Hey Judes

I may not be a marketing genius, but I grasp that the point of showing trailers for upcoming movies before the start of a movie in a theater should not only be to get those sitting in the seats to be aware of those pending films but to start establishing some anticipation for them.

Further, I can judge only by the noticing tendencies in the way movies are marketed that recognizing familiar actors is a big part of what they think appeals to potential viewers. Of course, that undoubtedly works best with "name" actors; with actors who are in that can't-think-of-their-name-but-seen-'em-before category, presumably it works more on a level of associating them with the tone of the movie and/or the character they portray.

And while I'm on this roll of conceding not being a so-called "expert" but having a fair amount of experience with seeing trailers before movies, I'll admit that I don't know exactly how a particular set of trailers get designated to be shown before a particular movie, but I have to imagine (with as big a part of the marketing campaign as those trailers for upcoming movies) that it is not left to random chance. Some effort must be put into not only trying to ensure that the trailer would likely appeal to the audience awaiting the movie to be shown but also into trying to not combine them with other trailers that could be distracting from their impact.

That said...

This afternoon while waiting for a showing of Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist we sat through several trailers for upcoming movies.

First was a kind of screwball comedy starring Anne Hathaway called Bride Wars. As she was recently a Entertainment Weekly cover story for the just-opening Rachel Getting Married and was in the very popular The Devil Wears Prada, she would be considered a "name" for the purposes of this post. (She was also in the news because of what her former boyfriend did, but let's not digress to that here.)

Then was a thriller called The Uninvited featuring Elizabeth Banks (who, according to the search in imdb, is best known for her role as the randy Beth in The 40-Year-Old Virgin). And while I recognized her face, and even remembered she was portraying Laura Bush in the upcoming Oliver Stone film W. (which was also an EW cover), while I was sitting in the darkened theater I couldn't remember her name. (When I got home I looked it up.) Thus, for this post, she is not a "name" but she is a known quantity.

After another trailer I don't recall, came another one with Anne Hathaway, this time for a supernatural-tinged drama called Passengers. However, rather than being focused on the scenes in the trailer, I was thinking, Geez, is there any movie she's not in?

Oh, and yeah: She's hosting SNL tonight.

Then a trailer was shown, this one for a comedy with Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott titled Role Models, but which also prominently featured Elizabeth Banks. Again, I was thrown off a bit from the funny scenes being shown because she had just been the villain a few trailers earlier.

And I'm reminded (doing the "research" for this post) that she has the comedy Zack and Miri Make a Porno coming out at the end of the month.

So while I saw through the trailers, Anne and Elizabeth seemed as ubiquitous as Jude Law did back in 2004 (when I recall seeing multiple trailers before a single movie featuring the British actor). I'm not saying that's necessarily bad for them (especially for Elizabeth, who certainly deserves to get more into the "name" category), but I'm not sure that it's best for the individual films that were spotlighted in keeping them distinguished from one another.

Granted, this sequencing did get me to post something about it, so at least for me it proved more effective after the fact than it was in the moment, but I doubt everyone else in the theater (of from other showings throughout the weekend) will be doing so.

However, the ones who really should have been paying attention to this ubiquity should have been those in charge of promoting the films from the trailers shown other than the four I noted above. I do not remember them at all. Not even a little; the true distraction was that I couldn't get over seeing Anne and Elizabeth repeated and didn't pay much attention to any of the films that featured neither one.

You'd think the marketing departments of the film companies would stick an intern on monitoring that.

~

On a slightly related note: Given that Nick and Norah is an off-kilter romantic comedy (and an enjoyable one at that), what were all the thriller trailers doing before it?

Eh, perhaps they're supposed to run counter to the other trailers, and stand out for that reason.

~

The showing of Nick and Norah we attended wasn't even half full, so I doubt it will end up being #1 for the weekend box office. However, when we exited the movie complex, there was a long line for... Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

Which features neither Anne Hathaway nor Elizabeth Banks. Perhaps that's best for both that movie (so it's not associated with those possibly overexposed actresses) and for those actresses (so they're not associated with talking dogs).

~

(Yeah, this is what I'm posting about rather than the economy or the vice presidential debate--areas where I really have no expertise. Besides, that's what the rest of the blogosphere and media in general are for.)