RichardLess wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 4:38 amI have to disagree & challenge your assessment about the Super Bowl not being a slam dunk and the misconception that it’s better to just throw it up on the internet.
As I’ve mentioned numerous times (not sure why this isnt getting thru). The Super Bowl is the single largest audience on network TV in the calendar year that reaches almost every single demographic. 100 million viewers(These are facts). Look up the view count on the trailer for YouTube. It was released in November. How close is it to 100 million?(that YouTube figure is a global number by the way) Now add those views PLUS the super bowl audience. That’s why you pay for the Super Bowl spot. Releasing a Super Bowl spot is not smart for every movie. But with the state of the Ghostbusters franchise? It’s a no brainer. Also, more than Disney released Super Bowl spots...
Okay, I will concede this one to an extent. While what you actually have to do is tally up every view from every upload of the trailer across social media worldwide (not just Sony's official YouTube channel, but all of their global channels, MovieClips, JoBlo, KinoCheck, etc., but also Facebook, Twitter, Instagram...), I will admit that's gonna be less than the 100 million Superbowl viewers.
Looking it up, there were nine movies advertised during the Superbowl. Again, I'll concede to an extent: two were Disney (
Black Widow and
Mulan, plus a spot for "Falcon and the Winter Soldier"). Three were Universal (
F9,
Minions, and Universal is now the US distributor for Bond, so
No Time to Die falls under them too). The biggest spender was ailing Paramount, which shelled out for the remaining four:
Sonic,
A Quiet Place Part II,
SpongeBob, and
Top Gun: Maverick).
The thing is, this is a split between slam dunks and desperate measures. Paramount has suffered bomb after bomb the last few years, and they were probably extremely confident about
AQP2 (following up a rare recent success) and
Top Gun (Cruise is a big earner and it's their tentpole). The move paid off for
Sonic. Everything else on the list was sure to be one of the year's biggest grossers whether they played the Superbowl or not. Sony isn't as desperate as Paramount, nor is
Ghostbusters a surefire success.
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 4:38 amGhostbusters is at a cross roads. The public needs to know this is on the way and coming and sooner that happens the better. This is about getting the word out.
I was gonna bring this up in the previous post and I forgot to, but once again we have to consider, whether we want to or not, that there's a ceiling on how much the audience wants to have
Ghostbusters back. I think the public actually knows that there's a new movie coming, and it's possible they're just not as excited about it as you want to believe they would be (and I think a big part of that is the idea that casual viewers cared as much as you think they did that the last one was a reboot).
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 4:38 amAs for the Vanity Fair article being “for us”. Hogwash. Complete and utter hogwash. Christ Star Wars Vanity Fair articles gets pictures! By Annie Leibovitz! Ghostbusters got....nothing.
You don't think your latter point here is an indication that the former is correct?
Honestly, I think the real reason that this stuff is in Vanity Fair is because Anthony Breznican moved from EW to VF. It seems pretty evident that Jason trusts Anthony and the studio is comfortable with him as a way to put content out.
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 4:38 amSony’s film marketing is baaad.
I'm not going to fight you as hard on this one. Although there were clearly behind-the-scenes battles between the creatives, the debut trailer for the 2016 movie was not ideal, and while it doesn't deserve to be one of the worst trailers of all time on YouTube, it definitely left a black mark on the movie's ad campaign. And while we loved the first trailer for
Afterlife, outside of the fanbase, it seems to be that the widespread consensus is that it should have been funnier.
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 4:38 amOn final thing. Sony will spend a fortune marketing Ghostbusters Afterlife. A fortune. 80-100 million easily. (Maybe less if sports don’t come back), taking 5.6 million of that and putting it into a Super Bowl spot is nothing. it’s the easiest and safest bet there is. It doesn’t matter if you are Disney, Warner Bros, Universal, or Sony. In the end, for movies like this, 4 Quad summer tent poles, they all usually spend around the same.
We'll see. I don't doubt they'll spend a lot of money, but I expected it to be more frugal than 2016.
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 21st, 2020, 4:38 amIt’s how they spend it that makes the difference. If Super Bowl spots weren’t worth it, they wouldn’t do it.
Again, you essentially uphold my point: they didn't! And haven't for years!