Treacherous Trailers and the Trends They Typify!

Yeah so this title is pretty awful, but let's talk about movie trailers/previews you enjoyed that really caught your interest and stimulated your enthusiasm through the roof... Only for the film they promised to turn out completely different from what you had been led to expect!

Now, to be honest, every single trailer ever has attempted to do this, so let's just focus on the standouts. In your experience, which film trailer let you down the most?

Also, if we like, how about a short discussion of how the art (science?) of trailer-creation has changed over the years, what it is now, and what it may become in the future. I never see a film based solely upon its preview anymore, what with the review sites available to the internet savvy in this day and age, but I like to think that film trailers still hold a certain power over the populace, a power that shouldn't be ignored.

Here's one that really let me down. I didn't read reviews for this film and had very high hopes going in. Sadly, it just didn't quite work out. (It was kind of creepy. And strange. Inconsistent.)






Real quick, on the other topic I mentioned, I believe trailers have moved away from voice-over dialogue over the last decade and a half. They rely more on imagery and snippets of dialogue presented without any voice-over to draw in an audience. Perhaps this is because of the visual "advances" we have seen in special effects, cinematic innovations (I mean the maneuverability, whether real or simulated, of the camera), and CGI over that time. Or perhaps this is a nod to the fact that audiences don't like to be told so much as shown. (Or rather, shown elements solely from the film, rather than said elements plus voiceover. We certainly still get text on inter-cut title-pages.)
Is it a more creative approach than what we've seen in the past? Is it a desperate grab at our slippery attention-spans? Have things not really changed that much? Is it a lifting of trailers into the realm of semi-art?
Food for thought!

Couldnt think of a movie one off hand, but the trailer for the game Dead Island fits the bill, probably the best trailer that year for a game which when it cam eout, if you were feeling extremely charitable, you might call mediocre-



A triumph of marketing.

Regarding trailers and how they have changed, most 60's and 70's trailers are pretty awful.
I think the move to less voice over is more just a refining of the form.
Bit like cinema, if you watch early films many of hem start with a page of dense text setting the scene, that died off too as more visual means were found of establishing a film story.

Interesting, so Petty sees progress. A natural "refining" progress that shows a maturing of the form.
Video-game trailers are a bit different, but the way in which they borrow from cinema makes them perfectly acceptable for this discussion, I suppose.
A much MUCH shorter frame of time to see their development in, however.

Petty, what about action films, and the dumbing-down of plot that can be found in their trailers and that inflicts almost physical pain at times on audiences?


For some contrast, here's a trailer for Babes in Arms. 1939.



Aww, Mickey and Judy, they're so cute.   

It's a bit slower than some modern equivalents. (Hm.. Modern equivalent... Chicago? hmm...)
It's rather in-your-face advertising though, at least at the beginning. It's selling a self-aware package. I mean, the trailer doesn't try to hide anything here (except the film's shortcomings). They know what they want people to see in the movie, and state it clearly. It's kind of an illustration of the power of suggestion.


I mean look at this trailer, released a full 63 years later. Can we really say that this is any less annoyingly in-your-face (i.e. obnoxious) than the other?



There is a definite move towards highlighting of the story. As far as we can see from the trailers, audiences int he 1930s cared far more about dance-numbers than plot.

I'm thinking that there is a strong correlation between how advertising has changed (or not changed, in some cases) over the years and how film trailers have changed.

I'm probably correct in guessing that the creative force behind the film-based advertisements for some products that we see on tv nowadays are also behind trailers.
And then think of the transition over from directing music videos to directing actual movies. I know of at least one case of this in Submarine (a great movie by the way).



Same guy:



Anyway, back to the point.

In the early 80's there used to be a marketing firm with a hole-in-the-wall office in the University District of Seattle that would pay people from various demographics a few bucks to watch different edits of trailers for upcoming films (maybe 6 months in advance) and then have you fill out a survey of about 100 questions of what you thought the film was about, who you thought it was targeted to, whether you were more or less likely to pay to see it after watching the trailer etc. There was a clear science to choosing the right "hook" for your target audience, and then giving them no more than a tease of further information. Though not edited quite as quickly as now, my memory is that most of them were on the same basic format of big visuals and small verbal content.

I remember their classic trailer-failure example was "The Mission" which they had found got maximum interest when marketed as a Robert De Niro action-adventure rather than a Cannes Film Fest winner. But although it got very good first week boxoffice, its numbers went into the toilet by the second week when the action-adventure and De Niro fans discovered they'd been lied to. I don't think the film truly found it's correct target audience until it came out on DVD many years later.

Awesome, thanks for the contribution David.
Yeah The Mission, thankfully, does not lie within De Niro's action genre.
And again, great contribution, this is an example of the influence trailers can have.


Edit: The Golden Trailer Awards are a thing apparently. They began in 1999, so, put that in your pipe, eh?


Winner in 2000:




Winner in 2013:





Flashy, loud, with some development, sure, but still. I'm not so sure about these Golden Trailer people.

And then think of the transition over from directing music videos to directing actual movies. I know of at least one case of this in Submarine (a great movie by the way).- Forest

Another example is Russell Mulcahy who directed Highlander-



Good example of an 80's trailer too.

Has an 80's every deepening growly voice over, and it states the plot then highlights whats just been said via a relevant bit of film dialogue or action.
Its format is to set up the premise then throw some action scenes fast cut in, then set up the antagonist and the challenge.

I agree with the fact Trailers are cinema's big money pushers now, companies rely on a dam good trailer to get bums on seats, Ive seen trailors that show so much of only the best bits of the film, that it not worth going to see it, mainly cos there's bugger all left TO see & what is left is practically boring. Its high octane & vibrancy now, Im thinking audiences have a low attention span & need stimulus literally every 2 minutes ! And then you have the other end of the spectrum, where the trailer is so vague that it tells you nothing at all, no, its not exciting or mysterious enough to attract me. I thought this film might be interesting to look at, I didnt really think it would blow my socks off, & I wasnt disappointed, but, I think this trailer led me on a bit, I dont know if anyone else here is going to look at it if they haven't already but,  ??

Spoiler:

I did not know that about Highlander, thanks Petty. And yeah, I just watched that video game trailer, it's amazing.

The thing I like the most about it is that is has a unified feel. I believe that trailers that contain, say, only one piece of music feel more artistic, as they are attempting to tell a story with only that one track.

If you haven't seen it, check out The Social Network's trailer.
This was the first trailer I saw that made me think, "the director must have been on top of this." Cronenberg is a tight-fisted wanker, (((    ))) and it seems only right that he would insure his film's trailer felt consistent with the film itself.
Really it's very good. The remake of Radiohead's Creep is incredibly well-used.





Good point Azriel. A film can have both as well. I mean, we're all aware of how The Hobbit trailers grew from teeny teaser trailers to 3 minute plus eyegasms (or puke-fests, depending on your point of view).
That's fairly well established now, we don't have just one trailer, but a series of them. Getting something out there early as possible is quite common now. It's an entire branch of the film-making industry that comprises a huge amount of the actual cost that goes into making a movie.

I think part of the reason the voiceover trailer has become less popular is the loss of Don LaFontaine, the voice behind the "In a world where...." tag line. Nobody has that voice anymore, so all voiceovers just sound painfully anemic to anyone used to his voice.

Ah yeah, that guy certainly had it, growly, 'lets get serious' voice !

trailers have defo evolved. this trailer was terribly lumbering and dull but the film itself is fantastic. In film school they always use Raiders as an example of superb editing. One thing I do like however is the trailer didnt spoil the best bits of the film.