No, I mean a bad, bad film. Transformers at least delivered the amount of action and humor the audience wanted. It just didn't make any sense. I wouldn't consider the Faster & Furious movies great cinema, either, but it delivers on what it sets out to do. The problem is when you set out to make an action/adventure/comedy and it fails on one or two of these to a spectacular degree. Cowboys & Aliens, John Carter, and Lone Ranger are three examples where if you just look at the subject matter and the core idea, I can see where a lot of executives would say, "wow! Can't miss!" But clearly in the execution, all three films fell flat. Transcendence is a recent example where you could sell it to the execs by saying, "it's kind of an updated version of The Matrix, where you have dying scientist Johnny Depp upload his consciousness to a computer, living on in software, but threatening to change all of human evolution." On the surface, it sounds great... but it was a turkey and is already the biggest bomb of the year. (So far...) All the '40s and 50's trailers I've seen look very dupey, plus there's tons of optical moves going on, so I don't think the need to make a dupe of 100' or 200' of film mattered worth a damn. Nobody cared. It cost about $200 back then. I think this rumor is false... but I don't dispute there are sometimes alternate angles and takes in trailers -- for all movies. This particularly happens when half of a line of dialogue falls over another character, which may work in the finished film but not in a standalone trailer. I have personally had to fish for missing shots to fill in the exact same shot and same dialogue from a take that's 90% identical to what's in the final film in order to build a trailer. In our case, we were using IPs struck from the camera negative, which was done before the negative was cut. It's also trivial nowadays since everything is digital -- even when the movie is shot on film, there's almost always digital scans being done, so technically, there are no more dupes.