Why the hell do previews give away the whole movie??? I recently saw the preview for The Wedding Planner, in which the entire plot, including the “surprise” ending, was given away. Why, why, why??? I have heard that some directors want to let the audience know the “type” of movie they are in for, but this is a romantic comedy, for shit’s sake! I think we all know what kind of movie it is. No one is going to go postal at the wedding. So, one could say, if we know that this is a romantic comedy, don’t we all already know the ending? Yeah, maybe, but even if we all know how it is going to end, I would rather not see the ending before I see the damn movie.
Damnation to the people responsible for this.
And yes, I know it is probably a lousy movie and I just saved some money on it, but it has Matt “Best Butt Ever” McConaghey (sp–I am too mad to look it up!) in it. I HAVE to see it.
I am with you, Brynda. I think most people are. Why they lay out the whole damn film is beyond me,a nd it really robs the juice from the movie.
Best recent trailers:
“A.I.” Steven Spielberg’s latest, coming in summer 01. Tells pretty much nuthin 'cpt the core: it’s about Artificial Intelligence, seemingly in the form of a little boy.
“Unbreakable” - told just enough
Virtually every other trailer I’ve seen in the past year did nothing but tell the whole damn film. And there are times I do NOT want to know! ** Cast Away ** being the prime example!
stoid
PS: Matt McC is on his 15th minute. Yeah, he’s way cute. But he just doesn’t have the acting chops, sorry.
Sure, giving away the plot in previews is terrible, but it’s nothing new. I happen to have a bigger beef. Has anybody rented a video lately? They’ve started putting COMMERCIALS in! Like real, honest-to-God crappy-product-plugging, bad-acting-demonstrating, excessive-time-consuming commercials! Why would they do that? All it does is add extra time before the movie, and I doubt anybody’s gonna buy a “lumbo-matic 5000” or whatever just because they saw it in the previews for The Lion King.
They are cheap, and I highly recommend the Netfilx service. It rocks. You will be free of commercials, you will have top-quality visuals, and boatloads of extra stuff that is seriously fun.
Oddly, though, I kinda miss the previews on videos. (They don’t have them on DVD’s) They were especially useful when I rented some lesser-known indie flick and saw the other indie trailers…
stoid
Appealing to the lowest common denominator. There’re a lot of idiots who won’t go to see a movie unless they know everything that’s going to happen (hence the success of Titanic).
Read a book lately? If not, don’t bother. Just read the jacket. The latest Terry Goodkind book had the entire major ending plot point in glorious Technicolor on the front and spelled out on the flap.
I even complained about the new movie The Wedding Planner. It’s obscene that they would want to ruin any movie by destroying the entire reason for going to see it in the first place.
Smeghead, are you talking about Faith of the Fallen? If so, thanks for the heads up. I’ll be starting it in about two weeks.
…And then there are the previews that make no fucking sense at all. Has anyone seen the one for Blow?
I still have no idea what the fuck that’s supposed to be about.
I thought the preview for Thirteen Days was excellent, but of course everyone knows what happens anyway. (The movie is good, BTW, there’s a lot of stuff that you DIDN’T know in it. But I’m biased because I love those types of movies anyway.)
I agree about Unbreakable…I came out of that movie pleasently surprised and pleased.
And the previews for Quills and O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? were good, too.
Robert Zemeckis was interviewed in David Poland’sHot Button web column when his movie, What Lies Beneath was released regarding the amount of information the trailers for that movie revealed. He said that market research was to blame:
He seems to feel that if you don’t give away all the important points, people won’t feel comfortable enough with the mvie to spend the $7.50 or more that is required to see it. I’m not sure I agree with it, but as movie prices have gone up, I’ve noticed that people seem to react much more strongly when a movie does disappoint them. Instead of it simply being a movie they didn’t appreciate, it becomes a “rip off”. Perhaps the movie industry is simply trying to appeal to the broadest category of movie goers. It’s doubtful that the vast majority of the audience are true “film buffs” in the classic sense of the word. They’re out for a good time, some escapism and a laugh or a cry and most times, a lot of explosions.
While it’s certain that some movies do depend, to one degree or another on a “twist” in the plot or ending, The Crying Game obviously springs to mind, the vast majority of movies that are released are not so hugely conveluted that the trailers reveal any information that can’t be deduced from the first 10 minutes in the theater. Roger Ebert, a critic I generally trust because he echoes my own tastes in many instances, has railed against this trend in advertising, most recently in connection with Castaway. I understand the desire to keep the details of the movie under wraps until it is revealed to the viewer in the theater, but I wonder what detail was so critical to the whole of the movie couldn’t be anticipated. I haven’t seen the movie, simply read the reviews and discussions that are widely availible, but even from that limited amount of information, things aren’t too difficult to discern. Did Mr. Ebert truly think that a major studio would get a star like Tom Hanks attached to the project and then have the character die on impact? So we know he survives the crash without seeing the trailer. We know he gets off, as well. Killing the hero in a futile attempt to leave his island prison? Not from a major American studio. Generally speaking (to forstall the influx of posts that say “Hey, what about THIS movie?”) the good guys are going to win, the bad guys are going to lose and there’s going to be a happy ending. It’s the American Way.
I see the tendency to give away details an attempt by the movie theaters to attempt to attract the largest segment of the market. They might sell 20 tickets to a true film lover during the year by marketing the movies in a way that would appeal to that person. But for each film lover, there are probably 200 people who want to know exactly what they’re getting into before they plop down their $20 - $40 for a night at the movies.
Supply and demand, it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.
[sup]Oh yeah, it’st he pit… gotta do something about that Most Level-Headed nomination… uhhhhh…
“Eat bite fuck suck gobble nibble chew;
nipple, busom, hair pie, finger fuck, screw”[/sup]
Hey, Enderw23, sorry about this thread following so closely on yours. I was out of town for Christmas and missed your thread and was too damn lazy to search when I started mine.
The quotation you have in your thread and that Ankh_Too includes above from Robert Zemeckis just horrifies me. Movies are NOT McDonald’s hamburgers, IMNSHO. Sigh.
BTW, Enderw23, I liked Finding Forrester as well. I also saw You Can Count On Me and Chocolat this weekend and recommend both highly. Hey, are you sure you don’t have an older brother?
I think the point that Robert Zemeckis was trying to make was that the marketing research that the studios have does show that a majority of the general public views the movies as they do any other commodity. They want to know what it is they’re getting for their money. And the studios, perhaps to the detriment of the artistic factor, have very intelligently designed their advertising campaigns to appeal to the largest segement of their audience. It’s a sound business decision, if somewhat depressing from your standpoint.
We saw “What Women Want” over the holidays, and the thing that surprised me was that the preview scenes weren’t what I thought they would be in the movie. Dunno if that makes sense…I guess I assumed everything in the previews involved the main character being his “I can hear what women think” self–when in actuality, some of it happened BEFORE he got that ability. It was a small point, but I was pleased that I was, well, sort of “misled” by a preview that otherwise gave away too much.
My husband HATES previews and wants to get there late to miss them. I prefer to see them, because I can pretty quickly figure out what I want to see in the future. Otherwise, I find myself suggesting a movie to the spouse and having to listen to him bitch, “Never heard of it.”
Um, honey? If we’d watch more previews, you’d have heard of it and have some idea of whether you’d want to see it! slap
How dare you? You liar! You thief! You knew I had written that thread earlier and yet here you are, flaunting your popularity by trying to gather more responses than my thread received. I consider it an affront and I’m drawing the line in the sand. My gloves are off and the towel has been removed from the ring. Watch your back, that’s all I’ve got to say.
Feh. Actually the thing I’m most upset with is that you independently came up with most of the points I did. Ankh_too even quoted the same Zemekis quote that I did later on. What that means is that I’m coming closer to normal. That’s quite scary.
Also, my love life is so pitifully horrifically non-existant right now I’m quite willing to consider a 25 year age gap as a non issue at this point. I’d rant more but I wouldn’t want to hijack this thread any further than I already have.
Personally, I’d rather get a preview that tells me something about the movie they want me to watch. I don’t know how many previews I’ve seen which make me think, “cool. But what’s the fucking movie about?”
If I don’t know at least a bit of what the plot is, I won’t watch the movie.
That said, I agree with the OP. If you can sum the movie up completely in the trailer, then thank you. I’ve just seen the movie in 5 minutes and you saved me lots of money.
Those of you who like tell-all previews missed my main point, to wit: I wanted to see Matt McConaghy’s butt, and now I feel silly doing that since the preview showed me the whole damn movie except for the butt shot. Waitaminnit! I can think of it as paying to see the butt shot. I’d pay $5 for that!
Enderw23, yeah, maybe I tried to steal your thunder. Yeah, maybe I should have searched. But for you to imply with your “25-year age gap” that I am 48–that hurts, buddy boy, and was totally unwarranted. It is hard enough being 40 without some snot-nosed 23-year-old implying that I am even older. Makes me wonder if I even want to date your uncle.
::sulks away muttering about children on the board::
But his butt deserved an Oscar nomination in A Time To Kill.