![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The "Inside" Movie
« previous entry | next entry »
Jun. 5th, 2006 | 11:03 am
mood: 
high
Category 1: Two movies. Both introduced to the public with hype and hoopla. Both disappointing.
Category 2: One movie. Little publicity. Great output.
I’m talking about “Fanaa” and “The Da Vinci Code” in the former genre and “The Inside Man” in the latter.
Fanaa is a movie with an unconvincing storyline. No doubt Kajol and Aamir set the screen on fire with their mysterious chemistry. But the saga of a sensible girl falling for a guy without checking at the least a wee bit of his credentials required nothing short of mortgaging our common senses for a movie ticket. Everything is so predictable. What was Tabu doing in the movie for heaven’s sake?
The Da Vinci Code proved to be another disaster of sorts. The delivery is nowhere close to your expectations. The book, though excessively descriptive atleast had some essence of thrill. But the movie unravels all suspense right from the first scene and then mediocrity prevails.
The dark horse turned out to be “The Inside Man”. The repartee, blue humour and the banter were a welcome relief just like the Mumbai rains. It had the audience in splits and craving for some more meaty dialogues. The movie had people gripped to their seats, disturbance averse – so that they could catch every word of the witty conversations. But then again a small glitch in the sense that Jodie Foster looks wasted in an unsubstantial role. But the whole experience was worth the watch.
So, the moral of the story is that marketing can sometimes make the execution team’s task more difficult. Promotions and publicity raise audience expectations to such an extent that they are tough to appease. Is it always better to have a low profile and make a huge impact? I guess well in this case viewers are drawn by word of mouth and reviews more than anything else. So the initial rush would be greater in the first case [extravagant marketing] and lesser in the second [low key]. Probably there is a point in the graph of “number of viewers versus time” for both the categories of films where the two curves meet. The first curve would be a falling one and the second a rising one. Is this the point that marketing outcome starts plummeting?
Category 2: One movie. Little publicity. Great output.
I’m talking about “Fanaa” and “The Da Vinci Code” in the former genre and “The Inside Man” in the latter.
Fanaa is a movie with an unconvincing storyline. No doubt Kajol and Aamir set the screen on fire with their mysterious chemistry. But the saga of a sensible girl falling for a guy without checking at the least a wee bit of his credentials required nothing short of mortgaging our common senses for a movie ticket. Everything is so predictable. What was Tabu doing in the movie for heaven’s sake?
The Da Vinci Code proved to be another disaster of sorts. The delivery is nowhere close to your expectations. The book, though excessively descriptive atleast had some essence of thrill. But the movie unravels all suspense right from the first scene and then mediocrity prevails.
The dark horse turned out to be “The Inside Man”. The repartee, blue humour and the banter were a welcome relief just like the Mumbai rains. It had the audience in splits and craving for some more meaty dialogues. The movie had people gripped to their seats, disturbance averse – so that they could catch every word of the witty conversations. But then again a small glitch in the sense that Jodie Foster looks wasted in an unsubstantial role. But the whole experience was worth the watch.
So, the moral of the story is that marketing can sometimes make the execution team’s task more difficult. Promotions and publicity raise audience expectations to such an extent that they are tough to appease. Is it always better to have a low profile and make a huge impact? I guess well in this case viewers are drawn by word of mouth and reviews more than anything else. So the initial rush would be greater in the first case [extravagant marketing] and lesser in the second [low key]. Probably there is a point in the graph of “number of viewers versus time” for both the categories of films where the two curves meet. The first curve would be a falling one and the second a rising one. Is this the point that marketing outcome starts plummeting?