What’s wrong with screening some footage of a big film in advance, to generate some interest?
Quite a lot, argues Simon…
If that was the intention, the reports and reaction online seem to vindicate Marvels master plan.
Again, youd have to suggest that Paramounts approach here has reaped some publicity dividends.
But, appreciating that it sounds like were getting really old: does all this really help the film?
At least the actual bit where you watch the finished feature?
20th Century Fox needed to stem the negative word of mouth for the film, and it succeeded.
Reaction to theAvatarfootage was strong.
It was an impressive presentation, but didnt generate the same level of noise for the film.
Public footage screenings outside of conventions died off slowly in the years that followed.
Yet theyre still very commonplace in film marketing.
Pulling back the curtain a little, footage screenings are relatively common for movie press.
In some extreme cases, even longer.
Thats over half the movie, out of context.
Half a really good movie too.
Context
But therein lies the problem with the footage presentation screening, be it public or press.
We have sat through a few such presentations, and have emerged puzzled.
In that context, said material came across really quite badly.
It was something of a pleasant surprise when the film itself proved far more interesting.
Perhaps if wed been several months away from release it might have been different.
But were genuinely confused as to why, so close to release (with the film now finished!
), a filmmaker would want their film presented piecemeal like this.
If, indeed, its the fimmakers choice at all, of course.
If there is a way forward here, then maybe Christopher Nolan had the right idea.
That seemed to be a sweet spot that Nolan hit.
It allowed Warner Bros to generate buzz for its films, and it didnt spoil either of them.
It offered sequential footage, in some degree of context.
Or maybe were just getting even older and even more miserable…
