In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
That is both insightful and reasonable. This, however, is the interwebs and as such I must call for disqualification.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
I agree. A title is a big part of marketing. Its what's to catch the attention of consumers.
To say "are you ready for 'Dawn of Justice' or 'World's Finest' in 2016?" To the average person, they probably have no idea what that means.
Conversely, years from now if you talk about 'Batman v. Superman' with the average person or new moviegoing gen that might ask "is that the one that follows 'Batman & Robin' or after Nolan's trilogy?"
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Trailers and commercials are huge on social media. Whenever a new trailer breaks for a blockbuster movie, its all over the twitter machines and friends all over facebook are talking about it. I'd wager that more people see trailers now than ever before.
I agree. A title is a big part of marketing. Its what's to catch the attention of consumers.
I think it matters to an extent, particularly if it’s an indie/smaller budget film, in that you want the title to reflect what the movie is about so as not to confuse the audience. But leaving “James Bond” out of the title has never been a problem for the James Bond franchise.
To say "are you ready for 'Dawn of Justice' or 'World's Finest' in 2016?" To the average person, they probably have no idea what that means.
Maybe not today, but months before the movie is released, the average movie-goer will know enough to have a pretty solid idea of what it means. That’s what market saturation is all about.
Conversely, years from now if you talk about 'Batman v. Superman' with the average person or new moviegoing gen that might ask "is that the one that follows 'Batman & Robin' or after Nolan's trilogy?"
M
And if they really are interested enough to know the answer, a two-second Google search will tell them. It's what people do now when they don't remember something—trust me, I find myself doing it all the time. But if they’re involved enough to remember Batman & Robin fifteen, twenty years from now, they’ll probably be able to remember that Dawn of Justice came after Man of Steel. Frankly, I think people would be more likely to remember that than they would that Christopher Nolan directed the Dark Knight movies.
I agree. A title is a big part of marketing. Its what's to catch the attention of consumers.
I think it matters to an extent, particularly if it’s an indie/smaller budget film, in that you want the title to reflect what the movie is about so as not to confuse the audience. But leaving “James Bond” out of the title has never been a problem for the James Bond franchise.
To say "are you ready for 'Dawn of Justice' or 'World's Finest' in 2016?" To the average person, they probably have no idea what that means.
Maybe not today, but months before the movie is released, the average movie-goer will know enough to have a pretty solid idea of what it means. That’s what market saturation is all about.
Conversely, years from now if you talk about 'Batman v. Superman' with the average person or new moviegoing gen that might ask "is that the one that follows 'Batman & Robin' or after Nolan's trilogy?"
M
And if they really are interested enough to know the answer, a two-second Google search will tell them. It's what people do now when they don't remember something—trust me, I find myself doing it all the time. But if they’re involved enough to remember Batman & Robin fifteen, twenty years from now, they’ll probably be able to remember that Dawn of Justice came after Man of Steel. Frankly, I think people would be more likely to remember that than they would that Christopher Nolan directed the Dark Knight movies.
Sure, but wouldn't the marketing be MORE successful if its immediate brand recognition? Think about how many people that use 'Kleenex', 'Q-tip', & 'band-aid' incorrectly.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I hear that, and I take your point that even people that don't go to movies much, or seek out trailers they way we do still come across them like never before. But I don't think that removes the importance of titles.
Even trailers on a FB feed have names and must be clicked on (or lingered on long enough) to be watched. So the name that accompanies the trailer is still a marketing matter to consider. So even a trailer on FB, or linked to on Twitter, could be called "Batman V Superman" or could be called something less clear, like "Worlds Finest" or "Man of Steel 2".
Which do you think would get more clicks? Or stop more scrolling fingers?
The title still matters even in the social media context, maybe especially there, because unlike sitting captive in a movie theater, you have to choose to opt in.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Trailers and commercials are huge on social media. Whenever a new trailer breaks for a blockbuster movie, its all over the twitter machines and friends all over facebook are talking about it. I'd wager that more people see trailers now than ever before.
But also keep in mind-- what you see on your social media is influenced by who you've chosen to follow and friend and, when it comes to the FB algorithm, whether or not you've watched or discussed trailers in the past.
I am not saying you are wrong, as definitely trailers are more available then ever before. But also remember a lot of talk about a new trailer on our social media feeds needs to be taken with the lens that these are our own, self-selected groups.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I hear that, and I take your point that even people that don't go to movies much, or seek out trailers they way we do still come across them like never before. But I don't think that removes the importance of titles.
Even trailers on a FB feed have names and must be clicked on (or lingered on long enough) to be watched. So the name that accompanies the trailer is still a marketing matter to consider. So even a trailer on FB, or linked to on Twitter, could be called "Batman V Superman" or could be called something less clear, like "Worlds Finest" or "Man of Steel 2".
Which do you think would get more clicks? Or stop more scrolling fingers?
The title still matters even in the social media context, maybe especially there, because unlike sitting captive in a movie theater, you have to choose to opt in.
True, but that imbedded trailer is also going to have an image showing. And that image is going to be the first thing people look at. If that image is a big Bat symbol with an S shield inside it, that's going to say everything that needs to be said. If you don't click on it after seeing that image, you aren't going to click on it after reading the movie title either.
I don't buy the fuss. I'm with Eric. The people I work with couldn't be further from the geek demo, but when they were seeing any mainstream movie over the past decade and a half, it was seldom the title that was an issue.
"I'm going to see the new Star Wars" not Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith "I'm going to see the new Bond movie" not Casino Royale Quantum of Solace or Skyfall "I'm going to see Batman" not The Dark Knight (whether he be rising or not...) "I'm going to see Superman" not Man of Steel
Remember the title is not Dawn of Justice. It's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
What did people call Wolverine Origins? Wolverine. What did people call Star Trek: Into Darkness? Star Trek.
People will be calling this movie Batman vs Superman, or more likely "that Batman and Superman movie" The franchise is bigger than the title.
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Trailers and commercials are huge on social media. Whenever a new trailer breaks for a blockbuster movie, its all over the twitter machines and friends all over facebook are talking about it. I'd wager that more people see trailers now than ever before.
But also keep in mind-- what you see on your social media is influenced by who you've chosen to follow and friend and, when it comes to the FB algorithm, whether or not you've watched or discussed trailers in the past.
I am not saying you are wrong, as definitely trailers are more available then ever before. But also remember a lot of talk about a new trailer on our social media feeds needs to be taken with the lens that these are our own, self-selected groups.
That's also true. But then, people who never watch movie trailers on social media probably aren't as likely to go to a movie either. And I would also think that someone who has no friends in their social media feeds interested in a Batman v. Superman type of movie (that is to say, action/adventure blockbusters) is also probably not interested in going to see such a movie. And regardless of the algorithms, I still get a lot of crap in my FB feed I have no interest in whatsoever. Pay FB enough money, and they'll make sure people see your ad.
I don't buy the fuss. I'm with Eric. The people I work with couldn't be further from the geek demo, but when they were seeing any mainstream movie over the past decade and a half, it was seldom the title that was an issue.
"I'm going to see the new Star Wars" not Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith "I'm going to see the new Bond movie" not Casino Royale Quantum of Solace or Skyfall "I'm going to see Batman" not The Dark Knight (whether he be rising or not...) "I'm going to see Superman" not Man of Steel
Remember the title is not Dawn of Justice. It's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
What did people call Wolverine Origins? Wolverine. What did people call Star Trek: Into Darkness? Star Trek.
People will be calling this movie Batman vs Superman, or more likely "that Batman and Superman movie" The franchise is bigger than the title.
Just saw the X-Men: Days of Future Past commercial on TV and at the end the voiceover said "X-Men, now in theaters." No "Days of Future Past".
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I hear that, and I take your point that even people that don't go to movies much, or seek out trailers they way we do still come across them like never before. But I don't think that removes the importance of titles.
Even trailers on a FB feed have names and must be clicked on (or lingered on long enough) to be watched. So the name that accompanies the trailer is still a marketing matter to consider. So even a trailer on FB, or linked to on Twitter, could be called "Batman V Superman" or could be called something less clear, like "Worlds Finest" or "Man of Steel 2".
Which do you think would get more clicks? Or stop more scrolling fingers?
The title still matters even in the social media context, maybe especially there, because unlike sitting captive in a movie theater, you have to choose to opt in.
True, but that imbedded trailer is also going to have an image showing. And that image is going to be the first thing people look at. If that image is a big Bat symbol with an S shield inside it, that's going to say everything that needs to be said. If you don't click on it after seeing that image, you aren't going to click on it after reading the movie title either.
Sure, the image will be present, too. I am not saying the image and symbol is NOT important. I am just saying that choice of title matters, too. I am not sure if this is what you are saying, but if what you are arguing is that there would be no difference between calling it 'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice' vs. calling it 'Dawn of Justice' and then letting the advertising teach people what that means, I disagree. Sure, there would be those that would be informed, who would know that 'Dawn of Justice' means 'That Movie Where Batman Fights Superman'... but the choice of title has made it that one step harder.
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
In regards to the title, does anyone go see a film based solely on its title? I would think that most people, if not everyone, watch a trailer before deciding whether to see a film or not.
You don't need James Bond in the title of a James Bond film. All you need is the signature music and/or the trademark “Bond. James Bond” in a trailer, and people know what’s what. Would calling the movie James Bond: Skyfall have made any difference in ticket sales? I doubt it.
All you need is the Bat symbol and the S shield in a trailer and people will be interested.
...If they see the trailer. Remember, our tribe (which is to say, geeks) see a lot more movies, I would wager, than most people out same age. And we're the types that even seek out trailers on our own time.
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Most of the trailers I watch these days, I watch on Facebook. I rarely seek them out any more, because I don't usually have to. Movie trailers are very visible on social media. Movie billboards, on the other hand, may be prominent in NYC and LA and other high-density population centers, but not so much in the rest of the country. Yeah, lots of people see print ads/billboards for movies and hear radio ads, but I believe (and I may be wrong) that the vast majority of today’s movie-goers decide which movies they want to see by watching trailers (or by being dragged along by a friend who has watched a trailer).
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
I hear that, and I take your point that even people that don't go to movies much, or seek out trailers they way we do still come across them like never before. But I don't think that removes the importance of titles.
Even trailers on a FB feed have names and must be clicked on (or lingered on long enough) to be watched. So the name that accompanies the trailer is still a marketing matter to consider. So even a trailer on FB, or linked to on Twitter, could be called "Batman V Superman" or could be called something less clear, like "Worlds Finest" or "Man of Steel 2".
Which do you think would get more clicks? Or stop more scrolling fingers?
The title still matters even in the social media context, maybe especially there, because unlike sitting captive in a movie theater, you have to choose to opt in.
True, but that imbedded trailer is also going to have an image showing. And that image is going to be the first thing people look at. If that image is a big Bat symbol with an S shield inside it, that's going to say everything that needs to be said. If you don't click on it after seeing that image, you aren't going to click on it after reading the movie title either.
It's also likely going to have a status update like "awww yea son, NEW SUPERMAN MOVIE!!!!!!"
Or something like that.
Edit: I posted a little poll on the reddit machine regarding the title. The results are... a little surprising. The comments are kinda telling too.
For those who don't know, reddit.com is basically a giant message board for every topic. Every topic under the sun. So if you're into Under Water Basket Weaving, there is probably a forum there for that. So I posted the poll in Movies, DCcomics, Superman, Batman, and Justice League.
I'll share more in a few days when I feel like everyone who is going to participate, has.
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
As I said before, and I may be wrong, but given ticket prices, the economy, and the expansion of other entertainment choices, I don’t think you have nearly the same number of people just showing up to the theater to watch whatever movie sounds best as you had ten years ago. I know those people used to exist in droves; I had two friends who managed theaters in the ’90s. But times have changed.
Most theaters would have to abbreviate the hell out of that title anyway. ;)
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
As I said before, and I may be wrong, but given ticket prices, the economy, and the expansion of other entertainment choices, I don’t think you have nearly the same number of people just showing up to the theater to watch whatever movie sounds best as you had ten years ago. I know those people used to exist in droves; I had two friends who managed theaters in the ’90s. But times have changed.
Most theaters would have to abbreviate the hell out of that title anyway. ;)
Sure. But, even abbreviated, better to turn the title into "Batman Superman" than something more vague.
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
As I said before, and I may be wrong, but given ticket prices, the economy, and the expansion of other entertainment choices, I don’t think you have nearly the same number of people just showing up to the theater to watch whatever movie sounds best as you had ten years ago. I know those people used to exist in droves; I had two friends who managed theaters in the ’90s. But times have changed.
Most theaters would have to abbreviate the hell out of that title anyway. ;)
Sure. But, even abbreviated, better to turn the title into "Batman Superman" than something more vague.
Which is, of course, exactly what they'll do.
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
As I said before, and I may be wrong, but given ticket prices, the economy, and the expansion of other entertainment choices, I don’t think you have nearly the same number of people just showing up to the theater to watch whatever movie sounds best as you had ten years ago. I know those people used to exist in droves; I had two friends who managed theaters in the ’90s. But times have changed.
Most theaters would have to abbreviate the hell out of that title anyway. ;)
Sure. But, even abbreviated, better to turn the title into "Batman Superman" than something more vague.
Which is, of course, exactly what they'll do.
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
But, Star Wars is the name of the whole epic...
It also, apparently, irritates my wife that I type all four letters for 'okay' & reference 'iMessage' instead of texting for people with iPhones!
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
As I said before, and I may be wrong, but given ticket prices, the economy, and the expansion of other entertainment choices, I don’t think you have nearly the same number of people just showing up to the theater to watch whatever movie sounds best as you had ten years ago. I know those people used to exist in droves; I had two friends who managed theaters in the ’90s. But times have changed.
Most theaters would have to abbreviate the hell out of that title anyway. ;)
Sure. But, even abbreviated, better to turn the title into "Batman Superman" than something more vague.
Which is, of course, exactly what they'll do.
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
I use Star Wars to refer to all of it, and the first movie specifically. I never call it A New Hope. All others I call the sub title. Empire strikes back, rotj, phantom menace, AOTC, and ROTS.
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
But, Star Wars is the name of the whole epic...
It also, apparently, irritates my wife that I type all four letters for 'okay' & reference 'iMessage' instead of texting for people with iPhones!
M
No. Star Wars BECAME the name of the whole epic. I saw that puppy in the theatre. It was called Star Wars. Nowhere on any of the posters did it reference A New Hope, including, as I remember, the novelization that came out with the release of the movie. It was YEARS before people were referring to it as A New Hope. Long after the rereleases in the late 90s, where it was still referred to as, you guessed it, Star Wars.
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
But, Star Wars is the name of the whole epic...
It also, apparently, irritates my wife that I type all four letters for 'okay' & reference 'iMessage' instead of texting for people with iPhones!
M
No. Star Wars BECAME the name of the whole epic. I saw that puppy in the theatre. It was called Star Wars. Nowhere on any of the posters did it reference A New Hope, including, as I remember, the novelization that came out with the release of the movie. It was YEARS before people were referring to it as A New Hope. Long after the rereleases in the late 90s, where it was still referred to as, you guessed it, Star Wars.
Actually, Star Wars was rebranded as A New Hope just before Empire Strikes Back came out I think. Movies used to get re-released in theaters much more often, and would often have a much different roll out across the nation than they do (as I'm sure you remember). I think Star Wars had a small re-release before Empire where it was re-issued with the slight rebrand and the new open crawl.
But in my experience, no one refers to it as A New Hope, except for online when they are trying to differentiate between all of the movies in a long discussion such as this one.
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
But, Star Wars is the name of the whole epic...
It also, apparently, irritates my wife that I type all four letters for 'okay' & reference 'iMessage' instead of texting for people with iPhones!
M
No. Star Wars BECAME the name of the whole epic. I saw that puppy in the theatre. It was called Star Wars. Nowhere on any of the posters did it reference A New Hope, including, as I remember, the novelization that came out with the release of the movie. It was YEARS before people were referring to it as A New Hope. Long after the rereleases in the late 90s, where it was still referred to as, you guessed it, Star Wars.
Actually, Star Wars was rebranded as A New Hope just before Empire Strikes Back came out I think. Movies used to get re-released in theaters much more often, and would often have a much different roll out across the nation than they do (as I'm sure you remember). I think Star Wars had a small re-release before Empire where it was re-issued with the slight rebrand and the new open crawl.
But in my experience, no one refers to it as A New Hope, except for online when they are trying to differentiate between all of the movies in a long discussion such as this one.
Apparently A New Hope was added in 1981. But... its still Star Wars.
(I see we're headed down a rabbit hole.)
Depending on who you're talking to. If someone wants to talk to me about Star Wars, one of my first questions will be "which chapter are we talking about?"
I enjoy Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back will always be my favorite chapter.
Those are funny. But I really do think WB should also be prepping a WW movie right now and/or someone else so we have even more introduction to the world before a Justice League movie.
Comments
For some, the impression that might build awareness might come from outdoor advertising. Or a banner ad. Or an ad on a free consumer newspaper. Or 15 seconds of radio. I would not discount the importance of a title to those fleeting impressions, even in the Information Age. More people will see a logo than a trailer.
Gone are the days when people went to the movies just because it was Friday night, and any old movie would do.
Yes, I think more people will see a logo than will watch a trailer, thanks to all the cross-promotional marketing done today, but if your logo includes the 007/Walther PPK design or the Bat-symbol or the S shield, it’s going to act as a mini-trailer of sorts. If you see that 007, you know basically what to expect. Likewise with the Bat or the S. The symbol carries just as much weight (and you could argue that it carries more weight) as the name. I just don't think the title matters all that much when it comes to franchise movies.
To say "are you ready for 'Dawn of Justice' or 'World's Finest' in 2016?" To the average person, they probably have no idea what that means.
Conversely, years from now if you talk about 'Batman v. Superman' with the average person or new moviegoing gen that might ask "is that the one that follows 'Batman & Robin' or after Nolan's trilogy?"
M
M
Even trailers on a FB feed have names and must be clicked on (or lingered on long enough) to be watched. So the name that accompanies the trailer is still a marketing matter to consider. So even a trailer on FB, or linked to on Twitter, could be called "Batman V Superman" or could be called something less clear, like "Worlds Finest" or "Man of Steel 2".
Which do you think would get more clicks? Or stop more scrolling fingers?
The title still matters even in the social media context, maybe especially there, because unlike sitting captive in a movie theater, you have to choose to opt in.
I am not saying you are wrong, as definitely trailers are more available then ever before. But also remember a lot of talk about a new trailer on our social media feeds needs to be taken with the lens that these are our own, self-selected groups.
"I'm going to see the new Star Wars" not Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith
"I'm going to see the new Bond movie" not Casino Royale Quantum of Solace or Skyfall
"I'm going to see Batman" not The Dark Knight (whether he be rising or not...)
"I'm going to see Superman" not Man of Steel
Remember the title is not Dawn of Justice. It's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
What did people call Wolverine Origins? Wolverine.
What did people call Star Trek: Into Darkness? Star Trek.
People will be calling this movie Batman vs Superman, or more likely "that Batman and Superman movie" The franchise is bigger than the title.
If you were in charge of marketing the film, why not have both the symbol AND the words of the title work for you? I think both can end up catching attention, or helping someone make a decision either to go to the theater, or AT the theater (again, working movie theaters in college, and being the sort of person that anticipates and is aware of what I want to see well in advance, I was often surprised to see that pairs or even packs of people would just show up on a Friday or Saturday night and then make their decisions by looking up at the marquee).
Or something like that.
Edit: I posted a little poll on the reddit machine regarding the title. The results are... a little surprising. The comments are kinda telling too.
For those who don't know, reddit.com is basically a giant message board for every topic. Every topic under the sun. So if you're into Under Water Basket Weaving, there is probably a forum there for that. So I posted the poll in Movies, DCcomics, Superman, Batman, and Justice League.
I'll share more in a few days when I feel like everyone who is going to participate, has.
Most theaters would have to abbreviate the hell out of that title anyway. ;)
I find all the nerd rage about it amusing, considering that we're talking about the same people that refer to Star Wars as "A New Hope"
It also, apparently, irritates my wife that I type all four letters for 'okay' & reference 'iMessage' instead of texting for people with iPhones!
M
Yup, I'm that guy. Same with The Lord of the Rings.
M
I almost always type out all four letters of okay, though, for what it’s worth.
http://www.taringa.net/comunidades/cinescrupulos/7128307/Posters-vintage-y-no-tanto-de-Star-Wars.html
But in my experience, no one refers to it as A New Hope, except for online when they are trying to differentiate between all of the movies in a long discussion such as this one.
Edit: Wikipedia has a list of all the changes made through all the various releases
Apparently A New Hope was added in 1981. But... its still Star Wars.
Depending on who you're talking to. If someone wants to talk to me about Star Wars, one of my first questions will be "which chapter are we talking about?"
I enjoy Star Wars, but Empire Strikes Back will always be my favorite chapter.
M
My mind is going to explode in about three seconds. 3-2-1.......and I'm done.