re: Biggest movie flops this year

quote:

---

As I said, that's more due to the fact that the film was giving us something that we've never seen more so than good marketing. There was nothing particularly impressive about the marketing for the film, since the film basically does that itself.

---

They placed ads everywhere. They plastered primetime television for 2 weeks out, they hit up their parks, they ran it on all of their channels, and they added its trailer for every movie they could. They did numerous tie-ins as well. No one predicted this movie would make this amount of money. Most predictions a couple of months out had it doing about $125 opening weekend and $400 million domestically. It shite on those numbers. Why? MARKETING.

quote:

---

They were expecting near $700, not $500. Up scored of $800, so I don't see why their expectations were that high for it to meet it.

---

I've seen nothing that suggested Disney was expecting that amount or that they were disappointed with their take. UP needed more from the BO because it didn't have the M&L potential of Brave.

quote:

---

The market research was that "The Princess and the Frog did poorly, so they thought that the public was too stupid to read beyond one word. And the film had really nothing to do with being Brave, at least any more than any other Pixar film. It would have been an equally appropriate name for Wall-e as it was for this film.

---

You are taking a very naive and narrow viewpoint on this. TPATF led to the name change for Rapunzel, not really for TBATB to Brave. Brave was a quicker and easier to remember title. Look at all of Pixar's other titles: Toy Story, Cars, Wall-E, Up, Finding Nemo, etc. Short and right to the point. Easier to market and gives more of a sense of adventure.

quote:

---

They're basically the same damn thing. They massively dropped the ball and fricked up the box office royally. It was an incredibly stupid mistake since no one knew what the hell the film was about.

---

No they aren't. Advertising =/= Marketing. What exactly did you major in at Ole Miss to not know the difference? I'll make it easier for you: Advertising = Trailer. Marketing = where you put the trailer. They trailer placements were just fine. They promoted the movie enough. It was the content that was the problem, not the placement. Savvy?

quote:

---

No, it was a huge issue, since no one knew what the frick the film was about. No one knew what he was doing, where he was, who he was, or why he was there. Adding the "Of Mars" would have answered or implied some of these questions. Wreck-It Ralph makes it clear in a single sentence on the answers to all these questions above. If you can't answer those questions on a poster (unless its supposed to be a mystery of course which makes the audience intrigued on what exactly is going on), then you've failed.

---

No it wasn't. Hell either you or another poster said that movies with the title Mars in it don't do as well. Hell when some people see Mars in the title, they get turned off by it. They wanted to emphasize the character John Carter in their title as it was HIS story they were telling. You don't call it Thor of Asgard or Iron Man of Malibu. I know you are going to say "YEAH BUT NO ONE KNOWS WHO HE IS RUBBARUBBARUBBARUBBA". That's why they should have emphasized that he and his story were the original space/sci-fi story. This story literally did influence the stories of Star Wars, Avatar, and scores of old school sci-fi/space-related movies. They didn't wise up until the last week of advertising and by then they had already fricked up their first and second impressions. Seriously whoever thought putting a faggy arse Peter Gabriel song in the trailer for a sci-fi adventure film deserves to be fired, only to be hired again a week later and fired once more. What next? Celine Dion's Titanic song for the The Avengers 2 trailer?