Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Teaser 2

This is topic The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Teaser 2 in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002816

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-10-2014, 12:32 AM:

The week of 7/11 trailers includes a new teaser for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1. The studio decided this trailer is so super secret that it requires at KDM to keep us from viewing it early. Then they post the trailer on YouTube at 1:00 Eastern on Wednesday 7/9. Has it really gotten so bad that the studio has to lock a trailer delivered to theatres so it's not viewed before it can be published on the internet? What happened to the days when the push was to see the new trailer in theatres before it could be viewed online.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-10-2014, 12:40 AM:

I don't agree with you Justin. The internet has a larger audience, especially for the demographic for a movie like Mockingjay.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-10-2014, 12:54 AM:

Why can't they do both? Give one version to theaters only and another unique one to the internet only. They'll be making about 30 different trailers anyway so why not?

The studios COULD be helping to build up the theatrical audience, rather than just chip away at it all the time. It would help their bottom line in the long run.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-10-2014, 01:18 AM:

Mike, that's exactly the point. The studios keep minimizing the theatrical experience, and then talk doom and gloom about the future of theatres. They control the content. All they need to do is push it to theatres first.

Terry, I don't care how big the internet viewership is. The point is about doing things to enhance the theatrical experience. They could make a point to put the trailer out to theatres first and then release it to the internet after the weekend. Then they could advertise "See the new Mockingjay trailer on the big screen with Planet of the Apes this weekend". It creates something for people to talk about. The internet viewers will still be there on Monday or Tuesday. My point is about leveraging your product to maximize interest. And it's not like they are making a final push for a movie that opens next week.

Along this point, I remember when the first trailer for Star Wars Episode One debuted on Meet Joe Black. We had people coming to the theatre just to see that trailer. While the internet has cause viewer habits to change, I still think there is still plenty of room for studios to do things like this to create additional buzz.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-10-2014, 03:22 AM:

It wasn't Meet Joe Black. It was some awful piece of junk Fox put out, but it got respectable numbers because people would buy a ticket, watch the trailer and then leave.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-10-2014, 05:09 AM:

Wing Commander, a film that has since dropped off the face of the Earth, had the Star Wars Episode One trailer.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-10-2014, 09:56 AM:

Wing Commander had Trailer #2 in spring 1999. Justin is referring to the first trailer for Episode I, which was seen (initially) in autumn 1998 with Meet Joe Black and The Waterboy.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-10-2014, 02:31 PM:

Yeah that's it. I didn't realize that was trailer #2. I never pay attention to the trailer versions. Regardless Wing Commander got an awful lot of tickets sold (at least at the theater I was working at) for the trailer and not the feature.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-11-2014, 12:57 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't agree with you Justin. The internet has a larger audience, especially for the demographic for a movie like Mockingjay.

1) Yes and no. Often, they'll post trailers to be ads on videos. I know I'm not remotely the only person who skips those every time.

2) Putting it online first doesn't require locking it with KDMs. And the costs of putting it into theaters is the same whether they put it online first or not. So why not just put it on both at the same time? Now, you can say "But online just requires some automatic uploads and no wait time" which is fair but then, again, no kdm's are needed. And theatergoing viewing of the trailer wouldn't really reduce their online money much.

Chris

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-11-2014, 01:16 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Terry, I don't care how big the internet viewership is. The point is about doing things to enhance the theatrical experience. They could make a point to put the trailer out to theatres first and then release it to the internet after the weekend. Then they could advertise "See the new Mockingjay trailer on the big screen with Planet of the Apes this weekend". It creates something for people to talk about. The internet viewers will still be there on Monday or Tuesday. My point is about leveraging your product to maximize interest. And it's not like they are making a final push for a movie that opens next week.

While I do agree with you that the theatrical experience is pretty cool when it comes to teasers and trailers, the demographic for this movie likely does not care, nor will they go to see Planet of the Apes to see the trailer.

The trailer has 3.5 million views in less than 24 hrs, that is pretty impressive.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-11-2014, 01:11 PM:

Watching movie trailers in commercial movie theaters and watching them on a computer screen or mobile phone screen are two entirely different things. A movie studio will achieve the dramatic effect they're going after with a movie trailer far better in a commercial movie theater than they ever will with freaking YouTube.

In a movie theater the audience (or anyone who isn't sneaking peeks at Facebook or whatever on their phone) has their undivided attention directed at the screen. Most theaters have at least some kind of operational 5.1 surround system. That's going to trump the audio bullshit coming out of somebody's phone or computer speakers.

I'd take the view counts on YouTube with a grain of salt. You rarely have the viewer's undivided attention with that platform. They're multi-tasking with other things, like work, watching a TV show or even skimming through other tabs in their web browser.

Out of all those millions of YouTube views of the trailer, how many actual viewers will pony up the cash to see that movie in a first run theater? It's a good bet most of the viewers will take that small screen advertising experience and say, "I'll have to remember it when it comes out on RedBox." Or they might head to the torrent sites to find a small screen version they can watch now for free.

The only true motive I can see in movie studios releasing a trailer online first is getting Google to pay them a bunch of ad money. I'm kind of foggy on how the whole views thing works, but if you post a video that goes mega viral and racks up millions of views on YouTube apparently you'll get paid some serious money for it. Maybe studios are going after that angle.

Even if that was the motive, I think they would still be doing better using the commercial theater as the main showcase for new trailers and only letting that filter out to other online sites days or weeks later.

With all that being said, I don't watch movie trailers much anymore.

There's 2 huge problems with movie trailers these days.
1.: They show & spoil too much of the movie.
2.: They're VERY un-original.

Really the #2 thing is one that actually annoys me even more than all the spoilers. I feel like I'm watching a big screen version of audio-visual clip art. All the whoosing, thundering sounds have been done 1,000,000 times already. It's now just pretty fucking stupid anymore. That's often done in conjunction with all sorts of rapid flash & fade to black edits -which have also become very stupid. They re-use too many of the same ad tag lines, like "the ride of your life" or whatever.

We all know about the Save The Cat screenwriting clip art template book too many producers, directors and screenwriters use as a crutch on way too many movie projects. I feel like there has to be an equivalent to Save The Cat for movie trailers floating around somewhere.

Ultimately: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Teaser 2 trailer? Who gives a shit. Maybe I'll see the movie when it comes out in theaters, but I'm not going out of my way to watch a trailer of it on YouTube.
[Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2014, 01:19 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I feel like I'm watching a big screen version of audio-visual clip art. All the whoosing, thundering sounds have been done 1,000,000 times already. It's now just pretty fucking stupid anymore.

You hit the nail on the head there. Last time I was at CinemaCon I found myself getting totally bored with the trailers, especially with the overdone "boom" effect when virtually anything would happen. The trailers used to be my favorite part of conventions. Now they're just bombast with the cuts being so quick that you can't even tell what's happening, and one is just the same as another.

Maybe the idea is, they move so fast that you have to watch them more than once to figure out what's going on.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 07-11-2014, 01:29 PM:

You could say the key for the trailer doesn't work, and keep requesting new keys be made. I understand that that causes Technicolor and Deluxe money to have keys done. Then they could help put pressure(i.e. higher costs) on the film companies to stop the KDM madness for trailers. If the film company starts to see larger chunks of money going to something stupid like that, it would dissuade them from doing it in the future. I hit to the wallet usually gets peoples attention.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-11-2014, 02:45 PM:

Joe, you have it totally backwards. Technicolor and Deluxe make money by creating keys. Sure they probably have to eat the cost of making a 2nd or 3rd key, but they DID get paid to create the key for each screen in the first place. There is no way you could get enough theaters calling in claiming that their keys didn't work to even make a laughable dent in their profit. They WANT everything encrypted because they make more money.

Same thing for those stupid calls "have you ingested your drive yet"? They get paid to do that. It's a source of revenue, even though it's no different than calling a theater 10 years ago saying "did you build up your print yet?"

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-10-2014, 06:48 PM:

quote: Brad Miller

Same thing for those stupid calls "have you ingested your drive yet"?

Or, the calls from Deluxe: "Have you quality checked, "X-movie" yet?"

Then, the notes from the key emails on calling them up to verify your ingest, et.al.

Telemarketing at its best.

-Monte

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-10-2014, 08:00 PM:

Brad, you just told me I was wrong and then agreed with me. Yes they make money on the first key. Each additional time they make a key it costs them money and time, and they don't get to rebill for that. It may only be a little bit, but look how many companies obsess over small losses, totally ignoring the biggest ones.

I have a friend who works in CS at one of them (I won't say which to ensure he doesn't get in any trouble), and they are told repeatedly that any time they have to remake a key, it costs $30 in licensing, payroll and expenses (this is apparently something the accountants figured up), and that they should try to avoid making keys if possible. He hadn't said, but I would assume this also means they are also trying to impress upon them to make them right the first time. I don't hold that $30 as what is the end-all beat-all cost, and may not be the same for both, but I would say that sounds in the ball park. I mean how many different estimations of what it costs to make and distribute a print have we seen thrown around, I've seen 6000, 2700, 2200. etc. However, there is a cost associated, to remaking the keys, and you can be sure managers in the responsible departments look at those costs. Wouldn't you if you were in that position? I'm not saying the vice president lies away sleepless at night worrying about how much they spent on redoing KDM's.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2014, 08:10 PM:

Ok, I went back and re-read my post and it wasn't very clear. Let me reword.

Deluxe/Technicolor make money by creating keys. So it is in their best interest for everything to be encrypted.

The studios pay to have each key made. However if the key is "bad", the studio doesn't have to pay for the key to be made a second time. That money would be on the keymakers.

However I see now what you were trying to say. Maybe my post here better says what I was trying to say. [Wink]