Discuss: When Movie Marketing Crosses the Line
Filed under: Universal, Fandom, Exhibition, Movie Marketing
A quiet storm has been brewing on the Internet over the ethics of spoilers, all in response to The Fourth Kind. It started when Cole Abaius at Film School Rejects took arms against the myriad of bloggers, critics, and tweeters who had been relishing in discussing the veracity of Universal's new alien abduction movie. His post was in part a reaction to a new column started at SciFi Squad that addresses the actual science behind science fiction, which is a perfect podium for an article titled What's The Real Truth Behind The Fourth Kind?Long story short, Cole feels that to address the claims of the movie (whether or not it is indeed "based on real events") is to spoil the director's vision of how the movie should be seen, and even though you're not spoiling anything that happens during the film's run time, you're ruining the experience. Obviously I disagree. I think there are people who actively want to know whether or not its documentary footage is actual footage or the flights of fancy of screenwriters and producers. It's a fine line to walk, that's for sure, but ultimately the question is whether or not such discussion undermines the suspension of disbelief the director clearly intended to be there. It's an issue Cole and I have been going back on forth on for a few days, but now there's a twist involved, proving even further that the situation surrounding The Fourth Kind is quite unique.
Universal just settled a lawsuit filed against the studio by the Alaska Press Club for the news stories The Fourth Kind PR department manufactured under the guise of being legitimate news articles from the Alaskan Press. So the question I present to you is, are fake news stories crossing the line?
It's one thing to create an alternate reality surrounding your fiction, as was the case with Cloverfield, and another to try to shape reality to fit your fiction. Creating fake websites for organizations and characters can create a nice little game for fans to play, should they be willing to dive head first down the rabbit hole, but in the case of Cloverfield, or even The Blair Witch Project, all the viral materials they used were self-contained.
The Fourth Kind, on the other hand, not only banks on telling people its truth, but its online campaign involved creating fake news stories from real news sources, as well as entering its fictional characters into real-world databases. It was a silly move, that was apparently not sanctioned by the lawyers at Universal ahead of time, and they were rightfully sued for it (the settlement was for $20,000). Which makes me wonder if this will be the last time a movie ever crosses this line.
Obviously found footage movies are not going to go away any time soon, and studio's will continue to drop breadcrumbs online for fans to play along with, but I'll be surprised if any major future film has the audacity to hide its claims under real world umbrellas. What do you think? Is The Fourth Kind (or any film) immune from scrutiny because it may ruin the pristine experience the filmmaker is hoping for? Or is there a definitive ethical line that can (and has) been crossed in trying to create an environment surrounding a film?
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-13-2009 @ 12:23PM
Kate said...
I can't stand it when they try to pitch a movie as 'based on true events' when it means 'very vaguely inspired some of the props'. When it's used now and then like in Orson Welles's 'War of the World's broadcast or Cloverfield, or there is a reassurance that this is fiction told from a 'true story' point of view, then I'm not going to get my underpants torn up about it. When it becomes a trend in horror movies to sell their films as something that 'really happened', it's dishonest. It's one thing to say your movie is "the greatest love story ever told" because that's an opinion. It's quite another to say "this is based on facts" when it's not. It's cheap, lazy, and smacks of, "well, fuck it. Maybe we can get a few more tickets if we tell them it's real." Bleeeagh.
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 1:19PM
Jeremy said...
Fake news stories definitely cross the line. Otherwise I don't think what they did is wrong as far as the fake documentary footage in the movie itself.
My very own little piece of paradise:
http://www.neonsignsexpress.com
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 2:45PM
Hunter said...
You start from an inaccurate premise PeterSHall. Cole's initial argument is that these things shouldn't have been discussed openly without some kind of spoiler warning. He doesn't say they should be ignored all together.
As far as the lawsuit and misrepresentation of the Alaskan press goes... yeah, that was pretty stupid on Universal's part.
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 12:45PM
Peter Hall said...
Ah, Hunter, but once again we loop back to my starting point that I don't think examining facts external to the events within the film is a spoiler, thus no need for a warning. A spoiler, to me, is revealing something the film itself reveals; and TFK never begins to reveal that it is anything less than factual.
11-13-2009 @ 7:12PM
GL said...
Peter is exactly right here.
As for the actions of the marketers, creating fake news and claiming the source is an actual news outlet is way over the line. News sources have enough issues with credibility these days without this kind of thing clouding the issue.
11-13-2009 @ 1:41PM
Kevin said...
I don't think there is anything wrong with giving the fans some breadcrumbs, and althought I take "based on true events" with a grain of salt, it's been done for a long time, look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I don't think the news articles are a good idea, and push it a bit far, but I enjoyed Cloverfields marketing quite a bit. I also don't think going into the backstory to discover the validity of the true events requires a spoiler stamp, I mean, it's implied, and if you get upset over that, maybe you should just click the "X" in the top right corner and leave.
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 1:44PM
Tucker said...
Universal would sue the CRAP out of the newspaper (and rightfully so) if the newspaper published an untrue story about the studio or the production of the film. Why on earth would they not think it works both ways? You can't just go around doing stuff like that!
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 2:04PM
Midnight13 said...
I do think a movie has a responsibility to let the audience know if a movie is based on something genuine, or if its only made to seem that way. In all the pre-release of "The Blair Witch " project never did I once think it I was reading or hearing stories of events that had really taken place. Even a movie like "The Dark Knight" with all the websites that tried to make "Gotham City" like a genuinely existing city, one never was confused about where the line is drawn. Certainly its popular these days to do a horrer film and say, "based on actual events". Of course just beacause the intial idea was taken from stories in a newspaper, doesn't mean you're watching a re-creation of how events transpired. I think the writers of the movie have a responsiblity to have a line drawn on how much is based on somthing real and how much is created for the movie.
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 3:38PM
ML said...
Is it OK if marketers make up reviewers and then publish their favorable blurbs in movie ads? Wait, that's already happened.
Does artistic license include the license to perpetrate a hoax? I don't think so. If they don't want people debating spoilery fictional plot points in the media, they shouldn't present them as fact.
Reply
11-13-2009 @ 4:10PM
DanandMolly said...
I had heard nothing about this film when a friend texted me at 4:37pm last night to go and see a 5:00pm showing. I live close to the theater and we got there just as the last of the trailers were wrapping up. Maybe I am in the minority here, and maybe it's because it's been a long time (i.e., since I've been a kid) that a movie has terrified me (something I have wanted for decades); but I was reeeeaaallly (and thankfully) freaked out by some of this movie's scenes! There were no shots of the actual "monster" or "creature" as it was pretty much left up to the audience's imagination. Never underestimate the power of the mind, especially when it comes to the ability to play tricks on you - hmmm, did I really leave that light on in that room when we left? Anyway, I was dissapointed when I arrived home and surfed the web only to find out I'd been duped. But the important thing was, I was scared and uncomfortable - even if just for 1 hr and 38 min - and it's been quite a while for me.
Reply
11-15-2009 @ 1:30AM
The Future of Movies said...
They definitely crossed the line and deserved to be sued. Not just for 20k. Filmmakers who lie to the audience should be forced to return box office receipts and be held accountable for committing fraud.
My take on it: http://thefutureofmovies.com/2009/11/more-movie-marketing-lies/
-The Future of Movies
Reply