You want to know who they're advertising to? I guess it's me. I'd love to think I'm super unique and all, but then, maybe UFC just found an advertiser not aiming for the LCD for once.

From the trailer with a guy walking out of a tunnel with a baseball bat aimed at a German's head this would seem like a pretty "meathead" movie. Or the tag line "You haven't seen war until you've seen Tarantino's war" is pretty much brute nonsense too.

However, the marketing move of tie-ing your movie to a UFC event is cheasy enough, and I'm sure the Weinstein Company thought something like "hey, these guys like fighting, let's show them Tarantino's war movie". Like the blogger alluded to, it's how any studio would go about it.

Please, think before you judge (or type, for that matter).

I've never found your blog before and I guarantee you I'll never bother coming back.

It's still going to lose money though.

I'm both a Tarantino and a UFC fan and I'm not seeing "Inglourious Basterds".

You seem to look over the fact that UFC's pay-per-view ratings are in the MILLIONS, which is why TWC would choose this route of promotion. It's demographics are more in line with boxing's more affluent, non-hicks than wrestling's opposite of that (the fact that they usually hold events in Vegas should tell you something); unlike wrestling, UFC is mixed-martial arts sport-type thing that actually happens without storylines. Not to mention, it is not going to backfire on these arthouse types you speak of because they don't pay attention to UFC or where a film is marketed; a majority of the viewership has likely seen at least one Tarantino film.

(Whatever happened to the rule of "if you talk about something, know what the fuck you are talking about"?)

And you also forgot that The Road was a selection of Oprah's Book Club, which makes it as far from hard-sell as possible. The sales of the book also in that MILLIONS range now. That alone refutes this "arty" nonsense.