Motorcycle publicity still better poster choice?
Shortly after I posted my review of "Knight and Day" - the Tom Cruise spy thriller - the hits went through the stratosphere at the Tattler.
In my caption, I shouted - "Tom Cruise...He's back!" - which must have triggered an emotion or two judging by the response.
Post: 06/27/10http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/06/tom-cruisehes-back-knight-day-quirky.htmlIndustry honchos, media pundits (and fans) appeared to have written the action-adventure off as a "bomb" based on a slow start at the box-office and negative buzz on the Internet.
In fact, I penned an article on the issue wherein I wondered aloud if "Tom" was still suffering from lingering image problems due to a bizarre couch-jumping incident, his involvement with the flakey Ron L. Hubbard's Scientology "outfit", and a controversial stint on Matt Lauer's hot seat in which he came off as a total pig-headed a**.
Post: 06/26/10http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/06/tom-cruisehes-back-knight-day-quirky.htmlSo, what gives?
Essentially, the Knight and Day fiasco all boils down to marketing (misguided) and the way "Knight and Day" was promoted.
In the morning LA Times, Patrick Goldstein pointed out that the poster - which featured a stunning graphic of the two stars - was part 'n parcel of the problem.
He argued that the failure of the studio brass to feature the identifiable faces of the two stars - Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz - may have been a fatal lack of judgment in the total scheme of things which negatively impacted the project (and perceptions of it).
In response, Tony Sella (co-President of marketing at Fox) scoffed at Goldsmith's wild idea that the studio was hiding the faces of the two stars because their appeal was lacking in a demographic they were striving to lure into theatres come opening day.
"I was doing an homage to fabled title designer Saul Bass," Sella fessed up.
"It was a way for us to signal that this was a different kind of adult movie.The whole campaign was designed to evoke a film like "North by Northwest (a Hitchcock classic)."
Because I attended film school, and have a background in the film industry in a myriad of capacities, I understood that.
If anything, the concept intrigued me - hence - my decision to screen it in spite of a bevy of biting press clips (and stinky rumors denouncing it).
I agree with Sella that the commercial spots - in which Cruise appeared to be a wacko dude kidnapping a woman - may have fallen short in getting the film's essential storyine across.
If the studio noted - in a nutshell - that this was a spy thriller (and that Cruise character's was on a ultra-secret mission) Cruise fans and spy-thriller enthusiasts would have flocked to the theatres from the get-go when theatre doors swung open.
It appears, in retrospect, that filmgoers took a - "let's wait and see" - attitude.
Movie dollars only stretch so far these days, after all.
Call me sophisticated, if you will, but the quirky "promo" didn't phase me.
Frankly, I tire of "trailers" that reveal so much of the plot, that you end up saying to yourself:
"Why bother going to see the film now?
The studio's big sin was they didn't give enough "tease" - and as a result - left filmgoers and fans in the proverbial dark.
Fox brass didn't even lead the horse to water!
How do you expect them to drink?
