The Brown Bunny

[cron]

nah...  that Postal Service song may be the most misplaced thing i've witnessed.

[ono]

Few points:

* Great films usually have great trailers.  Three that pop to mind immediately, although almost too obvious, are American Beauty, Eyes Wide Shut, and Magnolia (very much a music-video-esque ordeal).  Though many trailers are misleading, it is easy to smell a rat, and sense something is amiss when a trailer is vague or misleading, instead of hinting at what you're really gonna get.

* My impression of this film hasn't changed because of the trailer.  I have always been interested, much in the same way I'd be interested in a film in a similar vein like The Dreamers.  The bad buzz has only made people more curious, and having been made aware of this trailer now, my interest has been piqued even more.  I never had a negative predisposition towards this movie, despite what Ebert or any other critic has said.

* This uber-elite "you-stupid-American" tone is tired, and blanket statements like these are never justified.  Trailers are an artform in and of themselves.  It is incredibly interesting to see an idea compressed into two minutes -- an idea that is supposed to fill two hours.  Oftentimes it represents what may have been (i.e. what the director was striving for but couldn't quite get), but the few times it delivers what will be, in a dramatic film that actually reaches for something great, you know you are in for a treat, and that only heightens the anticipation.

[Finn]

I have high hopes for it too.

[Jeremy Blackman]

This uber-elite "you-stupid-American" tone is tired

Why didn't Pubrick tell me he's part of the uber-elite?

Of course his tone is condescending, but it's not like he's trying to start a nationalistic war. It's more Hollywood than it is Americanism. Commercialism is hardly isolated to this country... Rupert Murdoch, for example, is from Australia.

[Pubrick]

yes what i meant was any reasonably americanized society. if hollywood is a better word for it, substitute that in.

Trailers are an artform

trailers are marketing.

so we can deduce that marketing ppl are artists.

i guess that's where our opinion differs, i don't use the "A" term lightly.

[ono]

Your knack for twisting people's words never ceases to amaze.

Just a question, though: why can't trailers be both art and marketing?  As far as I see it, they are.  Same for posters and cover art and the like.  Reminds me of some thread around here where Ghostboy and modage had something good to say.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Your knack for twisting people's words never ceases to amaze.

Explain, then, how your thoughts were taken out of context and correct us with what you really meant.

[ono]

Not taken out of context.  Just used in a way that makes P seem superior yet again.  Rather than debate, he took two different things I said and juxtaposed them to fit his purpose, rather than interjecting a thought of his own.  Again, it's just very tired.  Like that whole "A" word comment.  Like art is some holy grail.  Sure, that's one opinion.  Not right or wrong, though.  Art is too pervasive to be given such gravity.  And as for the art vs. marketing debate, I just don't think there is any.  The art of a trailer is just what I explained earlier: that one can take two hours and compress it in to two minutes.  If it's successful, it's something great, even if it is used as a marketing tool to get butts in seats.

[NEON MERCURY]

........if i may butt in about this trailer issue......

ono, "great films have great trailers".i agree but what  makes them great is the originality of those films trailers............personally , i think the greatest trailer of all time is actaully the requiem for a dream teaser........that motherphucker is the reason why i would sell my body for a camera........and i dont want to put words into Pubricks mouth but i think hes talking about fake/trendy trailers.....and i agree with his points...i just hope i am correct in his context

[ono]

Then I'll give him that.  I can definitely understand/relate to that.

It's late, though.  So as Barry and the Mattress Man say, "That's that."

[Pubrick]

haha, seriously ono, relax.

we're arguing about trailers as purely marketing, then u go calling them an artform. so it's a logical deduction that u just called marketing ppl artisits. i was happy to conclude the debate on that major difference of opinion. i just don't think of marketing assholes as artists, what's wrong with that.

the craft of condensing two hours into 2 minutes is a dubious skill at best. what ur referring to is best exemplified in the ART of music videos, where actual original ideas can be communicated in a revolutionary way. when someone brings out a collection of trailers by acclaimed marketing ppl, a la "directors label", and it is regarded by most cognitively-functioning ppl as more than another collection of "world's greatest commercials", u may hav a point.. and i may shoot myself.

the task assigned to trailers today is hardly worth applauding. when marketing ppl "condense" the premise, conflict, and climax of a story they are simply following a formula meant to reach the largest possible audience on opening weekend. is that not true? trailers are only useful for the period before a film is released, once it is seen by a few idiots especially after a few years, word of mouth and the opinions of ppl u trust is what makes u want to see a movie. they are the most tedious aspect of the filmmaking process, and the only time they are ever worth remembering is when a director himself imbues sum spark to the trail of crap as in the case of Eyes Wide Shut (or even better, the shining).. which he does only because he has to. if he doesn't, no one will.

and don't get me started on non-gondry music videos that include clips from movies. oy!

[coffeebeetle]

I'm sticking with Ono on this one.  The mere fact that the two of you are debating whether trailers are indeed artforms argues that it IS an artform.  I'll (admittedly) use the tired adage: It's open to interpretation.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Not taken out of context.  Just used in a way that makes P seem superior yet again.  Rather than debate, he took two different things I said and juxtaposed them to fit his purpose, rather than interjecting a thought of his own.  Again, it's just very tired.

I do that all the time. He picked apart your argument a little and made a logical connection. How is that illegitimate?

The mere fact that the two of you are debating whether trailers are indeed artforms argues that it IS an artform.

Can you expand on that, please?

Are you saying that anything that's interpreted is art? There are very dry logical interpretations (like... finding your car keys) that are probably not art forms. Art loses meaning if it can be anything. Defining art definitively as "anything interpreted" is just as arrogant as saying "this is art and this isn't," because criteria for personal connection to art and appreciation for art is by definition subjective.

what ur referring to is best exemplified in the ART of music videos, where actual original ideas can be communicated in a revolutionary way.

I think that's really the question. What is the idea behind the trailer? "See this movie"?

the only time they are ever worth remembering is when a director himself imbues sum spark to the trail of crap as in the case of Eyes Wide Shut (or even better, the shining).. which he does only because he has to. if he doesn't, no one will.

If the filmmaker does have the pure intention of making an innocent little preview that's as decommercialized as the medium allows, how relevent is motive if the resulting idea is apparently independent of the trailer system?

[Finn]

Okay..okay....stop talking!

[coffeebeetle]

Well obviously it wouldn't be relevent.  But it would lean more toward's the director's vision, perhaps garnering more "respect".

By the way, I find this argument very interesting.  And now I'll