By David Poland

The Producers Trailer (America)

Not only is the trailer for The Producers a vast improvement over the one that leaked out from Europe a few months ago, but it is one of the best marketing examples in recent months.
*They get in a good 4 or 5 big laughs in 2 minutes.
*They address any question people might have about Uma Thuman singing and dancing by showing Uma singing and dancing.
*Unlike the Eruo-trailer, they set up jokes properly and let them play.
*It targets its audience clearly. “I’m not going into the toilet… I’m going into show business!”
It really is a fine piece of cutting, encapsulizing some scenes in just three or four shots without laying on the jokes. Cutting quik shots from “Springtime For Hitler” is really nicely done.
And though Um and Will Ferrell get an imbalanced amount of time in the trailer, I think it works well. Can’t wait to see how it plays for an audience.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “The Producers Trailer (America)”

  1. Prof. Xavier says:

    It looked like … the stage musical. Just with a better view than from the balcony seats. Will people really pay to see the same thing they probably paid scalper prices to see on Broadway?

  2. Bill says:

    as with PHANTOM, the trailer fails to actually show anyone singing, like in a musical (Farrell is on a stage)…except for Uma’s note or two. this is the wierdest phenomenon i’ve ever witnessed in movie marketing. studios seem terrified to promote musicals. the CHICAGO trailer did the same thing (they showed JONES doing “All That Jazz” on a stage, but no one else sang). This is like a sci-fi or fantasy film trying to hide its special effects. when will they realize that the public knows perfectly well what a musical is. we were all brought up on them…OZ, SOUND/MUSIC, SESAME STREET, etc. etc. etc. with videos in the house, kids have been given access to musical entertainments more often than older generations. this is ludicrous. big stage shows are making billions (unlike movies). proper marketing will tap into that lucrative audience. hollywood, once again, doesn’t get it.

  3. en says:

    Why are they advertising the fact that Mel Brooks didn’t direct?

  4. Cadavra says:

    “Why are they advertising the fact that Mel Brooks didn’t direct?”
    DGA contractual obligation. If you say the name of either the writer or the producer (in this case, Mel is both), then you must mention the name of the director as well.

Quote Unquotesee all »

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