h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Didn't Austin Powers 2 do really well when the only advertising I remember for it was:

'If you're going to see one good movie this year, go see Star Wars.

But if you're going to see two, see "Austin Powers: the Spy Who Shagged Me".

It was advertised quite heavily. (And this is really another weird phenomenon: films which do kind of averagely on their initial release in the States, but are so successful on video and/or abroad that a theatrical sequel gets made anyway. Lethal Weapon was another. *Might* turn out that way for LXG.)

But I think we should conclude this discussion at this point.

Well that would make some sense!

"Yes, it was a gamble, but not a inordinately risky one. Set against the outlay (in real terms, not enormous, as film in NZ effectively tripled the budget) you've got to put the huge rep of LOTR (everyone's heard of it), the fanbase, the media interest that any project of this scale would attract. As you've been saying all along, film companies go for safe bets. Unless this another one of those exceptions?"

Some people will remember the animated version and just how badly it did. For a company slowly going down the tube, it was one hell of a gamble, with an emnormous pay off. As has been seen by the original film, a large book fan base/normal fan base isnt nessacerily the be all and end all of success.

My point about star wars was that they are amongst the clearest examples of what im talking about. Theres only so far that you can say it was totally down to the fan base.

When you say film series, my point about the carry on and police academy series comes into play. Neither neccesarily had a true ending, and so as long as people wanted to watch, they were made and marketed.

About advertising, you said before that you didnt believe that peoples choices were reliant solely on it, but now you saying that they are forced. Surely our smart average cinema goer can buy empire and have a look.

What happened to ending this?

Someone wanted the last word.....

Mm, yes.

Media studies does not mean that you know the movie industry in and out.

Has it even been considered that people go see a certain type of movie because producers 'know' what the public wants?

You can see the trends in the industry.

Last year we had the 'year of the the superhero' simply because one superhero movie did well.

This year looks set to be historical epics.
You don't have to read Empire to know that.


May I ask what grade Mr. Dark gained for his first year Media Studies?

Dunno, it's on his Personal Space somewhere though.

An A apparently.

Well that's worthy of a psychological analysis!

He got a D in that. Then again so did I and I didn't go to a single lesson after Christmas, did no coursework and only bothered turning up for 2/3 exams. Heh, got an A on one paper, maybe I shoulda worked!

But I get what you mean. His A in MS makes him no more qualified to talk about the ins and outs of a complex industry of which he has no first hand experience than my Law results allow me to rubbish anyone else's views on the English Legal System (which is frankly crap and full of so many contradictions and outdates statutes.....).

I can't see why you three have been arguing about the simple fact that people will go what looks good, they have heard is good or liked the look of the trailers for. I mean I've see one film that didn't fit into the above categories, and that was because of bloody women!

"I can't see why you three have been arguing about the simple fact that people will go what looks good, they have heard is good or liked the look of the trailers for."
Yes but were arguing as to the exact reason that choice is made. Do people go and see what they actually like the look of through total free will, or does advertising in a subversive way make people believe that they are choosing through free will - which is usually the case.

"His A in MS makes him no more qualified to talk about the ins and outs of a complex industry of which he has no first hand experience than my Law results allow me to rubbish anyone else's views on the English Legal System"
The media industry isnt that complicated depending on exactly how you study it. You can choose to learn the vary basics, ignoring the complex web of companies and support companies that make up the big seven, and still go on to have a happy career in the media. But i believe understanding the companies fully allows you to observe manipulation better. Theres some massive companies, with many millions of american dollars changing hands daily, and its only when you realise which companies are connected that you start to realise what it is possible for companies to do.
Law is not the media, and having studied only law it makes you "no more qualified to talk about the ins and outs" of a complex subject and rubbish the arguement of someone whos worked damned hard to learn his stuff.
What it all boils down to is this:
Film companies will make you watch films. You might not like the idea, but it is true (see phantom menace as the best example, as a cult fan base means nothing <see original lord of the rings&gt. Occasionaly (and only occasionaly) this will fail, but they never lose more then a third of the investment (see gigli)


Oh and i got an E in psychology, an E i am totally proud of because the tutor was a nonce

"Film companies will make you watch films."

You need an A in Media Studies to know that? That's what I can't fathom, it's so obvious that even dumb American moviegoers know it and you thhree have been debating it for over a week now!

Awix beleived that movie choice was mainly down to free will, and people seeing what they wanted to see.
Most people dont know about it however, until its pointed out to them or until they have a small revelation.

Companies do not make you watch films no more than companies make you watch TV or go on the Internet.


It's a concious decision. You're not being dragged by a person with a earpiece and big black suit to the cinema and your cash being ripped from your pockets as your eyes are held open for two hours.

People are fully capable of not choosing to watch a film at the cinema. For the past few years every film I have seen is because someone asked if I wanted go.

Movies are entertaining, people go to be entertained and be told stories. It's a choice.

If I wanted to stop watching movies I could and to hell with advertising which is the usually the way that people know about certain movies unless you choose to search out movie info.

Take the Red Dwarf movie which is coming out. I guarantee that I will go and see it. Why? I love the TV show and don't have the patience that I normally do to what until a movie is released onto VHS/DVD.

Companies do not physically grab you and haul you to places. They carefully suggest things, like this will be good, you should go see it.

The concious decision is one to reach into your wallet and hand over cash. The subconcious decision is to choose one peice of advertising.

How did your friend come to the decision about which film? People who go to watch films have to make a choice, advertising 'helps' them make that choice.

I agree, many people will go see a film because they enjoyed something that came before (your red dwarf example, to some extent phantom menace, my lord of the rings), but that isnt always the case. Most members of the film watching public use advertising to make the choice. The more advertising, the easier the choice.

Many people actively go against this (take reefgirl not watching lord of the rings because i cant think of another example) but there simply arent that many people like that to turn back the power of advertising.

Believe me when i say that i dont like this way of selling films. I feel genuinely sorry watching people get excitied over the most recent heavily promoted realese, only to come back from the cinemas utterly disappointed save for the trailers that they've seen, where they have found the next 'biggie' to get excited about.

I ask you all to pay close attention over the next few months to a film called troy. Its set to be the big film of 2004, alongside harry potter 3, and kill bill 2. It comes out in march, so that gives you all three months to watch the advertisement build up. This will be more evident the closer you live to a major city (london, manchester etc). Near its release, just have a walk around your nearest big city and watch a bit of tele. Its going to get a lot of promotion, and even if the reveiws turn out bad, it'll still do well, as everyone rushes to see a gladiator look-a-like.

How do you choose to see a film then?

Do you see the start a trailer and go 'ooh nasty' and switch over?

Do you flick open your copy of Empire and judge by the reviews or previews?


Adverts, namely trailers I'm talking about, guide you into what type of movie you might want to see and let you know that the film is out.

You're not going to see Nicholas Nickleby from the trailer because it's a period drama and you like action movies.

When movies are hyped there are those who go to movies purely on the notion of finding out what the fuss is all about.

And won't Troy be seen by many a female fan of Mr. Orlando Bloom?

and mr bard pitt, and sean bean if he tickles there fancies.

With a trailer, you see can see nearly 80 different cuts. The mission impossible two trailer has roughily 150 cuts, showing how the two main genres can be shown quite easily without upsetting the balance of what the film is about.

As ive already said with my film selection, i usually see films before they come out, barring a few cases like lord of the rings.

"You're not going to see Nicholas Nickleby from the trailer because it's a period drama and you like action movies"
Okay ill put it another way. The only clear unswerving decision made by the audience is genre. If they like a particular genre then they'll watch the advertisied films. But the majority of the big budget block busters now have to be either action based or romanced based - with the big hitters having a combination.

SEAN BEAN is in it? Sean Bean is like my favourite actor of all time! I must see this film, I MUST!

Never used to like Sean Bean until I realised how great a bad guy he was in GoldenEye.