This trailer can't possibly be running in theatres right? Is there a chance this is an internet cut? 3 1/2 minutes is just too damn long and the soundtrack ad at the end is horribly cheesy.

Even though the movie looks shit, I still hope it does some business, for K. Bell's sake. I really don't want to continue living in a world where she is considered the poor studio's Katherine Heigl.

Love Kristen Bell but this looks pretty meciocre.

OH I get it! It's funny when people lack any coordination, which ends in them falling and tripping over shit. HA...HA...HA.

The wookie bit was about the funniest thing for me.

it really annoys me when i see a trailer for a romantic comedy.

crazy scenarios + wacky secondary characters - realistic things = almost every romantic comedy.

it's why i loved (500) days of summer so much.

Um excuse me but aren’t these the movies that play on day time TV? What the hell is being shown then if this is coming to theatres?

I loves me some Kristen Bell, but I cannot watch anything with that douche Mr. Fergie.

Call me a hater. Plus if you have to advertise the horrible soundtrack in the actual trailer than you have failed.

I was walking through Central Park in May of last year when they were filming a few scenes for this. There was a monstrous caravan of trailers and equipment, not to mention an army of staff. All of this for just a few shots of Kristen Bell and Will Arnett. You ask me, that is a good example of what's wrong with Hollywood. A mountain of expenses for what will eventually be utterly expendable.

I love that they're using Fox on the Run in trailers. Such a good trailer song.

But NEDDDDDDDDDD yay!

Movie looks fuckin' awful

Woah, what's wrong with Evolution?

Evolution was basically a dumb Ghostbusters. It's biggest failure for me was that it just wasn't funny. A real shame given the cast.

Well thank god that the sound track is available on Photo Finish Records.

lee pace deserves better

Agreed.

we are doooooomed

What the hell was that? It's like a trailer you used to see on a VHS tape.

Glad to see Jon Heder in a new movie. Just wish it was worth my $10 and time.

So fucking boring and cliche looking. That screen shot looks like every generic photo you get in frames you buy.

uhhhhhrrrrgggh.

This movie looks like the embodiment of everything that's wrong with Hollywood.

It's a cynical attempt to cash in on a horrendous soundtrack while luring the undiscerning movie-going public into the theater for another pile of vapid fairy-tale horse shit.

How would this even qualify as a romantic comedy? There is nothing even slightly romantic about it. Films like this are the antithesis of romance. They are the death of all that is good and true and pure and worthwhile. They are a sham of a mockery of a sham. And god knows the trailer is anything but funny. The characters seem plastic and broad; they could only exist in the weird netherworld imagined by a hack screenwriter.

Fuck this film. Fuck the people who financed it. Fuck Katy Perry. Fuck Jason Mraz. And fuck the shit-slinging apes who are going to see it on its opening weekend, thus ensuring that more of these peanut-filled turd-bombs come flushing down Hollywood's rusty septic pipe.

couldn't have said it better. i feel sick after watching that.

You, my friend, have just gained a fan. I couldn't have said it any better my self... no, really, I couldn't.

People are going to watch it you know. Might be rubbish, but hey, if it makes people happy, then so be it. If, on the other hand, the B.O stinks, then audiences would have their say.

That logic really doesn't hold up. Just look at the endless string of crappy movies that make a ton of money.

Audiences like those stuff ... be it Meet the Spartans or White Chick. Its entertainment they seek, low brow or not, and the studios oblige. Look at the recent spoof movies such as Disaster Movie - those have been under performing relative to their predecessors, and a sign that audiences are tired of the genre.

My point is, supply meets demand. Studios won't be arsed to make great films when the returns aren't there. Why should they? These are corporations that have to answer to shareholders and investors. And besides, the cinema is hardly a place to consumer high culture in the first place.

Let's just say as a fan of *good* movies I'm not so easy about letting the purveyors of shit cinema off the hook. Many of the same audiences that saw these movies also creamed for good movies like Iron Man and the Dark Knight. It's not that they WANT shit movies to be made, they just see whatever is out.

The supply/demand argument doesn't work because many audiences can't tell when a movie is good, or when it's treating them like slack-jawed yokels. And just because shit movies make money, that doesn't really give studios an excuse to make them.

As for your statement about high culture not existing in cinema, that argument has existed since the beginning of film, and it's something that's always brought up for any new entertainment medium. It's a crap argument because it completely dismisses the possibility for good films to exist.

If you want to see the logical conclusion of what you're defending, go see Idiocracy. It's not an entirely successful comedy, probably because it presents a terrifying future of what America would look like when the general public gets dumber, and corporations willingly take advantage of that.

Audiences are NOT ignorant. That's only us film connoisseurs assuming the ignorance of the general public. Heck, 'From the makers of Meet the Spartans & Date Movie' was actually used for publicity, because it spells entertainment for a certain targeted crowd. Only in rare cases (The Ugly Truth) are films marketed in a manner that is arguably deceptive. It is all too easy to argue that audiences are dumb and mindlessly lap up everything and anything produced - that is too sweeping an indictment. There are both major flops and minor flops when it comes to so-called 'dumb' films. People are able to tell the difference by the second weekend. And with the dissemination of information via social networks, word of mouth is as effective as ever.

Secondly, I do not argue that there is NO high culture in cinema. The thing is, high culture is not a mainstay or aspiration of all cinema, as opposed to dramatic plays or literature. Cinema is about mass entertainment, first and foremost, and it serves an important function that way. What enlightenment we might derive, whether by intent or incidentally, is far more rare than, say, in the canon literature.

You fail to distinguish between 'good films' and great works of art. A film like TDK, which I adore, is an excellent piece of film making, but hardly comparable to a Tolstoy novel. Only in the higher-reaches of film making, when master film makers experiment and pioneer, sometimes to commercial disappointment, can we find comparable analogies. My point is this: we should not neglect the commercial, entertainment prerogative of movies.

And why not? Clarence’s relatively incoherent argument is just bulls**t presented in a properly punctuated and grammatically correct package. Unfortunately, there's no substance to it. He argues that "audiences aren't ignorant," yet fails to account for track record of the director, which would tell any prospective audience member with half a brain that Mark Steven Johnson is not a director whose films are worth seeing--both of his two previous efforts doubled their budgets, yes, but received overwhelmingly negative reviews from critics and audiences alike. Check Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic... the information is there and is easily accessible. Even /Film’s own Devindra Hardawar was kind enough to warn us all of its failure months before the film’s release. Yet, audiences, in their insatiable desire for entertainment, SIMPLY AVOID DISCRETION.

While I won’t say and am not trying to argue that this film will be a flop--in fact, saying that audiences will flock to see this film in hordes was Clarence’s only valid point--I will refuse to defend the intelligence of the American public, as Clarence seems obliged to do, in the face of the “Publicity Phenomenon,” which is to say that, no matter the film, no matter the critical response, if something is publicized, audiences will shell out money to see it.

Consider, for instance, the fates of recent well-received films like The Hurt Locker and Moon. Despite both films now being in widespread release, neither has yet been able to amass anything near that of the disgraced, but well publicized, G-Force and The Ugly Truth, both of which are now closing on $100 million. Good films aren’t hard to find; they aren’t more expensive and, more often than not, are playing in the same theaters as those blockbusters America’s 18-24 demographic seems to love.

So why aren’t people seeing them? Why are the best films so often box-office disappointments? Because the large portion of American audiences are lazy, ignorant, and unwilling to spend even one iota of a second checking any one of hundreds of review aggregating websites. Hell, they don’t even bother to ask the people behind the counter at the ticket office what films are recommended! They say, “O HEY I HALF HERD OF DIS FILM LET US C DIS 1. 2 TIKETZ PLZ.” And, then, two hours later, they walk out of the theater disappointed, down-trodden, and angry, but ignorant of the undeniable fact that, two weeks later, after constant bombardment by flashy posters and quickly edited television spots, they will once again be duped into seeing something equally horrendous...

Leaving aside the premise that the American movie-goer is 'stupid' (a sweeping and insulting assumption I can never understand), let us look at the example of why The Hurt Locker and Moon fared so disappointingly in the BO. The answer is simple: limited release. People are hard pressed to see them even if they wanted to. Consider D9, an equally well-reviewed film. It had a much wider release (no doubt justified by Peter Jackson's draw), and had an excellent first weekend in the BO. People do appreciate a good film - and will prove so when they have the chance to actually see it.

For both the studio and exhibitors, giving a film a wide release in the crowded market today is a considerable risk. There had better be a good reason to push for that. In D9's case, Jackson's endorsement did the trick. Unfortunately, THL and Moon lacked that hook. But ultimately, if we have to single out a culprit, I will not blame the American moviegoer. Blame the rationale of economics, the art of moneymaking.

And perhaps the fact that entertainment, unlike intellectual enlightenment, occurs on so many levels. For some, a Wayans spoof will do. For others, a cute rom-com, as cliched as it is, does the trick. Still, there are those who enjoy a good time with a smart film like Moon. But more importantly, the same moviegoer can enjoy all three. We have all our idea of entertainment, and oftentimes it is as multi-faceted as ourselves.

Btw, MSJ IS a terrible director. I can't believe how anyone could screw up Ghost Rider so badly!

bravo sir bravo. very eloquently put.

I hope that was directed toward my comment, but I'm dubious.

no it most definitely wasn't directed at your comment

Stay in school, kids. You'll want to avoid--at all costs--this pseudo-analytical fate our friend Clarence has found himself in. It's a sad sight to see someone say so much without actually saying anything at all.

Good sir, would you kindly elaborate on what exactly do you mean by my 'not saying anything at all'? Did I not make a single point worthy of mention? It is convenient to dismiss a nuanced argument as 'pseudo-analytical' (I do it all the time haha)

In any case, I go into a cinema expecting things. I expect to see action and cleavage in a film like FF: RoSS, and wound up with zero of the former, and a bit of the latter. I won't see a film like When In Rome, but the crowd which do will expect to see a fairly light-hearted romantic piece with the winning Kirstin Bell. Whether the director can deliver that cliched satisfaction remains to be seen, given his disappointing body of work.