|
Post by suzumebrad on May 23, 2011 23:52:33 GMT
Look, I watch a lot of movies. Like a metric ton of film every year. As such I really enjoy watching trailers. One of the things that occurred to me is that I often try to gauge a film by its preview. As such I believe we should discuss not the films but the trailers.
----Brad
|
|
|
Post by suzumebrad on May 24, 2011 0:02:57 GMT
Let's start with the trailer for the upcoming Muppet Movie:
Obviously if you know me you know how much I love the Muppets and I had hoped that this trailer would be everything that I could hope for. Sadly, it falls horribly flat. I understand the idea of trying to create a false sense of where the trailer is headed through narration (check out the thread on unreliable narration as a plot device; or wikipedia) BUT it never sells the punch at the change of direction. Not only that but I have a sneaking suspicion that this was hastily thrown together and contains little or no footage from the film itself. If true this could be good (because the footage in the trailer is pretty weak) or bad (because it may mean they can't lock down the film, itself, effectively in post-production).
So where do we grade this? My love of the Muppets as a property (I know Jason Segal loves them too) may cause me grade this down quite a bit. Also I know that there is an added young, hip, iPhone-carrying Muppet in the film who doesn't appear in the trailer which worries me. Simply said if I were to know nothing of the Muppets as a franchise and saw this trailer I would have little to no interest in seeing the movie. The trailer though has to meet the difficulty of appealing to adults and kids. Oh wait, it doesn't because adults grew up on this stuff and kids have little care for puppets anymore. As such I award this: One (out of Five) Pastadogs. Blech!
|
|
|
Post by Lankylurkr on May 24, 2011 0:07:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by staypuff on May 24, 2011 0:52:23 GMT
I also feel that this new muppet trailor deserves a low score. Obviously, the trailor brings your attention to the odd love story then reveals the true nature of the new muppet movie. When I saw the trailor in theaters i became disapointed. I had hoped the new muppet movie would be well made, butit looks cheesy, low budgeted - in all aspects, from dialogue to direction - and most of all the plot seems cheap. This trailor does not give enoigh attention to the muppet's involvement in the film. I will not be going to the ticket bootb for this film based on thetrailor. I will be weighing on whether or not to see this film until I see the rottentomatoes.com ratings the day after it is released.
Harsh, but honest.
|
|
|
Post by suzumebrad on May 24, 2011 2:30:24 GMT
Were you unhappy with the (exact same) one that I embedded? I had hoped the new muppet movie would be well made, butit looks cheesy, low budgeted - in all aspects, from dialogue to direction - and most of all the plot seems cheap. I think you've hit the nail dead on the head here in most respects. The original Muppet Movie took itself seriously as a film (see the expensive crane shot that starts the film in the swamp) while this one appears to be very tongue in cheek about the idea of a Muppet Movie. Almost to the point that I worry it will be a spoof of itself. Sadly, this movie will get my money, for sure, as I hold out continual hope that it can even be a comparable shadow of that original masterpiece. I appreciate the backup on this as many of my friends are just in awe that the movie exists.
|
|
|
Post by suzumebrad on May 24, 2011 2:45:00 GMT
Just for reference I wanted to post a 'classic' trailer that I enjoyed so much I may still overestimate the film's quality. I give you the trailer for "RedEye."
Ok, this is a direct comparison to the Muppet Trailer above on a couple of levels: 1. It has a misleading intro that makes the film appear like any other summer romantic popcorn film (not like a film about romantic popcorn which, for the record is a serious issue; you can never get all the butter off after you finish). 2. It has decent stars that (at the time) were mostly known in serious film or independent film circles. Amy Adams might be an example but her best films have been staunchly independent (Julie&Julia par example).
However, the effectiveness of the narrator break (where the mood changes) in the RedEye trailer is of a markedly higher level than that of the Muppet trailer. It may be because the transition to horror allows for more gravity but if that's the case it is yet another reason why the Muppet trailer should never have been made. Based on the trailer for RedEye I considered this a must-watch and would still grade the trailer at 4.5/5 Pastadogs (on the scientific Pastadog scale).
Also, while this may not be up everyone's alley I appreciated some aspects of the actual film and wish that it had been allowed to follow Craven's original concept. This is a movie many have not seen so you can test your judgement of trailers vs. film with it as well.
Pretentiously, ----Brad
(edited for formatting googlie-do's that I didn't like)
|
|
|
Post by Lankylurkr on May 24, 2011 3:06:23 GMT
Were you unhappy with the (exact same) one that I embedded? For some reason it didn't post. Didn't even realize you posted one.
|
|
|
Post by Lankylurkr on May 24, 2011 3:07:52 GMT
I remember seeing the trailer for Red Eye (embed didn't work again), and I was just absolutely blown away by it. The movie sucked, but the trailer had me salivating.
|
|
|
Post by suzumebrad on May 24, 2011 4:20:24 GMT
I remember seeing the trailer for Red Eye (embed didn't work again), and I was just absolutely blown away by it. The movie sucked, but the trailer had me salivating. Hmmm the embeds are there for me, even after I sign out and sign back in or as a guest. Maybe you should use a real browser like chrome. Is anyone else not seeing these or they might not be working for you? Edit: works on IE also.
|
|
|
Post by groucho on May 24, 2011 15:19:53 GMT
the embeds are there for me, too. You're right about the Muppet trailer...summed up my thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Red Eye Trailer on Jun 4, 2011 0:25:27 GMT
First, I need to point out that I have not seen Red Eye. Therefore, my POV is based on ignorance on what the movie is really about. Now on to the movie trailer: The trailer, obviously, starts the introduction getting you to think that the it is going to possibly be a love, match-making movie - as it did on me, lol. Then it twists it to where the friendly man comes out as a total creep. The trailer definitely made me curious as to who he was and why she is so scared. Is he going to high-jack the plane? Murder someone? Kidnap her after the flight? However, after I looked up the plot online at IMDB.com, that many people do after seeing a trailer, I became disinterested. The story was between realism and the complete-insane-unrealistic-possibility-that-something-like-that-could-happen. Plots that are between the extremes don't capture the audience. Perhaps on paper, but not on film. Just a phsyco version of Flight Plan. What I thought was well-done in the trailer was that they casted Cillian Murphy as the creep-a-zoid. He does well in creepy roles. I remember when I saw these trailers on TV and I wasn't impressed. Too much was missing in the plot and you couldn't tell if it was to be a horror, suspense, or action film.
|
|
|
Post by suzumebrad on Jun 4, 2011 8:56:34 GMT
The trailer definitely made me curious as to who he was and why she is so scared. Is he going to high-jack the plane? Murder someone? Kidnap her after the flight? See, I would consider that to be an highly effective trailer because it obviously did interest you. You even took the effort to seek out answers to your questions which, before the internet, would've probably meant watching the movie. So I suppose you raise another question: Is the internet defeating the purpose of making movies as a whole? OK, less over-stated: Is the internet making the marketing of a film harder and how do you get audiences to see non-franchise films (i.e. NOT Pirates of the Caribbean)?
|
|
|
Post by Lankylurkr on Jun 5, 2011 6:59:40 GMT
So I suppose you raise another question: Is the internet defeating the purpose of making movies as a whole? OK, less over-stated: Is the internet making the marketing of a film harder and how do you get audiences to see non-franchise films (i.e. NOT Pirates of the Caribbean)?
Well, I think that indy movies have actually benefited from the proliferation of the internet. However, this can also easily be a two-edged sword. If you're constantly inundated with ads and clips from a new movie coming out, you're going to burn out on wanting to see it much faster than if you watched the trailer on television. However, if used properly, the internet will generate much more traffic to a movie if interest is properly set out ahead of time (nee: the "Flynn Lives" ARG that disney did to promote Tron: Legacy). If utilized to promote a no-name movie (read: independent), it can bring in viewers and money hand over fist.
|
|
|
Post by suzumebrad on Jun 5, 2011 8:31:52 GMT
So I suppose you raise another question: Is the internet defeating the purpose of making movies as a whole? OK, less over-stated: Is the internet making the marketing of a film harder and how do you get audiences to see non-franchise films (i.e. NOT Pirates of the Caribbean)?
However, if used properly, the internet will generate much more traffic to a movie if interest is properly set out ahead of time (nee: the "Flynn Lives" ARG that disney did to promote Tron: Legacy). Franchise AND property; see my above statement. Your point is invalid due to improper evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Lankylurkr on Jun 6, 2011 0:59:35 GMT
how do you figure it's invalid? You never set out specific parameters regarding your question. What you had asked for was how to "...get audiences to see non-franchise films." Granted, Tron, due to the sequel, has become a franchise, but the same thing was done with District 9, which I have yet to see a single action figure or cheap ass toy to come out of. The only reason I used Tron was because it was late, and the first thing that came to mind. The premise of an ARG is still valid.
|
|