• WTF happened to movie trailers ? •

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by amoergosum, Apr 22, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I have not, but I'd really like to! That's a very "inside" movie, but it looks as funny as hell. The VO business is pure hell for the actors working in it. I only sat on the other side of the glass, sitting at the faders, but I'm very sympathetic to people in that business.
     
  2. amoergosum

    amoergosum Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Germany
    It's a great movie. Lake Bell wrote & directed 'In A World'.

    Rotten Tomatoes:

    Critics: 92%
    Audience: 72%

     
    jupiterboy likes this.
  3. allnoyz

    allnoyz Forum Resident

    Really? Wow, I have to disagree completely. And as you can see from my avatar, I'm a huge Disney nerd.

    But, their trailers in recent years have been abysmal, IMO. Many folks specifically blame the marketing of John Carter as the major downfall of the movie. And the trailers for Carter, The Lone Ranger, and Frozen (which may be the most wonderful movie they've made in decades) just weren't very good.
     
    rburly likes this.
  4. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think John Carter and Lone Ranger were horrible movies that were doomed long before any trailer was made. So from my perspective, you're out of your mind. I also don't believe a trailer can make more than about 10% difference as to whether a movie does well when it opens or not. I think word of mouth -- particularly on the net nowadays -- is the single thing that makes or breaks a film. And lots of people already knew that Lone Ranger and John Carter were awful long before they came out.

    There's an interesting book on John Carter that some fan wrote and self-published, and I read the whole thing. His contention is that one of the reasons the movie bombed was because director Andrew Stanton refused to listen to any of the marketing people's suggestions, plus Disney's entire ad/pub department had a couple of upheavals and the executives changed twice while the movie was being made and released. I say it wouldn't have mattered, simply because the movie sucked. If that film could've come out in 1980, it might have done OK.
     
    Simon A likes this.
  5. allnoyz

    allnoyz Forum Resident

    And from my perspective you have a very hard time reading for comprehension. You said Disney makes some of the best trailers in the biz, and I disagreed. I also stated that many folks blamed marketing for the failure of John Carter, which you immediately attached me to so that you could berate me in your holier-than-thou fashion.

    Please try understanding what you're reading first before commenting next time. I'm starting to realize you see yourself as an expert at everything. But clearly, you are not.
     
  6. Remurmur

    Remurmur Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ohio
    I have a moderate to loud (the intensity varies ) case of tinnitus in my left ear that has gotten worse within the last year.

    The freakin'concert like noise level of the trailers and even of the movies themselves have forced me to wear foam plugs in both ears for the last three years since my tinnitus first started.

    Now, I am afraid to go at all, fearing further damage, which not only affects me, but my wife as well as we are both huge movie buffs...:(
     
  7. allnoyz

    allnoyz Forum Resident

    I'm not sure when it started, but I recall seeing Gladiator in the theater with my wife and we both left commenting on how incredibly loud it was. Our current multiplex seems to keep the volume at more reasonable levels, thankfully.
     
  8. jupiterboy

    jupiterboy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    In a World is a nice proper film with a smart script.
     
  9. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Well, maybe you're not reading what I'm saying. I'm saying that Disney generally does a very good job making trailers. And I don't think that John Carter was destroyed by bad trailers, not at all. Anybody who believes that isn't seeing the movie for what it is, which is a boring, plodding mess. That to me is the real reason why it failed at the box office.

    Here's what Variety said:

    ...given the enormity of Disney’s investment, “John Carter” will need more than just the faithful to support the franchise the studio has in mind, and this turgid, visually unappealing sci-fi adventure never gets off the ground. As such, profitability feels like pure fantasy.

    Yet to watch “John Carter” is to wonder where in this jumbled space opera one might find the intuitive sense of wonderment and awe Stanton brought to “Finding Nemo” and “Wall-E.” Instead of allowing us to discover this incredible alien world, Stanton plunges directly into a sloppy gun battle, wherein what look like flying Roman galleons blast each other with laser cannons, then back to Earth for 20 minutes of Victorian-era exposition.

    ...Stanton has been given the resources to create an expansive, expensive world, but lacks the instincts to direct live-action, a limitation that shows most in the performances. Bare of chest and fair of feature, Kitsch doesn’t exhibit enough charisma to carry a project of this scale.

    The movie begs a strong, unifying musical theme, but the best that Michael Giacchino can muster is a vaguely “Lawrence of Arabia”-sounding score, while the designs of everything from Martian cities to alien life forms lack the visionary qualities that lodge in one’s imagination, much less spark toy sales and theme-park attendance.



    I can quote from more reviews, but this pretty much sums up what I felt.

    There were a lot of debates here about John Carter when it came out, but I think the truth is that it was a dated idea, plus I think the lead character was dull and humorless, I think the plotting and structure of the film was bad, I think a lot of the film looked ugly, and I think that most audiences probably believed that the film was derivative... though most fans know that it's all the other films (Star Wars, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers) that actually stole from Burroughs' creation.

    Note that John Carter was done in the tradition of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, and it's telling to me that the latter two were bombs as well (albeit film & TV). I'm not even sure there was a way to tell this story and have it replicate the book, but according to everything I saw, the trailers simply represented what was in the movie, so I don't think those can be blamed here. If you're selling crap, the commercial can't get around not showing the crap.

    As far as whether Disney makes good trailers, that's just my observation having worked occasionally in the trailer business. Feel free to disagree. I'm not an expert on much, but when I comment on something like this, I at least try to have an informed opinion based on a lot of different factors.
     
  10. balzac

    balzac Forum Resident

    I don't watch a lot of comedies, but sometimes those can be the worst trailer spoilers, because with some comedies the actual plot is secondary to all the jokes and gags. I still loved "The Simpsons Movie" back in 2007, but they put a ton of the funny gags in the trailers. "Spider Pig" would have been ten times funnier if the whole thing wasn't in the trailer. They should have pulled a Pixar and put all non-film footage in the trailers.
     
  11. nbakid2000

    nbakid2000 On Indie's Cutting Edge

    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    I mean, just look well John Carter succeeded based on their marketing! :D
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  12. Vahan

    Vahan Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Glendale, CA, USA
    One thing I hated about old movie trailers from many decades ago was that they gave away way too much of the film.
     
  13. TheLazenby

    TheLazenby Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    I hate trailers that show too much, and I ESPECIALLY hate trailers that show a bunch of deleted scenes.

    "Anchorman" suffered from this (though understandable, given the last minute complete overhaul the movie received - the trailer is essentially for the 'Alarm Clock' version of the film), but then "Anchorman 2" did the same thing, with many trailer scenes being held for the reissue version.
     
  14. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think that movie would've bombed with great trailers, bad trailers, or no trailers. You can't sell the audience a crap film. The few that do escape plummet 70% or more in the box-office in the second week and still wind up doing badly.
     
  15. allnoyz

    allnoyz Forum Resident

    And I never claimed it was. Not once. Ever. Just noted that others did. You also noted the exact same thing, yet told me I was out of my mind. And naturally, I don't like people taking potshots at me. I'm pretty sure you don't either.
     
  16. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    I'm not quite understanding why trailers show scenes that were cut out of the film. Is that to not give away something important? To justify the expense of shooting more than necessary?
     
  17. Anthology123

    Anthology123 Forum Resident

    I recall seeing some of the bits in the trailers for Empire Strikes Back not used in the film. There was a scene with C3PO pulling a label off a door, which I am guessing is all part of the Wampa Scene in the Rebel Base.
     
  18. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    By saying, "I also stated that many folks blamed marketing for the failure of John Carter," you immediately invite debate on that issue. Tell me who these "folks" are. As far as I know, it's a small number of confused vocal fans, one of whom wrote a book (which I have read). All of them ignore the fact that the movie was bad. Don't bring up a fact if you're using it as an example of something which with you disagree, unless you plainly state that. Say what you mean.

    In many cases, the trailers are put together months and months before the film comes out. As a result, the trailer scene might actually be from the actual film at the moment, but then the scene gets cut out right before release. Typically, the scenes are cut out simply to reduce running time and push the story along faster.

    A movie is not a by-the-numbers operation; they're constantly, constantly tweaking every aspect of it all the way up to literally the week it's released. And I know of cases where one version got shown at the premiere, another version got wide domestic release, a slightly different version got sent overseas, and then a slightly different version was released to home video 4 or 5 months later. This happens even more frequently nowadays, because the technology allows the director and editor to change their minds more easily.
     
    Jose Jones likes this.
  19. allnoyz

    allnoyz Forum Resident

    Tell you what, you worry about telling yourself what to do. Capiche? And you may even want to not reply to others using baseless accusations. Especially if you're going to be rude about it.

    As for me, I'll be bidding you a permanent farewell. I will only interact with those who have a brain and aren't afraid to use it.
     
  20. Drifter

    Drifter AD survivor

    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CA
    Excellent clip - too often my girlfriend and I say "well, guess we don't need to see that one now" after a long trailer that seems to show the highlights of the entire movie.
     
  21. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Do you really believe that every film that made boohoogles of bucks and show "legs" are all good? I'm pretty sure I could find plenty of "crap films" that were big hits - the "Transformers" flicks, anyone?
     
    allnoyz likes this.
  22. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I don't mind this - at least it means fewer jokes spoiled in the final flick!

    In that vein, I was really happy with what Paul Feig did for the "Heat" trailer. As I've whined in the past, I'm 99% sure I saw that trailer more than any other EVER before the movie hit screens. It ran for months and months - I must've seen the same trailer 20+ times, and I dreaded seeing those same jokes again when I watched the final film.

    To my pleasant surprise, the scenes from the trailer weren't in the final film! Feig used alternate takes for everything in the trailer, so we got similar situations in the final film but not identical jokes.

    That was great, as it meant the trailer conveyed the spirit/humor of the movie but it didn't spoil jokes...
     
  23. Trailers do reveal too much information these days, particularly for plot-driven films. I basically avoid them now for anything I am mildly interested in watching.
     
  24. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    That's tough when the trailer appears before a movie you're there to see! I avoid any info about movies I know I want to see - trailers online, reviews, discussion at places like this - but if I'm in the theater and the trailer appears, I'm kinda stuck! :)
     
  25. crispi

    crispi Forum Resident

    Location:
    Berlin
    I have also heard the story that some '30 and '40s trailers were made from bits and pieces that landed on the cutting room floor, mainly alternate takes of the main scenes. They did this out of budget reasons in order to avoid re-printing. That is why you often see familiar scenes from different angles or different performances. Which also explains why outtake scenes were often included, as they also went unused in the film.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page