Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Friday Box Office: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At … 
‘Modern Family’ Gets Cable Makeover For Launch … 
Adam Sandler To Leno: “Maybe Go To Fox” 
Super 8’s $37 million opening weekend was a surprise given last week’s soft tracking numbers that rival marketing execs attributed to JJ Abrams’ insistence on keeping plot reveals — and the creature — out of the TV spots. Those skeptics might argue Super 8 could have posted a larger opening weekend with a more revealing campaign, but it is nice to see a filmmaker — and the studio that backed him — vindicated in their decision to preserve the moviegoing experience by not dishing all the reveals. It’s too bad Abrams wasn’t advising disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner, who also would have benefited by fighting the temptation to unveil the creature.
Will more filmmakers try to have more sway in marketing campaigns after Abrams got the studio to agree to his wishes when they made the original script deal for his movie? All big directors are kept in the loop on marketing decisions, but marketing execs I spoke to say filmmakers ought to make the moves and let them do the selling, and this could make things tougher for them. Director-driven marketing certainly leads to outside-the-box campaigns. You can see the genius of David Fincher all over the recent Red Band trailer for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and more recently on a one-sheet that shows Daniel Craig and a rather revealing Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. The shocking images from both teasers have created a tone of danger and rawness that harken back to Fincher’s first big hit, Se7en. Can’t wait to see what he and the Sony Pictures marketing team will come up with next and how much they will reveal for a movie whose release is seven months away.
Loading ...
YES!!! Hide the creature!!! Isn’t marketing/hype all about building suspense? But the studio geniuses have to whip it out the first chance they get.
Didn’t JJ already do this with Matt Reeve’s Cloverfield? That was an even more secret campaign with an even bigger opening weekend.
I think the concern here would not be the Finchers and the Abrahms of the world being heavily involved int eh marketing of their films (heck, didn’t Fincher get his start directing Nike commercials) but more where is that line drawn? No disrespect intended to him, but does Marc Webb call the marketing shots on the new Spider-man film? How about Joss Whedon on The Avengers?
Don’t get me wrong, the marketing should always be a collaborative process, but it is hard to expect a guy with 2 indie films under his belt to establish the best marketing campaign for a $200mm blockbuster franchise while in the midst of shooting or editing the film.
Just remember, for every Super 8 there is a Kick-Ass.
A daring new one two marketing punch best expressed as “Hide the Creature/Free the Titties!”
why is this such a big deal? Didn’t Spielberg hide the shark in Jaws a thousand years ago? Didn’t it pay off then too? god forbid marketers leave something (anything) to be discovered in the theater itself.
“Kick-Ass” is also a moneymaker; it is a $30 million-budgeted film that grossed $96 million worldwide.
Kick Ass underperformed opening weekend, and in general, at the US box office. It opened at $19.5 or so, but tracking had it in the upper-20′s. If filmmakers had been able to be a little less “ball to the wall” with the marketing, it might have gone down differently.
I wonder how many kids sneaked in to see Kick-Ass with “Date Night” or “How to Train your Dragon” tickets.
Super 8’s $37 million opening weekend was an even bigger surprise given the post-SuperBowl ad’s LOFTY prediction numbers… There was a lot of talk and “buzz” about this being the BIGGEST movie of the year, a summer blockbuster, a sure-fire repeat of Spielberg’s (long-gone) box office magic, etc.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Paramount
What in God’s name are you talking about? No one ever said “Super 8″ was going to be the biggest film of the year. People were saying though, it could be one of the biggest surprises of the year. Also, Spielberg has lost his Box-Office magic? LOL…clearly you like talking out of your a** more than anything. Do some damn research next time before you speak like a exceedingly misguided baffoon. Spielberg hasn’t lost his magic at the Box-Office but you sure as hell must of been dropped on your head as a child.
Sorry Steven, I know the truth hurts.
Or are you the idiot Paramount exec who said “sweeeeet” upon hearing Super 8 had grossed barely above the LOWERED expectations you guys set out early in the week?
Either way you’re an idiot.
Who cares? Does it need to make a gazillion dollars to be successful? NO. What about quality? What about storytelling? Oh yeah, I forgot, if you are working for a studio, you are probably a typical minion who doesn’t know what these words mean…
Alias sucked, Lost sucked, Super 8 sucked. This guy is so over rated and pompous and yet his movie was #1 due to marketing. The movie business has been about marketing for the last 10 years. The release date comes first, the poster is next, then the movie gets made while working (scrambling) on a story that has never fully been developed. Somebody owes me $16.00.
He’s very good at writing the beginning of films but has no idea how to write a 3rd act.
That’s been apparent for a while and why I’ll wait for Super 8 to come out of DVD
I’m all for director-driven marketing. The current crop of loser execs is doing too much cookie cutter promos: quick cuts! keep the music up! stop the music! insert funny line! cue the music! add credits! done! happy hour! Fincher really got me into his “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” with that red-band trailer. I repeatedly played it because of its brilliance. I know marketers are nervous about this. They should be. Take a cue from Fincher. They know how to sell. Many of you got your jobs because you know the right people, not because you’re good. What? Go fuck myself? Nah, you guys do that every time you make a lame trailer. Impress me with greatness. Maybe I’ll fuck you.
well said!
The execs will become extinct soon enough due to a little thing called the internet
Love the post! That’s what keeps me coming back to this site. Too funny.
Why remake a masterpiece? Someone needs to get the ax
I think that photo of Rooney Mara answers your question!
What am I am missing here. A movie that has the top Director & Producer, spends major dollars on P&A and production, and does only $35+ million at box office is called a success ????? Someone needed to control the markeiting on this campaign,and not let the director and producers do it…… Box Office should have been at $50M + …we all know that. By the way I liked the movie, just wish the rest of America would have gone and seen it.
Who’s running marketing.
I agree. It didn’t pay off! There’s alot of spin going around but everyone knows that the hype behind this film was HUGE so for Super 8 to only do the business that it did is very surprising.
Somehow I can’t put “hide the creature ploy” and “pays off” in the same sentence.
… unless it’s because of a malfunctioning shark.
Very true… Sometimes the worst thing that could happen turns out to be the best!
While I’m neither for nor against directors getting involved in the marketing for their movies, I would like to see less movies spoiled by their trailers and marketing campaigns. The most recent example of this is the new X-men movie, in which two of the most action filled set piece scenes were utterly spoiled months in advance by a far too detailed trailer. When you can view 90 percent of the best parts of a movie just by editing together trailers and promo clips released in advance, you’re not leaving much incentive for the movie goers to plop down their 15 bucks when the film finally premiers.
There is nothin new about this. Horror movies do it all the time. Movies have been doing this for years. And it’s a good thing. Keeps the mystery.
As for Super 8- expect huge drop off. This film may prove to only be a modest success at best.
It was a good movie, not great. Did people turn out for it because they NEEDED to see what the monster was, or because it was JJ and the film looked pretty good? I would not read into it (like Hollywood always does) and market other films on a case by case basis.
This paid off?
Wasn’t ‘Hiding the Creator’ a lesson in Filmmaking 101?
WILL THIS SITE STOP SAYING SUPER 8 WAS A HIT….IT WAS FAR FROM IT…I wouldn’t doubt if they purchased around 10 million dollars worth of tickets themselves
I think they also decided to hide the “Super 8″ creature for fear of scaring off the audience that might be in the mood for a Spielberg style nostalgia fest. Is “Super 8″ for kids or for horror fans? I don;t think Paramount had an answer so they punted…
In the best Spielberg films there never was much of a creature that was shown (they were more like little dolls in Close Encounters and Jaws was just a really big shark) but it was the anticipation of the encounters that got you going. Super 8 resurrected the idea of making the audience wait until they experience it in the theater. This type of marketing (leaking the black & white clip) got me into the theater and the main thing people asked me after I saw it was “what is it, is it an alien?” The curiosity and anticipation about what it WILL turn out to be –and where it came from — is enough to wet the appetite to see the movie. If you want people to go see the movie, don’t give it away and spoil the fun.
I remember Robert Zemeckis justifying the giving away of major plot points in the ads for WHAT LIES BENEATH by explaining that audiences have changed over the years: They now demand to know a lot more about the films they see ahead of time.
As much as I love Robert Zemeckis, I’m glad to know he’s wrong about this.
Its abundantly clear that Paramount made some last ditch attempts to position this as more of a modestly budgeted personal movie that did well and not a major blockbuster – judging by the media response and comments on here, its clearly worked.
What’s interesting (and not been discussed to date) is that this relative success was in spite of JJ and Bad Robot not because of them. Whether you like it or not, the world has moved on since the days of E.T. and Jaws, and with the immediacy and breadth of entertainment options out there, people want to be more assured of what they are forking out their money for and most importantly, committing their time to.
On the subject of director driven marketing, whilst JJ and his team at Bad Robot are talented artists and film makers, they certainly aren’t mass market film marketers. If JJ’s movies cost $10m then it would be fine to leave them to their own devices to create highly intricate geek-led marketing stunts. The problem is when you are spending $100m on a movie and then a similar sum on worldwide marketing you can’t take a chance that your film won’t open.
If it was left up to JJ, he wouldn’t have shown anybody his film until the very last moment. Paramount showed 20 minutes of the movie to exhibition,and select journalists back in March. When you add in one of the least appealing 1-sheets in recent memory, its no wonder that the studio suddenly responded to the soft tracking and co-erced JJ to amp up the marketing at the last moment – that is the only explanation for the Kids Choice stunt ( and a Spielberg appearance no less). if they really had the goods, they could have taken the Inception route and started a screening program to get the word out i.e use real people to validate the quality of the picture and create the so called buzz.
Bad Robot is also behind the disasster that was Morning Glory a so so movie that would have still found an audience with decent marketing.
History has shown that most Hollywood film makers could do with a more objective viewpoint as to why the average person may want to see their movie and indeed how this should be represented in 2 min 30 format.
Super 8 did not cost 100 million or more to make. It was made for 40 to 45 million. That one fact sort of warps your argument entirely.
If you truly believe that, you’re more naive than I thought.
JJ, Speilberg & Paramount did a nice job with this nostalgia monster movie, probably appealing more to people my age (40 something) than to the monster, horror genre crowd 14 yr old boys that pay the big bucks for a blockbuster. That the film was made for a reputedly frowzy $50 mill probably gave Paramount the scope to bow to Abram’s wishes & not overhype this film with the way too familiar movie trailer; you know, the hypy trailer with the deep voiced narration, overblown sound effects & snappy edit, the same model thats been used for over 25 years now. Sony’s approach with its social network hyped movie is also a good idea. If Super 8 has legs at the box office JJ & Paramount will be vindicated, if not this 70′s, beginning of the 80′s movie publicity promo won’t be tried again
name me one trailer paramount has done in the last couple of years hat uses a deep voiced narrator.
Hide the monster!!!!!
No shite.
Let;s face it…since when was it supposed to be everybody’s job — BUT MARKETING — to do the MARKETING JOB???
When did that really change?
Yeah, in the social age, digital age, it’s obviously tougher to get it to the audience.
But that doesn’t mean you just give up and quit and be blatant about it.
Bottom line? This was a really great summer popcorn movie on so many levels.
I’ll see it again, because yeah…that’s what a great summer movie is for.
And the lack of overboard marketing EVERYWHERE really helped it.
Why is this even a subject for debate? How grossly over-stimulated (i.e. dumb downed) is the average moviegoer when Hollywood can no longer create suspense or anticipation in advertising? Make the public rise to the occasion — they’ve been doing it for 100 years. Perhaps the marketing executives should stop being territorial, defensive and thick-skulled… and just be creative.
I’m not clear on something… Didn’t Jaws, The Exorcist, ALIEN, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., Poltergeist, The Thing, The Ring, Cloverfield, Jurassic Park… all hide their monsters and main features in all the promotion before they actually opened? Weren’t they all hits? How can the marketing of this film be considered unique in any way in that regard?
The basic ad for Close Encounters was just “we are not alone” and a photo of an empty road … it was just the suggestion of something.