http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-interstellar-tv-spots-matthew-mcconaughey-nolan-20140929-story.html
The film "Interstellar", which premieres November 7, is in the advertising and marketing process at the moment. A little over a month before the movie launches so they must advertise it widely. They are using Matthew McConaughey, the lead actor, as a big part of the advertisement. The trailers they are putting out are mainly focused on him and his role in the movie. They have big scenes that promote him as the hero. One example would be when he's told, "Your daughter's generations will be the last to survive on Earth. You're the best pilot we ever had. Get out there and save them," by his co-star Michael Caine. McConaughey is a great person to use to promote this film as he has just won an academy award for the film "Dallas Buyers Club" and his great performance on HBO's "True Detective". This is important because the marketing side of film is essential to selling the movie in the first place. Knowing who, what, and when to advertise are all key factors. Here, they decided to show this preview during Sunday Night Football. It's a clever idea as it reaches a broad and wide audience quickly. As a filmmaker, it's interesting to see the ideas of advertisement being used here and how editing a trailer for specific places makes a big difference. As a student, I like to learn about the more business side of film more and what one needs to sell a movie. As a consumer, its nice to know the effort and plan that goes unnoticed in advertising a film and getting it ready to premiere. One question I do have is how is the process of advertising through billboards and buses different than previews on TV? What would they go through there?
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
New York Film Festival seeks to shake up award season
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/filmfestivals/la-et-mn-nyff-curtain-20140925-story.html#page=1
The time for the New York Film Festival has come again and the films lined up are a variety of diverse and most likely award-winning films. The festival has showcased the Oscar winners of past years such as "Her" and "Life of Pi". This season will bring a lot of premieres of many different films by many different actors. "Gone Girl" is a widely anticipated one directed by David Fincher. Others are "Birdman", "Inherent Vice", "Citizenfour", and more. The secret-screening film is rumored to either be "Fury" or "Still Alice". Other than the films, the chief who runs the festival will change again after a recent four year run by Kuo in December. This caught my eye because I've always been curious about the film festivals, especially New York's. I have also been interested and anticipating the film "Gone Girl" so I'm glad to see it premiere at this festival and gain recognition possibly and preferably for the upcoming award season. As a filmmaker, I can see the parallels being drawn for two major American directors, Fincher and Anderson, who are both making a film relating in crime drama. But instead of seeing the similarities, it's the contrast between these two directors that make all the difference. Festival director, Kent Jones, comments, "Paul is an immersive filmmaker who gets into gestures and tone of the time so that film itself becomes a kind of time machine. David has a completely different way of making a movie where things become much more complex and layered in the structure of the film. With Paul," he added, "a lot of that happens within the frame." As a student, it's good to learn about where the films receive their most recognition and lead into box office sales and oscar nominees with festival such as these. As a consumer, it helps me see which films are truly the ones worthwhile watching and will open my eyes and mind. Seeing "Gone Girl" as one of their top premieres makes me want to see it even more. A question I do have is who chooses the films being put into this festival and how exactly does that process work?
The time for the New York Film Festival has come again and the films lined up are a variety of diverse and most likely award-winning films. The festival has showcased the Oscar winners of past years such as "Her" and "Life of Pi". This season will bring a lot of premieres of many different films by many different actors. "Gone Girl" is a widely anticipated one directed by David Fincher. Others are "Birdman", "Inherent Vice", "Citizenfour", and more. The secret-screening film is rumored to either be "Fury" or "Still Alice". Other than the films, the chief who runs the festival will change again after a recent four year run by Kuo in December. This caught my eye because I've always been curious about the film festivals, especially New York's. I have also been interested and anticipating the film "Gone Girl" so I'm glad to see it premiere at this festival and gain recognition possibly and preferably for the upcoming award season. As a filmmaker, I can see the parallels being drawn for two major American directors, Fincher and Anderson, who are both making a film relating in crime drama. But instead of seeing the similarities, it's the contrast between these two directors that make all the difference. Festival director, Kent Jones, comments, "Paul is an immersive filmmaker who gets into gestures and tone of the time so that film itself becomes a kind of time machine. David has a completely different way of making a movie where things become much more complex and layered in the structure of the film. With Paul," he added, "a lot of that happens within the frame." As a student, it's good to learn about where the films receive their most recognition and lead into box office sales and oscar nominees with festival such as these. As a consumer, it helps me see which films are truly the ones worthwhile watching and will open my eyes and mind. Seeing "Gone Girl" as one of their top premieres makes me want to see it even more. A question I do have is who chooses the films being put into this festival and how exactly does that process work?
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
'No Good Deed': Five reasons for its surprising box-office success
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-no-good-deed-five-reasons-surprising-box-office-success-20140915-story.html
The film "No Good Deed" directed by Sam Miller was released on September 12 and was surprisingly high in box office sales. It wasn't expected but Oliver Gettel explains a few reasons why. He says the date it was released was just the right timing due to it being right after the end of summer blockbusters and right before the beginning of new fall hits. Another reason said is that it was promoted greatly using twitter and instagram to enlarge the hype. He also explained that they targeted the right audience, being women which was 66% of the summer's viewers, and African Americans. The last two reasons were the starring of British actor, Idris Elba, who has recently had some big screen roles and the stiff competition this past weekend. The only other film released this weekend was "Dolphin Tale 2" which targets a whole other audience. This caught my eye because I was just as surprised to see this film do very well in box office sales. It never really caught my attention and I didn't think it was going to catch the attention of many others as well. I was clearly wrong. The impact of this to me as filmmaker makes me realize such small details can make a large change in releasing a film. If the date would have been different or the actors changed, I don't believe the film would have been as successful. As a consumer, it opens my eyes to different films I wouldn't have thought of watching in the first place. Hearing of this success, makes me read reviews about the film to see if it's actually worth watching. As a student, it helps me learn more about films and this aspect of it. Box office sales are a large part and I should learn about the way different films are successful due to different factors. A question I do have is, could anything have been done to make sales even more successful? What factors could have been changed or added to aide in this?
The film "No Good Deed" directed by Sam Miller was released on September 12 and was surprisingly high in box office sales. It wasn't expected but Oliver Gettel explains a few reasons why. He says the date it was released was just the right timing due to it being right after the end of summer blockbusters and right before the beginning of new fall hits. Another reason said is that it was promoted greatly using twitter and instagram to enlarge the hype. He also explained that they targeted the right audience, being women which was 66% of the summer's viewers, and African Americans. The last two reasons were the starring of British actor, Idris Elba, who has recently had some big screen roles and the stiff competition this past weekend. The only other film released this weekend was "Dolphin Tale 2" which targets a whole other audience. This caught my eye because I was just as surprised to see this film do very well in box office sales. It never really caught my attention and I didn't think it was going to catch the attention of many others as well. I was clearly wrong. The impact of this to me as filmmaker makes me realize such small details can make a large change in releasing a film. If the date would have been different or the actors changed, I don't believe the film would have been as successful. As a consumer, it opens my eyes to different films I wouldn't have thought of watching in the first place. Hearing of this success, makes me read reviews about the film to see if it's actually worth watching. As a student, it helps me learn more about films and this aspect of it. Box office sales are a large part and I should learn about the way different films are successful due to different factors. A question I do have is, could anything have been done to make sales even more successful? What factors could have been changed or added to aide in this?
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Nevada's Tesla tax package could slash funds for state's film program
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-onlocation-nevada-tesla-20140910-story.html
Nevada's film program's funding is being cut due to a tax package for an automaker company named Tesla. The new Tesla battery factory is said to open up to 6,500 jobs and even offer more than a billion dollars in incentives but it's the film industry who's getting the short end of the stick here. This proposal just less than a year when the industry was just started to emerge in Nevada. The proposal is gonna make it harder to attract movies and TV shows to the state. This is important because its a drastic hit to this booming film program in Nevada. Randy Soltero, a lobbyist for Local 720 of the International Alliance of Theaterical Stage Employees, states "I totally support what Nevada is doing with the Tesla deal — it's a great way to diversify the economy. But I also believe the film program is an excellent way to diversify the film economy, and the program is working." It's also a blow to Vegas, as the casinos used movies and TV shows as a huge tool for marketing. This impacts me as a student because I learnt that the film industry is involved with so much including the government. A tax package for an automotive company deeply effected a film program, two completely different companies but still intertwined in some way. As a filmmaker, I learn about the conflicts that professional filmmakers and crew workers may have to go through. What does one do when your money is being cut almost 90% than the funding you've been getting for 4 years? It's insane to think what a substantial change one would have to adapt to. As a consumer, it makes me think about the films who do need to get filmed in Vegas. Will the cut in funds still let the film be made to the expectations it deserves? It's a lot to think about to everyone involved. A question that does arise is how does this affect other people of the film industry in say Hollywood? Is it a plus or a negative for them as well?
Nevada's film program's funding is being cut due to a tax package for an automaker company named Tesla. The new Tesla battery factory is said to open up to 6,500 jobs and even offer more than a billion dollars in incentives but it's the film industry who's getting the short end of the stick here. This proposal just less than a year when the industry was just started to emerge in Nevada. The proposal is gonna make it harder to attract movies and TV shows to the state. This is important because its a drastic hit to this booming film program in Nevada. Randy Soltero, a lobbyist for Local 720 of the International Alliance of Theaterical Stage Employees, states "I totally support what Nevada is doing with the Tesla deal — it's a great way to diversify the economy. But I also believe the film program is an excellent way to diversify the film economy, and the program is working." It's also a blow to Vegas, as the casinos used movies and TV shows as a huge tool for marketing. This impacts me as a student because I learnt that the film industry is involved with so much including the government. A tax package for an automotive company deeply effected a film program, two completely different companies but still intertwined in some way. As a filmmaker, I learn about the conflicts that professional filmmakers and crew workers may have to go through. What does one do when your money is being cut almost 90% than the funding you've been getting for 4 years? It's insane to think what a substantial change one would have to adapt to. As a consumer, it makes me think about the films who do need to get filmed in Vegas. Will the cut in funds still let the film be made to the expectations it deserves? It's a lot to think about to everyone involved. A question that does arise is how does this affect other people of the film industry in say Hollywood? Is it a plus or a negative for them as well?
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Hollywood's summer slate elicits a collective yawn from filmgoers
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fi-summer-box-office-20140902-story.html
This summer's box office sales have dropped 15% compared to last summer's. None of the summer films crossed the usual 300 million mark, not even the much-hyped movies such as "Transformers:Age of Extinction." Many questions arise as to why. Films with strong female leads seemed to be the ones who drew most attention. But the film who grossed the highest was "Guardians of Galaxy." Still, the sales dropped 15%, why? Some highly anticipated films didn't get to screen this summer and also there were less animated films. Others say that moviegoers decided to rather wait to stream films on Netflix or order them on cable. But the audience's opinion on the films in the first place is a big factor to that. As a consumer, if I wasn't unsure about going to watch a film, I would want to get other people's opinion who have watched it. If they tell me it's not as good as they thought it would be then I would rather wait. Why waste my money on a film that's not worth it? I would want to see a film that delivers. Bruce Nash also comments that there wasn't a big name film, like a "Harry Potter" type, that came out to draw a wide amount of attention. But there were a few independent films that did such as "Chef", which I do wanna see myself. As a filmmaker, I would want to analyze the decay in sales and why. I would want to understand which type of films the audience wants to see and which have bored them. This is all important because this industry is a "momentum-driven business." It caught my eye to see how the sales dropped over one summer due to the change in films. I enjoyed many of the summer films myself and believed that the sales had actually done great due to the widely anticipated waiting of movies like "The Fault in Our Stars" and "If I Stay." But they did worse than I thought. A few questions that I have are which film was the least grossing and why? Will filmmakers put out a whole different range of films next summer to raise the sales or will it just get worse?
This summer's box office sales have dropped 15% compared to last summer's. None of the summer films crossed the usual 300 million mark, not even the much-hyped movies such as "Transformers:Age of Extinction." Many questions arise as to why. Films with strong female leads seemed to be the ones who drew most attention. But the film who grossed the highest was "Guardians of Galaxy." Still, the sales dropped 15%, why? Some highly anticipated films didn't get to screen this summer and also there were less animated films. Others say that moviegoers decided to rather wait to stream films on Netflix or order them on cable. But the audience's opinion on the films in the first place is a big factor to that. As a consumer, if I wasn't unsure about going to watch a film, I would want to get other people's opinion who have watched it. If they tell me it's not as good as they thought it would be then I would rather wait. Why waste my money on a film that's not worth it? I would want to see a film that delivers. Bruce Nash also comments that there wasn't a big name film, like a "Harry Potter" type, that came out to draw a wide amount of attention. But there were a few independent films that did such as "Chef", which I do wanna see myself. As a filmmaker, I would want to analyze the decay in sales and why. I would want to understand which type of films the audience wants to see and which have bored them. This is all important because this industry is a "momentum-driven business." It caught my eye to see how the sales dropped over one summer due to the change in films. I enjoyed many of the summer films myself and believed that the sales had actually done great due to the widely anticipated waiting of movies like "The Fault in Our Stars" and "If I Stay." But they did worse than I thought. A few questions that I have are which film was the least grossing and why? Will filmmakers put out a whole different range of films next summer to raise the sales or will it just get worse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)