
When JJ Abrams conceived Super 8, his intention was to replicate those Steven Spielberg films of the 70s and 80s, where he discovered the magic in a movie theater and not by watching every reveal in a commercial. When Spielberg directed or produced films like Jaws, E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Poltergeist and Gremlins, finally seeing the creature was half the fun, and they were always kept secret until opening day.
Abrams and Paramount’s decision to embrace that retro marketing strategy on Super 8 has the movie marketing crowd buzzing. Even though an initial strong statement was made with a Super Bowl ad that showed a train crash and some creature pulverizing a steel train door, Paramount and Abrams have focused on character and given up little in the creature department in commercials that followed. Days from its Friday opening, rivals say that tracking numbers are soft and would be considerably stronger among young moviegoers had Abrams and the studio given up a glimpse of the creature and playing up that plot line. Rivals say that there is nervousness at Paramount because the studio has gone so far in embracing Abrams’ now famous desire for utmost secrecy. This is a bold gamble Paramount is taking, at a time when the mission of studio marketers is to deliver the highest possible opening weekend, no matter how many plot highlights and spoilers are sacrificed in TV spots. Several marketing experts I checked were buzzing with the assertion that Par’s decision to protect the purity of the movie-going experience could put the film in an opening weekend hole it will be hard pressed to recover from. They say the conservative campaign has left Super 8 lagging in key tracking categories behind Green Lantern and Cars 2, films that open in subsequent weeks.
Abrams and Spielberg took the stage during the Viacom-owned MTV Movie Awards to introduce a clip Sunday night, and while they introduced a new spot that conveys more menace than earlier trailers, they did not give away a glimpse of the creature. And the trailer people were talking about today was the new Twilight Saga spot. Here is that presentation:
Philosophically, Abrams is right. How frustrating is it to show up to a comedy or drama and discover that the best lines or visuals were spoiled by being repeated ad nauseum in trailers? Still, is it worth protecting those secrets at the price of leaving potential audiences indifferent and looking at other summer fare that puts all the bells and whistles in TV spots?
Insiders at Paramount tell me a different story. They say they’ve got a $50 million budget (word on the street is it cost a lot more) quality film that is being marketed “more for playability than a giant opening weekend.” According to this insider, if Super 8 opens at $25 million or better, it could be one of the more profitable films of the summer. If they hit their modest target with the help of word of mouth from audiences appreciative of seeing a crowd-pleasing movie with real surprises, then Paramount has a shot at replicating Universal’s recent run with Bridesmaids. Like Super 8, that was a modest budget film with little star power and subpar tracking that outperformed its tracking by grossing a surprising $26 million opening weekend. It’s on course to gross $150 million. While Paramount has different ambitions for its other summer fare like Thor and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, studio brass will be high-fiving each other if Super 8 performs at that level. The studio is encouraged by tracking that indicates Super 8 has caught the attention of audiences in their 30s and 40s who grew up with those Spielberg movies, and females who have responded to the emotional storyline that has been played up early in the campaign.
Despite the widespread speculation, Paramount insiders said the marketing strategy on Super 8 isn’t the result of arm-twisting by Abrams, whom the studio hopes will direct the next Star Trek. An agreement was reached on the campaign back when Abrams first set up the movie. Even though Paramount had revealed more of the creature than Abrams wanted on the Bad Robot-produced Cloverfield and that helped turn the film into a hit, Abrams wanted to do Super 8 his way and made a modest deal for the privilege. Paramount went along. I’m told there will be no desperation reveal of the creature or major plot points before Friday’s opening to spike the tracking numbers. We’ll know soon whether Abrams’ retro marketing strategy pays off, but right now there are plenty of skeptics.
“It was a different world when Spielberg held everything secret, and Abrams isn’t Spielberg, at least not yet,” said one marketing expert. “Young moviegoers now have shorter attention spans, they want to know what they’re getting right away, or they will find any one of 40 other things they can do with their time and money. If Super 8 doesn’t open strong, next week will be even tougher because awareness on Green Lantern is tracking through the roof and both films need the young male audience to succeed.”


Nothing but excitement about this picture. Kudos to Paramount for standing behind a filmmaker. This will pay off for them.
Anyone – and I do mean anyone – that believes this film cost anything less than $95 million to produce (and another $50m to market) is insane. Look closely at just the few money shots that are seen in the trailer. Paramount is lowering the supposed budget to make it appear that the film will be profitable. And they are over-spending on tv spots to give them just a bad opening weekend instead of a disaster.
The marketing spend is far past $50 and the production budget is closer to $140.
Where are you getting this?
um..what high paid stars are in this film?none.. right,films cost a lot because of stars salary.
The trailer has kids rnning around with 72 extras-cmon.
It’s going to be great and I cant wait to see what the creature looks like!
I saw the movie last week. There’s actually no real secret, which was kind of surprising. It’s a pretty straight-forward flick.
Super Eight looks horrible.
Saw the film last week and it was fantastic. Not necessarily the most original plotline, but just deftly executed. Great moments with characters you actually care about, and transportive in a magical, nostalgic way.
much like Cloverfield (which wasn’t bad, just by the books Blair Witch meets lame cg creature), I expect Super8 to be a by the books recreation of Spielberg’s youthful films, with few surprises. I don’t know if it was, but it would be nice if Super8 were actually shot on film, not that pore-horror show that is HD
A $160 million dollar movie with a $75 million dollar domestic marketing spend opening at @$35 is a disaster.
Just looking at the pictures above I can tell that this movie cost $6.3 billion to produce and an additional infinity-plus-one dollars to market. Anyone can see that!
You budget-boys need to get over yourselves. What’s your skin in the game?
Anonymous, I love you.
It’ll pay off in the long run. Spielberg plus JJ plus scifi.
Sorry, but to me JJ’s stuff always feels like near-beer (even Star Trek). It never really leaves me saying WOW…
I know you’ll all stomp on me for saying this, but I’m just speaking my opinion. There’s moments in all of his films, yet I never find myself wanting to go back a second time.
He’s no Spielberg. As much as he wants and begs for it, he’s just not. Maybe that’s his problem…
between super 8, green lantern, and transformers…. i’m heading to super 8 in the theater.
Easy choice betting on Abrams/Spielberg.
I’m with you on that although I am not big on 8. I think they are right to hide the creature. Often times creatures are disappointing. Hopefully this one isn’t. If it is a good reveal, word of mouth should be good.
Same here. It’s one of the few summer movies I want to see.
Skip all three of them. Watch Sherlock Holmes II in December.
I’m skipping all the big budget and going to see SUBMARINE this weekend!
How very snooty of you. I saw Submarine and it is pretty pretentious and lame, you’ll love telling your friends how cool it is.
Actually Submarine is charming, and well worth a viewing. I’ll still be going to see Super 8 though. Transformers 3 though – I don’t think so – “2″ was about the most deadening 2+ hours I ever had in a cinema.
Agreed. I’m not interested at all in Green Lantern. May go to Transformers if I’m desperate to see something. It’s Super 8 and Cowboys and Aliens as far as block buster summer flicks go for me.
Spielberg is the king… but I must say Tin Tin does nothing for me.
The budget is closer to $140 but I think they can open to $60 and make their money.
Trying replicate bridesmaids run…but bridesmaids was good. Super 8 is mediocre as shit.
Also they barely show the monster in the film till the third act, where it then is laughably bad. So it’s no wonder they are not including it in the marketing material. They’ve shown a whole lot of the story in the advertising for this picture, there just isn’t much to it.
So it’s shit you say, but respected critics seem to love it. I think I’ll go with their opinions over some random anonymous dude on the internet.
I’m not the kind of person that gets annoyed at commercials on the TV or product placement or ads on websites, so I don’t think I have an aversion to marketing in general, but I avoid movie trailers like the plague. I hadn’t heard of this movie avoiding trailer-spoliers before now, but I think the only way to have made me know that was to make some sort of “we’re not going to show you anything” marketing campaign go viral. I might even go see this movie now, but I’ll probably have to show up late to miss the trailers.
Is this really retro, let’s-keep-it-secret marketing?
To me, it just seems like the marketing is centered on the brand names of Abrams and Spielberg — marketing of the egos.
It’s almost smug. These movie titles are vague and/or cryptic and have little/nothing to do with the main plot points (what or where is Cloverfield? Is this going to be a movie about a Super 8 camera? No, it’s an alien horror pic and some kids happen to have a Super 8, cool.).
I heard that Abrams even filmed that Sept ’10 trailer of Super 8 before production of the movie, and that’s not even going to be in the final cut. You’re supposed to make a movie and then see what you can do with it marketing-wise, instead of focusing on making a secret-handshake sort of marketing campaign AND THEN filling out a movie and hoping it fits. Seems like Abram is all about style and not substance.
It’s not retro at all. As you pointed out, JJ did the same thing with his last monster flick, Cloverfield.
This movie has pressed all of my Go buttons, so I’m seeing it opening weekend. The only thing that JJ has disappointed me with so far has been the Lost finale. Love, love, love the way SUPER 8 has been marketed thus far. Love the Spielberg love that permeates the film.
Also, all you bitter wannabees ripping on this movie, your names better freaking rhyme with either “Hintin Sparantino” or “Cames Jameron” with the kind of unoriginal, bitter wannabee vitriol you’re spilling about one of the most successful writer/producer/directors working today.
amen
Don’t get me wrong, I’m generally a fan of JJ Abrams’ work. I loved Star Trek and I even enjoyed M.I. 3.
What I don’t care for is this whole “process” behind and around Super 8. I don’t expect them to shove the movie down our throats in advertising, nor do I expect or want them to reveal the “monster” or important action sequences — but I do expect them to at least try to sell the film to us as if we don’t know who Abrams and Spielberg are.
It seems that they’re saying, “Here’s the movie. It’s called Super 8. We made it, and that’s all you need to know.” It’s smug to expect audiences to shell out $12 just ’cause.
There’s no/little natural curiosity about or intrigue with Super 8. We wanted to see the poltergeists, we wanted to see how alien E.T. was, we wanted to see what was attacking NYC in Cloverfield. Our curiosity flowed naturally from what little we knew about the plot, premise, subjects etc.
Not the case here. Any intrigue w/ Super 8 is so artificial and forced (“I don’t know what it’s about, but I want to see whatever Abrams and Spielberg are trying so hard to prevent us from seeing.”)
We park our cars in separate garages. Color me intrigued by the amazing set up to SUPER 8. A train derails, letting loose some mysterious Thing from one of its super contained cars? And only the super 8 camera a bunch of kids were filming with caught it on tape? Shit, that gives me goosebumps right there! If Martin Campbell or Renny Harlin had made this I’d still wanna see it.
And I love the way JJ and co. have factored in the super 8 camera into the plot of the film; it’s such a blatant homage to filmmaking, and especially all things Spielberg.
This taking place in the 70s, I freaking hope there’s a lot of Anton Chigurh haircuts.
You realize J.J. Abrams had nothing at all to do with the Lost finale, right?
Regardless, quite excited about Super 8. It’s tracking behind a Pixar sequel and a superhero movie that was overhyped a year ago? You don’t say.
If JJ was responsible for a polar bear or a smoke monster, than his fingerprints are also on the finale. In my biased opinion.
Always prefer it when one point of view guides a movie – and think a creative knows much more about his movie than anybody else.
Thank God. For the very first time in years I’m going to go see a movie excited, curious, clueless … and I love this feeling. Thank you Paramount for being bold. This will pay off.
Remember Super 8 has a budget of only $45 million.
Paramount can afford a secretive campaign with a budget that low.
And even if it wasn’t, remember what Warner Bros did with Inception last summer. That was a $160 m dollar film in which NO ONE knew exactly what they were walking into to.
Call me old school, but that retro marketing strategy is working for me. It has been a long, long time since I’ve been this excited to go to the movies.
Sorry, I know you guys are Hollywood industry insiders, etc, but this movie will open very soft and stay flaccid its entire run. Out here in the real world, where people knows only as much about a movie as the studio is willing to tell them from ads and the like, “Super 8″ is a total mystery. Hell, most people don’t even know why it’s called “Super 8″. If they think casting kids/centering the story around kids will get it done, they’re sadly mistaken. I don’t know any kids in my area who even knows what the movie is about, and as such, has absolutely no desire to even bug their parents to take them to go see it. Sure, you “insiders” are all hip to it, and the geek fanboys will go, but since when has insiders and hip fanboys made a movie? Ask the guys who shelled out the money for “Watchmen”, and that movie actually has a better marketing campaign that “Super 8″. It’s the truth.
I don’t think this movie is being directed at the kid audience. This isn’t designed to get kids asking their parents to see it. It’s designed for the parents to see it.
Agree with you about the title. Only people over thirty probably know what SUPER 8 even refers to. The younger generation probably thinks it’s a weird superhero movie.
Doesn’t matter. “Cloverfield” meant nothing to a monster that attacked New York and that did OK.
I believe they named that movie after the street that the editing house is on.
If its a good film, people will show up and spread the word.
This is tied to ticket prices, folks. If prices weren’t so high, movie-goers would be willing to gamble. Most people don’t want to pay $15 plus parking, etc. without having a very good idea of what they are going to see. Mystery doesn’t work in today’s economy.
Fair point. That’s when you wait for word of mouth and go on the second weekend. Wonder what would happen if we just stopped marketing movies for a month? – no trailers on tv, just showtimes in the local papers – Would the whole industry collapse or would moviegoers figure it out for themselves via reviews, word of mouth and their expectations from good actors, directors et al?
Hmmmmmm…with some small movies, this is a kind of strategy that can work. It’s the “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” sorta thing. But I don’t think this would ever really work with a big summer event movie. Especially since box office grosses become a “news” item on Monday mornings for people outside the industry. If a movie like Super 8 opens soft, average people interpret this to mean the movie is bad. I wish it wasn’t that way — but it is.
Hmmm – if all the studios cut their marketing budgets in half, half the commentators here would be out of their jobs.
I think the trailer gave a very good idea of what you’re going to see: namely, a bunch of kids, a government conspiracy and some kind of alien monster. My problem with the trailer is that there is nothing in ANY of the shots that hasn’t been seen countless times before. Granted, the movie may be much better than the sum of the trailer’s parts, but based on what’s been shown it just seems like a giant re-hash.
Concur. Don’t know what the mystery is here, except maybe how the American public has grown so dense that people can actually watch that trailer and not seem to know what the movie is about.
Good god, you think people on this site who supposedly follow the industry would be stoked for a non-sequal/adaptation summer movie from SS and JJ that is being well reviewed.
Rising ticket prices are a pain in the ass, but what’s cheaper? Certainly not a dinner out these days. And sporting events and live theatre are astronomically priced compared to movies. If I can get home having spent around $30 for a decent date with the fiancee, that’s a win.
What’s cheaper is PPV and Netflix and a big flat screen.
The people who see it, if it delivers the goods will be more than happy about not seeing stuff in the trailers — my only concern is that it seems to be slightly horror — which could be misread by some parents.
Same here. With the secrecy, I’m worried the trailers could be read by the incurious as a more disposable monster/slasher movie.
The article states we are talking about a $50 million dollar movie. Pay attention!
Secret Retro Marketing?
Bull
The budget?
Bull
The idea that Paramount will be high fiving each other?
Unlikely
They have spent like kids in a candy store to open this film and the tracking is softer than they ever imagined. Especially given the buzz and the filmmakers.
Like you actually have seen the movie.
This is just another Cloverfield…….same crap……..I’m tired of the same ol same ol…..
Why bother with a Spielberg retread of E.T. and CE3K when you can go watch the real thing. I grew up with those movies, have seen ample trailers for SUPER 8 and honestly the look of this does nothing for me. I feel like I’ve already seen the movie and am guessing it was probably done better — much better — when Spielberg himself made it.
Super 8 is a horrible name for a movie.
Thought Super 8 was a porno flick.
This movie is actually opening on Thursday in select theaters. You didn’t here that from me.
Hmm. I am still bitter about how Lost resolved – and the complete drag of the last few seasons. He should have had the wits to be able to keep it on track even from a distance. I hope this is as good as Star Trek. If not, the fanboys can have JJ.
Sorry Tom, JJ was off Lost when it wrapped. Blame Cuse and Lindelof for that lame-ass ending. Horrible.
JJ Abrams is one of the few people out there who knows how to make a movie.
Screw the movie companies. Too many bean counters are running them now.
Roger Corman?
We need more superhero movies and sequels.
Superhero Sequel movies preferably.
Can they open THOR 2 by September?
Come on Studios give us what we want. We want Daredevil 3D