It's all about ticket sales...
I watched 'House on Straw Hill' last night which, for those of you who haven't seen it, is one of the infamous UK 'Video Nasties' that was banned back in the 1980s (under the alternate title 'Expose'). The Blu ray commentary was interesting as the director and producer spoke about wanting to make a low budget exploitation shocker in the Samuel Z. Arkoff / AIP or Pete Walker mold. They figured (rightly) that horror films basically always make money, so they wanted a slice. BTW, like most of the 'Video Nasties', there's not a whole lot here that would shock the average viewer these days. For those of you who like 70s exploitation, this film is certainly worth a look. Here's the cover and a couple of screen shots:
Where the poster side of things comes in is that the distributors decided that the presence of Fiona Richmond in the movie (albeit as a co star) should be the focus of the marketing as she was a well known sexpot at the time. This resulted in the rather bizarre choice to advertise the film as a very different beast - much to the disgust of Linda Hayden, who felt that her role was greatly diminished by this choice; hard to disagree - she's not even on the daybill!
The Blu ray commentary explains that the choice was purely to drive ticket sales. I wonder how many theatre goers were shocked by what they ended up seeing?
Anyone have any other examples of widely inaccurate posters?
Where the poster side of things comes in is that the distributors decided that the presence of Fiona Richmond in the movie (albeit as a co star) should be the focus of the marketing as she was a well known sexpot at the time. This resulted in the rather bizarre choice to advertise the film as a very different beast - much to the disgust of Linda Hayden, who felt that her role was greatly diminished by this choice; hard to disagree - she's not even on the daybill!
The Blu ray commentary explains that the choice was purely to drive ticket sales. I wonder how many theatre goers were shocked by what they ended up seeing?
Anyone have any other examples of widely inaccurate posters?
0
Get In Touch
Comments
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
The other one like this is the Astonding She Monster. Knew the poster and thought she would be all decked out and ended up a girl in a skin tight suit with makeup.
Expose aka House On Straw Hill, aka Trauma. The Expose publicity solely advertised the film as a sexploition film as Pancho mentioned completely ignoring any thriller/ horror aspects of the film as appearing on the above Trauma U.S.A. one sheet poster.