On the marketing of the movie
POSTED BY: Ananti
UPDATED: Saturday, October 8, 2005 17:06
VIEWED: 4160
PAGE 1 of 2
A couple of friend and I were discussing whether the marketing of the movie had anything to do with its less than ideal performance so far, and one of them made a great point.
He points out that the title of the movie is poor choice, because
1) It's give a vibe of touchy-feely-ness to people, especially guys, who don't know much about the movie/tv series, and this becomes an instant turn off. It sounds like a "chick-flick", like some romantic comedy ala "Serendipity" or something, which they will go out of their way to avoid.
2) Generally, a movie or a book title would do well to associate with concrete things rather than amorphous concepts. Because people can form mental pictures of concrete things, and if they can form an association of a concrete thing with your book/movie/widget, then it sticks in their head and is imprinted. But if all the title conjures up in an shapeless idea, then there is no mental picture, no association, and no strong imprint, and therefore doesn't stay in people minds.
I think he makes a good point, not that it would do anything thing since the movie's name is set. But I do think in the final analysis this might have had an impact in getting people who aren't already fans, and who don't have friends who are fans telling them how good the movie is, into deciding on a whim to see this movie.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it was the over-reliance on the viral tactics, myself.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree but I don't. Ya know? I always thought the title "Firefly" was rather weak and passive (I think it was Ford that tried to release a car with this name back in the 80's, and no one bought it... because of the name. It was their version of the Geo, if memory serves).
Between the two, yes, I opt for "Serenity," but that's because I'm a big fan of Joss and his work....... but then again, I'm one of the 2% of Americans who look at the names on a movie poster besides the actors.
But to the point-- yes, it could be the title, but also the lack of marquee names. The trailer was outstanding, and drew laughs every time I saw it in a theater. Perhaps the film will take off more on DVD (hell, that's the ONLY reason we saw a Transporter sequel), but in the overall marketing genre, I'm not incredibly impressed with Universal's job.
There, I said it.
When the movie got pushed back from April, we were ALL told by big mean executives that the push-back was to give time to promote the film. What promotion? Sure, there were the screenings, but I saw scant ads before the opening, fewer posters than for that suckfest "Into the Blue" (no, I didn't see it, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist) ... people need to be shown how good something is, or maybe the small-name cast is just something truly impossible in this day and age.
Anyway. I'm rambling. Go see the movie again and again this weekend, don't go see whatever it's opening against, and I think I just invented a new name for my hero-- Joss Whedon, Rocket Scientist.
XOXO
me
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
I think it was the over-reliance on the viral tactics, myself.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
I think you may be right. Though I have seen more ads on TV of late, and it was a banner ad across Yahoo for most of last weekend.
Lady Shelley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.redhawke.org
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Quicksand:
When the movie got pushed back from April, we were ALL told by big mean executives that the push-back was to give time to promote the film. What promotion? Sure, there were the screenings, ... ... people need to be shown how good something is, or maybe the small-name cast is just something truly impossible in this day and age.
XOXO
me
I think that *was* the marketing. Those advance screenings were supposed to be much more than "Thanks You's" from JW. It was supposed to be the studio's attempt at the first phase of the viral marketing... Word of mouth, get the movie out there, you are supposed to drag your non-fan friends to go and everybody is supposed to be abuzzed with excitement and be talking about it... Instead it became a big "incest" fest... Everybody *did* talk about it, but it *was mostly* just the fanbase that was awashed with excitement... The excitement was suppose to spill over into the regular world of non-fans from word of mouth. I didn't really happen; and they really needed the buzz to have been built before the premiere...
Anyways, there was that viral marketing campaign, but if you remember, the delay in the release also avoided the movie having to come up against Ep3 as well... So, it wasn't a bad decision to begin with.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514
Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I always felt that naming the TV series 'Firefly' and the pilot episode 'Serenity'...
and then naming the movie 'Serenity'
was because the ship was a major feature,
it was more than transportation...
it was the glue that binds these people together.
Of course maybe Joss should have gone with the 'Stagecoach' image
and named the BDM 'Spaceship'
or even 'Space Transport Vessel'
but I think THAT might have been too obvious (he wanted a little more subtlety than that).
So the real question comes down to...why Serenity?
Okay, named for the battle...
buy why THAT name for the battle? Just for the irony?
I don't think I've heard Joss discuss this point, has anyone?
At any rate, Ananti: you're not wrong.
the combination of the vaguely esoteric title,
with the total lack of big name stars,
and a 'concept' that is a little hard to grasp,
makes this a hard movie to market.
Really, I think Universal has done a good job,
and with the good reviews I hope we can build an audience....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ananti:
A couple of friend and I were discussing whether the marketing of the movie had anything to do with its less than ideal performance so far, and one of them made a great point.
He points out that the title of the movie is poor choice, because
1) It's give a vibe of touchy-feely-ness to people, especially guys, who don't know much about the movie/tv series, and this becomes an instant turn off. It sounds like a "chick-flick", like some romantic comedy ala "Serendipity" or something, which they will go out of their way to avoid.
2) Generally, a movie or a book title would do well to associate with concrete things rather than amorphous concepts. Because people can form mental pictures of concrete things, and if they can form an association of a concrete thing with your book/movie/widget, then it sticks in their head and is imprinted. But if all the title conjures up in an shapeless idea, then there is no mental picture, no association, and no strong imprint, and therefore doesn't stay in people minds.
I think he makes a good point, not that it would do anything thing since the movie's name is set. But I do think in the final analysis this might have had an impact in getting people who aren't already fans, and who don't have friends who are fans telling them how good the movie is, into deciding on a whim to see this movie.
I totally think that is stupid! The name is fine. Really for this movie there couldn't be a better name cause that's the name of the ship! Just like Star Trek Enterprise, or Voyeger, or Andromeda, Battalestar Galactica, ect. And in the Firefly 'verse, the battle in Serenity Valley was the battle that ended the war making it the most important.
Now ofcourse some one unfamiliar with Firefly (as I was before Serenity)wouldn't know all that. Still the name is fine. It doesn't make it sound like a chick flick. And any one who would watch the trailer would know that wich would be most people who have heard of the movie most likely.
As for the 2nd thing up there, what the hell are you talking about? Seriousely I don't understand what you're saying...
The movie has been doing just fine in theatres so I don't see why any one thinks it isn't.
"I'm a leaf in the wind. Watch as I soa-"
Big Damn Fansite - Where the Browncoats gather.
http://www.freewebs.com/bigdamnfansite
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
At any rate, Ananti: you're not wrong.
the combination of the vaguely esoteric title,
with the total lack of big name stars,
and a 'concept' that is a little hard to grasp,
makes this a hard movie to market.
Really, I think Universal has done a good job,
and with the good reviews I hope we can build an audience....
Exactly, and I'm not even saying that the name is a bad name/ I am not sitting here and telling you that I have this great name for the movie that woul be better than "Serenity", because I don't. The title is the title, and the movie was destined to have that name when Joss Whedon chose that name for the valley where the battle took place 4 years ago.
I'm just analyzing the situation and saying that in retrospect, it may have been an unfortunate choice for marketing reasons. "Serenity" simply does not get the juices flowing for the average, uninitiated, 16-24 year old male that say for example, "Star Wars", does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I honestly don't understand why it couldn't've just been called "Firefly: The Movie".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME