How should film trailers be?

C

combatentropy

Veteran
Classic film trailers make me squirm. Over time they changed, but they haven't much for the last few decades.

In another thread, someone remarked that the trailer told the whole movie, and I feel like that most of the time, maybe because I'm nearly 40. But seriously, I don't understand why they feel they have to put the first two thirds of the move in. I hardly ever feel the need to see the movie anymore.

This thread is completely open to opinions, but I wonder if trailers should pull way back. Was a trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens even necessary? They could have just put up posters with only the title on them. Yes, that's good enough for a Star Wars sequel, but I think many films could still get away with showing a fraction of what they do.

I still remember this teaser for The Firm, which has no footage from the film, and yet I was terribly excited:


It can be a piece of art on its own.
 
Last edited:
I've worked at a couple trailer houses in town as everything from a runner (years ago) to a freelance editor. And before that (17 years ago), I worked for the company (then called NRG) that tested the effectiveness of trailers. Studios would routinely test multiple versions cut by different vendors. Here's the reason trailers usually give away so much... they generally test better. Despite not wanting the story spoiled in the abstract, more respondents are moved to say they will definitely see the movie given a fuller understanding of the movie they will see. The example you posted is a teaser -- something the industry differentiates from the trailer. Teasers typically run under 2 minutes, whereas Trailers usually max out at or near the limit imposed by the MPAA, 2m30s.
 
Zak Forsman said:
Here's the reason trailers usually give away so much... they generally test better. Despite not wanting the story spoiled in the abstract, more respondents are moved to say they will definitely see the movie given a fuller understanding of the movie they will see. The example you posted is a teaser -- something the industry differentiates from the trailer. Teasers typically run under 2 minutes, whereas Trailers usually max out at or near the limit imposed by the MPAA, 2m30s.
Click to expand...

And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

And no, I don't how Zak comes by such large nuts that he can be putting everything into such nutshells here.
 
The trailer for Star Wars did all I needed it to. I could see that the new movie looked like the original trilogy, not some giant toy selling advertisement with a jar jar binds and that's all I needed but of course star wars is unique.

in general I have no interest if I see a trailer and then I have no idea what the movie is about. Curiosity is not piqued I'm just annoyed.
 
If you're doing marketing for any sort of indie venture or smaller business, sometimes looking to the big guys is helpful - because of their testing which is expensive.

But then there are specialty markets that want differentiation to show "we're not like all the mass-market crap"… go see a foreign or art film at an art-house and see how some of those trailers are handled.

One of the most effective trailers ever was the first "Alien" trailer - no story, just quick cuts - it was intriguing and frightening.

And this, one of the greatest trailers of all time (the William Tell version, there are several but this one - can you imagine walking into a theater in the 70's and seeing this?)

 
Zak Forsman said:
I've worked at a couple trailer houses in town as everything from a runner (years ago) to a freelance editor. And before that (17 years ago), I worked for the company (then called NRG) that tested the effectiveness of trailers. Studios would routinely test multiple versions cut by different vendors. Here's the reason trailers usually give away so much... they generally test better. Despite not wanting the story spoiled in the abstract, more respondents are moved to say they will definitely see the movie given a fuller understanding of the movie they will see. The example you posted is a teaser -- something the industry differentiates from the trailer. Teasers typically run under 2 minutes, whereas Trailers usually max out at or near the limit imposed by the MPAA, 2m30s.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the information, Zak. Such trailers may very well attract more people, especially people of prime moviegoing age.

Honestly for someone like me, who has studied filmmaking for [*REDACTED*] years, maybe I could guess most of the movie even from the premise. At a friend's, I was watching an episode of Castle, which I never watch. In fact since high school, I hardly watch TV at all. Castle walks into Beckett's apartment right after an explosion. He thinks she's dead. In the background is a bath tub. "She's in the bath tub," I say. A second or two later, she calls from the tub. But she doesn't have any clothes on. "Give her your coat," I say to the TV. A couple seconds later, Castle gives her his coat. My friend was impressed. I was bored.

Still I would make one last plea. A survey in a theater, yes, says people like more in their trailers. But in real life, a trailer plays just a part. A person learns about a movie, and decides on it, also from: word of mouth, posters, reviews, news, blogs, Youtubers, and so on. So, in that context, I still wonder if I might prefer more teasers and fewer trailers.

Besides, J. J. Abrams can't be wrong (thanks, Scott F!)

 
Last edited:
We wen't back and forth on this while deciding which way to go with our theatrical trailer. Ultimately we decided to tell most of the story, and if this type trailer tests better as Zak said, that's good news. The general reaction from the target demographic after seeing it is, "I want to see this". So it must be working.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top