A friend of mine just posted on Facebook her enthusiasm regarding the anticipated delivery of a ”Wall-E” Netfix DVD to her waiting mailbox, and I am happy for her, to be sure. I would typically express either interest or disdain at her choice, but honestly, I have no idea what the movie is about, other than having a little robot that is apparently cute. Then it struck me how often, over the past several years, it has happened when I have seen an advertisement for a coming attraction that provided little context other than the bright, flashy images on the screen. More often than not, this observation occurs when the film in question is an animated feature or an over-hyped sequel. You might accuse me of making an obvious argument with little depth to it, but still, it happens so often that a film’s marketing campaign will thrust images at us without much mention of story to it. And not all of us will take the time to read the review or hit up the website just because the studio has paid for three hours of TV time a day. Here are some examples of the details I can recall from some past movie advertisements:
WALL-E: As I mentioned, a cute robot that makes cute noises. But can it improve on the quality of my life without a hostile takeover?
Robots: This time, more than one robot, and one of them sounds like Robin Williams. But can they improve on the quality of my life without a hostile takeover?
Surf’s Up: Something that looks like an emperor penguin, looking at you with total confidence that you will waste money on this film. I assume it also surfs.
Righteous Kill: All I know is that Al Pacino and Robert de Niro are “together at last”. I wish I had gotten an invitation to that wedding. Are they cops or mobsters in this one?
Cars: I don’t think I’ll ever watch any of these movies where the one-word title should be good enough. “Oh, cars, you say? Let’s rent that sucker now!”
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: Is anybody in this film NOT a pirate? Some of you have to accept that Johnny Depp is not the only justifiable reason for watching a film.
Madagascar: I think a bunch of animals are trying to escape a zoo and go to Madagascar, so if I’m right, maybe this is a bad example. But I do know it has Ben Stiller in it, so I’m leery.
Bee Movie: Much as I loved the TV show, a bunch of bees and a weak pun of a title are not good enough for me to listen to Jerry Seinfeld for 90 minutes. “What’s the deal with honeycombs?” I wonder.
Spider-Man 3: Spidey seems to fight 3 baddies, a bad job and a weird love life, all of which will probably give me a seizure from trying to keep up. The only thing I’m missing is the central story. Seriously, are you trying to tell me that Topher Grace is Venom?
Sex and the City (the movie): It’s got the ladies. Is that good enough? I rarely ever saw this show, so that’s about all I can say.
Open Season: A film about two animals dealing with each other’s bad qualities, or so I guess. Isn’t this “Shrek”? And speaking of…
Shrek the 3rd: Mike Myers seriously needs to stop and try to come up with some other lovable character, or unlovable character, whatever. I think they make Shrek babies in this one.
High School Musical (all of them): Kids sing and dance. I get enough of that nonsense in my classroom.
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown: Does the subtitle say it all? Maybe. I guess the title said it all in the first film, too, then.
Role Models: Apparently, guys who look like losers trying to convince kids that they can be winners should be good enough for you. It’s always fun to watch children’s time be wasted!
—
What I’m trying to get at is that the people who market these films are confident that the only context you need might be the star or stars involved, or the success of similar products in the past. And they may be right, because many of the films above have been box-office successes. But I would suggest a dumbing-down of the culture when the only reason to see a movie is one minor plus or detail. I always think that the main draw to a story should be the story, not whether or not it has the word “Pixar” attached to it. Part of the problem may be that, in our current tech culture, the demand for readily-consumable entertainment is such that the product itself often becomes condescended into one selling point. And then afterwards we wonder why nothing seems original anymore.
November 26, 2008 at 6:36 am
Nice writing style. I look forward to reading more in the future.
November 26, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I like what you wrote, Garrett, but I think that SOME of your issues may be resolved with seeing the trailers shown in theaters. Granted, it probably won’t do much for a number of those movies on the list (I really can’t even stomach trying to watch Shrek the Third, and don’t care to see most of the movies on the list–though I will say I thought Wall-E was great, but the robot design was totally ripped off Short Circuit), but the better ones seem to flesh out at least SOME of the story…however good or bad it may be. Seems like the shortened ads for TV really squeeze out most of the substance.
And speaking of trailers, my friend posted the one for Twilight a few weeks ago. Man, it looked like absolute tripe–no voice-over, no snippets of dialog, just flashes of shot to shot that seem to be pretty much the same…and somehow you find out it’s about a girl and a vampire…falling in love. Looks like something someone had to come up with in a basic video-editing class.
November 27, 2008 at 2:12 am
Certainly, viewing the trailer in the theater or even on the Internet would clue one in on the premise of a particular film (or at least I hope so). But that point assumes one of two situations. One, that the potential movie-goer visits the theater often enough to view any of these trailers. And two, that the mass market notice (the TV commericial or the newspaper ad) is engaging enough that you would want to find out more. My contention is that what is readily made available to the people is too condensed to be worthy of serious consideration (at least for me).
You know, regarding “Twilight”, I only know about the vampiric aspect of it from a book synopsis I saw somewhere. Other than that, yeah, you’re right, it’s just flashing those eye-catching cinematic moments and hoping that’ll be a good enough selling point. I’m reminded of another person I once knew who, when asked whether or not he would watch 1999’s “The Mummy”, he said that he felt he had already seen the entire movie from the commercial; all of these amazing shots get thrown at you, and you have to wonder what’s left after that. I get the same feeling from a movie like “Twilight”, and I’m not the least bit interested to see it.