One reason I don’t like paying $10 to see a movie in the theater — other than paying $10 for a ticket, $15 for popcorn and a Coke and a box of Nerds and sitting in front of people who think they’re at home and talk throughout the entire movie — is the sense I’ve seen the movie already, thanks to the trailers.
If I ran Hollywood, I would decree that trailers couldn’t show scenes that weren’t in the first 20 minutes of the movie.
I mean, with a Hollywood movie, you know the good guy will win. You know the super hero will save the world. You know the lovers will get together and live happily ever after.
You know, because you understand how movies work.
People love “The Shawshank Redemption” (it has 9.2 out of 10 stars and ranks as the most-liked movie on IMDB), but I never got it, because I knew all along that Tim Robbins’ character was a) going to get out of that prison and that b) the evil warden and guards were going to get theirs.
I knew, because it’s a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood doesn’t make movies where a possibly innocent man goes to prison and stays there. I knew, too, because this scene was all over the trailers:
It’s a scene of what looks like redemption, and it’s one of the last shots in the movie. Whatever else happens to Tim Robbins’ character, I knew, sooner or later, he would strike a redemptive pose in the rain, which is Hollywood for “everything will be all right,” and in a movie about a guy who goes to prison, that means getting out of prison.
Hollywood, of course, doesn’t care about spoiling movies, because the studios’ goal is putting people in seats. If that means giving away the ending, tough.
So, trailers that spoil the movie are nothing new (heck, the original trailer for “Casablanca” shows Rick shooting Major Strasser at the airport), but I think things have gotten out of hand.
In case you haven’t heard, there’s a Spider-Man movie coming out this summer. Over the past few weeks, Sony/Columbia has released several trailers and extended scenes to help build excitement and ensure a big opening weekend. (That’s important, because the movie cost a reported $220 million to make.)
Well, someone who goes by the handle Sleepyskunk collected all those random scenes and stitched them together and came up a 25-minute version of the movie that pretty much tells the entire story, from beginning to end. It’s on Screenrant.com (WordPress wouldn’t let me embed the video from Screenrant or other sites that allow embedding, so you’ll need to watch it elsewhere.)
This isn’t leaked footage. This is footage Sony/Columbia released on purpose to promote the movie. It’s footage that’s all over the Internet already.
According to IMDB, “The Amazing Spider-Man” runs 136 minutes, so this 25-minute fan edit represents only about one-quarter of the movie, but, still, that’s too much.
After watching the fan-edited “Ultimate Super Preview,” I’m not sure why I’d want to pay to see the rest of the movie.
So I watched the video, and now I don’t have to watch the movie. Which is a good thing, because I’m thinking that I would hate the movie. For one thing, I don’t understand why studios do remakes, or “re-boots” or whatever they choose to call it, for movies that aren’t very old. Also, this new kid doesn’t seem that appealing to me. Also, those scenes with the car thief were just annoying; Spiderman was acting like a child and a complete ass. Also, I liked the 2002 Spiderman movie, and I just can’t seem to emotionally get behind Martin Sheen and Sally Field as his aunt and uncle. In my world, Uncle Ben wouldn’t try to embarrass Peter with that photo on the computer bit. But I guess we all have our opinions. At least I won’t spend my money on this new franchise.
I know, but the last Spider-Man trilogy came out in 2002. They’re making movies for teenagers. When you were a teenager, 10 years seemed like forever ago. Spider-Man is a movie that came out when they were in preschool. To them, it isn’t too soon for a reboot.
Oh My Goodness! I’m old!?
I thought of that when I was commenting; I even looked up the old movie to see how long ago it really was. I thought, “Well, the kids today won’t go back to that old movie, they’ll spend their money on this new one.” And then I thought, “But I still don’t like it.”
Oh yeah, and get off my lawn.
Rick shoots Major Strasser? Hey, how ’bout a spoiler alert??
You should see the trailer for Psycho: “In a world … where one man … wears dresses and pretends to be his own mother ….”
Or, the trailer to Citizen Kane: “In a world … where one man … misses his sled ….”
There actually was a Major Strasser in the Stormtroopers, the SA. He was shot during the Night of the Long Knives, June 30th, 1934. Never made it to Casablanca.
Thank you Clif Claven.
Don’t tell me how things work out between Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in [insert name of Tom Hanks / Meg Ryan movie]. I want that to be a surprise.
(I seem to be a hippie trapped inside a robot’s picture. Hope this works.)
OK. I won’t tell you that no one gets sacrificed in the volcano.
Also, whatever happened to Meg Ryan? She was everywhere there for a while, then she tried drama, then she had an affair with Russell Crowe, and that was it. I haven’t seen her since.
They give away the plot and also the funniest parts (if any). Movies are so simple now that it is hard not to give them away
I hate that movies are so simple. I’ve read a few books about screenwriting, and it’s depressing. They’ll start with a script everyone likes, then they’ll mess with it. The studio executives will insist on changes. The director will tweak it. The star will demand changes so he appears more heroic, and when he quits to do another movie, it gets rewritten again to the point where the movie is just a mess.
Not only that, all movies are starting to look the same with no plot and the same special effects.
Thomas, I think the studios are spending so much money on movies these days they think they can’t afford to take chances, which is a shame, because I think the movies that really catch on are the movies that aren’t like every other movie.
Another movie fake: There is no “reading of the will” when someone dies. Totally a movie convention to set the plot.
Why pay the lawyer in “Rainman” to read the will to Tom Cruise? Why not just give him a copy?
Because Cruise could not then declare “I definately got the roses!”
I wish more movies would totally bust those cliches. I saw a movie a few years ago where the bad guy demaned $1 million cash. His henchmen brought in one of those metal suitcases you only see in movies, opened it up, and there were a few small bundles of $100 bills. The bad guy was like, “Really? That’s it? I thought it would be bigger.”
Think about the cash in No Country for Old Men. Now that case looked like a million dollars.
That was a good movie.
You only have to pay $10 for a movie ticket? Nice. The one I bought last night was $11.50. Ugh.
Have you seen Seeking a Friend for the End of the World? I didn’t see the previews, so I can’t say how much of the movie was in the preview, but I think it would be an interesting contrast to the typical Hollywood movie.
I’m guessing that’s the average. I usually go to matinees, so it’s cheaper than $10, unless it’s in 3D. I’d say $10 is about average. I haven’t seen “Seeking a Friend….” Any good?
Reblogged this on Add some spice.
I went to the movies last night. I haven’t been to a theater in a while, and as I was watching all the coming attractions I couldn’t help but think about your post! I think I got the basic plot line of every upcoming film from the trailers…
The upshot is that it all ends well, and that evil will be punished, although maybe not until the second sequel.
Gosh, wasnt that the ending in the Avengers?