Film advertising
Sir, — Recently, my part-* ner and I, both keen ap« preciators of Bruce Lee’s unique and very distinctive Kung Fu style, attended a double-feature at the Carlton Cinema, specifically to see one of the films advertised as: “The Kung Fu King Returns . . . Bruce Lee Himself in ‘The Return of Bruce’.” After enduring an appalling visual mess optimistically called “Bionic Herdes,” we and approximately 300 others watched a Bruce Lee “look-alike” attempt to imitate his Kung Fu art and ability. On leaving we requested our money back,, pointing out to a part-time manager that the advertising amounted to nothing less than misleading advertising. We were refused but were offered free passes only, which we declined on principle; presumably free passes are easier to part with than money, especially if the parting might involve almost 300 $2.755. We have twice returned to see the full-time manager but he has been elsewhere. — Yours, etc., E. K. BAXENDALE. April 17, 1980. • [Mr J. P. Moodabe, jun., general manager, Amalgamated Theatres, Ltd, replies: “First, there was a genuine misunderstanding on the part of our Christchurch manager as far as the ad material for ‘The Return of Bruce’ was concerned. The name of the star was Bruce Le with just one ‘e’. He assumed that this was a typographical error and that, in fact, the star was the late Bruce Lee. He was, of course, incorrect in this, but it was a genuine mistake on his part. Mr Baxendale obviously, from his letter, very quickly recognised the fact that the star of the film was a Bruce Lee ‘look alike.’ However, this did not preclude him from sitting through the entire feature. It was only after viewing the full programme that he requested his . money back. Surely, if he had wished to see only a film starring the real Bruce Lee he could have left the auditorium immediately he ascertained there had been a mistake and could have requested a refund’ of his money then.. I feel the theatre manager,, in offering complimentary tickets for an alternative screening, has acted properly in this master.”]
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800507.2.112.3
Bibliographic details
Press, 7 May 1980, Page 18
Word Count
350Film advertising Press, 7 May 1980, Page 18
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.