Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
I think it was the over-reliance on the viral tactics, myself.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Quicksand:


When the movie got pushed back from April, we were ALL told by big mean executives that the push-back was to give time to promote the film. What promotion? Sure, there were the screenings, ... ... people need to be shown how good something is, or maybe the small-name cast is just something truly impossible in this day and age.


XOXO
me

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ananti:
A couple of friend and I were discussing whether the marketing of the movie had anything to do with its less than ideal performance so far, and one of them made a great point.

He points out that the title of the movie is poor choice, because

1) It's give a vibe of touchy-feely-ness to people, especially guys, who don't know much about the movie/tv series, and this becomes an instant turn off. It sounds like a "chick-flick", like some romantic comedy ala "Serendipity" or something, which they will go out of their way to avoid.

2) Generally, a movie or a book title would do well to associate with concrete things rather than amorphous concepts. Because people can form mental pictures of concrete things, and if they can form an association of a concrete thing with your book/movie/widget, then it sticks in their head and is imprinted. But if all the title conjures up in an shapeless idea, then there is no mental picture, no association, and no strong imprint, and therefore doesn't stay in people minds.

I think he makes a good point, not that it would do anything thing since the movie's name is set. But I do think in the final analysis this might have had an impact in getting people who aren't already fans, and who don't have friends who are fans telling them how good the movie is, into deciding on a whim to see this movie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by embers:

At any rate, Ananti: you're not wrong.
the combination of the vaguely esoteric title,
with the total lack of big name stars,
and a 'concept' that is a little hard to grasp,
makes this a hard movie to market.

Really, I think Universal has done a good job,
and with the good reviews I hope we can build an audience....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ananti:
I'm just analyzing the situation and saying that in retrospect, it may have been an unfortunate choice for marketing reasons. "Serenity" simply does not get the juices flowing for the average, uninitiated, 16-24 year old male that say for example, "Star Wars", does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ggreen29:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ananti:
I'm just analyzing the situation and saying that in retrospect, it may have been an unfortunate choice for marketing reasons. "Serenity" simply does not get the juices flowing for the average, uninitiated, 16-24 year old male that say for example, "Star Wars", does.

---

Interesting point. The title undersells it to the scifi action crowd, and I think the overemphasis in the ads of action undersells it outside the sci-fi crowd.

Joss' strengths are his characters and their relationships, and this is missed in the ad campaign. I think another strength that hasn't been capitalized on are the actors themselves. They are engaging and funny people and it was a big mistake not to have them on the tv talk-show circuit this week.

There are some interesting marketing comments in the thread Does this Make Sense!?!? by XANDERHARRIS. I just hope the Big Damn Marketers come up with Plan B real quick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LadyShelley:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
I think it was the over-reliance on the viral tactics, myself.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

---

I think you may be right.

---