Hollywood was stupid back then, too, part 2

OK, "stupid" is a bit of a misnomer in this case, especially compared to the first post in this series, but I do want to write about how Hollywood was sneaky in days of yore. Maybe it's not stupid per se, but it kind of irritates the audience, and you can use your own term to describe the wisdom of using this kind of bait and switch tactic.

I saw a movie on Fox Movie Channel last week, one described as science fiction. I'll hold off on telling you the title because I want to make a point here; if you've seen the movie, you'll recognize it right away.

This unassuming 1958 picture, directed by Edward Bernds, uses a pseudo-documentary approach, complete with an imposing narrator and a dramatic on-camera introduction telling us we're about to see the following movie FOR OUR OWN GOOD. We're then taken to a few minutes' worth of footage of rockets launching, but we are not seeing any ordinary rocket, but rather the Spacemaster X-7.

What is so special about this particular rocket? It headlined 4 straight sellout weeks at the Sands and relegated Martin and Lewis to an opening act, that's what. No, actually, this rocket can come back from space.

Sure enough, it brings back something with it, and arrogant scientist Charles Pommer (Paul Frees doing a great job as a real prick) identifies it as...blood rust! It's a type of deadly fungus--excuse me, space fungus--that can be carried to others by those who come in contact with it.

Frees' ex becomes an inadvertent potential carrier, and when the authorities (everybody except the Coast Guard gets a piece of this investigation, and I'd like to think it played a part off-camera) find out about this, they want to track her down before she spreads the blood rust all over the place. If you think that's a sexist assumption, consider that 1) they round up everyone that could be a carrier, including a cab driver played by Moe Howard--and you know this thing's spread easily if they are worried about HIM passing it around; 2) this fungus is really bad-ass; 3) this woman DID sleep with Paul Frees, after all.

The movie establishes all this in, oh, I'd guess the first 20 minutes or so. Then it goes into police procedural mode, as there are some shots of the blood rust doing its thing, but the vast majority of scenes show investigators pursuing this woman, who believes she is wanted for a crime and therefore tries to elude them.

OK, got all this? Thank you for your patience. What do you suppose a movie like this should be called? How about "Pursuit"? Maybe something like "Woman Hunt," or even "Dangerous Woman." Even "Space Fungus" might be apt, but I can't blame any studio for avoiding the word "fungus" in its titles.

Well, this movie has none of those titles. It is called..."SPACEMASTER X-7!"

That's right, this procedural/pursuit movie about authorities trying to track down a woman, a story done in semi-doc style, is named after the rocket that we see for several minutes at the film's opening...and then never again.

Now, this is an entertaining movie with some cool scenes, and there is that space fungus hanging around to offer some fantastic kind of sci-fi elements, but still! Looking at the IMDB, I see a lot of reactions from people who saw this as a kid and loved it and/or were creeped out by it. Maybe I'm way off base here, but if I went to go see a movie called "Spacemaster X-7," and that was the name of a space rocket, I'd sure expect to see a lot more of space...or at least a lot more of the dang rocket.

This kind of thing still goes on today, of course. For example, "Spider-Man 3" didn't actually feature Spider-Man (oh, sure, they said it was him, but I know the jerk in that movie wasn't the real Spidey), and I'm told that the current (500) Days of Summer is not actually 500 days long, but barely over an hour and a half. So go ahead and curse Hollywood for its underhanded bait and switching, but just remember it's maintaining a long tradition.