|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 26, 2017 17:40:06 GMT
You think mass marketing was in it's infancy in the 1990's? You're hilarious. If we are talking movie advertising when compared to today? Yes. In 1990 the big corporations had not merged--and there was some independence in news. Nowadays the news divisions are part of the advertising for the corporations so when a movie comes out, they present press releases as news items. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 26, 2017 17:50:54 GMT
So if you remove the marketing, the public won't know about a movie? No kidding! Again...how to you think people knew Gone with the Wind, The Exorcist, and Star Wars were coming out? Big diff--with those films the contents of the films marketed themselves. Gone With the Wind was an epic based on a popular novel. The Exorcist was based on a best-selling novel and was marketed for its innovations in makeup FX. SW was marketed for its innovations in SPFX and design. There simply had not been any film with that kind of look or content. All these super hero films-especially the Disney ones, have massive marketing budgets beyond the usual advertising. That is just a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 26, 2017 20:15:29 GMT
So if you remove the marketing, the public won't know about a movie? No kidding! Again...how to you think people knew Gone with the Wind, The Exorcist, and Star Wars were coming out? Big diff--with those films the contents of the films marketed themselves. Gone With the Wind was an epic based on a popular novel. The Exorcist was based on a best-selling novel and was marketed for its innovations in makeup FX. SW was marketed for its innovations in SPFX and design. There simply had not been any film with that kind of look or content. All these super hero films-especially the Disney ones, have massive marketing budgets beyond the usual advertising. That is just a fact. Still seeing opinions. Of course marketing will focus on what any particular movie offers. That's what they've always done. Bigger budgeted movies get bigger marketing campaigns....also nothing new. My only quibble with modern advertising is the frequency of spoilers. I avoid them like the plague for that reason. You currently live in a world where social media has transformed awareness of everything. Times are different in that way and it's skewing your perception. Why wouldn't a studio do a campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter? I certainly would. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 26, 2017 20:19:46 GMT
Still seeing opinions. Of course marketing will focus on what any particular movie offers. That's what they've always done. Bigger budgeted movies get bigger marketing campaigns....also nothing new. My only quibble with modern advertising is the frequency of spoilers. I avoid them like the plague for that reason. You currently live in a world where social media has transformed awareness of everything. Times are different in that way and it's skewing your perception. Why wouldn't a studio do a campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter? I certainly would. Of course its opinion--but opinion backed up by fact. It is fact that the selling point for the Exorcist was envelope pushing FX and scares. Thor is not being marketed on the innovation in FX or story or adventure content. It's been the same for all the Disney financed Marvel films. I am not talking about FB campaigns--it goes way beyond that. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 27, 2017 1:24:43 GMT
Still seeing opinions. Of course marketing will focus on what any particular movie offers. That's what they've always done. Bigger budgeted movies get bigger marketing campaigns....also nothing new. My only quibble with modern advertising is the frequency of spoilers. I avoid them like the plague for that reason. You currently live in a world where social media has transformed awareness of everything. Times are different in that way and it's skewing your perception. Why wouldn't a studio do a campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter? I certainly would. Of course its opinion--but opinion backed up by fact. It is fact that the selling point for the Exorcist was envelope pushing FX and scares. Thor is not being marketed on the innovation in FX or story or adventure content. It's been the same for all the Disney financed Marvel films. I am not talking about FB campaigns--it goes way beyond that. Thor is being marketed on its comedy and fun aspect. As always, they market what the movie offers. (except for those rare times when they make it look like something it isn't) It's 2017 and you'll just have to get used to how the world is today. (or just keep complaining about it) |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 27, 2017 1:44:02 GMT
It's 2017 and you'll just have to get used to how the world is today. (or just keep complaining about it) You are the one making a big deal out of it. I said the film is propelled by mega corporation media hype and not genuine public interest. I made the statement and that was that. Others responded and there we go. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 27, 2017 1:53:43 GMT
It's 2017 and you'll just have to get used to how the world is today. (or just keep complaining about it) You are the one making a big deal out of it. I said the film is propelled by mega corporation media hype and not genuine public interest. I made the statement and that was that. Others responded and there we go. Just an opinion. You claimed it was a fact. Advertising always drives public interest in any product. There is nothing new about that. That's why they pay those people on Madison Avenue so much money. Every movie has been marketed. Don't market a movie and you will never have "genuine public interest". They would all fail. Your claim that the public are being led around by the "mega corporations" with no minds of their own is fairly absurd. You'll know that the next time something you like is successful at the box office. Then of course you'll claim the public "really likes it". The problem appears to be that you have a highly inflated sense of how important your opinion is. If you don't like something, your brain tells you that no one else could possibly like it either. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 27, 2017 7:10:26 GMT
Just an opinion. You claimed it was a fact. Advertising always drives public interest in any product. There is nothing new about that. That's why they pay those people on Madison Avenue so much money. Every movie has been marketed. Opinions usually benefit from facts. Yes, it is a fact that the Exorcist and Star Wars were marketed differently from your average MCU or DCU film. Yes, it is a fact that there was a stronger relation between the audience and the film itself than with any of these cookie cutter CGI movies. I wouldnt lose sleep over it. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 27, 2017 18:44:49 GMT
Just an opinion. You claimed it was a fact. Advertising always drives public interest in any product. There is nothing new about that. That's why they pay those people on Madison Avenue so much money. Every movie has been marketed. Opinions usually benefit from facts. Yes, it is a fact that the Exorcist and Star Wars were marketed differently from your average MCU or DCU film. Yes, it is a fact that there was a stronger relation between the audience and the film itself than with any of these cookie cutter CGI movies. I wouldnt lose sleep over it. You got one fact and one opinion there. Are movies marketed differently today than in the 70s? Of course. Just like movies were marketed differently in the 70s than they were in the 40s. This is not news. That does not prove that marketing a movie proves that people don't really care about it. People have to be made aware of a movie in order for the movie to sell tickets. That was true in the 1930s and it's true today. You are claiming that more/different marketing proves that people are somehow being hypnotized into buying tickets to things they really don't want to see. What is this magic threshold of marketing that changes the audience from "want to see the movie" to "are only there because they saw an ad"? That's a silly claim frankly. And it smells of "good old days syndrome" too.  If there are more movies in a certain genre of course there will be less time to talk about each one. That's simple math. It doesn't prove they all suck though. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 27, 2017 18:50:43 GMT
Are movies marketed differently today than in the 70s? Of course. Just like movies were marketed differently in the 70s than they were in the 40s. This is not news. It is news that a movie in the 70s was marketed on content. Movies today are marketed as events and the 99% positive ratings are used for that purpose. In the 70s people paid little attention to any reviews or box office reports. The movie had to sell itself to a large extent. So yeah it is a change--there was a more direct relationship between the artwork and the audience. Today there is a distinct marketing filter. This is not debatable. If you don't like this fact, I am sorry. That is all I can say. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 27, 2017 18:52:34 GMT
Are movies marketed differently today than in the 70s? Of course. Just like movies were marketed differently in the 70s than they were in the 40s. This is not news. It is news that a movie in the 70s was marketed on content. Movies today are marketed as events and the 99% positive ratings are used for that purpose. In the 70s people paid little attention to any reviews or box office reports. The movie had to sell itself to a large extent. So yeah it is a change--there was a more direct relationship between the artwork and the audience. Today there is a distinct marketing filter. This is not debatable. If you don't like this fact, I am sorry. That is all I can say. You keep going back to "different proves people don't really care about the movies they buy tickets to see" claim. That was never a valid argument and still isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 27, 2017 19:01:29 GMT
You keep going back to "different proves people don't really care about the movies they buy tickets to see" claim. That was never a valid argument and still isn't. That isn't the argument. The argument is that movies today use reports like 99% positive reviews as more of a selling point than the movie content. In the 1970s this did not happen. You shouldnt have brought up the 70s. The topic was going to slide off the radar until you brought it up to back up my point. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 27, 2017 19:02:39 GMT
It must be hard to be a DC fan right now. It must be easy to be an asshole right now. Well actually, all the time, right Weird? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 27, 2017 19:18:19 GMT
It must be hard to be a DC fan right now. It must be easy to be an asshole right now. Well actually, all the time, right Weird? Now was that really called for? Hee hee hee... |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Oct 27, 2017 19:20:50 GMT
It must be easy to be an asshole right now. Well actually, all the time, right Weird? Now was that really called for? Hee hee hee... No it wasn't. Neither was Raptors comment either, again it just rustles people's jimmies when he keeps making comments like that and then they respond in a hostile way and then the thread goes to shit. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 27, 2017 19:21:39 GMT
You keep going back to "different proves people don't really care about the movies they buy tickets to see" claim. That was never a valid argument and still isn't. That isn't the argument. The argument is that movies today use reports like 99% positive reviews as more of a selling point than the movie content. In the 1970s this did not happen. You shouldnt have brought up the 70s. The topic was going to slide off the radar until you brought it up to back up my point. And again they marketed movies differently in the 70s than they did in the 40s. That doesn't mean people in the 70s didn't really want to see those movies. Using your logic, they had more visible marketing so that means people really didn't want to go see Jaws and Star Wars....they were just flocking to see them because they became big events or something. Good old days syndrome can be used against any time period. So really...the 1930s is really the only time people went to see movies they were genuinely interested in. However....they marketed movies more in the 30s than they did in the 20s so that means the ads were more responsible for ticket sales than the movies themselves. Bring back the way Buster Keaton, Lon Chaney and Charlie Chaplin did it! The price of going to the movies is pretty steep these days so the idea that people are somehow going to see movies they really don't want to see is far to the left of logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 27, 2017 19:24:11 GMT
Now was that really called for? Hee hee hee... No it wasn't. Neither was Raptors comment either, again it just rustles people's jimmies when he keeps making comments like that and then they respond in a hostile way and then the thread goes to shit. But isn't true that loyal DCEU fans are being besieged by the media, critics and a fractured leadership? Weird's statement is true if a little inflammatory. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 27, 2017 19:25:14 GMT
The price of going to the movies is pretty steep these days so the idea that people are somehow going to see movies they really don't want to see is far to the left of logic. You are just changing the subject again. But it's ok. Keep talking. |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 27, 2017 19:27:43 GMT
The price of going to the movies is pretty steep these days so the idea that people are somehow going to see movies they really don't want to see is far to the left of logic. You are just changing the subject again. But it's ok. Keep talking. All we can do is talk about the odd theory you have that people are paying money to see movies they really aren't interested in seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 27, 2017 19:33:52 GMT
All we can do is talk about the odd theory you have that people are paying money to see movies they really aren't interested in seeing. Nope. Not what I said but you can keep going. I dont mind. |
|
