Colin McMahon

Marketing Method: The Lego Movie

Posted on February 8, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Believe it or not, Legos have actually existed since 1949. As early as the 1960s, there were Lego sets: knights, pirates, vikings, dinosaurs – that sort of thing. In the 1990s: Lego opened up the licensing game and since then we’ve had Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter and even Avatar: the Last Airbender in Lego form. There have been fifty Lego video games, again from originals like Lego Island (which every 90’s kid owned) to licensed products like Lego Pirates of the Caribbean. Fifty games… and that’s not counting the Lego board games that also exist. There have also been Lego TV movies, Lego books, Lego clothing… Legoland. In short: since 1949 Lego has done everything possible with their product except a theatrical motion picture… until now.

2014 sees the release of the LEGO Movie. As stated before: this is the company’s first foray into theatrical pictures. Very likely it will not be the last. Before I go any further I want to stress that I still have not seen the LEGO Movie. I will in fact be seeing it later today but that is besides the point. This is not a review of the film but rather a critique in how they advertised it. For starters, the teaser trailer below:

Notice anything right away? Lego is pretty proud of the licensed characters they have. That and the movie looks… okay? It’s hard to tell, only a teaser after all. Let’s look at the trailer:

Wow they really want the audience to know that Batman is in this. He is the first character we are introduced to in the trailer. This raises warning signs. Primarily: licensing is more important than plot. In all honesty, this trailer did little to entice me into viewing the LEGO Movie as anything more than a quick cash-in aimed at the kids. Sure I (like most people alive) grew up with Lego, but I don’t see any of the Legos I grew up with in the trailer.

Instead I was easily able to guess which DC superhero had been the most profitable in the last ten years. Every scene in the trailer that focused on the “movie” part of the LEGO Movie also came off as either a quick joke (in most cases not a very funny one) or a very generic piece of the family movie experience pie: i.e. the love interest, the “believe-in-yourself” inspiration. The trailer ended with the expected voice cast celebrity highlights as well.

Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? The LEGO Movie remembers... — Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? *The LEGO Movie* remembers…

Needless to say: I personally was not expecting much from the LEGO Movie. Consider this a pleasant surprise. Not only is the LEGO Movie supposed to be good: it’s supposed to be very good. Ty Burr, of the Boston Globe, echoed my surprise: “My fingers rebel, but type it I must: “The LEGO Movie” is the first great cinematic experience of 2014“. That’s pretty high praise and again: he’s not the only one saying it. This appears to be a rare occurrence where the previews do not do the final product justice.

Lego should be mighty pleased with the film they put out… but they may want to have a word with their advertising team. Kids: yes, the trailers appealed to kids – but they were going to see it anyway. It should not be a surprise (albeit a welcome one) that this film can appeal to Lego fans of any age. After all: who at this point, did not grow up with Lego?

On a side note: who was the Lego Super Star Destroyer made for? No one who could actually assemble it could likely be publicly proud that they did so.

Leave Harry Potter Alone, J. K. Rowling!

Posted on February 5, 2014 by Colin McMahon

In 2007, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released. The seventh book in the series concluded the adventures of Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger. The three finished Hogwarts, defeated Lord Voldemort and went on to live happily ever after. In short: series done. With this finale came the expected sadness. The adventures were over and, short of fanfiction, there would be no future installments to talk about with friends. What a horrible existence. Thank god for J.K. Rowling.

Less than four months after she finished with Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling came out to announce the important facts not already covered by her book series. Burning questions were answered and finally everyone knew: Dumbledore was gay. Obviously questions were asked after this revelation by a thankful reading public. Gratitude-filled inquiries like: “What does this have to do with the series?” and “Why did she say that?” and “Who really cares?”. Yes, everyone was happy. J.K. Rowling especially. For an arbitrary declaration, she got to see her name once more decorate the headlines. It was like casting a magic spell.

J.K. Rowling: boldly answering questions that no one asked.

Evidently J.K. Rowling enjoyed the response to her post-series declarations so much that she decided to do it again. Very recently, the author has come out with new information: Hermione should have ended up with Harry Potter. It’s funny how well those old questions reapply themselves here.

Rowling isn’t the first author to be unable to let go of her beloved creation. Look no further than J.R.R. Tolkien to see an author who became consumed with his created universe. The difference here is: Tolkien kept writing books to expound upon the history of Middle-Earth. What a sucker. J.K. Rowling hasn’t made a significant contribution to Harry Potter in years and her name still keeps making headlines.

Tolkien's long-winded announcement of "Frodo and Sam are gay." — Tolkien’s long-winded announcement of “Frodo and Sam are gay.”

True, Rowling could write another book. One shaped by her personal growth and more reflective upon the universe, but that would be too drastic. A book like that would completely change the tone of the series and might, in all likelihood, discard or contradict everything said in previous installments. I mean, no other book in history has done that, at least no other really famous book in history… like really really famous:

Almost as if it were written over hundreds of years by many different authors.

Okay but when is lightning going to strike twice?

I know I’ve been really tongue-and-cheek, but a serious comparison does exist here for Rowling. George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, angered his fans for years with constant and continued changes to his creations. Lucas’ defense was simple: he made it, he decides what’s best. But is that true with major works? There is a real argument to be made that creations such as Harry Potter and Star Wars have become bigger than their creators. They have entered the public space and thus: belong to the public.

This documentary explores the notion of ownership. Really a sequel could be made that focuses on Rowling.

That same public does not want the change. If J.K. Rowling has new insights to say on Harry Potter then new books should be written. Sequels, prequels (look how well those worked out for George Lucas), just something new. At the moment: no such plan exists. There was a joke released last year that claimed Rowling was working on new installments, but it was just that.

Who knows what the future will bring for Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling. Maybe next year she’ll announce that she regrets writing the fifth book, or that Harry should have ended up with Ron or that she never should have written that unbelievably sappy epilogue to end her series. The good news for the fans is this: Harry Potter won’t change. There is an advantage to books over movies: it’s that much harder to make Special Editions.

The Super Bowl & Remembering Philip Seymour Hoffman

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Yesterday saw two impacts to our media world: one positive (maybe) and one decidedly negative. I will open with the impressions of Super Bowl XLVIII: the showdown between the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks. In my lifetime, I have been blessed to see many spectacular NFL championships: from the New England Patriots’ dramatic upset of the St. Louis Rams back in 2001 to the even more unpredictable Super Bowl XLII. Whether my team won or lost: those games were phenomenal. Last night… was not one of those games. The Seattle Seahawks scored five points fewer than the total number of Super Bowls while Denver quarterback, Peyton Manning, had an evening that had previously only existed in his worst nightmares. There isn’t much else to say about the actual Super Bowl game itself: a disappointing, one-sided blowout to end an exciting, up-and-down NFL year. But since when has the Super Bowl been about football?

111.5 million people tuned in to watch Super Bowl XLVIII. The NFL event has become the largest opportunity for television advertising in history and rest assured: companies brought their “A” game. Toyota, Doritos, Budweiser and even Stephen Colbert. Every big product was present last night, taking advantage of the air time while it is still profitable. It is no secret that the world of television advertising is dying. For many people, internet streaming has rendered commercials irrelevant. The media circus that is the Super Bowl represents the last night that television is still king. For that reason alone, it is interesting to watch. Television and the NFL: two American enterprises facing a world of challenge and change in the 21st century.

As much as I know the film will be horrible, I can't deny that part of me wants to see more of this. — As much as I know the film will be horrible, I can’t deny that part of me wants to see more of this.

In terms of movie advertising, those claiming that Hollywood is bereft of originally get another example to add to their evidence. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Captain America: the Winter Soldier, and Transformers: Age of Extinction represented three movies that might very well be among the highest grossing for the year. The obscure Need for Speed adaptation also deserves mentioning as it demonstrates Hollywood’s continued inability to see video games as a source of serious revenue (seriously, we’re getting that before Bioshock or Halo?). Anyway, those are the Super Bowl highlights: enjoy or criticize at your leisure.

—

The other, much more important, event that occurred yesterday was a tragedy. Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of the most talented actors in Hollywood, passed away at the young age of 46. The Oscar-winning actor was found dead in his New York home from apparent heroin overdose.

I’m always unsure of what to say when these incidents occur. There are many out there who will argue that this death is no more tragic than any other that occurred that day, and that the media glorifying one man misses the larger scope of everyone else who lost their lives. That is true: every death is a profound loss. In some ways, Philip Seymour Hoffman is no different than the countless other heroin addicts who have lost their lives to this unfortunate drug. In some ways. In others: the difference is night and day.

Obviously, I did not know Philip Seymour Hoffman personally, but that did not stop him from having an impact. He was a character actor. Not the most physically attractive human being, or someone from a well known family: this is a man who ran on talent. When Hoffman spoke, he did so in a calm and intelligent manner, reflecting someone who put a great deal of thought into what he did. From Capote to Moneyball, to most recently The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and A Most Wanted Man, there is no film that he simply “appeared in”. Philip Seymour Hoffman left presence and personality in every one of his movies.

It is unknown if Philip Seymour Hoffman filmed his scenes in the upcoming film, Mocking Jay. — It is currently unknown if Philip Seymour Hoffman filmed his scenes in the upcoming film, *Mocking Jay*.

If his life can be seen as a tragedy, it can also be viewed as a triumph. Hoffman’s drug problems began early on, before any of his films. He rose past them. Not only that: he became famous, a name to be known around the world. Philip Seymour Hoffman is an inspiration to what heights lives can reach, as well as a caution against the human struggle with past mistakes and substance abuse. Yes, in some ways he was just a man: one of many. What makes him worth remembering is what he did with those humble beginnings.