Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Here's another poster that really is quite simple yet this film did very well because of word of mouth and some funny trailers.

the-40yearold-virgin-movie-poster-2.jpg


I know that the poster is telling us that Steve Carell is the '40 year old virgin' but no way am I going to see this movie because of this poster.

MAH
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
And many people like the comic books (graphic novels) that Pilgrim was based on...
Click to expand...
Bullshi* says I. There are no significant numbers in the "adult" comics or graphic novel market...and this proves it.

How many people that saw 300 or Sin City actually read the source material? I dunno either, but the percentages can't be high.... But those were marketed as "cool" movies (the names attached to Sin City, in front of and behind the camera, didn't hurt either.)

With Scott Pilgrim, they banked solely on the niche market, and marketed a film that I, nor anyone else apparently, wanted to see. The poster speaks to that fact, the trailers did as well...
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
And many people like the comic books (graphic novels) that Pilgrim was based on.

Again, anyone ever see a movie based on poster alone?

MAH
Click to expand...

SP was a niche book nobody but comic geeks knew about. Godfather sold 21 million copies and was on the best seller list for 67 weeks...I used the poster as one example of their crappy marketing.
 
Way to pick just pieces of what's being said. Guys, I'm not arguing that.
You guys are right on that, I have no idea how popular the comics are. Didn't hurt Marvel though.

Anyone dare answer the question I've asked multiple times?


Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Again, anyone ever see a movie based on poster alone?

MAH
Click to expand...

Everyone is saying how bad the poster is. I'm saying, who cares?
That's NOT why it's tanking.

MAH
 
Last edited:
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Way to pick just pieces of what's being said. Guys, I'm not arguing that.
You guys are right on that, I have no idea how popular the comics are. Didn't hurt Marvel though.

Anyone dare answer the question I've asked multiple times?




Everyone is saying how bad the poster is. I'm saying, who cares?
That's NOT why it's tanking.

MAH
Click to expand...

It's a contributing factor. Whenever I tell someone to see the movie, they either haven't heard of it, or saw a poster or TV ad that didn't look appealing. That's bad marketing. Everyone I know who's seen the film has really enjoyed it.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
...Anyone dare answer the question I've asked multiple times?
Click to expand...
On this board, you won't find many who would see a film based on a poster, because we (for the most part) are all-too-aware of xyz film well before it gets to the "marketing" stage of things.

John Q. Public though, I would wager, is heavily influenced by marketing/posters he see as he enters and exits the hallowed halls of the theatre complex. He may be "becoming aware" of xyz upcoming film for the first time. Priceless marketing methinks...
 
CallaghanFilms said:
On this board, you won't find many who would see a film based on a poster, because we (for the most part) are all-too-aware of xyz film well before it gets to the "marketing" stage of things.

John Q. Public though, I would wager, is heavily influenced by marketing/posters he see as he enters and exits the hallowed halls of the theatre complex. He may be "becoming aware" of xyz upcoming film for the first time. Priceless marketing methinks...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that great posters don't help, just that I won't see a movie based on a poster.

And Joe public spends top dollar to see a movie just like we do. They would be idiots to go see a movie (or not see one) based on poster alone.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Oh but I did, you hoser

When I was a kid...there were plenty o' posters that hooked me in.
Click to expand...

And answered. You would be a fool to judge a movie by only its poster. That was my point.
Sure, there are great posters, but that's never why I saw the movie.

PS - you really underestimate the public if you think they'll see a movie because of the poster.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
I'm not saying that great posters don't help, just that I won't see a movie based on a poster.

And Joe public spends top dollar to see a movie just like we do. They would be idiots to go see a movie (or not see one) based on poster alone.
Click to expand...
Right, but with the inevitable "Oh, I wanna see that", the inception has begun to take hold...

...then, the tv spots act merely as a reminder.
 
Nope, the TV spots are gold in comparison. A good trailer holds far more weight than a great poster.

I also don't ever remember saying, "Too bad that trailer sucked. The poster had so much potential!" :grin:

MAH
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
You didn't answer my question. :)
Click to expand...

I didn't answer it because I never claimed a poster will make someone go see a movie in the first place. I used the poster as an example of the lousy marketing of the film. You took that as me saying the movie tanked because of the poster, which is not what I was saying...So I'm not going to answer your question because it's based on a false premise.
 
This is silly. Of course posters matter for marketing. That's the whole idea of why posters arose in the first place. Nobody would be spending the kind of money they spend on coming up with posters, if it didn't have marketing impact on how many people it drives to the theaters. Obviously, it's not the only thing, but it is a very important marketing element. Anyone who claims otherwise - hey, at least I know one thing about you 100% sure... you've never been around film marketing departments. That stuff is super important and gets discussed and discussed and discussed, and reviewed and multiple samples submitted. Same with titles - a lot of marketing. All this sh|t is backed by extensive marketing research. Understand one thing: nobody spends that money unless they have to - and this stuff is constantly tested in the market. Posters are super important in marketing. Oh, and if you think the "40 year old virgin" poster was "simple" and not important in driving people to theater's - I can only laugh. That image, that innocent look on a 40 year old man was marketing GOLD - it was all over billboards and people were TALKING about it just based on the billboards - not something that happens very often. These were in fact very good posters and very good marketing based on these posters. You took one look at that man, and you were intrigued/laughing by the concept. MARKETING UNDERSTANDING FAIL.

Again, posters, of course are not the only factor, but are super important. A good poster or a bad poster can often make a huge difference to the success/failure of a movie. Of course, most of the time, posters are simply mediocre. But don't discount the importance of posters.
 
Bat, I wasn't just asking you. It just seemed that plenty of people were blaming the poster.

Again, I know they help a little, it's marketing.
Just wanted to point out that movies like 40 year old virgin did just fine with a crappy poster.

It's more than that.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Bat, I wasn't just asking you. It just seemed that plenty of people were blaming the poster.

Again, I know they help a little, it's marketing.
Just wanted to point out that movies like 40 yearl old virgin did just fine with a crappy poster.

It's more than that.
Click to expand...

I thought the 40 Year Old Virgin poster was hilarious. It made me laugh and probably made other people laugh, which helped them decide wether or not to see the movie. I look at the SP poster, I go , HUH?...But moving on, I did post my thoughts on why the film did poorly earlier in the thread. I think they made a mistake by releasing it wide. They should have gone slow, like a Juno, let word of mouth build and then slowly widen it. Also, releasing it in the summer where there's more competition was probably a mistake too. Seems like the kind of film that would've done well in the doldrums of Spring...But you know, it could just be a case of a good film with a premise that's just not attractive to a wide swathe of people. I mainly went to see it because I'm a film fan and a fan of Edgar Wright (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). If I wasn't familiar with his track record I don't know if I'd have been so keen to watch it. Might have waited for home video.
 
I've seen movies having never looked at the poster, save for a glance as I enter, if that.
I'm sure I'm not alone.

Anyway, posters matter. Sure. Just not all that much as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers,

Mike
 
You have a few factors that are creating problems. You have a romantic superhero movie about a slacker teenager... (Mind you I loved the film, one of my fave now)

The marketing was everywhere, like a kid with a hose. Perhaps it's because they couldn't decide how to sell it. I remember seeing the Ads. In my opinion the film was all about the relationship and the 7exs. Yet some tv ads only mentioned the quirky geeky teenage story, or sometimes the romance aspect... It confused people.

This is why the poster didn't work. Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't good, it was just too vague. 40 year old virgin was not. The title and the awkward man on the front explained it well enough. The godfather was perhaps more vague but they may have had strong marketing elsewhere, and the subject matter was probably more universal.

Most people I told about Scott Pilgrim responded with "I've seen ads for it, I'm not sure what it's about" and I had to do all the work of explaining it. THAT's bad marketing. As soon as I told them their eyes lit up.

Here's an article that also mentions Micheal Cera's lack of appeal:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/artic...w-something-so-good-did-so-bad-20335?page=0,0

I have to somewhat agree with them. At first when Micheal Cera hits the screen with Arrested Development, he was amazing. This strangely quirky guy that is somehow awesome. When superbad came out he helped make it shine. Juno came out and he added a lot to it. But then it got boring. He plays the same dude, the same quirky guy, nothing is fun about it anymore. So film after film he loses appeal... I can honestly say I did not see this film for Micheal Cera. I'm sure he's a cool guy, but he didn't make this film. In fact I could have seen this work a lot better with someone a bit less awkward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top