SPECULATION Lets talk about the worst...

I agree with a poster a bit down the line. To my mind, Star Wars has a style of cinematography and editing that's unique. The shakey-cam footage from the troop lander and the digital zoom on the TIE chasing the Falcon are distinctly NOT stylistic choices that jibe with vocabulary.

I look at it this way - iw ould be like someone writing a sequel to Macbeth, but not using iambic pentameter.

 

There is one very good reason no matter what happens why TFA can't 100% suck

 

Didn't marketing for TFA start last December with the first teaser trailer? Followed by magazine features, convention panels, another teaser trailer and all that Force Friday stuff. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping Star Wars in the public awareness. The only thing left now is a full trailer plus TV campaign, although it feels a little soon for the latter.

 

I can share fears that not enough people are excited and that it won't make enough money. I think that kind of anxiety exists in every fan. However, I chose to do something about it. As I'm the organizer of a local Star Wars fan club in my town, I've made sure everyone at my work office (about 50 - 60 people) knows that this movie is coming out, has had the opportunity to view the trailers, and we have a countdown timer in our office kitchen to the premiere. Rather than worry about if casual fans or people new to Star Wars know about the film through marketing, I thought it would be much more productive to make it an exciting event for those around me.

I understand that not everyone's workplace is open to things like that, and I'm very lucky to work in an office that embraces its employee's uniqueness and hobbies.

 

I may be in the minority on this one, but for me, less is more. TFA itself will be the trailer for EP. VIII and IX in my book. I just hope the don't put the climactic battle in the trailer like they did with the Avengers Age of Ultron trailer.

 

I agree if they are quick glimpse out of context. However, if, for example, Luke shows up in the last 5 minutes of the movie to taunt Kylo Ren, they should not use this scene for the trailer to build hype.

 

So then it's your opinion that having 3 flops over a 4 year period is an indictment on Disney's marketing department? I'm curious, how are you arriving at the conclusion that the marketing department was to blame for those flops? Or that doing things any differently than they did would have made any difference in box office revenue? Are you aware that the Tomorrowland's rottentomatoes score was 51%, and that it was the highest rated of the three movies you are using as examples of Disney's marketing failures?

Can you name another movie studio that produces big budget films that has had fewer flops than Disney over the same period of time? Because if you'll look, Disney's recent record with tent-pole films is actually better than Universal, Sony or Fox.

What makes you believe that a successful marketing strategy for one movie will automatically work for another? Take Guardians of the Galaxy - a property that few people outside of the comic book world had ever heard of - wouldn't that present a different marketing challenge than a franchise that is know worldwide?

One thing you are certainly correct about is that we have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. Perhaps Disney has determined that Avengers Age of Ultron underperformed on its opening weekend due to a backlash created by over-saturating the market too early, and they are adjusting their strategy accordingly. Perhaps they are monitoring internet metrics, and are waiting for momentum for the Star Wars brand to lag before launching a new trailer - and maybe those metrics are continuing to rise even without a trailer. Maybe they believe that a concentrated marketing push closer to the release date is actually a better option for a film with unprecedented brand recognition and built in following.

You're more than entitled to your opinion, and you're certainly free to express it across however many threads we have going right now discussing this same subject. But this frequently repeated idea that Disney is screwing up the marketing for the Force Awakens, or that they're taking a huge risk - that isn't based on anything more than amateur opinions of some super hardcore Star Wars fans, whose beliefs are rooted more from a personal desire to get their next glimpse of the movie than any actual understanding of how marketing works.

By all means, go ahead and question Disney - we don't have much else new to discuss right now. Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's, but don't pretend that suggesting Disney is making a mistake makes you a "realist". Your views on this subject are pessimistic to be sure, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but they are no more realistic than those of anyone else outside of the industry.

 

Marketing was definitely the reason for John Carter's flop. I love those books, and was anticipating that movie for a long time, until the trailers and posters and everything came out and I knew no one would watch it based on that.

 

Maybe you're right, but the marketing/advertising in europe is not existing right now.
It seems that Disney don't want our money or does not need it.
By the way I never stated and "others too", that we are experts at marketing.
Currently it looks like Disney overslept the avertising start for TFA, particular in europe.
Not even the new books/comics/toys are available in most european countries.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 6, 2015, Original Post Date: Oct 6, 2015 ---

I agree with you.
I would have liked to see a second John Carter movie, I liked the first one, but I disliked the posters/trailers and the advertising campaign in general.
The whole advertising looked boring and back then I thought that I had already seen everything in the trailer, but better in other movies.

 

They should have been promoting it as being from the books that inspired all the movies you grew up loving.

 

There may well be some stylistic changes, but IMHO the two examples you mention have previous...

1. I always felt the Battle of Hoth had a lot of handheld camera work; especially the Rebel troops preparing for the arrival of the Imperials. Not exactly shakey, but it wasn't steadicam work!

2. AOTC was the first time I saw 'crash zooms' in a film. Both times in the final battle scenes with the clones. I really liked the effect and started noticing it in other things afterwards. I remember thinking "that's not very Star Wars" - but I guess it is now!

Anyway.. 1st post. Be gentle

 

I've been tempted to bring up the zoom effect from AOTC ever since people started to complain about it in the second teaser. Then I stopped and realized that probably wasn't a good defense because a lot of people will argue that one of the bigger problems in the prequels is they didn't feel or look like Star Wars. As for the marketing strategy, I can't speak intelligently on that due to the fact that I have zero experience in marketing, but like many of you I am DYING for anything Star Wars and I'm doing my best to stay positive about the film.

 

Not a chance...Disney spent over $4Billion (with a "B"). They're feeding (funding) & milking this cash-cow.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 6, 2015, Original Post Date: Oct 6, 2015 ---

Maybe too late - for what?!

So it's a good thing they spammed us with so much marketing and early full-length trailers back in 1977 or Star Wars would've bombed?

 

here, here

 

TFA cannot possibly be 100% stylistically true to the originals (or the prequels..hopefully); costume designs, starship and vehicle designs, the gritty look and textures, these are all in place - enough so that I can handle the occasional unsteady camera or sudden zoom. In fact, the short (woefully short) shot of the Stormtroopers ready to disembark.. I feel that the wobbly camera adds excitement to the shot, and that, having made the decision to use wobbly cam, this is the kind of action that fits that kind of camera work the best. It adds intensity; and I am sure they won't use it all that much, anyway.
(Now I'm imagining the prequel trilogy's endless conversation scenes done with shaky cam.)

Like someone said upthread, Attack of the Clones is not the best example but then again the sudden zoom during the battle on Geosnozis is far from being the worst offense in that movie.

Adding some new elements to the Star Wars palette is a good thing, in my opinion. It allows for an expansion of stylistic expressions, making the playing field larger for subsequent films. By locking down certain techniques or styles, it becomes harder to stay fresh creatively. Of course - it can go the wrong way, too.