first time I have heard of anyone doing this with condoms, it does not surprise me. When I was with L.B.O. back in the nineties, we shot a fetish piece that included a transsexual among the cast (I can't remember the damn title), and "she" was prominently displayed on the package with "her" penis well in view. An hour with "Photo-Shop" and the graphic artist had her penis looking about three times bigger than it actually was, as a result of three or four years of the T/S taking daily female hormones.

Some mail order companies also manipulate many of their catalogue photos, because they're being printed very small, and it's an easy task to do, hoping to increase orders.

Eventually, all of these things come back to bite the manufacturer on the ass; but the old carnival side show habit of "bait and switch" ads, titles and illusions in porn will continue to linger for a little while longer, I'm afraid.

Henri Pachard

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 12/23/2002 11:05:30 PM

[Link]