Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.