don’t they focus group the stuffings out of most public facing (public consumable) decisions?
At the very least, wouldn’t this fall under learned behavior?
Everything is learned behavior - it’s how we’re socialized. it’s how humans function and figure out how to operate in the world. We are also pretty much all completely immersed in consumer society. Very few people are completely off the grid and totally ignoring popular culture.
But yes, focus groups is a major way that they figure out how to market films. And in this case it failed. The marketing was aimed at the completely wrong audience and I have no idea why that is. Perhaps the structure of the focus groups were already operating under the premise that sexy Megan Fox was the proper way to market the film and the groups they got in only reinforced that? We can’t know that unless we saw the research itself, right? I’d guess that the marketing completely drove lots of women who would have enjoyed the film away, because they probably saw the poster and were like “oh, another movie about the male gaze…” But if you watch the film it wasn’t actually that at all.
5 Likes
I think that Gorgeous George trumps Ol’ Blue Eyes in the twinkly factor. I mean, he’s no Bruce Campbell, but he’s charming none the less.
7 Likes
Swoon.
13 Likes
Oooh, my knees are all a quiver.
6 Likes
I know!
9 Likes
I thought you were talking about the first movie, but then you said you thought the special effects in the first movie were “masterwork”.
The overwhelming response by younger people (or out-of-the-loop older people who didn’t see the original when it came out) is clear: the new movie is so much better in every way that they don’t understand why anyone thought the first one was any good at all.
It’s not an art house film, but neither was the first one. Quality is not the reason to prefer the first one.
7 Likes
I was just looking at his wikipedia page to check he doesn’t have any unsavory views I might be disappointed by and found this out, “Campbell is also an ordained minister and has officiated weddings for couples.” How cool would that be 
12 Likes
Please don’t put words in my mouth it isn’t very conducive to actual, productive discussions. Nowhere did I say it wasn’t a “real problem”. I said: A) A lot of the controversy around the movie felt manufactured; and B) It did bring out some generally hateful asshats (who, yes, can be a "real problem).
I have no clue where you decided to fill in me saying it isn’t a “real” problem. But you should either work on your reading comprehension, or don’t let your urge to get into internet showdowns overshadow your ability to actually interpret what other people are saying.
1 Like
Perhaps its just me, but practical effects almost always (with very few exceptions) trump cheap looking CG.
4 Likes
“Trump, cheap looking CG.”
4 Likes
I was asking a question, not putting words in your mouth, actually. You did say this in your OP, though:
You did call it a manufactured social issue. That would seem to indicate that you believe it’s not a real problem that we should be discussing, in general. That might not have been what you meant, but that’s how it sounds.
Look - not liking the movie doesn’t make you or anyone else sexist. What was sexist was the anger and actual misogyny surrounding the criticism of the film back when it was announced and in the entire process of production, marketing and releasing of the film. You seem to agree that’s was indeed sexist. And that’s what we’re talking about. No one thinks you’re sexist for saying that you don’t care to see it nor did I try and indicate that.
I was actually being polite. [quote=“Jehovazilla, post:149, topic:83245”]
don’t let your urge to get into internet showdowns overshadow your ability to actually interpret what other people are saying.
[/quote]
Okay then. I’ll try not to share my views with you again. Have a good day.
7 Likes
I started wondering about this very thing while watching the previews for The Man Who Knew Infinity. And I recall thinking ‘When the f—k was someone going to tell me about all these great movies?’.
I think marketing has overshot its original aim and is now actively killing serendipitous discovery in media culture.
5 Likes
Ugh! We were taught that some words, archaic ones usually, such as “Jesus’” didn’t take an 's but the standard was that it did.
And anything other looks wrong to me.
And there is no such thing as “British” English - that’s what posh characters in Hollywood speak. Like the nice witch in the Wizard of Oz. It’s an American fantasy.
1 Like
Well, no, I mean words that are used differently between Britain and America. British “pants” are American “underwear”; an American car’s “trunk” is a British “boot”. “Orientated” instead of “oriented” used to drive me bonkers until I learned that the first is commonly accepted British use.
So that’s what I meant. Of course there’s differences in use between the two countries.
7 Likes
I heard the same thing (reference: America + weird isolated upbringing) but I’m obstinate so it’s Jesus’s Merlot. 
1 Like
And Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland…
There is no such thing as “British English” - that is a USian concept. And it is spoken by characters in Hollywood wanting to appear posh.
5 Likes
I see him more as a pinot myself…*
Actually it’s a good example, I’d probably say it Jesus’s myself, but if you listen to Jesus’ blood by Gavin Bryars I think he’s in the Jesus’ pronunciation camp.
- Actually I’m in the ending the obsession with cepage rather than domain that supermarkets seem to have foisted on us camp. But that’s another story…
2 Likes
