Lies, Damn Lies, And Dane Cook
The upcoming comedy Good Luck Chuck is about Chuck (Dane Cook), a guy who's seemingly cursed in relationships because every time he sleeps with a woman, she winds up leaving him for the man she's meant to marry. That's how he got his nickname: Good Luck Chuck. The title is not a statement or wish of well-being — that would be Good Luck, Chuck. But there's no comma, because the title isn't a phrase, it's the character's handle. It's important to lay all that up front because (a) I am indisputably right about this and (b) Lionsgate is apparently abandoning the film's premise for the latest round of TV trailers, despite already having aired and screened teasers that more accurately reflect the film's story.
Here's the original trailer:
Cook appears to be playing a slightly toned-down version of the hyperkinetic stage persona he's crafted over the years, which is a welcome change. But he's playing a pretty sleazy-looking womanizer, working his stubble and oddly spiked hair to his advantage while bedding a succession of women who simply want to screw him so they can move on and find their true loves. That's the basis of the conflict: Chuck meets Cam (Jessica Alba), but is afraid that when he sleeps with her, she'll leave him. Chuck's willpower being about as low as you'd expect from a lanky white man who's been propositioned by Jessica Alba, Chuck sets out to "test" the curse, leading to what will inevitably be an embarrassing scene for the woman who was cast to play the fat obstacle Chuck must literally hurdle. The film looks to be a dull, predictable sex comedy.
But the latest round of teasers jettison this story — which, I should probably reiterate, is the film's actual story — in favor of a new plot in which Chuck falls in love with Cam but is put through his paces when she turns out to be a bit of a klutz, whose pratfalls and accidents usually wind up hurting Chuck as much as herself. Observe the recut teaser:
It's not that the new trailer is meant to alter or redirect the film's sexuality: Although the original version deals more plainly with Chuck's quest to get laid and the eventual snag he hits when he discovers he actually has a heart, both teasers are unabashed fans of Jessica Alba's body. But the second teaser softens Chuck up significantly, turning him from a scheming (if ultimately harmless) lothario into a hapless victim of his girlfriend's pratfalls and mishaps. The new version is meant to sell the film as a more palatable, mainstream romantic comedy, something Ben Stiller would make, and move away from the more crass story presented in the original trailer. Chuck is no longer daring himself to sleep with a morbidly obese woman, who's stuffing her face with food the way absolutely no one does, or obsessing over the girl he wants to screw but can't. Now he's just some goofball who has to survive his girlfriend's klutziness.
But, as I said above, that's not the movie. People will see this new teaser and buy into the concept it's selling, only instead of the braindead comedy they expected, they'll receive a crueler movie that has used fellatio and handjob-referencing images to make itself known. And the problem, obviously, isn't that the movie contains sex, or even used sex to sell itself (however disgustingly); it's that Lionsgate is now pretending that a newer, kinder trailer can somehow give them a completely new movie. But maybe I'm overthinking this whole thing. As Alba's character says in the original trailer, "People will believe whatever they want to believe." Maybe the trailers aren't selling two conflicting movies, just different versions of the same idea of a movie, in this case, an R-rated sex comedy starring a dopey comedian and a blandly attractive model. If the target audience doesn't care what kind of movie they're getting, why should they care if the whole thing's a lie?
Comments: 12
There is probably someone at Lionsgate saying: "Maybe we should try to make it more woman-friendly." And the only way to do that is to almost completely excise Dane Cook--and the actual totally offenisve story--from the trailer.
But yeah, I don't know who they think they're kidding with this.
I cut trailers and tv spots for a living. You have no idea what bitches these studios are to focus group testing and star egos. Say if 4 randomly sampled people from the Sherman Oaks Galleria don't like the way Dane Cook smiles in a teaser, by God, we must then completely remove all traces of said actor. I did not work on Good Luck Chuck. Let's just say the last campaign I worked on rhymes with Blar-dust. (Not supposed to talk about projects I'm on.) That failed not because we didn't submit spots to the studio that actually represented the film as it is, but because some kids and a mom in Thousand Oaks didn't think Charlie Cox had star power. Hence, his complete disappearance from any of the ads.
I've always wanted to make a film that is this deep introspective French or Swedish-type film with nothing but conversations and dream sequences for three and a half hours, and then separately shoot some 2nd unit stuff with balls out action. I'd use the action stuff for the teasers and trailers, and then when asses are in the seats, hit 'em with contemplative cinema. Any takers on funding this thing?
I thought they just re-edted the movie
Sweet holy moses!! Thank you for posting about this! I thought I was losing my mind or that there were TWO Dane Cook and Jessica Alba movies running around out there. I hadn't ever seen the first trailer, butI had remembered a description of this movie on the Daily Trade Roundup. When I was watching TV with my boyfriend, the 2nd trailer came on and I looked over at him and said, "That's not the movie I read about on Pajiba.". I then proceeded to find and RE-READ the damn thing because, surely that wasn't the same title, right?! Alas, it was... all of which to say, I agree wholeheartedly. Run a trailer for the movie that ACTUALLY TELLS ME WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT.
Yeah, I remember seeing the second trailer in theatres with my friend Brandon. We both turned to each other and said "did they seriously just do that?"
It's nice to know I'm not the only one who noticed this.
I figured they just decided that more Jessica Alba in the trailer would bring in more guys to the theatre than Dane Cook
I'd noticed the 30-second ad on TV had turned into a succession of people walking into poles, getting hit in the crotch, and having their pants ripped off after they're caught in closing doors. And I wanted to write something about it, but I haven't, because it would require me to spend time thinking (however lightly) about this movie, which looks like one of the worst of the year. What I'm saying is -- nice post, and thanks for taking the bullet.
There is no amount of money in the world that could get me to sit through a Dane Cook movie. And the same pretty much holds true for blog posts about him, but your veiled West Wing reference in the title hooked me.
I'm with Faye on this one.
The reediting may well be the result of studios bending to the recommendations of small number of people such as a focus group, but it's more likely, I think, that they made a trailer showcasing a movie that revolves around Jessica Alba and to a lesser degree Dane Cook, whose fifteen minutes, I pray, will soon be over.
Hey Grubbs, I saw a movie that rhymed with Blar-dust, and I thought it was the most unexpected surprise because it was fantastic. That's because the trailer I saw for it made it seem so... stupid and unbelievable, but my friend dragged me to see it. I'm really glad I did, but at least now I understand why the trailer was the way it was, because after watching that, i had to convince my other friends who also thought the trailer was awful.
also, i noticed that weird trailer switch, because i saw the original and thought, "oh god." and the 2nd one and thought, "oh she's so pretty... wait a second."
I'm going to be reasonably discrete about this b/c people at my company have been fired for less over here, but I'm sure that the focus groups didn't like the premise of the original movie cut and therefore they reworked it. As I understand, it happens a lot I know of a few other projects that aren't going so well at the moment and are hitting the edit bays as we speak.
There, I managed to write an entire paragraph and say nothing. I should run for office.
I have been bugged by this for a while now. But i just chalked it up to them realizing they would get more flies with Honey than with a douchebag.
See what I did there?
Sep 18, 2007 7:21 AM