Once again, movie publicity has no imagination at all (re: E.T.) (1 Viewer)

[Keith Paynter]

I went to see Domestic Disturbance tonight (decent, played out like a TV movie), and saw the new poster for the re-release of E.T.

I am sick and tired of lame tag lines:

"...The phone call that started it all."

I think I'll go spin my laserdisc now. I just lost interest in seeing this in the theater.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Keith, you had me until that last part. Your not going to see this film because of the tagline on the poster!?

 

[Keith Paynter]

I'm just saying that while I like the film (heck, spending $70 on a box set should be enough), The way that the film has been marketed (with such a hokey tag line, which I have heard too many times before), didn't impress me enough to watch it again for another $10.00

The tag line ranks right near the bottom. The worst offender - "see it again...for the first time." Uggh!

 

[Sam Davatchi]

Not seeing the movie just because of the tag line is not a good excuse! I have a better one. I’m not going to see it in a theater because of the Special Edition itself!

 

[cafink]

The way that the film has been marketed didn't impress me enough to watch it again for another $10.00

Who cares about the marketing? Didn't the quality of the movie itself impress you enough to watch it again?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Hmmm... shouldn't the merits of the film itself be the decision maker, as opposed to the spin the marketers put on it?

 

[DaveF]

Keith - I'm with ya!

The job of marketing is to sell us a product. In some cases, the marketing is so bad, that we just have to make our point by not buying the product.

As for me, I've never seen "Bulworth" because I'm so put off by the movie-poster image of the rapper being regurgitated from the mouth of a distorted face. (blech)

 

[Matt Birchall]

In this case, I think that not seeing a movie just because it might have a bad tagline is a bit extreme, but the idea's the same:

I refuse to eat at Carl's Jr. restaurants because their commercials absolutely gross me out. Now, I'm sure that their food is just fine, but my mind equates their terrible, nasty commercials with their product itself and I refuse to go there.

Maybe it's the same type of deal.

-mwb-

 

[Dave L]

I'll probably pass on another peek at "ET" as well. Saw the trailer with "Harry P" the other night and it satisfied any curiousity I might have had since it showed part of one deleted scene (ET in the bathtub) and showed a new "digital enhancement" the alien ship. I can pull out my LD any time I want to see it in its original version, which is how I'd want to see it in any case.

 

[Tom Ryan]

You think THAT'S bad marketing? I take it you haven't seen the commercial for the Willow DVD..."Before there were hobbits, before there were wizards, there was....Willow!". Completely ignoring the fact that LOTR came out over 30 years before Willow.

-JeTmAn

 

[Bryan]

You may or may not be amazed at this. But I still have not seen E.T. Just thought I would let you know that.

 

[Richard_D_Ramirez]

I just found out my wife has never seen "E.T." too! We were watching the "E.T." trailer before "Harry Potter", when she whispered to me, "Is that Drew Barrymore?"

8^B

 

[Keith Paynter]

Wow, that's a stunner! Definitely worth seeing in its original form before you decide whether or not to take a look at the revisionist edition on the big screen.

The laserdiscs supplements (which are apparently being imported to the DVD) are very cool - Henry Thomas's audition, and the footage of little Drew Barryore and Steven Spielbertg are worth the price of admission.

We've had discussions on this forum in the past about one-sheet rip-offs (copycat campaigns), and I'm simply saying that how a movie is marketed can have a major impact on its draw, especially where a reisuue is concerned.

Everybody was pumped to see the revisionist Star Wars becuase of the buzz over restored and enhanced footage. Its effective marketing was offset onscreen by revsionism that didn't get a lot of publicity (ie: Greedo shoots first). Apocalypse Now had a successful re-issue thanks to restoring discarded scenes, although many felt unsatatisfied by the pace.

Most people already know that in the revised E.T. that:

cel phones replace handguns


and it's turned a lot of people off, even though Spielberg says that in his younger years that sort of thing didn't bother him, but he has changed his stance in the past few years as he beame a family man. But that shouldn't be cause for him to question his judgement. Jaws was a problematic shoot (to say the least), but the final result was definitely satisifying. I don't see the need to alter E.T. but it's not my movie.

 

[Brad_W]

see it again...for the first time." Uggh!

This quoted tag line is from one of the BEST trailers ever... the Star Wars Trilogy coming to the theater. As I watch these trailers over and over again on the Widescreen SE VHS versions, I still get goosebumps! And the Star Wars tag line actually fits the whole spirit of the films coming back to the theaters in Special Edition form. I guess I wouldn't say that it is the "worst offender." I've seen much worse.
Such as any tag line for straight-to-video releases for movies like Python, ect.!
To each his own, I guess.

 

[Rob W]

Keith ;

Don't you see any irony at all in your post ? You won't see E.T. because of the lame marketing yet you DID see Domestic Disturbance ? The marketing for that movie is straight out of the Paramount Pictures urban thriller handbook. Everything about the commercials & campaign made it abundantly clear that this was nothing more than the assembly-line movie every respectable critic has told us it is.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Touchee. Actually, I went to Domestic Disturbance because my son wanted to see it. I should have been a bit more clear about that in the beginning. As I said originally, I wasn't that impressed. You could get the same film on a network movie-of-the-week.

"See it again..." has been heard to death on Disney videos in the past as well.

 

[Brad_W]

Keith, Also keep in mind (open mind?):

1. This will probably be your last chance to see it in the theater. Why miss it because of what "the trailer guy" said?

2. There will be new scenes... so not the same movie on your LD.

3. The score will be remastered... so not the same movie on your LD.

4. This will probably be your last chance to see it in the theater. Why miss it?

 

[Keith Paynter]

You make a fine point. I'm keeping an open mind. I'm just disappointed that Universal can't find a more original way to market this classic. That's been my beef from the start.

 

[Brad_W]

Keith,

I respect your beef with the advertising and heck advertising in general. I think that most of us were just shocked to hear that you wouldn't see this movie because of the tag line, advertising, or whatever.

Have you watched the Grinch on DVD (While I'm not personally going to recommend the movie itself positive or negative, keep in mind I get to see DVDs a few days before they are released for free - good or bad I don't lose anything, but time) and checked out the E.T. Trailer in DTS? Maybe that will get you excited about seeing a movie again that you already love. Plus, from the sounds of it your son will love E.T., but has probably seen it already via LD.

 

[Zack Scott]

Keith-

I was wondering if you would like the tagline for the film that I'm making right now.

To give you a little background it's a horror film where the killer is a woman on her period.

THe Tagline is "A Horror Film...For The Ladies"