Lies, Damn Lies, and Movie Advertising
This isn't really a "Movie that Will Suck," but one thing I've noticed becoming a huge trend - and it has been for a while now, but ever more so the past few years - is trying to sell movies not just based on the plots or the stars, but odd things like the director or producer, and sometimes even the studio. Today, we're going to take a look at upcoming movies that, while they may not suck, make me suspicious because of their curious selling points.
The Black Dahlia
Okay. Brian De Palma is something of a name director, sure. But "director of Scarface and The Untouchables?" Scarlett Johansson (who stars in Dahlia) wasn't even born yet when Scarface came out! How about some of his work in the last 20 years, guys? I realize that "director of Mission to Mars and Femme Fatale" doesn't have quite the same cachet, and Dahlia probably appeals to the same audience as The Untouchables in a way that his last two decades really don't, but... well, when you have to gerrymander his work that much, maybe we have cause to wonder about this one.
The Guardian
Andrew Davis, despite directing one of 1993's biggest hits, does not have name recognition, clearly. But again, we're talking about a movie that is 13 years old, here - Kevin Costner hadn't even ruined his reputation with Waterworld and The Postman yet. On the other hand, check out Davis' CV since - Steal Big Steal Little, Chain Reaction, A Perfect Murder, Collateral Damage, Holes. I'd say the last was the best received, but obviously it's a different genre - and "From the director of Chain Reaction" isn't packing anyone in.
Of course, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're selling the movie based on the strength of one director who hasn't done anything worthwhile in the nearly 15 years since. What does this say about Andrew Davis? Either The Fugitive was a project he was lucky to latch onto or he's chosen poorly every time since, but either way, doesn't that kind of suggest that who the director of a movie is doesn't always matter? It's not like Davis is some Woody Allen-like auteur who controls every aspect of his films and has a really distinct style. I'm sure he's a competent director but he's just a workmanlike type who you hire when you need someone to crank out a, well, movie like The Guardian. You look at his resume, see that he has experience with big action sequences, and bring him aboard, but he's never going to be Spielberg.
So really, they're not using Davis to sell their film at all. (Especially since they left out his name.) They're using The Fugitive. And that's what I have a problem with. How misleading is it to market a film as "Remember this other film you probably liked? Well, we have a more or less superficial association with it! Check us out!" It's like the cookie cutter reviewer blurbs saying stuff like "If you liked Home Alone, you'll love Blank Check!" (That was a real blurb for Blank Check. While I liked Home Alone, even at 12 I thought Blank Check was a bit stupid. Though who doesn't like seeing Tone Loc get hit in the crotch by a pitching machine? Yet I digress.)
Flyboys
Oh, here we go. From the producer of Independence Day and The Patriot! Well, hell yeah! So he raised money for all three films, and perhaps made some hiring decisions. Your point? It looks more like they're trying to market this as a cross between the two (battle for freedom + old-timey), to avoid anyone pointing out that the film lacks any true star (no one even gets name-checked in the trailer). The producer they're referring to, by the way, is Dean Devlin, whose producing credits also include the surprisingly not named Eight Legged Freaks and Godzilla. The other producer (and that's not including the film's two co-producers, associate producer, and four executive producers) is Marc Frydman, whose producing credits include Welcome to Mooseport. I bet you don't see that on any posters anytime soon.
By the way, Flyboys gets the two-for-one bullshit combo pack, as the blurb on the apple.com trailers page uses the phrase "Academy Award-winning director Tony Bill." My first thought was that he won the Oscar for Most First Names, but it turns out that he won it for The Sting. Note that Mr. Bill did not direct The Sting. Oh noooooo! He was, in fact, a producer on it (one of three to win for the film when it took Best Picture). So in other words, he barely won an Oscar (it's not like Best Picture awards are really given to producers, they just make the most sense as far as acceptance goes), and while he has an Oscar, and is a director, the phrase "Academy Award-winning director" is horseshit. At least they don't say "Academy Award-winning actor" whenever they drag out the fact that Ben Affleck has an Oscar.
The Greatest Game Ever Played
These are my absolute favorite. Hey, remember that great golf movie The Rookie? Of course you don't, because this is a trailer for The Greatest Game Ever Played. And in it, Disney plugs the last three sports movies it released, or at least the last three good ones (Remember the Titans, The Rookie, and Miracle), in the hope of convincing everyone that Game was going to be exactly as good. "From the studio that brought you Remember the Titans!" Come on, man. You know how many other dozens of movies, some impossibly shitty, have been brought to us by the Mouse? One need only scroll through their trailer section at Apple to find some illustrious names - The Shaggy Dog, Herbie: Fully Loaded (does that count as a sports movie?), The Pacifier, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, and The Country Bears. New classics all. Sure, I guess Disney has a decent track record with feel-good sports movies, but is that really the studio's doing?
Blech. Anyway, I hope to get back to making some posts in this blog, most of which will be funnier and shorter than this one.
The Black Dahlia
Okay. Brian De Palma is something of a name director, sure. But "director of Scarface and The Untouchables?" Scarlett Johansson (who stars in Dahlia) wasn't even born yet when Scarface came out! How about some of his work in the last 20 years, guys? I realize that "director of Mission to Mars and Femme Fatale" doesn't have quite the same cachet, and Dahlia probably appeals to the same audience as The Untouchables in a way that his last two decades really don't, but... well, when you have to gerrymander his work that much, maybe we have cause to wonder about this one.
The Guardian
Andrew Davis, despite directing one of 1993's biggest hits, does not have name recognition, clearly. But again, we're talking about a movie that is 13 years old, here - Kevin Costner hadn't even ruined his reputation with Waterworld and The Postman yet. On the other hand, check out Davis' CV since - Steal Big Steal Little, Chain Reaction, A Perfect Murder, Collateral Damage, Holes. I'd say the last was the best received, but obviously it's a different genre - and "From the director of Chain Reaction" isn't packing anyone in.
Of course, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're selling the movie based on the strength of one director who hasn't done anything worthwhile in the nearly 15 years since. What does this say about Andrew Davis? Either The Fugitive was a project he was lucky to latch onto or he's chosen poorly every time since, but either way, doesn't that kind of suggest that who the director of a movie is doesn't always matter? It's not like Davis is some Woody Allen-like auteur who controls every aspect of his films and has a really distinct style. I'm sure he's a competent director but he's just a workmanlike type who you hire when you need someone to crank out a, well, movie like The Guardian. You look at his resume, see that he has experience with big action sequences, and bring him aboard, but he's never going to be Spielberg.
So really, they're not using Davis to sell their film at all. (Especially since they left out his name.) They're using The Fugitive. And that's what I have a problem with. How misleading is it to market a film as "Remember this other film you probably liked? Well, we have a more or less superficial association with it! Check us out!" It's like the cookie cutter reviewer blurbs saying stuff like "If you liked Home Alone, you'll love Blank Check!" (That was a real blurb for Blank Check. While I liked Home Alone, even at 12 I thought Blank Check was a bit stupid. Though who doesn't like seeing Tone Loc get hit in the crotch by a pitching machine? Yet I digress.)
Flyboys
Oh, here we go. From the producer of Independence Day and The Patriot! Well, hell yeah! So he raised money for all three films, and perhaps made some hiring decisions. Your point? It looks more like they're trying to market this as a cross between the two (battle for freedom + old-timey), to avoid anyone pointing out that the film lacks any true star (no one even gets name-checked in the trailer). The producer they're referring to, by the way, is Dean Devlin, whose producing credits also include the surprisingly not named Eight Legged Freaks and Godzilla. The other producer (and that's not including the film's two co-producers, associate producer, and four executive producers) is Marc Frydman, whose producing credits include Welcome to Mooseport. I bet you don't see that on any posters anytime soon.
By the way, Flyboys gets the two-for-one bullshit combo pack, as the blurb on the apple.com trailers page uses the phrase "Academy Award-winning director Tony Bill." My first thought was that he won the Oscar for Most First Names, but it turns out that he won it for The Sting. Note that Mr. Bill did not direct The Sting. Oh noooooo! He was, in fact, a producer on it (one of three to win for the film when it took Best Picture). So in other words, he barely won an Oscar (it's not like Best Picture awards are really given to producers, they just make the most sense as far as acceptance goes), and while he has an Oscar, and is a director, the phrase "Academy Award-winning director" is horseshit. At least they don't say "Academy Award-winning actor" whenever they drag out the fact that Ben Affleck has an Oscar.
The Greatest Game Ever Played
These are my absolute favorite. Hey, remember that great golf movie The Rookie? Of course you don't, because this is a trailer for The Greatest Game Ever Played. And in it, Disney plugs the last three sports movies it released, or at least the last three good ones (Remember the Titans, The Rookie, and Miracle), in the hope of convincing everyone that Game was going to be exactly as good. "From the studio that brought you Remember the Titans!" Come on, man. You know how many other dozens of movies, some impossibly shitty, have been brought to us by the Mouse? One need only scroll through their trailer section at Apple to find some illustrious names - The Shaggy Dog, Herbie: Fully Loaded (does that count as a sports movie?), The Pacifier, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, and The Country Bears. New classics all. Sure, I guess Disney has a decent track record with feel-good sports movies, but is that really the studio's doing?
Blech. Anyway, I hope to get back to making some posts in this blog, most of which will be funnier and shorter than this one.
posted by Flax at 9:35 PM
|
<< Home