Why misleading marketing can damage films
Marketing movies is a fine line to tread, but when Hollywood gets it wrong the film's critical reception can be severely affected leaving audiences disappointed
 |
| Daniel Craig in 'Spectre' (Sony/MGM/EON) |
by Jack Linsdell
Most of the time Hollywood gets the marketing for their films just right, with Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. being the most successful studio - in terms of marketing - in recent years making explicitly adult-targeted dramas with a lack of popular IP enjoy big box office numbers like 'American Sniper' and 'A Star is Born'. And, when it goes right, audiences are content as they can enjoy a relatively unspoiled film, whilst studios are pleased with their box office figures as a result of publicising the film to the public. However sometimes studios get marketing (deliberately or not) completely wrong and this severely affects the respective film's reputation.
When Sam Mendes's 24th 007 flick 'Spectre' hit screens in 2015, the film I (and most likeminded Bond fans) watched was far different from the one we were sold in the marketing. Now, considering the quality of the film, perhaps this was a deliberate move by Sony and all involved to guarantee "buts in seats". And if that was the case it worked, with the Daniel Craig-led film becoming the series' second-highest grossing picture globally with $880 million. However, the problem was that many fans (and some general movie-goers) were left disappointed after the screenings because the trailers had sold a film that looked so much better than the mess that they had paid to see.
The trailers depicted a similar gritty tone that the prior Craig-led flicks had brought to the franchise, where action was thrilling and looked like it hurt the performers a lot. The multiple locations shown (desert, snowy mountain, city etc.) implied a global narrative where Bond found different clues to solve the mystery. Although the film ended up being global, its screenplay was such a mess that each location was poorly utilised and the plot holes so big it made 'Skyfall' seem like a tight and secure script. The trailers also promised a key emotional and love interest angle, but through the form of a proper plot in which Bond falls for Madeline over time and she questions his need to still be an assassin. However, in the film this aquates to one scene and leaves the audience feeling cold and Madeline's character underdeveloped.
I could go on forever about the faults of 'Spectre', but the point is I wouldn't have been so disappointed if the film I was promised looked miles better than the one that was actually released. The marketing was severely misleading, to the point that the entire plot and tone of the movie was sold as one thing, when in actual fact it was on the complete opposite spectrum. The same was for Ridley Scott's recent "based on a true story" drama about the Getty family, 'All the Money in the World', which although featured strong performances, an intriguing story and was at time tense, failed to live up to how its trailer sold the film. The trailer sold the Mark Wahlberg/Michelle Williams flick as a "nail-biting, violent and completely attention-grabbing" movie, however although the final cut was of high-quality, it took me the whole movie to adjust to the surprise that it was actually much less intense, violent and thriller-like than the trailers suggested. This tarnished my view on the film because I had to realise that the tone of the film was different, which wasn't really fair on the movie because considering it is so well-made it left me feeling very disappointed.
The other example of poor marketing was Lone Scherfig's 'Their Finest', which the trailers, posters and DVD synopsis all sold as being about Catrin who was an inexperienced screenwriter that was called in the write a propaganda film. Now, the actual film is about Catrin who is a newspaper advert designer/writer, who is called into research a story about two girl who sailed to Dunkirk to evacuate soldiers. As the film progresses she becomes a writer and falls in love. My point being is that the way the plot was sold was far different from the one in the film (although I believe the actual film was better than the one sold to us) and again, for such a well-made film I was left feeling disappointed. Whereas the people who saw the film with me and hadn't seen the marketing enjoyed it as much as I have on re-watches, proving that misleading marketing can damage a film's critical reception.
Marketing (and trailers in particular) are handled by the studio and companies that specialise in promoting films. Therefore, most often, filmmakers aren't actually involved in the marketing process and often trailers will be cut together before the final cut has been finished by the director. Now, I understand the importance of early marketing etc. but I believe the issue of misleading marketing in the respect of selling a film with a different plot and/or tone is one that needs to be thought about. It's not fair that more often than not, high-quality films are critically rebuked because fans and audiences have been left disappointed compared to what they were promised. My lesson is that I try not to partake in any marketing before I see a film in the hope of not being disappointed. However, there should be some responsibility given to the studio in actually just releasing trailers, posters and TV spots that just establish character background (context) and the leading performances. By skipping out the plot and tone hints, audiences that view marketing can still watch a film but not be surprised that the one of the cinema screen is completely different to the one they watched on YouTube.
The other example of poor marketing was Lone Scherfig's 'Their Finest', which the trailers, posters and DVD synopsis all sold as being about Catrin who was an inexperienced screenwriter that was called in the write a propaganda film. Now, the actual film is about Catrin who is a newspaper advert designer/writer, who is called into research a story about two girl who sailed to Dunkirk to evacuate soldiers. As the film progresses she becomes a writer and falls in love. My point being is that the way the plot was sold was far different from the one in the film (although I believe the actual film was better than the one sold to us) and again, for such a well-made film I was left feeling disappointed. Whereas the people who saw the film with me and hadn't seen the marketing enjoyed it as much as I have on re-watches, proving that misleading marketing can damage a film's critical reception.
Marketing (and trailers in particular) are handled by the studio and companies that specialise in promoting films. Therefore, most often, filmmakers aren't actually involved in the marketing process and often trailers will be cut together before the final cut has been finished by the director. Now, I understand the importance of early marketing etc. but I believe the issue of misleading marketing in the respect of selling a film with a different plot and/or tone is one that needs to be thought about. It's not fair that more often than not, high-quality films are critically rebuked because fans and audiences have been left disappointed compared to what they were promised. My lesson is that I try not to partake in any marketing before I see a film in the hope of not being disappointed. However, there should be some responsibility given to the studio in actually just releasing trailers, posters and TV spots that just establish character background (context) and the leading performances. By skipping out the plot and tone hints, audiences that view marketing can still watch a film but not be surprised that the one of the cinema screen is completely different to the one they watched on YouTube.
Comments
Post a Comment