Hollywood And The Trailer Conundrum

The final trailer for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom dropped yesterday, and I’m still angry about how much of the story it gave away.

222562-Jurassic-World-Fallen-Kingdom-Super-Bowl-Trailer

It’s not a new phenomena for feature film trailers to give away too much of the story, and in essence spoil their own plot threads. But yesterday the third and final trailer for Fallen Kingdom proved to be perhaps the most egregious example of a film studio giving away far too much since The Amazing Spider-Man 2 actually showed the final shot of the movie in a trailer.

There’s an obvious argument for why studios do this, at the end of the day they’re a business and their job and the role of the marketing department is to get people into the cinema. But that shouldn’t come at the cost of the cinematic experience you take part in once you’re there.

In part in can perhaps be associated with the Social media age we’re currently living in. People want information in small portions and they want it straight away in quick news cycles. So hiding away the main story thread and focusing on tone and themes isn’t perhaps the best way to approach a trailer aimed at a mainstream/general audience. Instead your trailer needs to focus on “moments”; key shots and plot points that grab the attention and make you want to see the film.

The final Fallen Kingdom is littered with said moments, some of which are highly infuriating spoilers, so I won’t go into detail here. But what I can do is note that there are at least 5 key moments, plot points or mysteries spoiled over the course of a 2 and a half minute long trailer.

So the question has to be asked, can marketing departments focus on themes and tone and still get those tickets sold? Quite frankly, the answer is a resounding yes and anyone from the film industry who argues otherwise is either complacent or incapable of producing a unique marketing campaign.

John Krasinski’s recent horror-hit A Quiet Place is testament to the wonders a good marketing campaign can do. It didn’t spoil key moments of the film, only ever alluding to them, and relied on the quality of the film premise itself to sell the tickets. That could have failed spectacularly, especially for a film that doesn’t have any prior name value, but to everyone’s surprise it opened up to similar numbers to that of Ready Player One.

What’s all the more frustrating is that Fallen Kingdom nearly had it nailed. Whilst the first trailer failed to capture the buzz that Universal likely wanted, and received pretty negative reactions, the second trailer was widely praised. Honing in on the horror tones of the film and providing only the most basic of story-points, the second trailer told us exactly what the film was going to be and teased enough moments to grab our attention, all the while maintaining the secrecy that hotly anticipated films should try and keep.

What’s more concerning on the Fallen Kingdom front is that apart from that second trailer the entire marketing campaign feels like a B-Movie you would find on the SyFy channel. Alongside the most recent trailer we were treated to the following poster and I can safely say that it’s one of the worst I’ve seen in a long time.

jurassicworldposter_0.jpg

So enjoy marketing campaigns the likes of which A Quiet Place managed to produce, applaud studios when they manage to scramble together a trailer that tells you everything you need to know and nothing more and criticise when they give you too much. Talk with your money if you have to. Because until movie-goers start to show that marketing still matters in this social media age the steep slope that trailers find themselves on is only going to get worse.

Where does the Jurassic franchise go from here?

Unless you’ve been living in some self-imposed exile then you’ll be well aware that Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is only a couple of months away, with the final trailer hitting the interwebs later today. But once this trilogy has come and gone, where does the Jurassic franchise go?

https_blogs-images.forbes.comerikkainfiles201802jurassic-world-2-2

There’s likely far more riding on Fallen Kingdom than most fans realise. Whether you liked the final product of Jurassic World or not, the one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that it made an absolutely huge amount of money for Universal. But, it had the good fortune of being a beloved franchise returning in a big way after a significant period of absence. Similar in vein to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Jurassic World was always going to make a large amount of money at the box office, especially given Chris Pratt’s meteoric rise into the main stream following Marvel’s smash-hit Guardians of the Galaxy.

Fallen Kingdom doesn’t have that “big comeback” luxury. Yes it will to some extent ride the coat-tails of Jurassic World’s success with the general movie-going audience, but for a much larger degree it will need to stand on its own two feet and a box office disappointment could significantly alter the future of the franchise.

All we know about the third and final installment of the franchise, for now let’s take a shot in the dark and call it Jurassic World: Extinction, is that it’s releasing June 11 2021. But come June 12 2021, is that it? Are we done with the franchise?

In my own opinion there are a number of routes that the franchise could take, and as previously mentioned I think a lot of it will depend on the success of Fallen Kingdom at the box office.

The first and most likely route in my opinion is that the franchise takes an extended leave of absence, at least on the film front. Whilst it’s possible that Extinction ties together every loose end and leaves the story with a finality to it, what’s more likely is that it ties together enough story threads that should it be the last ever movie we can say we’re satisfied, but with enough openness that stories can still be told in the future.

If this is the route they choose to take then I won’t be complaining. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and with the announcement of prequel novel The Evolution of Claire by Tess Sharpe Universal have already shown that they’re not averse to building this universe with extended canon.

If I had to put money down on what I thought would happen, I’d say that Extinction will end in a fashion that doesn’t directly set up any plots, but leaves the world in a state whereby something could always be worked out in the future. Universal would then take a back seat and steer away from the movies, but focus on both extended canon novels, games (and possibly a Netflix/Amazon TV show?) as well as giving Jurassic Park at Universal Studios a complete overhaul into Jurassic World. The latter part might not be popular among fans of the franchise, but it’s fitting and probably the right thing to do in the long run in order to keep the franchise’s presence at the park relevant and modern.

This method would allow the franchise to take a breather, whilst keeping it relevant. Then in 5-10 years time they can return and start fresh with a new trilogy, taking the story in whatever direction they see fit. The key here would be not to rush anything, it’s the best route to take if this franchise wants to have a long-term future. We just have to hope that Universal could say no to the money of more films.

Of course there’s always the possibility that they carry on making feature films. Universal is at the end of the day a business and the best way for them to make money is to milk this franchise dry. Spin-off films, sequels and prequels could all be possibilities if that’s what the executives wanted.

Let’s just hope we live in the brightest timeline and not the darkest.

What do you think the future holds for the Jurassic franchise? Would you like to see a new trilogy start right after the Jurassic World trilogy finishes, or would you prefer a break in order for the franchise to come back feeling refreshed? Also let us know if you’re excited about The Evolution of Claire, it’s very likely that it’s a test run for extended canon content, so if you want more novels in the future make sure you go out and buy yourself a copy.

And as always, be sure to follow us on Twitter @WeAreNiche

Dr. Ian Malcolm was nearly cut from Jurassic Park

We truly live in the Brightest Timeline, because apparently there’s a version of Jurassic Park that could have been with no Dr Ian Malcolm.

1a54fc38ac37093369ea9cacb2053b51498df4fa

In a video interview with Vanity Fair, Jeff Goldblum revealed that Dr. Ian Malcolm was nearly cut from Jurassic Park.

Describing a meeting with legendary director Steven Spielberg where he was told that the character of Ian Malcolm might be merged with Sam Neill’s character Alan Grant Goldblum said:
“I [read] that Michael Crichton book — Ian Malcolm, wow! Smart, funny, interesting character. [Spielberg] was so nice… but he said, ‘You know, there’s a sort of movement afoot… to have that part removed from the script. So since we’ve had this meeting, there’s this little wrinkle that may… render this moot.’ I kind of said, ‘Well, gee!’ I felt moved to advocate for my inclusion!”

It’s best not to dwell on what might have been, just enjoy the fact that we live in the timeline that brought us arguably the best Jurassic character of the entire franchise.

You can check out the entire interview with Vanity Fair here, it’s certainly worth your time if you’re either a fan of the Jurassic franchise or just Goldblum himself:

Why Adam Chitwood Is Wrong About the Jurassic Franchise

 

Earlier today Adam Chitwood from Collider put together an article titled “‘Jurassic Park’ Is Not a Franchise“. As a massive fan of the franchise, I have a few things to say about his argument.

jurassic-park-franchise

Adam certainly raises good points during his discussion of the Jurassic franchise. The emphasis on the incredibly weak story of Jurassic Park 3 and the irony of Jurassic World becoming “the very thing the script tries to take down” are both relevant points.

But Adam’s core arguments, that no film in the franchise after Jurassic Park could capture the magic of seeing a dinosaur for the first time and that no film since has correctly balanced the adventure with the horror we felt in the first JP movie, for me do not hold enough weight to warrant the end of a franchise at the first port of call.

I spoke about it recently and Adam Chitwood echoed the sentiment that Jurassic Park will always be held on a pedestal for its contribution to the film industry, and in particular the revolution of CGI. That awe-inspiring feeling we get when we see the Brachiosaur for the very first time can emote real emotion in people. But expecting that feeling to last into future entries of a franchise is unfair on not only the people behind the film, but also on the audience.

Steven Spielberg would not have gone into the The Lost World: Jurassic Park anticipating, or even trying, to wow the audience in the same way that he had done previously. The film industry is much like a news cycle, it moves incredibly quickly, so quickly in the modern era that a trick will only work the once. Take Avatar for example, it was so successful not because it was telling a story that blew everything else out of the water, not because it was being held up as the epitome of film-making, but because of the revolutionary use of 3D effects. But the trick was short lived, and now 3D is a dying trend that saw its true success born and die alongside Avatar. James Cameron won’t go into the Avatar sequels expecting to bring in the same audiences that he did last time, the trick is done and he will need to rely on something new to turn his commitment to the franchise into a continued success story.

And that is where Adam’s arguments around the Jurassic franchise begin to fall apart in my eyes. He is too focused on what the original did right, and could not be repeated, as to why that meant it should have stayed as a one and done. The sole purpose of a sequel is not to repeat the success of its predecessor, but instead to build on it in new and creative ways. Whether that be through new filming techniques or through a new plot that builds on a pre-existing world and lore.

The Jurassic franchise is far from perfect. JP 3 is as poor as Adam makes it out to be, and only avid fans of the series would find positives there (I count myself among those people), and whilst certainly better than a lot of sequels The Lost World still has a number of faults. But poor execution does not expel the effort involved and it does not grant weight to the argument that a franchise should never have been attempted.

The Lost World itself had the continuation of John Hammond’s character arc from “capitalist to naturalist” as he sought to protect Site B from the outside world, a full circle story thread that isn’t given the credit that it deserves. JP3 is the bad egg of the bunch, and then we have Jurassic World, potentially the most divisive of the series. Adam points to this film as being the best example of why a franchise should never have been conceived, but I disagree. Jurassic World does exactly what a franchise (That isn’t built on pre-existing source material) should try to do, and that is build on what came before, but do something new that makes it stand out as its own film with its own identity. Jurassic World did that, not by wiping the slate clean and starting again, but by introducing new characters that a new generation of children could grow up loving, by showing us what it would be like if the Park had finally been opened on the same island as the original, and what happens when capitalist greed goes too far and the DNA is exploited for other means (A thread that will carry on in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom).

One of Adam’s final comments states that should Fallen Kingdom director J.A.Bayona pull off the terror aspect of the franchise then “maybe we’ll get a decent enough film”. That is not only underselling a movie before it has even been released, but it is also patronizing to the director, cast and crew involved with the movie.

It’s no secret that thousands of people criticized Star Wars: The Last Jedi for being too different, for doing things that didn’t feel enough like the Star Wars of old. Adam Chitwood was not one of those people:

Yet here we are, less than a year later talking about why a franchise that tried to do things differently, that tried to take a step in a new direction to inspire a new generation of children (And hey, let’s be honest, make some money along the way) should never have existed. Did the Jurassic franchise live up to the excellence of the original? Not even close. Does that mean that it should never have been allowed the chance to try? Not at all.

If you do happen to read this Adam then I would love to talk about it further with you. But for the rest of you, let me know what you think about the Jurassic franchise, should it have stayed as a “one and done” or were there aspects that needed exploring in sequels?