movie marketing Tagged Articles at Cinematical

What Silent Bob giveth, Silent Bob taketh away... or, at least, taketh down, which is why one can no longer give the Zack and Miri Make a Porno teaser a look-see until the MPAA gives it the once-over.

The online-only teaser, while filled with writer-director's Kevin Smith expectedly raunchy dialogue, does not actually feature any footage from the finished film, but according to Smith's recent News Askew post, that is a stipulation unseen by the Ratings Board, which must approve all marketing materials for any film.

"We're now officially submitting the teaser to the MPAA for rating," said Smith. "If they approve it, we'll put it back up." He does make a point of mentioning how a mere two years ago, he posted similarly crude internet-exclusive trailers for Clerks II with nary a complaint.

Until the MPAA hands down its formal red-band (or is it yellow-band?) decree, here's a link to our initial post on the teaser's arrival last week -- a post on which the teaser just so happens to still work...

[via /Film]

So who watched South Park the other night? In the episode, internet goes down and the citizens of South Park (as well as other places throughout the country) are forced to live their lives without online access. Of course, in true South Park fashion, everyone winds up in an internet camp, sleeping on cots -- all dirty and disheveled -- as they fight over the 40 seconds of internet each person gets per day. Not only was it hysterical to watch, but it also opened my eyes to the fact that it's becoming difficult to remember how things were prior to the internet, especially for people 30 years of age and younger.

It's almost hard to imagine those days when we wouldn't find out a certain movie existed until the trailer played in a theater, or during the Super Bowl. Now we get teaser posters before the film even goes into production. Remember when a movie only got one poster? To date, we've seen 10, 11 Iron Man posters alone. Posters! As movie marketing has moved online, everything's grown larger -- more trailers, more images, more games, more contests. Now there are entire websites devoted to one movie's viral marketing campaign. It's pretty insane, and even though I do this for a living, it's still real hard for me to keep up with it all. (I'm still waiting for the day when a particular viral campaign is blamed for the unfortunate death of a teenager. C'mon, you know it's gonna happen eventually ...)

The movie may not be due until November, but JoBlo's Movie Emporium has the posters now: Ridley Scott's American Gangster has officially begun the promotional lifecycle. The film -- which was slated to be directed by Antoine Fuqua until he fell off the project and Ridley Scott stepped in -- revolves around the New York drug trade in the '70s -- and features Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. (And the director's chair wasn't the only switcheroo: Originally, Benicio Del Toro was cast in what would become Crowe's role.) The plotline revolves around an ex-dealer who actually has a change of heart and works with a NYPD narcotics officer to try and stop the flood of heroin that hit New York in the '70s -- but with Scott attached to direct, look for great action and more than a little grit (as well as smoke-filed rooms, venetian blinds and rain, too).

The posters look great -- there's one for Washington and one for Crowe -- and to me the most interesting things about the posters are first, the observation that Universal's marketing department doesn't even have to show all of Washington and Crowe's faces for us to know who they are -- and if that's not proof of super-stardom on their part, I don't know what is. The second thing -- which leapt into my mind unbidden as I looked at Crowe's poster, as seen here -- is that between the black-and-white look and the focus on well-dressed men packing heat, I got a real Scarface vibe off these posters. Time will tell if American Gangster is fit to fill Tony Montana's elegant, blood-soaked shoes; the film is currently set to open November 21st.

Just the fact that I had to check the spelling of the film seven times before creating the title of this post isn't a good sign of things to come for Disney and Pixar. Say what you want about this summer's crop of films (they're all sequels to sequels to sequels!), it's sure to go down as one of the most competitive in recent history. According to Jim Hill Media, it's that competition which is scaring the mouse poop out of Disney's marketing department, who are currently sweating bullets over how exactly to go about marketing the next Pixar film, Ratatouille, due out June 29.

Now, you're probably sitting there, saying to yourself: "But Erik, Cars was the second highest grossing film of 2006 with over $244 million at the domestic box office -- why should Disney be worried about how Ratatouille will perform?" Well, while that number is most certainly ginormous, it failed to meet the studio's internal financial projections and could not live up to the bigger figures produced by flicks like The Incredibles ($261 million) and Finding Nemo ($339 million). Add to that the fact that Cars had no real competition for at least six weeks, and you're looking at a combination of luck and positioning which helped it reach $244 million.

On the other hand, Ratatouille will have to fend off Transformers (July 4) and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (July 13) with a plot that revolves around a rat (not the cleanest of animals) who dreams about being a chef (great, a filthy animal who cooks food -- there's a pleasant image). Nemo had no real competition on the animated front, The Incredibles caught us at the peak of the superhero trend and Cars had the massive Nascar audience to feed off of. So, who does Ratatouille turn to? Rat lovers? Heck, Dreamworks' rat flick saw its box office figures flushed right down the toilet -- what's not to say the same thing won't happen to Ratatouille? And then who gets blamed for the Pixar acquisition? And what does that do to Pixar's rep?

And don't even get me started on which toy the kids would rather own -- a sweeet looking Transformer or a stuffed rat with a piece of cheese on its head??

Most people prefer sequels with names instead of numbers. So, a sequel with a title like Die Hard 2: Die Harder is more interesting to a potential moviegoer than plain old Die Hard 2. This is according to a couple of scientific studies published in the October Journal of Consumer Research and highlighted by a recent New York Times article.

According to one of the studies, subjects preferred to hear about titles of movies that gave away a little of the plot for the film. When a subject was shown a made-up movie title like Daredevil 2 or Daredevil 2: Taking it to the Streets, they showed much more interest in the latter than the former. Also, according to the study, people who were reading the plot summary for Daredevil 2: Taking it to the Streets were more likely to read it all the way through and remember it better, than those who were reading the summary for Daredevil:2.

The Times article also highlighted another study along similar lines which indicated that audiences demand more of a divergent plot from sequels with numbers than they do with names. Researchers hypothesized that this was a result of fear by movie audiences that numbered sequels would just be "clones" of the original and not offer anything new. "People are looking for some kind of clue that the movie is dissimilar, and you can do that either through the title or through the plot," said Professor Sanjay Good, one of the study's authors, in the article.

His co-author, Professor Xavier Dreze, also noted in the article that "few successful long-running series use numbering. If James Bond was called 'James Bond 22' or whatever they are up to (instead of Casino Royale) people would probably be less interested." So, what's in a name? Quite a lot, apparently. At least according to these studies. Interesting stuff, huh? Although, I gotta say, I'm not interested in a sequel to Daredevil no matter what it's called, so this research might be a little lost on me.

What do you think? Does the name really matter?

If you're looking for a person who absolutely adores the Saw franchise then, I'm sorry to say, but you won't find him here. Okay, I'll admit the first film was okay. Yes, just okay. However, being the kind of guy who still slams his eyes shut at the sight of tons of blood and guts on screen, imagining, for a brief moment, a garden with beautiful flowers and reciting words like, "It's only ketchup" over and over again -- yeah, it's safe to say these films aren't my cup of tea.

This is part of the reason why I avoided the sequel and, subsequently, will stay far away from the third installment. Go ahead and call me a wimp -- fact is, I just don't see how anyone can find entertainment in watching a person mutilate themselves and still be able to scarf down some tasty artificially-flavored buttered popcorn. That's correct -- If I can't eat, I don't watch. Oh well, my loss. Anyway, the marketing geniuses who brought you a teaser poster for Saw II which featured partially severed fingers and was eventually banned by the MPAA are back at it again with a delicious new advertisement for Saw III. This time the served fingers are replaced with some guy's disgusting teeth sockets. And I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but I'd rather visit the dentist than pay ten bucks to see this film. Have at me folks!

This past weekend, some of us in New York City were lucky enough to watch every major news station cover Tom Cruise criss-crossing the city via helicopter, speed-boat, taxi cab, subway and sports car in order to promote his film, Mission: Impossible 3. Every channel I could click to provided me with a different shot of Tom; Tom on top of a car, Tom driving a boat, Tom on top of a fire truck hugging a FDNY official, Tom in Harlem pretending to be black and, my personal favorite, Tom attempting to convince us he's a normal human being.

And when I wasn't watching television, they were talking about it on the radio. One station was commenting on the fact that someone on the set of MI: 3 had clocked Tom running 17mph. Yes, during an interview, Mr. Cruise actually bragged he can run 17mph. At that moment, all I could think about was the poor schmuck given a speed gun and told to please follow Tom Cruise as he runs down the street. Um, sorry, but when the hell did Tom Cruise become an automobile?

Why, when the town is literally plastered in MI:3 advertisements (Yes, there is a banner hanging across the entire length of Madison Square Garden), do they insist on bombarding us with MORE promotional nonsense? Honestly, I don't want to see the movie anymore. I'm sour. That's right, I'm so sick of seeing Tom Cruise and hearing about the super-human moron that I just can't shell out the money to sit and watch his ass for another two and a half hours.

So, I ask you: Is movie marketing getting out of control? And, are you getting to a point where the extreme promotion of a film will actually prevent you from seeing it?

Starbucks is seeking to expand into movies and books with the help of the William Morris agency. The alliance allows the influential talent agency to find music, film and book projects for Starbucks to consider for marketing in its stores. As we reported earlier, Starbucks started promoting their first movie venture, Lionsgate’s Akeelah and the Bee, by advertising the attraction on coffee sleeves and putting up words of the day on its chalkboard menus. The New York Times quotes Starbucks’ founder Howard Schultz as saying “We want to see our name associated with the kind of music, literature and movies that [will make] people say, ‘I’m glad Starbucks brought this to the marketplace.’”

Starbucks' music venture has been a success, so it’s no wonder they want to expand their brand’s scope even further. I’m no knee-jerk Starbucks hater, but I’m getting a little weary of these endless tie-ins. Enough of Starbucks as a “lifestyle” destination; I’d just like a cup of coffee please.

When a movie is advertised as "from the writers of" or "from the producer of," that means that they're unsure of how to either market the movie and/or the movie looks kinda lame so they have to do all they can to associate it with a better, more well-known film.

I once saw a movie (can't remember which one) advertised as "from an executive producer of..." Huh? Who cares? Movies have often been advertised as "from the director of...," but who the hell cares about executive producers?

I can't wait for the day when we hear "from a friend of the man who was the assistant costumer on Superman Returns comes..."