PDL tv spots

[edison]

The other two being?  (Just curious; IMO, there's a large pool to choose from, but some more outstanding than others, of course.)

I'll say that Wes Anderson is one of them, and for the other, uh, i'll go with the Requiem for a Dream guy, i cant fuckin remember his damn name.

[MacGuffin]

Yea, there was just something about them. I was getting chills hearing the narrator say "from the creator of Boogie Nights" or whatever, that was so cool.

I respect your opinion but personally have always hated that kind of advertising, pointing out previous work; so what can we expect, the same kind of movie? I know I don't because I'm very familiar with the works of PTA, but I wonder if the average viewer (meaning not film lovers like us) makes his/her own mind up about what to expect from such director, sure there are the trailers to lead in what everybody is about to see, and even those more than once tease you (EWS anyone?), but didn't mentioning prior work would make you think you're going to see a similar kind of film? Or at least something as good as the aforementioned?

The same feeling goes with when studios print in posters the infamous 'academy award nominee/winner', like if that alone would guarantee the film to be any good.

I'll say, let the trailer speak for itself.

Besides, IMO PTA is getting to the point that he no longer needs to do that, he might be right now among the three most respected young directors working today, and he's the best if you ask me.

From a marketing POV, it makes sense to do that. Their job is to get people's butts in the seats however possible. Audiences don't know or care who directed what film (Spileberg being an exception). They only care about the trailer for the film that's in front of them, and/or need to be reminded. So it makes sense to relate that film to the filmmakers' previous works. It can get an audience interested more, if they liked those films referenced: "Oh, I liked that film, I may check this one out." It's all about money. Advertisers have 2 minutes/30 seconds to make their film appealing to everyone in order to get people to pluck down their cash. As for the Oscar ads, you'd be surprised how that sways people to get to see a film. After "The Pianist" won its 3 Oscars, attendance rose. And, I'm sorry, but PTA is still not a household name, and many people still confuse him with the director of "Resident Evil". It may be one of the reasons for a lack of box office, but I think the studio did a fine job of marketing "PDL" as a director's film, or would you rather they put: "From the star of 'The Waterboy'" in the ads?

[Ernie]

Yea, there was just something about them. I was getting chills hearing the narrator say "from the creator of Boogie Nights" or whatever, that was so cool.

I respect your opinion but personally have always hated that kind of advertising, pointing out previous work; so what can we expect, the same kind of movie? I know I don't because I'm very familiar with the works of PTA, but I wonder if the average viewer (meaning not film lovers like us) makes his/her own mind up about what to expect from such director, sure there are the trailers to lead in what everybody is about to see, and even those more than once tease you (EWS anyone?), but didn't mentioning prior work would make you think you're going to see a similar kind of film? Or at least something as good as the aforementioned?

The same feeling goes with when studios print in posters the infamous 'academy award nominee/winner', like if that alone would guarantee the film to be any good.

I'll say, let the trailer speak for itself.

Besides, IMO PTA is getting to the point that he no longer needs to do that, he might be right now among the three most respected young directors working today, and he's the best if you ask me.

From a marketing POV, it makes sense to do that. Their job is to get people's butts in the seats however possible. Audiences don't know or care who directed what film (Spileberg being an exception). They only care about the trailer for the film that's in front of them, and/or need to be reminded. So it makes sense to relate that film to the filmmakers' previous works. It can get an audience interested more, if they liked those films referenced: "Oh, I liked that film, I may check this one out." It's all about money. Advertisers have 2 minutes/30 seconds to make their film appealing to everyone in order to get people to pluck down their cash. As for the Oscar ads, you'd be surprised how that sways people to get to see a film. After "The Pianist" won its 3 Oscars, attendance rose. And, I'm sorry, but PTA is still not a household name, and many people still confuse him with the director of "Resident Evil". It may be one of the reasons for a lack of box office, but I think the studio did a fine job of marketing "PDL" as a director's film, or would you rather they put: "From the star of 'The Waterboy'" in the ads?

Exactly man, I think marketing can be a beautiful thing when it's done right. It gets me pumped up everytime there's a film coming out that I want to see. I love it, it's actually what I plan to minor in if I can in college with film as my major. I love advertising in film and I hope to be a big part of it concerning my films in the future as PTA is with his. Like cutting the trailer and designing the poster and doing photo shoots for magazines and stuff...like hiring a photographer to be on the set to take all those awesome pictures, the ones that aren't just caps from the movie but original photos for the hype. Yea, I must do all that stuff.

And yea, PTA is far from a well known filmmaker outside the world of film geeks and critics. Nobody at my school has heard of him but quite a few of them have seen Boogie Nights...same with a lot of adults I talk to. So yea, I don't think they could have done a better job with the TV ads with the mention of BN rather than PTA by name...but then as I mentioned...I am biased because I'm a sucker for that stuff. Hopefully someday the simple "PT Anderson Picture" tag will be enough to get people in the theatre...no time soon though.

[Fernando]

From a marketing POV, it makes sense to do that. Their job is to get people's butts in the seats however possible. Audiences don't know or care who directed what film (Spileberg being an exception). They only care about the trailer for the film that's in front of them, and/or need to be reminded. So it makes sense to relate that film to the filmmakers' previous works. It can get an audience interested more, if they liked those films referenced: "Oh, I liked that film, I may check this one out." It's all about money. Advertisers have 2 minutes/30 seconds to make their film appealing to everyone in order to get people to pluck down their cash. As for the Oscar ads, you'd be surprised how that sways people to get to see a film. After "The Pianist" won its 3 Oscars, attendance rose. And, I'm sorry, but PTA is still not a household name, and many people still confuse him with the director of "Resident Evil". It may be one of the reasons for a lack of box office, but I think the studio did a fine job of marketing "PDL" as a director's film, or would you rather they put: "From the star of 'The Waterboy'" in the ads?

I agree from a marketing POV, but as I said, I personally don't like it, seems cheap to me (I could be very wrong), as for PTA not bieng a household name that's sadly also true, but I wonder if people who hated BN for its theme would like to see a film by that director, I guess because BN although controversial it was very well received by the press that they decided to advertise it like that and also because New Line respects deeply PTA (IMO).

About my comment on the oscars ads, I still stand by my comment that it doesn't make the film better, but again, from a marketing POV my opinion goes right down the drain.

Truth is that in terms of box office the studio made a huge mistake by not releasing the film widely by the second week, if you remember the first week figures  they were staggering, the average per screen was outstanding, it took them four weeks to go wide, that and the word of mouth killed the film, had they released it earlier probably would made a few more millions.

[oakmanc234]

Fernando wrote: Truth is that in terms of box office the studio made a huge mistake by not releasing the film widely by the second week, if you remember the first week figures they were staggering, the average per screen was outstanding, it took them four weeks to go wide, that and the word of mouth killed the film, had they released it earlier probably would made a few more millions.

True. That was a major fuck-up on the studios behalf. I'm still pissed about that to this day.

As for the 'PDL' ads, I personally loved that 'From the director of 'Boogie Nights' and 'Magnolia' comes the film that critics are calling...' in the TV spots. It got me hyped. I nearly shit myself the first time I saw it.