David Thomson writes…
"After the dark and the size of the screen, nothing is more important to an audience than not knowing anything about the story they are about to see. And all too often these days, the critics and the public have a bored way of knowing in advance."
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
marketing departments have to sell the film. maybe one film the past 5 yrs has been sold without revealing anything about it. the sixth sense. every other movie is overloaded with characters, spoilers, 3 min trailers, etc. forget walking into a theatre knowing nothing. don’t u wanna walk in with a chance to see a good film? if i walked into a dark theatre and without a paddle came in, id be bummed.
Trailers have gotten ridiculous in terms of how much they give away. I think they can sell a movie without giving it all away. Most trailers give away all three acts these days. It’s so refreshing to see a movie you don’t know anything about, even if the movie turns out to be less than great. I saw Red Lights, Code 46 and Birth knowing little to nothing about them. I liked all three just for that reason.
sometimes i’d rather see the trailer. with bad movies. cause then i feel i saw the whole thing in 2 minutes and didn’t waste my time
Very true bob. Like with The Pacifier or XXX: State of the Union. Not that I had planned on seeing either one anyway, but seeing the trailer was the nail in the coffin.
I have now seen The Pacifier six times. For free. Take that Vin Diesel.
Actually, take that you. What the hell are you doing seeing “The Pacifier” six times? Geez, I hope you’re only talking about the trailer.
I hope someone pays me to see The Pacifier…
Trailers have ALWAYS GIVEN TOO MUCH AWAY! Go back
and watch any trailer from the 90’s on back. This
has been going on forever. Anyone who complains
about trailers obviously knows little about the
marketing of film for decades.
It’s A Wonderful Life trailer gives it all away.
As does the Citizen Kane trailer. It has always
happened. It always will.
You may be able to find certain examples from the past, but has it really ever been as bad as it is now? I doubt it. 30 years ago did a majority of movies have three-minute trailers that gave away the entire movie?
L&DB is right — if you compare today’s trailers with just about any trailer from the 60’s or 70’s, you might be surprised at how much those older ones give away. Oftentimes the narration is practically just a synopsis of the movie. If anything, they’ve become less revealing over the decades, as marketing departments develop more sophisticated ways to massage and distort films to the point where the trailer has very little to do with the movie itself.
Teasers might do a good job of not revealing much about the movie, but the actual trailer is a totally different story.
u shouldn’t need much more than a teaser. if its well made
Mr. Thomson of all people should realize that at least historically this is not true. Trailers, and previews have always given too much information. And infact people like knowing a lot about the the movie that they are going to see. That’s why people read the book before they see the movie, or complain when trailers are too short, and don’t explain what the movie is about. I don’t know how many times I have been sitting in a theater and some one behind me complains about a trailer being obtuse, or “What was that?” People don’t gravitate to what they don’t understand, instead they like what they know, and so we have genre’s, and the same cliched stories told over and over.
JKP is right, if anything, trailers tell us LESS nowadays than they used to. Watch old trailers on DVDs and they literally show you the final scene from the movie sometimes!
It’s just nowadays they show alot because there are so many movies released every Friday that they want people to see there’s and they want to show people as much as they can.
And you have to remember that trailers are, predominantly, for the majority of movie goers who don’t spend their time reading up on the movies on the internet. They want to know if they should be spending anywhere up to $20 on 1 movie.