Trailers – Colin McMahon

Marketing Method: Jurassic World

Posted on June 3, 2015 by Colin McMahon

Fourteen years ago, Jurassic Park III hit theaters (yes, you are that old). The film received mixed reviews with many people calling it more fun than The Lost World… but also more stupid. The “they’re not monsters, they’re animals” approach championed by Steven Spielberg was gone, replaced instead with “here’s a new dinosaur… bigger and more terrible than T-Rex.” Granted, Jurassic Park III never pretended to be anything more than a simple thrill ride, just watch the trailer:

Three big things to take away from that trailer: 1. Dr. Grant is back!!!!!!! 2. Raptor intelligence. 3. New dinosaur – bigger and meaner than Tyrannosaurus.

While some enjoyed this approach, it is worth noting that Jurassic Park III was both the worst reviewed critically of the series (49% on Rotten Tomatoes and 42 on Metacritic) and the least profitable. The film grossed only 368 million with a 93 million budget, Lost World by comparison grossed 618 million with a 73 million dollar budget.

So while the film was an experiment, it does not seem like one the producers would like to repeat. Let’s look at the trailer for the brand new entry, Jurassic World:

Three big things to take away from that trailer: 1. Star-Lord is in Jurassic Park!!!! 2. Raptor Intelligence. 3. New dinosaur – bigger and meaner than Tyrannosaurus.

Wait…

Yeah, it seems like at least one part of the Hollywood machine, Jurassic World‘s marketing, is very content to recycle the old hooks of Jurassic Park III. Both films also share a similar “over the top” approach. Jurassic Park III includes shots in a river, in a giant bird-cage, in a lot of environments to add spectacle. Jurassic World shows much the same… adjusted from 2001 to 2015 (over the top means so much more today).

It is hard to claim you are making any kind of serious movie when this is a shot in the trailer.

This marketing move is perplexing, given how the last film was received. While some fans enjoyed Jurassic Park III‘s ride, many wanted a return to the more intelligent Spielberg approach. Instead, audiences will be treated to Indominus Rex, the new dinosaur created by genetic modification… of all the largest and most dangerous dinosaurs into one… cause that sounds intelligent.

They should have just gone all out and added the DNA of Adolf Hitler... cause it might look cool with a mustache. — They should have just gone all out and added the DNA of Adolf Hitler… cause it might look cool with a mustache?

Indeed Indominus Rex has found itself at the center of Jurassic World’s marketing, and the controversial reaction to it. While some have expressed excitement, others have voiced the same critical words that Chris Pratt’s character states in the trailer: “doesn’t seem like a good idea.”

Escalation is a typical strategy in Hollywood sequels: bigger means better. Jurassic Park has been a film franchise that has followed this philosophy with every sequel. One T-Rex became two, became a Spinosaurus, became an Indominus Rex. What’s next? Two cloned dinosaurs… are they planning to give it wings? The problem with this approach is that it all says one thing: what is there isn’t exciting without something new added. In this case dinosaurs… dinosaurs are not exciting without new and better dinosaurs. What?

Dino Riders: the logical conclusion. Also, why has no one made a Dino Riders movie yet? — *Dino Riders*: the logical conclusion. Also, why has no one made a *Dino Riders* movie yet?

Granted, the story arch of the first Jurassic Park does not lend itself well to sequel material. There is a park that makes dinosaurs, dinosaurs get out, dinosaurs eat people – cut and we’re done. It isn’t an idea that demands “what comes next?”. The Lost World tried to change the formula, adding messages of conservation and naturalism vs. profiteering… to mixed results. Jurassic World looks squarely back in the first movie’s camp, however the trailer does contain some self-awareness that may be a sign that audiences are in for a treat. After all, Jurassic Park III had no character calling out how inane its central plot mechanic was.

Director Colin Trevorrow is untested, and that can be a good thing when it comes to injecting freshness into a series. However, two recent developments have further damaged excitement towards Jurassic World. Trevorrow has already said he has no plans to return for a sequel, which can be taken as either creative vision to do something else… or the studio was less than pleased with the final product. By itself, it is easy to assume the former, until we look at the early reviews… or lack thereof. As of right now: no critical review has been received on either Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. This is odd for a movie with such an imminent release. Pixar’s new film, by contrast, does not release until later than Jurassic World – and that already has reviews pouring in.

Time will tell what type of movie Jurassic World is. One thing seems already certain though, the Jurassic Park franchise marketing department needs to go extinct.

Unrelated note but am I the only one who also thinks these new toys are terrible? Seriously, it just looks like a mess of hard, jagged, plastic. Yeah, I want my child to play with that. I miss the old style figures.

Marketing Method: Godzilla (2014)

Posted on May 2, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Trailers can reveal a lot about a movie. They can showcase the plot, the tone, and the characters. Often times, a film audience can tell the quality of a film, based on its previews. This May, the second American Godzilla remake will release across the world. This 2014 makes another attempt at adapting the Japanese creation for American audiences. The first attempt in 1998… did not go well. Just to recollect, here is the teaser for the 1998 remake:

I still remember seeing that in front of Men in Black. At the time I thought it looked fun and badass. Godzilla was taking out a T-Rex – take that, Jurassic Park! Oh, what foreshadowing that was. Godzilla 1998 never did get past that image of the T-Rex and those movies that came out right before it. But, enough about this movie, maybe I’ll talk about it another time.

I would like to show you the first teaser to the 2014 film, but sadly it was never legally released. All I can say is that it exists online and is worth checking out. This time, there were no mentions made of T-Rex. Instead the teaser was solemn, filled with images of destruction and the following quote:

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people cried; most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'" — “We knew the world would not be the same. A few people cried; most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'”

The teaser concluded with that image of Godzilla roaring at the sky. It gave goosebumps and sent a message: this remake was trying to capture the tone of the 1954 original. The first Godzilla was not a fun action movie, I have already spoken about it at length. After the debacle in 1998, director Gareth Edwards wanted to send a message to Godzilla fans that his film would be different. Message received. Here is the first, publicly-shown teaser:

Leaves a different impression from the 1998 version, right? While both teasers are light on the actual plot and characters (as teasers often are), they mainly exist to showcase a tone. The 1998 teaser was light and fun, while the 2014 teaser provided shots of death and destruction. Godzilla himself was also featured much more heavily in the 2014 teaser: showcasing the monster as the main presence of the film.

In the trailers since then, this image has been reinforced. The audience has gotten snippets of plot (Bryan Cranston appears to be a scientist, Aaron Johnson is his son, the soldier) and how Godzilla is being presented. He is shown as a force of nature. An unstoppable juggernaut that even nuclear bombs cannot slow down. The shots are dark, often set at night or filled with shadow. There is very little normalcy shown, the audience instead being treated to soldiers, scientists, and other figures who are playing central roles in the action (there is only one shot of a “happy couple” dynamic in any of the trailers).

This looked like a disaster movie, when mankind trying to survive Godzilla instead of a volcano or meteor. Then came the first real trailer, and another factor was added to the mix. Godzilla is not the only monster in this movie.

While it is hard to say exactly what MUTO is (other than a bug), this monster is definitely not Godzilla.

Dubbed M.U.T.O., there isn’t much known about this adversary, other than it is an original creation (there is no Japanese film where Godzilla fought Muto in the past). With the appearance of this new plot element, questions arise about the films tone. Can it still echo the somber nature of the 1954 film (Gareth Edwards spoken intention) while featuring something as blockbuster as a monster fight? The trailers seemed to back this up. That is, until the most recent one:

Of all the Godzilla marketing, this preview is the most apart, in terms of content and tone. While other previews spoke about Godzilla in very realistic terms (almost as if the events were actually happening), this one adds some definite movie lines. “No, a god”… really? A god…zilla, you mean? Yeah, it’s kinda cheesy. “Let them fight” also is marked departure. If destruction (and the horrors of) is a central theme, then why are the humans encouraging the giant monsters to battle each other?

The destruction is still highlighted, but this time it is also an effects shot.

It creates issues. The tone of the original Godzilla is what helped it to be such a powerful movie. If that tone is battling with say, another monster, it looks as though it is going to break down. Again, however, the trailers could be trying to simply appeal to a wider audience. Note back to that 1998 teaser: how prevalent were the children? Pretty easy to spot that film’s target audience. This new Godzilla has looked far more scary by contrast, and the marketing department may simply want to show that there are other elements of the film beyond Godzilla destroying things.

It remains to be seen just how well-made a movie this new Godzilla is. That said, the marketing has certainly done its job creating excitement for the movie. Whether the tones conflict or not: destruction, ominous lines, and dark shots of the monster seem to be all that is necessary to make an effective monster-movie trailer.

Oh yeah: and budget for believable special effects! Always forget that one.

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?