Today, Disney released the third trailer for their upcoming film, Tron Legacy.

We’re less than two months from the release of this film and Disney is really cranking the marketing machine into overdrive. They have a lot on the line with this film and they are going to make sure everyone and their mother (literally) are ready to head to the local IMAX come Christmas this year.

That being said, I can’t help but feel like the relentless advertising effort reeks of desperation. Right about now, I can see the Disney executives who greenlit this film thinking to themselves, “Wow, we’re sinking $300 million into a movie that’s a sequel to a little-seen cult classic, whose primary audience was confined to the ultra-nerd crowd. This thing better do gangbusters or my head will be on someone’s plate come New Year’s!” There’s been a non-stop onslaught of posters, stills, trailers, soundtrack news, etc. etc. etc., all of them seemingly trying to will the interest for this film into existence.

[Contrast this with the marketing effort for James Cameron’s Avatar, which was muted by comparison. The film went on to box office glory and box office history despite the marketing effort and not because of it.]

Hollywood is obsessed with remakes and film’s based on existing properties, even when those properties will do nothing to help sell tickets. The idea is that the existing name/fanbase will make it easier to sell the film, but this theory hasn’t exactly been vindicated. Example: Who on Earth thought that the Jonah Hex fan club was going to turn out in large enough numbers to make that film a success? Ditto Scott Pilgrim. MAYBE ditto Tron Legacy in a couple months (although I doubt it). Over at Filmschoolrejects, Cole Abaius wrote about how challenging it was for the directors of Skyline to get their film made. Said one of the directors:

There’s this phenomenon that people have been cynical about in the last couple of years that I happen to agree with – that if a property isn’t based on something pre-existing, a video game, a comic book, graphic novel, [producers] won’t be interested. There’s a real aversion to original properties, but if you’ve got a graphic novel that sold 500 copies, they’ll say, ‘Look! It’s based off a graphic novel! It must be cool!’

Is there such a thing as “too much” advertising for one movie? Only insofar as it annoys people like me. But when you’ve already sunk hundreds of millions into a visually rich, sci-fi film, you’re going to want to pump as much money as you can in the service of getting butts into seats.

With each new poster image though, I can’t help but smell fear…the fear that maybe basing your film’s success on a moribund, decades-old property that your computer engineer dad kinda liked when it was in theaters and on VHS might not be the best way to do business anymore.

From Drew McWeeny’s review of Unstoppable:

But here’s the problem… you’ve got this cast that’s doing everything right, and you’ve got this script that strikes just the right tone, and you’ve got the action staged just right… and then you shoot it all like you’re embarrassed by it, like you’re determined to hide it all and make it impossible to see. Because that’s what Tony Scott’s visual signature has devolved to at this point, and I mean devolved. It’s been a sliding scale of incoherence for a while now, and Hollywood continues to fall over itself to reward him for it. It’s almost like a wicked joke that the name of the film that finally broke me in regards to Tony Scott is called “Unstoppable,” because he certainly is. If the film was just a bad film, it wouldn’t matter as much, but it’s a good film that is buried in a visual style that can best be described as “evasive.”

I agree that Scott’s style is fairly insufferable, but I think Unstoppable is his most “general audience-friendly” film in years. Compared to films like The Taking of Pelham 123, Deja Vu, and Man on Fire, Unstoppable is a model of self-restraint. That being said, Scott’s re-use of the same damn shots over and over and over again in Unstoppable is hilarious and should make for good MST3K fodder down the line.

[It’s actually hard to describe until you see the film; why would a director employ the same exact swooping camera move around the train “cockpit” a dozen times over the course of a film? Baffling.]

Andrew Alexander, Washington Post ombudsman, has an insightful post about covering crowd estimates at large rallies:

Crowd counts, inexact and exploitable, are a no-win problem for the media. Event organizers tout their own estimates to promote their cause. If a news organization’s estimate is lower, it gets accused of bias. If it’s seen as too high, the charge is favoritism.

 But while the Post avoided making its own estimates, it prompted users to do so in a user poll. Sure, no one takes those things seriously anyway, but put a little effort into it, will ya Washington Post?

Unscientific user polls, more entertaining than enlightening, are intended to engage online readers. But some found this one silly because it encouraged participation by those who had no clue of how to estimate crowd size and may not have even attended the rally. Ann Chih Lin, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, objected: “It’s akin to sending out a message on the Internet saying, ‘I have a jar of jellybeans on my desk. You don’t know the size of the jar or the size of the jellybeans. Guess how many are in the jar.'”

The Guardian has a description of what it’s like to live on a space station. For me, it’d be the little things I’d miss. Like fresh fruit. Or the ability to wash my hair normally:

Hair-washing is trickier. Men tend to get military buzz cuts before a mission. Even Sunita Williams, who spent 195 consecutive days on the space station – a female record – had her long dark hair chopped to shoulder length but still had problems. “Washing took time. I’d squirt a little water under my hair, pat it down with my hand so it wasn’t splashing everywhere, then put some shampoo in my hand and moosh it around. Then I’d wet a towel and try and soak it up. I usually did it on a weekend when we didn’t have a whole lot of other things to do,” she says

This week over at /Film, I posted up two interviews with directors I deeply admire: Danny Boyle and Chris Morris.

As I like to say about certain directors, Boyle “gives great interview,” and even if he’s giving the same answers for the 500th time on his press tour, he still manages to imbue them with a profound enthusiasm. I always love films and the process of making them MORE after I speak with him. Boyle’s new film, 127 Hours, is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before and takes the guy-trapped-in-one-place genre to a whole new level. LISTEN.

Morris, on the other hand, has a whole different kind of energy. I’m familiar with his TV work from the past and there’s an undercurrent of “Fuck the establishment…and your expectations!” running through all of it that’s as infectious as the work of Monty Python was decades ago. I think his first film, Four Lions, is bold and challenging, but also very, very funny. LISTEN.

Incidentally, these were my first interviews recorded using the Zoom H4n in conjunction with external mics. I’m extremely pleased with the results, sound-quality wise.

The NYTimes has video interviews with four young adults describing what it’s like to grow up with H.I.V. The advent of antiretroviral therapy has allowed people to survive far longer than was previously possibly. It’s also had profound sociological effects, as these videos will attest to.

Drew McWeeny, on the future of online film journalism:

Things have changed in the last 14 years or so, since I first logged onto a computer looking for movie talk and/or movie news, and while some things about that evolution are great, there are many others that are starting to make me despise the state of the business. I have a feeling this is a conversation that is just warming up, and I hope to play a part in redefining my own feelings about how things should work both here on the site and on the Internet at large. One thing’s certain… it will not continue the way it’s going right now, and the sites that survive this next evolution are the ones that bring genuine knowledge and a voice and a perspective to the table, and ones that are willing to not simply serve as marketing arms to the studios.

Well-said, as with most things that Drew writes. I agree with him on this specific point, although most likely I disagree with him on others. Specifically, I’d add that balancing fairly serious business needs with brand/integrity will be a crucial part of the “survival” that Drew refers to.

[Drew also links to Pajiba’s great piece on the subject, which is well worth a read]