Audience Expectation

Andy O'Neil · August 20, 2004

Should the marketing of a film affect the audience's response to that film?

If one goes into Shyamalan's "The Village" expecting a horror film but gets a love story instead, does that mean the film is worse than if it had been marketed as a love story?

I never allow expectations drawn from trailers affect my response to a film. I adapt as the movie progresses, purging myself of all preconceived notions.

While I'm watching what I thought was going to be a horror film unfold into a love story, I don't say to myself, "Hey, wait a minute! What? No! They tricked me! Those sneaky trailer editors.

David Mullen ASC · August 20, 2004

I try to not hold a film's marketing strategy against it the actual movie. Often the marketing is the work of an entirely different set of creative types that had nothing to do with the making of the film. The film has to stand on its own.

Reasonable suspicion and doubt should be the response to all forms of advertizing.

GeorgeSelinsky · August 20, 2004

Reasonable suspicion and doubt should be the response to all forms of advertizing.

A wonderful line I shall remember. If you'll pardon me, now I will return to the planning of our film's advertising and marketing campaign :lol:

Paul Bruening · August 20, 2004

Am I wrong to go to the bottom line? Marketing is about money. Joseph E. Levine proved that you could take bad movies shot in Italy and Greece and shove them down people's throats with a huge advertising budget and still clear major profits. It certainly wasn't the quality of the movies he promoted that put the butts in the seats.

Paul Bruening

Bob Hayes · August 21, 2004

It?s unfortunate when the poster or campaign misleads the audience. Ultimately it hurts a film when it attracts the wrong audience and pisses them off. I am however a big fan of movie posters and my walls are covered with them. A great campaign can really create excitement and anticipation for the film. Just look at the campaign for Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo...

Wait ... is this the Rob Schneider fan site?

Bill DiPietra · August 21, 2004

Nowadays, mainstream trailers are extremely misleading. Even in the late 80s and early 90s people were cutting very attractive trailers (at least to me.) Some had it down to an artform, which is how it should appear. And the trailer was usually an accurate sampling of the entire film.

For me, trailers took a nose dive in the late 90s as the filmmaking got worse. Some people still know how to cut a decent trailer, but it's obvious they are cut to attract the widest possible crowd, now more than ever. Problem is, there's just not much out there worth advertising.

Alvin Pingol · August 21, 2004

Trailers nowadays really aren't what they used to be just a few years ago.

Either you get a trailer that (a) shows all the "good parts," especially in the case of comedies, or (b) cuts together loads of seemingly random footage, leaving the audience trying to figure out what the move is about.

A recent trailer I found to be not too bad is for Paparazzi. It is cut well, clearly shows the conflict, and leaves you wanting to watch the rest of the movie to see how everything works out. Although I find that voice over guy to sound a bit over-the-top, I think it is a good trailer.

Another good trailer I liked was the one for One Hour Photo.