Kinda figured if pornographic images would be allowed anywhere it would be here.
Hopefully people can still click the link to the box cover I referred to.
So anyone else encountered misleading box cover shots before?
[Link]
| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| goldenballs Member 343 Posts 7/04 |  Posted - Jun 27 2008 : 2:10PMI've seen a few films recently where the box cover shots are not representative of whats actually in the film. I understand that box cover photos are not necessarily stills taken directly from the film but rather, are shot separately, but it still pisses me off when for example, on the back of the cover for the film 'MILF Cruiser 11' there are shots of Mikayla (one of my favorites) riding a guy cowgirl. However, in her scene she never does the cowgirl position. Why would they take photos of positions that never occured in the scene?? Even worse in my opinion is this box cover from 'Big Tits at School 2' I watched this last night looking forward to the Audrey Bitoni scene and seeing her amazing body getting a work out. But despite appearing naked on the back box cover shots, she never gets naked in the scene, keeping the black top on that you can see in the shot in the top left corner. I felt really disappointed by the scene. I don't get how even if the stills are shot separately to the film, they would get her to take her top off for the box cover shots, then get her to keep it on for the scene. mod note: removed boxcover - violates the Image Policy! Here is a link to the boxcover. Edited by - heynow on Jun 27 2008 [Link] |
| goldenballs Member 343 Posts 7/04 | Posted - Jun 28 2008 : 5:22PM Kinda figured if pornographic images would be allowed anywhere it would be here. Hopefully people can still click the link to the box cover I referred to. So anyone else encountered misleading box cover shots before? [Link] |
Bill  All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00 | Posted - Jun 28 2008 : 5:55PM Realistically, companies should really do a better job of communication when designing the box cover so that the photos that don't match the movie are removed from the list of possible box cover photos. [Link] |
| xformyzombie Member 206 Posts 5/08 | Posted - Jun 28 2008 : 6:36PM [Image not found DB] Delilah from a different photo shoot, but this illustrates the tats: [Image not found DB] Edited by - xformyzombie on 6/28/2008 6:38:05 PM [Link] |
| Brandon Iron BrandonIron.com 3832 Posts 3/02 | Posted - Jun 28 2008 : 11:13PM [Link] |
| xformyzombie Member 206 Posts 5/08 | Posted - Jun 28 2008 : 11:47PM Edited by - xformyzombie on 6/29/2008 2:23:02 AM [Link] |
| blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Jun 28 2008 : 11:56PM [Link] |
| Brandon Iron BrandonIron.com 3832 Posts 3/02 | Posted - Jun 29 2008 : 3:24AM [Link] |
| blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Jun 29 2008 : 5:54AM [Link] |
| xformyzombie Member 206 Posts 5/08 | Posted - Jun 29 2008 : 12:12PM [Link] |
| goldenballs Member 343 Posts 7/04 | Posted - Jun 29 2008 : 12:54PM I can understand why these kind of things happen. With the original example I was talking about though, being naked on the box cover and then not being so in the film, i felt like I had been conned. [Link] |
| SWorldMegan Shane's World 213 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Jun 29 2008 : 2:48PM On a side note too ..in defense of studios.. sometimes in editing we cut out whole positions. Maybe the lighting wasn't right, maybe it was an awkward angle , etc. But the stills would still be there. Sometimes boxes are done months after a movie was shot and no one notices that position was cut out and it ends up on the box. I think in general (at least decent studios) really try and watch that. No one wants to actively mis-lead the consumer. [Link] |
| blowfish Member 874 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Jun 29 2008 : 3:36PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |