Well nimrod, what do you expect them to show you?
Nimrod? Now ain't you just too familar. Especially since we've never been properly introduced.
That's what makes the trailer, the plot contained in it. Otherwise, we'd be clueless as to what we're going to see.
No, now you're just showing your limited exposure to other kinds of trailers. Like the one Hitchcock did for
Psycho, with Hitch giving a tour of the movie set: "There's the window that she watched from," "Here's where he was stabbed at the top of these stairs, the body falling back, tumbling over and over and landing with a crash at the bottom of the stairs. It was twisted so, so...well never mind." "Here's the bathroom where it happened. The blood was everywhere." The only scene from the movie was a sudden cut to a closeup of Janet Leigh's mouth screaming. It showed almost nothing of the movie beyond the set; it hinted at but gave no real details of the plot or actors, it built up suspense and depended on the audience's imagination to color in the details that later had people standing in line to see, especially after Hitchcock made a big deal in the press and at the start of the film about not revealing details of the film to those who haven't seen it. So it has been done by people with more imagination than Hollywood can muster today.
And tell me then, how do you know what the film's about when you're going to go see it? Who tells you all the details? Because if you hate seeing trailers, then you MUST hate reading about upcoming films in the newspapers and magazines and having your friends telling you what film's to go see
Ahhh, there you go again: Making unbased assumptions about people you know nothing about. I hate seeing trailers because they nothing but ads put out by the studio that's trying to sell tickets and that therefore has every reason to make the movie look much better than it really is. That's like buying your next car based on the company's TV ad without doing any comparative shopping.
Besides I don't want to know "all about" the film--there's got to be some surprise left to make worthwhile. Otherwise, it's like kissing your maiden aunt.
Actually I enjoy reading reviews and unbiased reports of the problems the studio is having with a film or director or actor. I especially enjoy reviews where the writer just rips the film or director or cast--all three is even better. But if a review has something good to say about a film that gets my interest, I'm willing to give it a try. Mostly I rely on what I read about a film compared with what I've liked or disliked about other films in the past. I took a chance on
Rainman because it had Hoffman as a strong counterbalance to Cruise, and it paid off because Hoffman was able to carry the whole film. My interest in Gena Davis and the WWII women's league baseball took me to
League of Their Own, where I discovered that Tom Hanks had moved beyond the stupid twentysomething comedies to become a real actor. Never saw the trailers, just read about the film and actors and made a choice based on my own preferences. I like to argue the merits of films with some of my relatives who have an interesting and usually different perspective. But I rarely have reason to discuss films with friends. We usually talk about more important things.
Reply to Topic
Great pick, Mark! Ain't they all!!!
