Coming soon to a theatre near you (or a browser)

May 11, 2005 2:14 AM

Nothing to see...yet!(Some sites may contain Flash and/or be annoying) The movie hasn’t come out yet but yet the studio knows people will be looking to see if there is official skinny. Some are simple, some complex, some are already taken by someone else with a different motivation (I think). But they all have a something to say (well, not always.)
posted by Dagobert (23 comments total)

huh?
posted by dhruva at 2:23 AM on May 11, 2005

Movies have websites?!?
posted by flashboy at 2:28 AM on May 11, 2005

Wait, on this "Internet" people "cyber-squat?" What's next?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:35 AM on May 11, 2005

All they have about V for Vendetta is moving masks? But I want to know more.
posted by jb at 3:09 AM on May 11, 2005

dagobert, dude what is the point?
posted by three blind mice at 4:17 AM on May 11, 2005

I was interested in seeing how studios are addressing a web presence for upcoming films.

For the most part, a well defined web prescence is not part of a traditional marketing plan. And although I didn't post it, a lot of the movie title websites were taken by those web squatting companies.

We speak about how the web is becoming a viable part of New Media what with the blogging and such. We have seen traditional advertising methods migrate very easily to a digital realm so why are marketing techniques lagging?

Sure, you have the occassional home run with The Blair Witch Project and the Lord of The Rings but it still seems woefully underdeveloped. And it seems like a relatively easy way to mobilize a fan base, disseminate info about upcoming events and promo event in regards to the movie and start a synergy between the fans and the studio. Word of mouth has always been the most effective way to build buzz so why is Hollywood missing out on an easy, cheap avenue for most movies, not just the ones with a nerd/geek/zealot fan base?

It seemed like such a good idea when I was composing it...
posted by Dagobert at 4:32 AM on May 11, 2005

I am pissed about the Watchmen one just being a tease. Dagobert, you will pay dearly for this
posted by poppo at 5:01 AM on May 11, 2005

For the most part, a well defined web prescence is not part of a traditional marketing plan.

I'd say that was much more true in 2000 than it is today. And even then, movies such as Requiem for a Dream had rich, engaging sites that added to the movie expereince. Even a year before that, American Beauty had a site that reinforced the themes of the advertising campaign while giving a unique and artfully executed experience relating to the movie.

In the past few years, even exclusive screenings for Academy members in advance of voting have been promoted as footnotes on websites of particular movies.

Certainly some movies have more articulated sites than others, but I'd venture that in 2005, if a movie doesn't have a well-articulated web presence, it's because the target audience isn't looking for one.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:12 AM on May 11, 2005

The Watchmen site is here, actually.

And I could've sworn there used to be much more content on the V site, like footage from an on-set press conference with Purefoy and Portman and others ...
posted by grabbingsand at 5:19 AM on May 11, 2005

Kinda maddening how, in all the promotional images for this summer's latest version of War of the Worlds, you don't see any images of the invaders or their hardware. Spielberg and the studio are playing this awfully close to the vest, and I hope this doesn't result in a big letdown when the movie finally comes out: "Awww, that's all they are? Pfft, big deal...."
posted by alumshubby at 5:22 AM on May 11, 2005

Of course, I might've just been looking at news about V on ComingSoon.
posted by grabbingsand at 5:24 AM on May 11, 2005

And I could've sworn there used to be much more content on the V site, like footage from an on-set press conference with Purefoy and Portman and others ...

That might be because they dropped Purefoy and replaced him with Weaving...

Man, this movie is just getting more and more unappealing, isn't it? I love Weaving, but...this? I don't know...
posted by Katemonkey at 5:32 AM on May 11, 2005

Kinda maddening how, in all the promotional images for this summer's latest version of War of the Worlds, you don't see any images of the invaders or their hardware.

That's because they know damn well that seeing the creature and ship design is the only reason anyone would be interested in watching the movie. I'm sorry, but War of the Worlds has already been reset in the late 20th/early 21st century. It was called "Independence Day." If Spielberg had actually left it in Victorian England, like it's supposed to be, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

Can you tell I'm annoyed?
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:35 AM on May 11, 2005

War of the Worlds has already been reset in the late 20th/early 21st century. It was called "Independence Day."

... and before that, it was called The White Mountains. (Well, the sequel, at least.)

Depending on what parts of the story he emphasizes, Spielberg could produce an interesting movie by hewing more closely to the plot of the novel. There is, after all, that long-ish chunk in the middle where the narrator hides out with a guy of big ambitions and little backbone; that interaction is pretty ripe for exploitation.

As for V for Vendetta, I lost most of my interest as soon as I learned it was a Wachowski joint. Watchment, though -- I'll hang on to my hopes for that like grim death.
posted by lodurr at 5:48 AM on May 11, 2005

Thank you grabbingsand! Dagobert, I forgive you
posted by poppo at 6:06 AM on May 11, 2005

Agreed...Bayonne, New Jersey, getting flattened just doesn't make me want to stand in line and open my wallet.

WotW in its original Victorian setting...that could be an amazing movie. Reminds me how I've longed to see The Difference Engine brought to the screen, or Perdido Street Station for that matter.
posted by alumshubby at 6:20 AM on May 11, 2005

alumshubby, i also would like to see both of those very badly, but am equally frightened of the result
posted by poppo at 6:46 AM on May 11, 2005

Never heard of it. Won't watch it. Have better things to do.

Oh, look! Paint drying!
posted by fleener at 6:57 AM on May 11, 2005

The War of the Worlds trailer shows the bottom of an alien ship tipping over a ferry boat. You have to play the scene in single frame mode to see it – it's your typical alien spaceship, not worth mentioning and not nearly as interesting as the Heart of Gold in HGTTG.
posted by disgruntled at 8:23 AM on May 11, 2005

My understanding was that Watchmen was canceled again.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:06 AM on May 11, 2005

OK, first of all, what's up with the Everest link? That movie came out years ago, and the site is certainly nothing special.

Beyond that, call me cranky and cynical, but why should the expectation be that big movies need rich websites? A movie is a movie, not a "multimedia art piece". There are some, like Richard Kelley, who explore this realm deliberately, but he's personally crafting the site as an artist, not a marketing rep.
posted by mkultra at 11:11 AM on May 11, 2005

War of the Worlds in its original setting? You mean like this
posted by Sparx at 1:49 PM on May 11, 2005

Actually, it might be a smart move for IMDB to set up an ancillary service for the film industry to have their official film sites posted as, for example, "thewatchmen.imdb.com".

Everyone goes to imdb to get at least some of their film info anyway; everybody knows it; and then, no squatting problem. They could even offer dev/design services to smaller distributors and indies.
posted by taz at 11:07 PM on May 11, 2005