Times when you felt poor marketing hindered a film's business

[John Marston]

Many times "poor marketing" is brought up to explain why a movie didn't do as well as it could have. Some people say this is a legitimate reason while others say it is just excuse making. 

 

 

 

So I am just wondering. What movies do you personally feel had their runs hindered by poor marketing? Also, explain how you felt the marketing was poor and how it should have been better

 

 

 

 

Two movies that come to my head right away. Remember this is just my personal opinion. 

 

 

 

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - The trailers for this movie really just made it look like a total carbon copy of the first. No difference at all. I feel that is the primary it ended up opening a lot lower than the original. 

 

 

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - I feel the opening could have been higher.   They started well releasing a very good trailer a year in advance. But then went seven months without releasing anything (for some reason they didn't put a new trailer with TDKR). Then they release probably one of the most bland trailers in recent years in September. It feels like they were just resting on the laurels of the LOTR trilogy too much. 

Edited August 28, 2013 by Robert Muldoon

[tommycruise]

2 guns-the star power alone should have guaranteed 35m on OW but Uni botched the marketing campaign by not showing any of the story and making it look like a random heist film.

[Shawn Robbins]

Definitely STID.

 

(IMO).

[Gopher]

Kung Fu Panda 2, which Dreamworks/Paramount lazily marketed as Po and the gang returning in a sequel, never showed a single plot detail (or even a shot of Gary Oldman's Peacock villain) and expected the masses to come. They didn't, and as a result a very good movie underperformed. Star Trek Into Darkness could've mustered up some more buzz if they pitched the movie to audiences as Kirk and the gang vs. Khan (one of the most recognizable names in Trek lore to the masses), but then Abrams couldn't have done his mystery box schtick.

[John Marston]

Definitely STID.

 

(IMO).

 

 

Interesting, can you elaborate if you don't mind.

[Moviedweeb]

John Carter

[John Marston]

John Carter

 

 

can you elaborate please if you don't mind

[lab276]

The STID trailers felt flat and never engaged the audience when it played. They never engaged me when it played. It never seemed like an interesting film. I had the same problem with TH's marketing.

[Fancyarcher]

White House Down. The first trailer had a serious tone, while the second one's tone was more lighthearted and comical. Sony should have used the same tone for both trailers (lighthearted because that's what the film really was), instead of selling it as something it wasn't, and looking like they couldn't make up their minds.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic

[Shawn Robbins]

Interesting, can you elaborate if you don't mind.

 

This:

 

Star Trek Into Darkness could've mustered up some more buzz if they pitched the movie to audiences as Kirk and the gang vs. Khan (one of the most recognizable names in Trek lore to the masses), but then Abrams couldn't have done his mystery box schtick.

 

[Shawn Robbins]

White House Down. The first trailer was lighthearted, the second was more serious. Sony should have used the same tone for both trailers (lighthearted because that's what the film really was), instead of selling it as something it wasn't, and looking like they couldn't make up their minds.

 

Plus, it ended up being overshadowed by OHF. And, more directly, The Heat.

Edited August 28, 2013 by ShawnMR

[Fancyarcher]

Plus, it ended up being overshadowed by OHF. And, more directly, The Heat.

 

True, but that doesn't mean a film can't outgross a film with the same plot that came out earlier.I agree about the Heat though. They were obviously trying to target Tatum's female audience who was already too busy watching Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy feud with each other.

[Shawn Robbins]

True, but that doesn't mean a film can't outgross a film with the same plot that came out earlier.

 

Agreed. I'm just implying that I think the ... EDIT: *hits keyboard* ...sleeper status of OHF (rather than being an expected springtime tentpole months in advance, of sorts) lessened the demand for something just like it only a few months later.

 

Star power or not, WHD didn't just fail to break out--it really missed at the box office for its credentials (two very hot stars, mid-summer release date). The Heat was a big factor--just not the only one, in my humble opinion.

Edited August 28, 2013 by ShawnMR

[John Marston]

White House Down. The first trailer had a lighthearted and comical tone, while the second one's tone was more serious. Sony should have used the same tone for both trailers (lighthearted because that's what the film really was), instead of selling it as something it wasn't, and looking like they couldn't make up their minds.

 

 

it was actually the second and third trailers that had the comical tone

[Chewy]

Jack Reacher. The trailers were dullsville and the title isn't much better. Movie was fun

 

First Class. Marketing played purely on franchise nostalgia after The Last Stand and Origins had already zapped all goodwill away from the franchise. Should have focused on the McFass romance

[Ozymandias]

I still find it funny that some people really blame STiD's marketing for its less than expected numbers only after the fact, its flat out revisionist history if you ask me.  Prior to release, there wasn't a negative peep about its trailers/marketing, they were basically met with songs of praise.  The 4 year wait after the first movie and its really, really sandwiched release date is what caused those numbers.  Reception wasn't shitty either.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Ozymandias

[Spidey Freak]

In recent times, STiD and Rise of the Guardians definitely. I mean, WTF happened to Guardians? Solely weak marketing had to blame for making it come across as a bland, generic animated movie.

[Fancyarcher]

Agreed. I'm just implying that I think the

 

The? The what? The shoes are burning?

 

I think you meant that, correct?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic

[John Marston]

I still find it funny that some people really blame STiD's marketing for its less than expected numbers only after the fact, its flat out revisionist history if you ask me.  Prior to release, there wasn't a negative peep about its trailers/marketing, they were basically met with songs of praise.  The 4 year wait after the first movie and its really sandwiched release date is what caused those numbers.

 

 

well sometimes things can be noticed only after the fact. Can't deny that doesn't happen

[John Marston]

another movie I feel could have gotten a bigger opening weekend is Men in Black 3. The second trailer released for that movie was horrible. Featuring absolutely no funny jokes or cool money shots