Mendelson's Memos
Essays, Reviews, Commentary, and Original Scholarship. A Film Blog that strives to be Art.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Summer Movie Marketing Challenge: Tease, Don't Spoil!
</p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align: left;"> <font style="text-align: left;">Neill Blomkamp's </font><em>Elysium </em><font style="text-align: left;">holds the distinction of being among the very last, if not *the* very last major summer tentpole picture to release a trailer.  The Matt Damon/Jodie Foster futuristic thriller is scheduled to open on August 9, 2013 from Tri-Star Pictures.  This is the first real look at the film, and frankly it's a pretty decent trailer.  If I'm not as over-the-moon about it as other, it's because the visuals feels awfully video game-esque and the 136-second clip offers so little plot that it basically presumes that we'll want our hero (Matt Damon) to succeed in his goal (reaching </font><em>Elysium</em><font style="text-align: left;">, the above-Earth utopia where the rich and privileged live above the destitute masses still residing on a ravaged Earth) purely because he's established as our lead character and he's played by a movie star.  Still, the imagery looks impressive and rather large-scale, as befitting the man who made the $30 million </font><em>District 9 </em><font style="text-align: left;">look like a $150 million production. And that there is so little plot revealed only means that the moviegoer remains that much-more unspoiled at this point in the marketing cycle.  So now here's my challenge to Tri-Star: No more video-based marketing before August 9, 2013!</font></p> <p style="text-align: left;"> </p> <hr class="more"> We don't need another full-length trailer that spoils the plot, explicitly establishes character relationships, and ends with a 45-second montage of money shots.  We don't need character posters laying out who the major players are.  We don't need spoiler-filled television spots that contain Matt Damon protecting children or kissing a girl in a cynical attempt to stereo-typically appeal to female moviegoers.  The studio already has two minutes of footage to pick from to make a handful of TV spots.   We don't need featurettes, either released online or as part of an in-theater promotion, that contains major sequences and talking head interviews of the stars and filmmakers discussing their characters or the moral of the story.  We don't need interviews where the filmmakers discuss their potential sequel plans and/or who does or doesn't survive to return for said sequel.  And we absolutely don't need Tri-Star to release 10% of the finished film online in the weeks prior to release in the form of stand-alone 'clips'.  The trailer above does its job almost perfectly.<div> <br><p> </p> <p style="text-align: left;"> The trailer above establishes the world, introduces its two main characters, tells you who is in <em>Elysium</em> and who is making it, and establishes the core journey.  We've been teased.  We don't need to be spoiled.  If Tri-Star has the courage to show restraint, they can establish a new precedent for marketing major studio releases.  They can say "We know we have the goods, we don't need to give away the store to convince you to shop inside".  The film is expensive, but at just $90-$100 million, it doesn't need to be a world-changing blockbuster to make a profit.  Tri-Star can take the risk that letting moviegoers discover the film's pleasures for themselves will pay off in a superior audience reaction and superior word-of-mouth after opening weekend.  But a certain restraint, both in quantity and "quality" of marketing materials can pay off accordingly.  Marvel/Disney has already failed the test several times over with <em>Iron Man 3</em>, giving away what should have been a major surprise in a targeted television spot.  Universal seemingly didn't think audiences would *really* want to see <em>Fast & Furious 6 </em>unless they released a 3-minute long trailer that basically laid out the entire plot.</p> <p style="text-align: left;"> <br></p> <p style="text-align: left;"> Warner Bros. has the chance to do it right with <em>The Hangover part III</em>, with the main plot and major story beats hidden in secrecy just over a month prior to release (hopefully this week's trailer won't be spoiler-ific).  They also have released two trailers for <em>Man of Steel </em>that still shows barely a glimmer of the last two acts of the film.  Paramount is seemingly hiding the goods with <em>Star Trek Into Darkness</em>, but I'd argue that only works if the film's laughable "<em>Dark Knight</em> into <em>Skyfall</em>" marketing scheme is merely misdirection (spoiler - Benedict Cumberbatch was planning to get caught!).  Tri-Star doesn't have to spoil the entire movie and its various pleasures just to entice the very moviegoers who were likely already set to buy their tickets.  The clips and spoiler-filled red-band trailers are in fact targeting the converted, yet the effect is spoilage for everyone.</p> <p style="text-align: left;"> <br></p> <p style="text-align: left;"> So from here on out, here's the challenge: No more stills, no more trailers, no featurettes, no clips, and no TV spots that divulge any more plot than what's already been revealed.  It will save the studio a decent amount of money (cutting three trailers, a dozen TV spots, and several featurettes costs a lot more money than cutting one trailer and three TV spots) and will (I'd argue) pay off in terms of audience satisfaction after the all-important opening weekend. <em>Elysium, </em>by virtue of its modest budget and strong initial teaser, would make a fine test case for the less-is-more principal of film marketing.  We don't need to see everything before we buy our ticket.  And I'd argue we wouldn't miss the total spoilage if it magically went away.  What say you?  Is the 'show everything!' mentality a necessary evil in the realm of tent-pole marketing or is it merely an unnecessary expense designed to preach to the previously converted?</p> <p style="text-align: left;"> <br></p> <p style="text-align: left;"> Scott Mendelson</p> </div>
No comments:
Post a Comment
‹
›
Home
View web version
No comments:
Post a Comment