From: Dan Kohn (dan@dankohn.com)
Date: Wed Dec 27 2000 - 12:34:41 PST
The Teledesic reference (and presumably some access codes to control the
satellites which control everything else) is just the McGuffin [1], and
can be safely ignored.
The real story is Faust retold (except, of course, they always let the
protagonist go as soon as he realizes the error of his ways and runs
around a little, which sort of misses the point of the redemption in
Goethe's second play [2]).
The real spoiler from the trailer is the fact that Claire Forlani
betrays Ryan Phillipe, driving him into Rachel Leigh Cook's arms.
(Personally, I'd find Forlani vs. Cook a tough choice.)
Most obvious trailer [3] spoiler:
Random guy into phone: "You're not losing your hold over him, are you?"
CUT TO:
Seven frames of Forlani and Phillipe kissing passionately. [In case the
audience has some sort of confusion at this point on what kind of hold
she might have on him. Talk about narrating to the lowest common
denominator.]
CUT TO:
Clair Forlani into phone: "Why don't you just do something about that
girl Lisa."
And, as if that weren't enough, the shots of Forlani during the credits
are 6 frames of her sucking on his finger, 9 frames of her in a
negligee, and then flames across the screen as we see her name. Hmmm, I
wonder who the movie's contagonist [4] is?
[1] http://nextdch.mty.itesm.mx/~plopezg/Kaplan/Mcguffin.html
[2]
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,34440+1+33841,00.html
[3] http://www.adcritic.com/content/movie-antitrust.html
[4]
http://www.dramatica.com/dTheory_folder/dTheory_Book_folder/tbook/chapte
r_04.html#anchor5933699
- dan
-- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com> <tel:+1-650-327-2600>-----Original Message----- From: Matt Jensen [mailto:mattj@newsblip.com] Sent: Wednesday, 2000-12-27 10:46 To: FoRK Subject: Re: AntiTrust
I offer some whining, and a solution.
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Dan Kohn wrote:
> It's also hard not to miss the Teledesic [5] reference.
Yes, and it's darned annoying. Now I know what the secret is that the protagonist and his buddies stumble onto, and I have less incentive to go see this movie.
Studio executives claim research shows people want trailers that reveal more info. But I think they are mistaken. When a studio tests trailers on subjects plucked from the shopping mall, and the subjects say "I didn't see enough stuff that interested me", that does not mean they want to see how the movie turns out. It just means the studio chose the wrong shots to promote the first act.
In most movies the first act contains most of the good stuff anyhow, so if you can't make a trailer from that alone, the movie's probably a dog. But don't give away the endings of decent movies just to fit into a formula that claims audiences want to know more.
I would PayPal $5 into a research fund to scientifically investigate audience preferences for trailer scope. I believe it would let me enjoy more the movies I see, and would pay for itself within a year. And I believe the research conclusions alone would be entertaining (in that studio wisdom is toppled) and reassuring (in that it would show the average moviegoer is not a spineless dolt).
-Matt Jensen NewsBlip.com Seattle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 27 2000 - 12:41:16 PST