« Down The Corridor With Roy | Main | HD Is Dead, Long Live HD »
February 11, 2008
Why Studios Don't Matter To Marketing
This one is on me, but it makes a bigger point.
I just found an e-postcard from Warner Bros for what I assumed was a Paramount movie... Fool's Gold.
Why did I assume? Because this was a kind of film that Paramount was making over and over.
Of course, Warners made New Line franchise Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Fox style I Am Legend and Music & Lyrics, Universal style License To Wed, etc.
Of course, Paramount's Beowulf was classic WB, Fox's Epic Movie was pure Dimension, Universal's I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was built for Sony, and Will Ferrell can't seem to work for one studio for more than a few months... but hey, we even have Judd Apatow at Sony doing a Will Ferrell movie with John C Reilly as Will and flopping in December.
Only Disney is DISNEY these days.
Posted by poland at February 11, 2008 12:21 PM
Comments
I really do enjoy doing marketing/advertising in this industry largely because the general population has no concept of brands by studio - it's merely a game of properties, familiar or otherwise. We're all getting to cycle through a multitude of genres, tapping into different markets, learning new ways of grounding a film into our daily lives.
Unless you're at Screen Gems.
P.S. I thought FOOL'S GOLD was Paramount, too.
Posted by: RocketScientist ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 11, 2008 12:55 PM
I too was confused on I Am Legend pre-release and thought Fool's Gold was a Paramount flick until I saw posters on Friday. It didn't matter that I saw a trailer for Fool's Gold on the Imax before watching I Am Legend -- I still connected it with Paramount.
Posted by: eoguy at February 11, 2008 01:11 PM
You know you see too many movies when you can recognize a studio's FILM STOCK SHEEN.
The overwhelming blue-with-orange-flesh-tonesness of FOOL'S GOOD was the key telltale sign of its WBness. It'd have been more powdery and less warm had it been Paramount.
Universal is usually green-silver.
Fox is yellow.
Sony is pink.
Posted by: LexG at February 11, 2008 02:55 PM
Interesting, Lex.
I am not sure about it, but I will say that I can recognize a broadcast network from the tone of the image they are broadcasting.
Posted by: David Poland at February 11, 2008 03:08 PM
How about 1990, when Fox released the VERY WB slate of Marked For Death, Edward Scissorhands, and Exorcist III?
Posted by: LexG at February 11, 2008 04:08 PM
"Beowulf" had the look of a Universal monster movie.
Posted by: Chucky in Jersey at February 11, 2008 04:39 PM
I smell bullshit, LexG. How do you attribute different stock "sheen" to different studios? Are you a professional color timer? Since you're an expert, you can tell me which studios print at which labs using which stock.
Posted by: Wrecktum at February 11, 2008 04:39 PM
In the old studio days they each tended to more or less have their own looks.
Posted by: mutinyco at February 11, 2008 05:14 PM
Lex is right on with the different sheen of the studios. Lionsgate even has it's own sheen that's a dull white. Heat you are also right about the TV networks. This is also one of the reason that I have never ever been that much of a fan of CBS. Their tone gives me a headache if I watch too much of it.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at February 11, 2008 05:26 PM
A friend of mine had a one-day role on ONE LIFE TO LIVE back in the early 90's and the head of make-up told him "Aboslutely no orange bronzing. This isn't goddamned CBS." Cracked me up.
Posted by: bmcintire at February 11, 2008 05:30 PM
Tell us more about these headaches, IOI.
Beowulf didn't look like a Universal horror movie, it looked like Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing.
Posted by: jeffmcm at February 11, 2008 05:45 PM
Which was a Universal horror.
Posted by: Cadavra at February 11, 2008 05:56 PM
Not gonna argue that point.
Posted by: jeffmcm at February 11, 2008 06:14 PM
I dunno. Fool's Gold looked kinda Disney as in Touchstone or even Hollywood.
"If it's the Sphinx, it stinks."
Posted by: doug r at February 11, 2008 07:45 PM
Jeff, it's just not a nice tint.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at February 12, 2008 05:30 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)