I can only speak for myself but I saw the trailer for The Fall Guy before some other movie and it was basically a 3 minute summary of the entire movie. I never watch movies that give me the entire...
I can only speak for myself but I saw the trailer for The Fall Guy before some other movie and it was basically a 3 minute summary of the entire movie. I never watch movies that give me the entire plot in their trailer. It reeks of poor quality B-movie to me.
Not that it's the definite test but Fall Guy sits at 82% at Rotten Tomatoes so I'm comfortable in saying it doesn't suck ass. Marketing shit the bed here. Just as marketing nailed Barbie last...
Not that it's the definite test but Fall Guy sits at 82% at Rotten Tomatoes so I'm comfortable in saying it doesn't suck ass.
Marketing shit the bed here. Just as marketing nailed Barbie last year, this was really bad. What I've seen of the movie make it seem like a mediocre action movie, almost sidestepping the whole stunt guy gimmick. (Without seeing the movie) I think they should've leaned hard on the "it's just another boring day while flying through rings of fire" mundanity of being a stunt guy and prop that up with one really cool real in-world action set piece. Maybe made a small trailer series of "boring" stunts from the movie.
That probably has little to nothing to do with the movie which has some kind of comedic action murder/missing person mystery(?), but would've marketed the movie without spoiling it. Anyway this could've been a successful opener for the summer box office.
This seems to be a recent trend in the last decade or so. Audiences want to know what they are getting into and are less willing to take a risk. Maybe it is a reaction to the increased success of...
This seems to be a recent trend in the last decade or so. Audiences want to know what they are getting into and are less willing to take a risk. Maybe it is a reaction to the increased success of tv shows, where audiences can rely on well known characters. It is much easier to buy into a new season of whatever than taking a chance with a completely new movie, and with the general FOMO culture, production companies might attempt to remedy that by showing so much in trailers.
I think that a bigger factor is how expensive it is to go to the movies these days. I have friends who are MAJOR movie fans, the types who seem to see every movie that's out (sometimes multiple...
I think that a bigger factor is how expensive it is to go to the movies these days. I have friends who are MAJOR movie fans, the types who seem to see every movie that's out (sometimes multiple times!). But they're limiting the movies they're seeing this summer because they just can't afford it. They have rent and other expenses to worry about, so they have to be picky about what they see in theaters.
When it comes to TV shows, you're usually watching it through cable or a streaming service with other TV shows and movies. So if you're already paying for the service, it's easier to try out a totally new TV show versus spending ~$10-20 on a ticket for a single movie you may or may not like. On that note, movies inevitably end up on streaming services anyway, so there's even less incentive to see one in theaters outside of the theater experience.
I agree. If the movie sucks, it’s really a waste of time and money. You can’t even laugh it off because your wallet hurts too much! And there are many high quality tv shows out there. Even with...
I agree. If the movie sucks, it’s really a waste of time and money. You can’t even laugh it off because your wallet hurts too much!
And there are many high quality tv shows out there. Even with having multiple subscriptions you could end up cheaper than seeing one or two movies a month.
Ha, you should watch an old trailer sometime to see how bad it used to be! The narrator literally just tells you the whole plot of the movie. Like not even just "in a world where X, one man must...
Ha, you should watch an old trailer sometime to see how bad it used to be! The narrator literally just tells you the whole plot of the movie. Like not even just "in a world where X, one man must Y," but actually tell you the whole story. The Star Wars trailer even showed the Death Star blowing up!
I'll admit that there are a lot of trailers that give away the surprises and the best parts, but I'm not even sure the concept of avoiding spoilers was that big of a deal before Vader was revealed as Luke's father, and it was really the the 90s with the Internet and the rapid spread of rumors and leaks that avoiding spoilers really became a major focus.
Admittedly I haven't done a thorough analysis on the development of trailers over the last many decades, just a subjective observation of the overall direction. I am sure it is easy to find...
Admittedly I haven't done a thorough analysis on the development of trailers over the last many decades, just a subjective observation of the overall direction.
I am sure it is easy to find examples and counter examples from all decades, but I am curious on the Star Wars trailer you mention. It is a movie that likely exist countless numbers of different trailers for, but if it this one then I think it is actually a good example of the kind of trailer I wish could return. It doesn't actually tell anything of what the story is about (or show the Death Star blowing up as far as I can see), but is more about catching the vibe and style of the movie, which was a common trailer style back then. Later we got more plot exposition, but usually only the general premise from the first act, whereas now it seems trailers can explore both premise and plot developments that goes long into the second or third act of the movie.
A lot of people online seem to fixate on how "bad" trailers are for movies they were already interested in seeing. Meaning, they were already either a viewer, or seriously considering that they...
A lot of people online seem to fixate on how "bad" trailers are for movies they were already interested in seeing. Meaning, they were already either a viewer, or seriously considering that they would become one. They love to bitch about how the trailer "gives everything away."
They're not the market for the trailers. Those are designed to entice fence sitters and random people into buying a ticket. That's what trailers are. Marketing. They're not intended to be this fun exploration of the movie ahead of time, to taunt and tease. They're intended to put butts in seats because the studio wants cash from all that ass.
Spoilers for Cabin in the Woods.
I just went and checked to be sure. This is apparently the official trailer for it. I had to go check because I had ignored Cabin initially. I don't like horror. I know all the tropes that horror fans love, but most of those tropes just kind of irritate me.
And this trailer is full of them. Atmosphere. The classic archtypes. And so on. If you've already seen the movie, you can spot little clues as to what's going on. But as a random know-nothing movie person, the trailer really doesn't do a whole lot to dispel the notion that it's just another horror flick.
After all, just about everyone making a movie wants to convince you their movie is special, different, unique. The stakes are higher, the comedy funnier, the drama more dramatic. Cabin's trailer basically does that right down the line. Shows us a ten second view of "just a normal weekend" at the beginning before starting to throw building tension and then actual horror at you.
So the whole thing looks like a random horror movie.
Except it's a meta commentary movie. Which is right up my alley. I love Scream for exactly the same reason. Hate horror, but love meta about horror because playing with the tropes and poking fun at them is fun for me. Watching them play out and that's supposed to be fun? No, I don't find that fun so I don't watch horror.
So it was like two years after Cabin came out that I heard it's a meta movie. That there's some kind of group that's purposefully playing with the archtypes and actively torturing these kids. Well, that sounded interesting and I watched it. Long after it'd left theaters. The movie is fantastic. Really delves into the whole genre and plays with it quite well.
An explicit trailer probably would've gotten a ticket out of me. Not these days, since I only view at home, but in 2012 I would've trekked over to the theater to watch a meta movie from Goddard (who I'd just started to take notice of at the time) and Whedon (who I'm a big fan of). But a random horror, even from those, no I'd ignored it.
You see the same complaints from people over, say, Terminator 2. They moan about how "if only you could watch the film cold, and not know Arnie's a good guy this time." Yeah, maybe. Sure.
But Cameron, at the time, was super worried about people assuming he'd cranked out the kind of empty-headed story-lacking sequel Hollywood usually does when they sequel something. So he made sure the trailer set the expectation that Arnie was back as a good guy, rather than "oh look, there's another terminator; twice the action, twice the terror!"
Basically, I think most of the folks who moan about "trailers give everything away" might solve their own problem if they'd just not watch trailers for something they're already looking forward to. If you know the movie seems like your jam, don't open the jar until release. If you're not sure, have a taste.
Previous discussion here. Though since then I listened to the episode from The Town with Matthew Belloni about this film's opening weekend. Give the show a listen winther if you're interested in...
Previous discussion here. Though since then I listened to the episode from The Town with Matthew Belloni about this film's opening weekend. Give the show a listen winther if you're interested in the industry.
Their argument was that this movie was never going to be a blockbuster and that Universal was trying to conjure up a summer movie from a spring movie (The Fall Guy was originally scheduled for March), or a late-summer movie that opens in August like Bullet Train. Gosling and Blunt haven't really ever been draws. While Blunt has been in a few box office hits she's always played the supporting roles, and Gosling's box office hits are usually female oriented.
So, they said, here's what Universal Studios should have done: lean towards either the action or the romance instead of having this blend, so that it's more focused and it's audience is more well-defined. And two: choose younger stars who are cheaper and would have brought the production budget down. They jokingly couldn't really think of many but Glenn Powell and Sydney Sweeney came to mind considering their success with Anyone But You. Jennifer Lawrence was also brought up as an actual draw with youth appeal (No Hard Feelings and Passengers made as much as they did thanks to her name).
From a financial perspective I think they're ultimately right from the studio side. From the exhibitioner side it just sucks entirely because it's a sign that not much is breaking out right now. AMC said they have enough cash on hand to be okay until 2025, which shows how bleak things are going right now. Although Planet of the Apes managed to open to 60M and Furiosa seems to be on track to do alright.
The Fall Guy is not that interesting in itself, but the broader trends in Hollywood. Another artcile goes into that - maybe I should have posted that instead. While Hollywood has always been a...
The Fall Guy is not that interesting in itself, but the broader trends in Hollywood. Another artcile goes into that - maybe I should have posted that instead.
Getting mass audiences to invest in characters they haven’t met remains the toughest game in Hollywood: filmmakers wishing to tell less formulaic stories increasingly have to work outside the system.
... Coppola spoke for many by saying: “I fear that the film industry has become more a matter of people being hired to meet their debt obligations, because the studios are in great, great debt. And the job is not so much to make good movies.”
While Hollywood has always been a commercial endeavor, the budgets have gotten so huge now that it greatly narrows down what they dare bet their money on.
Yeah I think the lesson from Barbie isn’t necessarily that people want original movies (as much as people say that online) what they actually want are original takes on IP they know. Unless you’re...
Yeah I think the lesson from Barbie isn’t necessarily that people want original movies (as much as people say that online) what they actually want are original takes on IP they know. Unless you’re one of the few Directors who’s a box office draw like Nolan or Tarantino.
One of the users on a box office forum I use refers to these movies as Nostalgic Toy Commercials. And audiences have deemed NTC’s as the only movies worth their money.
But yeah it’s definitely quite the comedown from how optimistic things seemed for the industry a year ago during Barbenheimer.
Coppola’s words are interesting considering how bad the response to Megalopolis was at Cannes, following his last two films which were also derided. The impact of his words are weakened, as opposed to when they come from Scorsese or Spielberg.
As someone who is a target audience for a lot of these NTCs (I love that term), I can 100% say the #1 factor for me not going to the movies more is simply that I have kids now. The second is that...
Yeah I think the lesson from Barbie isn’t necessarily that people want original movies (as much as people say that online) what they actually want are original takes on IP they know.
As someone who is a target audience for a lot of these NTCs (I love that term), I can 100% say the #1 factor for me not going to the movies more is simply that I have kids now.
The second is that the best new original IPs that I noticed have all debuted to streaming first. High-quality TV programs from streaming providers have replaced theatergoing in the fight for my eyeballs.
Honestly with kids now the best argument for going to a theater has been FOMO and friends/family. I really wanted to see Godzilla Minus One while it was on a big screen, and there are certain...
Honestly with kids now the best argument for going to a theater has been FOMO and friends/family. I really wanted to see Godzilla Minus One while it was on a big screen, and there are certain older movies that if you told me were screening somewhere I'd work out time to go with my wife because I just don't know if I'd get the chance again. I also stayed home to watch the baby while my wife went with family to see Barbie. (Still need to see it myself.) Everything else... Yeah, not worth it against a night we can plan ourselves in the house.
Starting to get why everything is marketed to the yoots, lol
Good years comes and goes. The history books haven't been written yet but 2023 does seem to be one of the best movie years for quite a while. Barbenheimer was just a thing that sort of happened...
Good years comes and goes. The history books haven't been written yet but 2023 does seem to be one of the best movie years for quite a while. Barbenheimer was just a thing that sort of happened unplanned. That is hard to recreate.
Personally I hope for more things like Poor Things. It doesn't reach the insane levels of the big blockbusters but still a moderate success making three times its budget, with a story that for most people was an original (I doubt people watched it because of the 1992 novel).
But yes, people respond well to new takes on existing things. That is what made the comic book movies so successful at first and their downfall when it became repetitive.
Idk I know anytime I see a trailer for something based on an existing IP im highly skeptical. In rare cases it turns out to be good (Fallout TV show for example) but for as many successes there...
Idk I know anytime I see a trailer for something based on an existing IP im highly skeptical. In rare cases it turns out to be good (Fallout TV show for example) but for as many successes there are tons of failures. But an interesting new idea, even if inspired by other things I like grabs my attention even more.
I saw the movie this past weekend. I'm generally positive on it, but I think the last sequence dragged on for too long. From shortly after the moment when the action star character gets into the...
I saw the movie this past weekend. I'm generally positive on it, but I think the last sequence dragged on for too long. From shortly after the moment when the action star character gets into the blue-screen surrounded car to the last moment of victory I just wanted it to be over. I wasn't super invested in any of the antagonist characters and it was obvious what the ending would be. It was minute after minute of stunts in a movie already packed to the brim with them.
But there were a lot of funny moments and good action throughout so I'd give it an IMDb-scaled score of around 7.2.
I will say that I enjoyed The Fall Guy much more than I enjoyed Barbie. Part of that might be the fact that it (the marketing) wasn't pretending to be something more than it was.
I will say that I enjoyed The Fall Guy much more than I enjoyed Barbie. Part of that might be the fact that it (the marketing) wasn't pretending to be something more than it was.
I can only speak for myself but I saw the trailer for The Fall Guy before some other movie and it was basically a 3 minute summary of the entire movie. I never watch movies that give me the entire plot in their trailer. It reeks of poor quality B-movie to me.
Not that it's the definite test but Fall Guy sits at 82% at Rotten Tomatoes so I'm comfortable in saying it doesn't suck ass.
Marketing shit the bed here. Just as marketing nailed Barbie last year, this was really bad. What I've seen of the movie make it seem like a mediocre action movie, almost sidestepping the whole stunt guy gimmick. (Without seeing the movie) I think they should've leaned hard on the "it's just another boring day while flying through rings of fire" mundanity of being a stunt guy and prop that up with one really cool real in-world action set piece. Maybe made a small trailer series of "boring" stunts from the movie.
That probably has little to nothing to do with the movie which has some kind of comedic action murder/missing person mystery(?), but would've marketed the movie without spoiling it. Anyway this could've been a successful opener for the summer box office.
This seems to be a recent trend in the last decade or so. Audiences want to know what they are getting into and are less willing to take a risk. Maybe it is a reaction to the increased success of tv shows, where audiences can rely on well known characters. It is much easier to buy into a new season of whatever than taking a chance with a completely new movie, and with the general FOMO culture, production companies might attempt to remedy that by showing so much in trailers.
I think that a bigger factor is how expensive it is to go to the movies these days. I have friends who are MAJOR movie fans, the types who seem to see every movie that's out (sometimes multiple times!). But they're limiting the movies they're seeing this summer because they just can't afford it. They have rent and other expenses to worry about, so they have to be picky about what they see in theaters.
When it comes to TV shows, you're usually watching it through cable or a streaming service with other TV shows and movies. So if you're already paying for the service, it's easier to try out a totally new TV show versus spending ~$10-20 on a ticket for a single movie you may or may not like. On that note, movies inevitably end up on streaming services anyway, so there's even less incentive to see one in theaters outside of the theater experience.
I agree. If the movie sucks, it’s really a waste of time and money. You can’t even laugh it off because your wallet hurts too much!
And there are many high quality tv shows out there. Even with having multiple subscriptions you could end up cheaper than seeing one or two movies a month.
Ha, you should watch an old trailer sometime to see how bad it used to be! The narrator literally just tells you the whole plot of the movie. Like not even just "in a world where X, one man must Y," but actually tell you the whole story. The Star Wars trailer even showed the Death Star blowing up!
I'll admit that there are a lot of trailers that give away the surprises and the best parts, but I'm not even sure the concept of avoiding spoilers was that big of a deal before Vader was revealed as Luke's father, and it was really the the 90s with the Internet and the rapid spread of rumors and leaks that avoiding spoilers really became a major focus.
Admittedly I haven't done a thorough analysis on the development of trailers over the last many decades, just a subjective observation of the overall direction.
I am sure it is easy to find examples and counter examples from all decades, but I am curious on the Star Wars trailer you mention. It is a movie that likely exist countless numbers of different trailers for, but if it this one then I think it is actually a good example of the kind of trailer I wish could return. It doesn't actually tell anything of what the story is about (or show the Death Star blowing up as far as I can see), but is more about catching the vibe and style of the movie, which was a common trailer style back then. Later we got more plot exposition, but usually only the general premise from the first act, whereas now it seems trailers can explore both premise and plot developments that goes long into the second or third act of the movie.
A lot of people online seem to fixate on how "bad" trailers are for movies they were already interested in seeing. Meaning, they were already either a viewer, or seriously considering that they would become one. They love to bitch about how the trailer "gives everything away."
They're not the market for the trailers. Those are designed to entice fence sitters and random people into buying a ticket. That's what trailers are. Marketing. They're not intended to be this fun exploration of the movie ahead of time, to taunt and tease. They're intended to put butts in seats because the studio wants cash from all that ass.
Spoilers for Cabin in the Woods.
I just went and checked to be sure. This is apparently the official trailer for it. I had to go check because I had ignored Cabin initially. I don't like horror. I know all the tropes that horror fans love, but most of those tropes just kind of irritate me.
And this trailer is full of them. Atmosphere. The classic archtypes. And so on. If you've already seen the movie, you can spot little clues as to what's going on. But as a random know-nothing movie person, the trailer really doesn't do a whole lot to dispel the notion that it's just another horror flick.
After all, just about everyone making a movie wants to convince you their movie is special, different, unique. The stakes are higher, the comedy funnier, the drama more dramatic. Cabin's trailer basically does that right down the line. Shows us a ten second view of "just a normal weekend" at the beginning before starting to throw building tension and then actual horror at you.
So the whole thing looks like a random horror movie.
Except it's a meta commentary movie. Which is right up my alley. I love Scream for exactly the same reason. Hate horror, but love meta about horror because playing with the tropes and poking fun at them is fun for me. Watching them play out and that's supposed to be fun? No, I don't find that fun so I don't watch horror.
So it was like two years after Cabin came out that I heard it's a meta movie. That there's some kind of group that's purposefully playing with the archtypes and actively torturing these kids. Well, that sounded interesting and I watched it. Long after it'd left theaters. The movie is fantastic. Really delves into the whole genre and plays with it quite well.
An explicit trailer probably would've gotten a ticket out of me. Not these days, since I only view at home, but in 2012 I would've trekked over to the theater to watch a meta movie from Goddard (who I'd just started to take notice of at the time) and Whedon (who I'm a big fan of). But a random horror, even from those, no I'd ignored it.
You see the same complaints from people over, say, Terminator 2. They moan about how "if only you could watch the film cold, and not know Arnie's a good guy this time." Yeah, maybe. Sure.
But Cameron, at the time, was super worried about people assuming he'd cranked out the kind of empty-headed story-lacking sequel Hollywood usually does when they sequel something. So he made sure the trailer set the expectation that Arnie was back as a good guy, rather than "oh look, there's another terminator; twice the action, twice the terror!"
Basically, I think most of the folks who moan about "trailers give everything away" might solve their own problem if they'd just not watch trailers for something they're already looking forward to. If you know the movie seems like your jam, don't open the jar until release. If you're not sure, have a taste.
Previous discussion here. Though since then I listened to the episode from The Town with Matthew Belloni about this film's opening weekend. Give the show a listen winther if you're interested in the industry.
Their argument was that this movie was never going to be a blockbuster and that Universal was trying to conjure up a summer movie from a spring movie (The Fall Guy was originally scheduled for March), or a late-summer movie that opens in August like Bullet Train. Gosling and Blunt haven't really ever been draws. While Blunt has been in a few box office hits she's always played the supporting roles, and Gosling's box office hits are usually female oriented.
So, they said, here's what Universal Studios should have done: lean towards either the action or the romance instead of having this blend, so that it's more focused and it's audience is more well-defined. And two: choose younger stars who are cheaper and would have brought the production budget down. They jokingly couldn't really think of many but Glenn Powell and Sydney Sweeney came to mind considering their success with Anyone But You. Jennifer Lawrence was also brought up as an actual draw with youth appeal (No Hard Feelings and Passengers made as much as they did thanks to her name).
From a financial perspective I think they're ultimately right from the studio side. From the exhibitioner side it just sucks entirely because it's a sign that not much is breaking out right now. AMC said they have enough cash on hand to be okay until 2025, which shows how bleak things are going right now. Although Planet of the Apes managed to open to 60M and Furiosa seems to be on track to do alright.
The Fall Guy is not that interesting in itself, but the broader trends in Hollywood. Another artcile goes into that - maybe I should have posted that instead.
While Hollywood has always been a commercial endeavor, the budgets have gotten so huge now that it greatly narrows down what they dare bet their money on.
Yeah I think the lesson from Barbie isn’t necessarily that people want original movies (as much as people say that online) what they actually want are original takes on IP they know. Unless you’re one of the few Directors who’s a box office draw like Nolan or Tarantino.
One of the users on a box office forum I use refers to these movies as Nostalgic Toy Commercials. And audiences have deemed NTC’s as the only movies worth their money.
But yeah it’s definitely quite the comedown from how optimistic things seemed for the industry a year ago during Barbenheimer.
Coppola’s words are interesting considering how bad the response to Megalopolis was at Cannes, following his last two films which were also derided. The impact of his words are weakened, as opposed to when they come from Scorsese or Spielberg.
As someone who is a target audience for a lot of these NTCs (I love that term), I can 100% say the #1 factor for me not going to the movies more is simply that I have kids now.
The second is that the best new original IPs that I noticed have all debuted to streaming first. High-quality TV programs from streaming providers have replaced theatergoing in the fight for my eyeballs.
Honestly with kids now the best argument for going to a theater has been FOMO and friends/family. I really wanted to see Godzilla Minus One while it was on a big screen, and there are certain older movies that if you told me were screening somewhere I'd work out time to go with my wife because I just don't know if I'd get the chance again. I also stayed home to watch the baby while my wife went with family to see Barbie. (Still need to see it myself.) Everything else... Yeah, not worth it against a night we can plan ourselves in the house.
Starting to get why everything is marketed to the yoots, lol
Good years comes and goes. The history books haven't been written yet but 2023 does seem to be one of the best movie years for quite a while. Barbenheimer was just a thing that sort of happened unplanned. That is hard to recreate.
Personally I hope for more things like Poor Things. It doesn't reach the insane levels of the big blockbusters but still a moderate success making three times its budget, with a story that for most people was an original (I doubt people watched it because of the 1992 novel).
But yes, people respond well to new takes on existing things. That is what made the comic book movies so successful at first and their downfall when it became repetitive.
Idk I know anytime I see a trailer for something based on an existing IP im highly skeptical. In rare cases it turns out to be good (Fallout TV show for example) but for as many successes there are tons of failures. But an interesting new idea, even if inspired by other things I like grabs my attention even more.
I saw the movie this past weekend. I'm generally positive on it, but I think the last sequence dragged on for too long. From shortly after the moment when the action star character gets into the blue-screen surrounded car to the last moment of victory I just wanted it to be over. I wasn't super invested in any of the antagonist characters and it was obvious what the ending would be. It was minute after minute of stunts in a movie already packed to the brim with them.
But there were a lot of funny moments and good action throughout so I'd give it an IMDb-scaled score of around 7.2.
I will say that I enjoyed The Fall Guy much more than I enjoyed Barbie. Part of that might be the fact that it (the marketing) wasn't pretending to be something more than it was.