The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread- Open SPOILERS -enter at own risk!

[BuffyGirl]

Re: Avengers Movie Villians!!!

How do the rest of us get in on that sweet Superbowl market research studies?

I second that.

 

[FreddyvsJasonvsAsh]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

well I was at my local mall and the guy asked me if I wanted to get paid for a survey...said sure and he showed me the clip....it was still a rough cut but FREAKING AWESOME!!!

 

[thenammagazine]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

well I was at my local mall and the guy asked me if I wanted to get paid for a survey...said sure and he showed me the clip....it was still a rough cut but FREAKING AWESOME!!!

That's how pornos start.

 

[FreddyvsJasonvsAsh]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

LOL!!! Las Vegas has alot of these market research places.......one is inside The Miracle Mile @ Planet Hollywood Hotel, MGM Grand Hotel & Casino, Galleria Mall @ Sunset are 3 I can think of off hand

 

[Khev]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

When I lived in Portland, OR there were people at malls coming up all the time and asking for feedback on trailers and if they were edited in such a way as to make you want to see the movie.

They were REALLY specific, like "what was the best line?" "What was annoying, who was annoying, what one thing made you want to see the movie, what turned you off," etc.

They tried not to show you something you'd go see no matter what and too often I'd blurt out that I liked action movies or something only to have them show me a romantic comedy.

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

I find it a little funny that they spent so much time and energy saying "It's not the Skrulls" only to have it be Skrulls. Similar to the way that Zach Snyder said "No Zod, we will not have Zod" only to cast a Zod in his film.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

It's not the Skrulls, it's the Chitauri

 

[Kamandi]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Movie studios lie. Pathologically. Insiders just cannot stand they idea you know something when they thought they had insider info. So they act like stuff is a big secret even when it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face.

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

It's not the Skrulls, it's the Chitauri

That's exactly what I'm expecting.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

That's exactly what I'm expecting.

Minus Herr Kleiser

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Actually I wouldn't be absolutely shocked if they included Herr Kleiser as a way to bridge between Cap and The Avengers.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

Movie studios lie. Pathologically. Insiders just cannot stand they idea you know something when they thought they had insider info. So they act like stuff is a big secret even when it becomes as obvious as the nose on your face.

Consider also that often agreements are signed and a person legally has to deny certain details about a project up until a specific point even if someone in the media asks them about it overtly. Too many people fail to understand this aspect of the process or respect those who are bound by NDAs and other legal agreements.

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

That's is definitely true but in the ways of handling such NDAs is an art within itself. I've heard directors, producers simply say "I'd rather not answer that question." or "We won't get into who will be in the film but fans should be excited" and it's leaps and bounds different than overly saying "X will not be in the film" only to have it come to pass.

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

That's is definitely true but in the ways of handling such NDAs is an art within itself. I've heard directors, producers simply say "I'd rather not answer that question." or "We won't get into who will be in the film but fans should be excited" and it's leaps and bounds different than overly saying "X will not be in the film" only to have it come to pass.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

You're assuming people aren't specifically told to state disinformation instead of "no comments" when engaged by the media. Because I can tell you for certain that this is sometimes the case. The studios realized a long time ago that "no comment" only stimulates rumors and speculation. Now the media is starting to catch on to straight denials, too, so I imagine they'll start trying something else at some point.

 

[Kamandi]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

There are a million examples of interviews where an actor is asked point blank about an upcoming role and they say something to the effect of "I can't talk about that". Usually that answer means an NDA is in force. If the interviewer isn't a tool they accept that answer and move on.

"I'm sorry but I can't discuss that" isn't the most fun answer, but at least it's not an insult to everyone's intelligence. "No, there are no aliens in Indiana Jones 4" is BS and a short time later everyone finds out it's BS. "No, Kahn isn't in JJ Trek 2" is probably BS.

If you can't talk due to an NDA then why are you doing publicity for a movie?

 

[thenammagazine]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

You're assuming people aren't specifically told to state disinformation instead of "no comments" when engaged by the media. Because I can tell you for certain that this is sometimes the case. The studios realized a long time ago that "no comment" only stimulates rumors and speculation. Now the media is starting to catch on to straight denials, too, so I imagine they'll start trying something else at some point.

The only problem I have with that is that while "no comment" stimulates rumors, at least it keeps interest, whereas disinformation can sometimes lose viewers or backfire and create even more hype setting up a scenario for bigger disappointment.

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

You're assuming people aren't specifically told to state disinformation instead of "no comments" when engaged by the media. Because I can tell you for certain that this is sometimes the case.

Whether the blame ultimately falls on who is being interviewed for denying it instead of going another route or for the movie studio who says "Say this" it's still bad form. I'd rather get a director, producer, actor who blantantly misleads about what is in it like Michael Caine or Gary Oldman so you know they are just ____ing with media instead of someone who is that closely tied to production, knows the facts and simply chooses to deny for the sake of it. I have a hard time swallowing that if I were Christopher Nolan, Zack Synder, Jon Favreau and a movie studio is giving me a tentpole that they'd care if I said to them "I would rather say I can't answer that" instead of saying no only to have it be false.

I've read Nolan interviews where he says "I'm not going to answer that" working for WB, I would imagine it'd be the same for any director under those same clauses.

 

[IrishJedi]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

The only problem I have with that is that while "no comment" stimulates rumors, at least it keeps interest, whereas disinformation can sometimes lose viewers or backfire and create even more hype setting up a scenario for bigger disappointment.

Agreed. That's why these stipulations only exist for certain details within certain projects.

I can give you a specific example of one that won't get me in trouble (anymore) ...

During the WATCHMEN marketing, many of us signed agreements that had specific answers that were supposed to be given when a question was asked that overtly offered comparison to the graphic novel for certain scenes. One that I still recall was the Comedian/Sally Jupiter attempted rape scene. When asked how that would be handled in the film, it was ordered to give no specifics BUT if given the opportunity (to drop character names) to state that it is Nite Owl that walks in and stops Blake, not Hooded Justice. This of course was an outright untruth. Nite Owl does walk in, but Hooded Justice is who stops Blake and much of the dialogue was retained directly from the graphic novel. I think this was designed to continue a belief among fans that Hooded Justice wasn't in the movie, and to keep it a surprise. But I always thought it was weird and an odd way to go about it.

Just one example.

 

[The Mike]

Re: The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread

See but that's slightly different isn't it? To omit that Hooded Justice is in the scene and alude to the fact that Nite Owl taking on that role is simply masking detail. Nite Owl was there and it's easy to say that he did help in stopping it to a degree but it'd be a different thing if they told you guys to say "Hooded Justice is not in this film."

That is more the issue, that either directors/producers/actors or studios are saying "X is not there" and then they pop up. That is the headscratcher and leads to a bit higher rating on the BS meter.