How Movie Trailers Trick Us — Alan Zilberman

Posted on March 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm

My friend and fellow critic Alan Zilberman has a great blog post on how trailers trick us. He uses examples like “Battle: Los Angeles” to illustrate the way that trailers “use clever obfuscation to make our imaginations work against us.”
Of course, that’s their job.
And it’s a very specialized expertise. There are companies that do nothing but make trailers (remember, Cameron Diaz owned one in “The Holiday”). Almost-completed movies are delivered to them, many of them not very good. In a way, the good ones are harder to summarize. But in any case, the job of the trailer is not to accurately represent the movie; it is to get you to buy a ticket.
Zilberman’s description of the “Battle: Los Angeles” trailer could apply just as well to most of what is out there:

The trailer works because a) it reveals little about the movie and b) it makes you want to see it anyway. Watching the trailer again, its composition can be seen as clever marketing or – as I hope to demonstrate – a cynical ploy.

By presenting tense images without context, it forces the viewer to imagine what, precisely, is happening. There’s no need for basic storytelling elements like characters or plot, as we’re more than willing to create the heroic/crazed situations these figures find themselves in. Moreover, the juxtaposition of sci-fi action and haunting music suggests heft/drama that’s not necessarily there.

And Wikipedia describes the classic trailer structure:

Most trailers have a three-act structure similar to a feature-length film. They start with a beginning (act 1) that lays out the premise of the story. The middle (act 2) drives the story further and usually ends with a dramatic climax. Act 3 usually features a strong piece of “signature music” (either a recognizable song or a powerful, sweeping orchestral piece). This last act often consists of a visual montage of powerful and emotional moments of the film and may also contain a cast run if there are noteworthy stars that could help sell the movie.

Some trailers affirmatively misrepresent movies to make them seem more — or sometimes less — violent or racy than they really are. My current favorite example is the commercial for “Gnomeo & Juliet.” In the sweet, G-rated movie, there’s a brief sight gag of a garden gnome wearing a thong. When he walks away we get a little glimpse of ceramic gnome tushie. In the commercial, for some reason they show that scene but cover him up with a CGI-added pantie. Of course this takes away the entire reason for having the shot in the commercial in the first place. Steve Zahn got a similar pair of CGI underpants in the trailer for “Saving Silverman,” disguising what in the movie is some nudity and crude humor.
Cracked has my all-time favorite parody of movie trailers — you have to watch it a couple of times to get just how perfect it is.

Related Tags:

Advertising

Darth Vader Loves Volkswagen

Posted on February 5, 2011 at 8:00 am

I love this commercial!

Thanks to my friend Sammie Young for sharing this with me.

Related Tags:

Advertising Smile of the Week

Worst Commercial of the Month

Posted on November 10, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Does anyone think it makes sense to have a commercial with a child telling you which SUV is cool? The only thing the Toyota Highlander ad makes me want to do is call child protective services to kidnap that kid for a deprogramming and a serious lesson in family dynamics and basic economics. I know that no child is in a position to buy a car, but this commercial is selling them something much more dangerous — the idea that material possessions determine what is “lame” and that children should tell their parents what to buy.

Related Tags:

Advertising

Say No to Informercials Masquerading as Programs for Kids

Posted on October 3, 2010 at 3:57 pm

The FCC has issued a call for public comment on the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s petition that the upcoming Nicktoons children’s television show Zevo-3 violates the public interest. It is the first children’s show to feature commercial spokescharacters; the stars are characters whose only previous existence was in commercials for Skechers shoes. CFCC believes the show violates the Children’s Television Act and FCC policies that limit the amount and kind of advertising in children’s television programs. Comments must be filed by October 18.
Zevo-3, produced by Skechers (the footwear giant) is scheduled to begin airing on Nicktoons on October 11. The animated series stars superheroes named Kewl Breeze, Elastika, and Z-Strap and a villain named Dr. Stankfoot who, until now, have only been used in advertisements to promote specific lines of Skechers shoes. The characters were originally created by Skechers for comic books distributed in shoe boxes and have also appeared in numerous Skechers’ television ads. Since the characters themselves have always only been ads, CFCC says that the show’s broadcast will violate the time limits for commercial matter in kids’ TV shows (12 minutes per hour on weekdays) and FCC policies that call for strict separation of commercial matter and programming.
Children are not clear on the difference between programming and advertising, and blurring the line further by putting advertising characters into programs turns them into an infomercial. Zevo-3 is the first children’s program based on advertising logos. Its main characters, Elastika, Kewl Breeze, Z-Strap and the evil Dr. Stankfoot have only appeared in advertisements for Skechers shoes. Zevo-3 violates policies designed to protect children from overcommercialization on television such as the limits on commercial matter (12 minutes per hour on weekdays) and clear separation between commercial matter and programming. It escalates commercialism in children’s media and will open the floodgates for a slew of children’s programming based on spokescharacters such as Ronald McDonald, The Burger King, and Tony the Tiger. The CCFC’s petition is asking the Commission to uphold the few laws and rules that exist to protect children–not asking the FCC to create new rules.
This isn’t the first time a corporation has tried this: In 1992, Fox planned to air a show based on Chester Cheetah, the Cheetos spokescharacter. However, when advocates petitioned the FCC, the show was pulled. In the intervening eighteen years, there has been no development of children’s television programming based on advertising spokescharacters – until now. Zevo-3 might be the first, but unless it’s stopped it won’t be the last. Public opinion will matter, and it’s essential that the advocacy, public health, and education communities weigh in on behalf of children. That’s why the FCC needs to hear from parents, teachers, and other concerned adults.
The deadline for comments in October 18 and it does not need to be more than a single sentence: I support the CCFC’s efforts to enforce the existing FCC regulations and policies by protecting children from commercials masquerading as programming in Zevo-3. Be sure to refer to #10-190.
If you are filing your comment as an attachment (Word or .pdf), you can upload your submission.
Or, type or cut and paste a brief comment into the FCC’s express form.
CCFC’s petition and the supplemental material provide more background.

Related Tags:

Advertising Marketing to Kids Parenting

Don’t Trust the Toy Lady

Posted on September 17, 2010 at 8:00 am

The LA Times reports that back to school reports on a number of national and local newscasts have included commentary from “a young mother and ‘toy expert’ named Elizabeth Werner,” described as “perky and positive-plus” in her demonstration of seven recommended toys for children. She talks about all the things the toys do in her segments on the air, but does not mention one fact parents might like to know — she is paid $11,000 for each toy she presents by the same company that is hoping you will buy them.
James Rainey points out that it is a violation of FCC rules for a news program to present a sponsored segment without disclosing that it is, in effect, an ad. It is also a violation of journalistic ethics which even chirpy morning shows are supposed to uphold.
Rainey, who by example demonstrates exactly what those standards are for, notes that

Werner is a lawyer who worked for a couple of toy companies before she went into the promotion business. She told me that the company that hires her to do the tours — New Jersey-based DWJ Television — scrupulously notifies TV stations that toy makers pay for the pitches. DWJ founder Dan Johnson, an ABC News veteran of decades gone by, said the same.

So I picked three stations and morning programs that Werner visited over the summer — Fox 2 in Detroit, Fox 5’s “Good Day Atlanta” and the independent KTVK’s “Good Morning Arizona” in Phoenix to see how they plugged the Werner segments. A spokesperson for the two Fox stations and the news director at the Phoenix outlet told me they had been told absolutely nothing about Werner being paid to tout products, which ranged from a Play-Doh press to a new Toy Story video game to the Paper Jamz electronic guitar.

He notes that the burden is not on the promoter who is being paid but on the news programs, who should always be suspicious of anyone who claims to be an expert, especially one who is touring the country without any visible means of support.
The burden, unfortunately, is on parents, who must also learn to be skeptical about “experts” who are just live-action versions of Marge the manicurist or Mr. Whipple the store manager.