Something’s Missing From This “Couples Retreat” Poster, No?
Posted by: Kate Torgovnick
Filed in:
entertainment
10:40AM, Monday November 16th 2009
Let’s play a little game. Check out these two posters for “Couples Retreat”—the one on the left was used in the US, and the one on the right in the UK. What’s different about these two images? The flick is about four couples who head for a therapy vacation, but in the British version of the poster, Faizon Love and Kali Hawk—aka, the film’s black couple—have been removed, both from the image and list of actors. People are up in arms over this and have started a letter-writing campaign to Universal Pictures about the omission. “I think this was an ill-conceived move,” said Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch-UK. “We celebrate diversity in Britain and we could have coped with seeing the same poster used in America.” A spokesman for Universal says the studio intends to use the original poster in all other countries, and that they’re sorry for causing offense. The change was made to “simplify the poster to actors who are most recognizable in international markets.” So what do you think—was Universal justified in changing up the poster or was this totally wack? I, personally, feel that they should also feel bad for the bad Photoshop job putting all the actors knee deep in water. Oh, and for making the ridiculous rom-com in the first place. [The Daily Mail]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
bethlynn00
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 10:44 am: [report]
Well even in the American poster they are pushed further to the back than any of the couples, but yeah it sucks they were completely cut out of the poster for this horribly formulaic, dreadfully boring rom-com.
LostInStars
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 11:04 am: [report]
I suspect they’re in the back of the American poster because most people actually know who the other actors are. But them being in the back could also be dirty, thinly veiled racism! Gasp!
goofyjj
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 11:10 am: [report]
OMG not everything is racism!!! it’s a stupid move to use a different poster but i can see the point of putting the most well known names up front. there’s a reason why people get hight billing and you have to do a lot of movies to get to that level.
Goldfinch86
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 11:30 am: [report]
I don’t even know who these people are and arguably they might not be as essential as other characters, not because they are black, just they do not have as big a role in the story line. They did not need to be removed from the poster. I heard the movie was good but that person has extremely bad taste in everything.
indianagirl
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 12:03 pm: [report]
Bad move, Doesnt matter how you slice it, just a bad move.
damnnearperfect5
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 12:42 pm: [report]
ok so if they were important enough to be put on the American version of the poster, then why couldnt they be put on the British one?
Assuming you are in America, Goldfinch definitely just said that they didnt know who they were and im sure other Americans might not know as well, and if that is the case they are trying to make, why are they on the American poster in the first place?
but what i am peeved at is when the british lady Vivienne Pattison sai they could have “coped”
so now seeing minorities in the media is coping with it? like its some sort of burden that they are being forced to deal with?
LostInStars
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]
I didn’t mean to imply that it was okay they were taken off the poster. I don’t understand that one at all. I was just arguing why they might be in the back of the poster on the American version.
Riley
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 01:51 pm: [report]
@damnnearperfect5 - I think cope was referring to the perception that British people wouldn’t know who those actors were.
The original poster had too many people and they were too small. Vince Vaughn and Jean Reno would be the most recognizable, should have used Vaughn, Reno and Akerman. Bateman isn’t that recognizable yet, Farveau hasn’t done anything much since Swingers and Faizon Love is mostly in the supporting actor role.
Why try and mash the entire cast on the poster anyway?
danila
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 02:13 pm: [report]
I totally agree with damnnearperfect5.
And I don’t think anyone is saying they should have been front and center. Of course the most recognizable will have the largest spot. Bottom line, the poster should have been the same.
belongsomewhere
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 07:15 pm: [report]
They actually weren’t in a lot of the posters in the subway here in New York, either. I thought that was strange, but I figured they were just minor roles.
belongsomewhere
wrote on November 16 2009 @ 09:31 pm: [report]
Which isn’t to say that it’s right, I just didn’t want to assume the worst immediately…and I hope the studio or whomever made that call has a reasonable explanation for this, but I doubt it.
bogart4017
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 11:27 am: [report]
The explanation is not realistic enough for me. What they simply should have said was there were too many people on the poster and they were testing a new one to get a different response. Remind people they were taken out of the poster and not the movie. Damn they have some lame spokespeople.
wildspirit
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 07:05 pm: [report]
That’s so wrong!