Well that's a point I agree with. I refuse to cover that film and will not even bother requesting the DVD...I love unintentionally humorous bad movies, but gross and pointless exercises in sadism aren't my deal.How about Devil's Rejects? That thing looks like a snuff film outright. I've DEFINITELY been asking your question a lot, every time I see the trailer for THAT.
Weekend Box-Office: Bay's ISLAND Sinks!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34254
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
-
Carlson2005
Bay had apparently lined up a lot of interviews yesterday anticipating another no. 1 opening, and from the ones he actually went through with, such as the L.A. Times ones, he's blaming everyone but himself - lack of stars, bad marketing (despite being Dreamworks biggest ever ad spen apparently), etc. He even compares himself to Kubrick and Spielberg, saying they also had flops (although only one of Spielberg's films actually lost money, and that was his first).
I believe the German word for the enjoyment I'm getting out of this particular individual's misfortunes is schadenfraude...
I believe the German word for the enjoyment I'm getting out of this particular individual's misfortunes is schadenfraude...
Wow- sounds like Oliver Stone blaming everyone but himself for ALEXANDER's failure. And how un-humble to compare his body of work to Kubrick and Spielberg??? Is he serious? NOTHING he's ever directed will stand the test of time- nothing. His work is insignificant and junk. I'm being a bit harsh but I just don't think he's a good director- and I really disliked ARMAGEDDON. Watching Liv Tyler and Ben make out to Aerosmith music almost made me puke. Spielberg and Kubrick? Gimme a break Bay.....you aren't even close to being in their league.Carlson2005 wrote:Bay had apparently lined up a lot of interviews yesterday anticipating another no. 1 opening, and from the ones he actually went through with, such as the L.A. Times ones, he's blaming everyone but himself - lack of stars, bad marketing (despite being Dreamworks biggest ever ad spen apparently), etc. He even compares himself to Kubrick and Spielberg, saying they also had flops (although only one of Spielberg's films actually lost money, and that was his first).
I believe the German word for the enjoyment I'm getting out of this particular individual's misfortunes is schadenfraude...
Okay....I'm done.
-
Carlson2005
I really don't think that was the case with Stone: he took full responsibility for the film and in the interviews I saw, he was trying to work out why it was performing so badly in America compared to the rest of the world and was judging the response there - unlike Bay, he didn't blame his cast or the studio or the marketing, which is what Bay's currently doing.
In fact, it looks like things are beginning to get bloody between him and the studio at the moment - after he slammed the campaign, they publicly pointed out that he actually approved all the ads and trailers himself (he apparently had is choice of 650 different poster designs!). If he carries on in similar vein, don't be surprised to see DreamWorks hire a new director for Transformers. This one's going to get bloody...
In fact, it looks like things are beginning to get bloody between him and the studio at the moment - after he slammed the campaign, they publicly pointed out that he actually approved all the ads and trailers himself (he apparently had is choice of 650 different poster designs!). If he carries on in similar vein, don't be surprised to see DreamWorks hire a new director for Transformers. This one's going to get bloody...
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34254
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
There's no question there's something clearly wrong with Warner's marketing department.
BATMAN BEGINS had a deadly trailer that could well have been one reason for the relatively modest opening it had. In the annals of superhero movies you couldn't have possibly edited something together as lame as what they issued...something I've seen echoed from one viewer to another. It's only been AFTER it opened that word of mouth spread and people kept going..."really, it's good? it looked awful," that kind of thing.
CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY could not have looked less appealing. The early ads in particular were hideous. Then in the days before it opened they changed it up, using orchestral music backing and stressing the "heart and soul" of the film. (As it turned out, like BATMAN BEGINS, the movie was far, far better than its marketing indicated).
THE ISLAND -- whether Bay approved the trailers or not -- had an AWFUL campaign. The teaser, the full length trailer, even the poster (Scarlett Johansson running?) -- none of them gave any indication as to what kind of movie it really was. Too much story, too little story, stressing the stars, stressing the action -- it was terrible no matter which version you watched. Now it could well be that the movie IS terrible, too, but I've seen great trailers produced for bad, bad movies, so there's not much excuse.
I'd say WB needs some new people in that department. I'd say all three of those films had trailers that were unanimously panned. That two of the movies were actually good (and in the case of Burton's film, very good indeed) REALLY shows they haven't a clue what they're doing.
BATMAN BEGINS had a deadly trailer that could well have been one reason for the relatively modest opening it had. In the annals of superhero movies you couldn't have possibly edited something together as lame as what they issued...something I've seen echoed from one viewer to another. It's only been AFTER it opened that word of mouth spread and people kept going..."really, it's good? it looked awful," that kind of thing.
CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY could not have looked less appealing. The early ads in particular were hideous. Then in the days before it opened they changed it up, using orchestral music backing and stressing the "heart and soul" of the film. (As it turned out, like BATMAN BEGINS, the movie was far, far better than its marketing indicated).
THE ISLAND -- whether Bay approved the trailers or not -- had an AWFUL campaign. The teaser, the full length trailer, even the poster (Scarlett Johansson running?) -- none of them gave any indication as to what kind of movie it really was. Too much story, too little story, stressing the stars, stressing the action -- it was terrible no matter which version you watched. Now it could well be that the movie IS terrible, too, but I've seen great trailers produced for bad, bad movies, so there's not much excuse.
I'd say WB needs some new people in that department. I'd say all three of those films had trailers that were unanimously panned. That two of the movies were actually good (and in the case of Burton's film, very good indeed) REALLY shows they haven't a clue what they're doing.
-
Carlson2005
One of the huge problems now isn't so much the marketing departments themselves, it's the fact that in many cases they have so little say in how the film is marketed. The producers, director and key stars all have approval over key aspects, so you end up having to go through a committee to find something that a dozen people can agree on - sometimes merely over whether they look good or occupy their contractual 33% of poster space, sometimes in the case of directors like Bay whether it reflects their 'marketing savvy,' sometmes whether it reflects their vision (hi, Mr Burton). That's how you end up with posters like Kevin Costner in a pair of goggles taking his donkey for a walk...
Another problem is the company's edict that the same campaign be used everywhere to cut down on the approvals process. This means that sometimes they get locked into repeating the same mistakes worldwide when a new campaign might just help elsewhere.
The sad thing is that I've seen some really great rejected campaigns for films from the Warners marketing people in the past, so they can do their job: I just think that all too often they're not allowed to, which is why so many of their recent campaigns have stunk.
Another problem is the company's edict that the same campaign be used everywhere to cut down on the approvals process. This means that sometimes they get locked into repeating the same mistakes worldwide when a new campaign might just help elsewhere.
The sad thing is that I've seen some really great rejected campaigns for films from the Warners marketing people in the past, so they can do their job: I just think that all too often they're not allowed to, which is why so many of their recent campaigns have stunk.