MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Why Studios Don't Matter To Marketing

This one is on me, but it makes a bigger point.
I just found an e-postcard from Warner Bros for what I assumed was a Paramount movie… Fool’s Gold.
Why did I assume? Because this was a kind of film that Paramount was making over and over.
Of course, Warners made New Line franchise Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Fox style I Am Legend and Music & Lyrics, Universal style License To Wed, etc.
Of course, Paramount’s Beowulf was classic WB, Fox’s Epic Movie was pure Dimension, Universal’s I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was built for Sony, and Will Ferrell can’t seem to work for one studio for more than a few months… but hey, we even have Judd Apatow at Sony doing a Will Ferrell movie with John C Reilly as Will and flopping in December.
Only Disney is DISNEY these days.

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “Why Studios Don't Matter To Marketing”

  1. RocketScientist says:

    I really do enjoy doing marketing/advertising in this industry largely because the general population has no concept of brands by studio – it’s merely a game of properties, familiar or otherwise. We’re all getting to cycle through a multitude of genres, tapping into different markets, learning new ways of grounding a film into our daily lives.
    Unless you’re at Screen Gems.
    P.S. I thought FOOL’S GOLD was Paramount, too.

  2. eoguy says:

    I too was confused on I Am Legend pre-release and thought Fool’s Gold was a Paramount flick until I saw posters on Friday. It didn’t matter that I saw a trailer for Fool’s Gold on the Imax before watching I Am Legend — I still connected it with Paramount.

  3. LexG says:

    You know you see too many movies when you can recognize a studio’s FILM STOCK SHEEN.
    The overwhelming blue-with-orange-flesh-tonesness of FOOL’S GOOD was the key telltale sign of its WBness. It’d have been more powdery and less warm had it been Paramount.
    Universal is usually green-silver.
    Fox is yellow.
    Sony is pink.

  4. David Poland says:

    Interesting, Lex.
    I am not sure about it, but I will say that I can recognize a broadcast network from the tone of the image they are broadcasting.

  5. LexG says:

    How about 1990, when Fox released the VERY WB slate of Marked For Death, Edward Scissorhands, and Exorcist III?

  6. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “Beowulf” had the look of a Universal monster movie.

  7. Wrecktum says:

    I smell bullshit, LexG. How do you attribute different stock “sheen” to different studios? Are you a professional color timer? Since you’re an expert, you can tell me which studios print at which labs using which stock.

  8. mutinyco says:

    In the old studio days they each tended to more or less have their own looks.

  9. IOIOIOI says:

    Lex is right on with the different sheen of the studios. Lionsgate even has it’s own sheen that’s a dull white. Heat you are also right about the TV networks. This is also one of the reason that I have never ever been that much of a fan of CBS. Their tone gives me a headache if I watch too much of it.

  10. bmcintire says:

    A friend of mine had a one-day role on ONE LIFE TO LIVE back in the early 90’s and the head of make-up told him “Aboslutely no orange bronzing. This isn’t goddamned CBS.” Cracked me up.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Tell us more about these headaches, IOI.
    Beowulf didn’t look like a Universal horror movie, it looked like Stephen Sommers’ Van Helsing.

  12. Cadavra says:

    Which was a Universal horror.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    Not gonna argue that point.

  14. doug r says:

    I dunno. Fool’s Gold looked kinda Disney as in Touchstone or even Hollywood.
    “If it’s the Sphinx, it stinks.”

  15. IOIOIOI says:

    Jeff, it’s just not a nice tint.

The Hot Blog

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