Have movie previews gotten to be too much?
Parents have been complaining for years about inappropriate coming attractions playing before movies aimed at younger or more innocent viewers—and it’s getting worse.
Part of the problem is simply more trailers. Enticed by marketing dollars, theater owners are cramming more and more previews in front of movies these days, as a recent Hollywood Reporter article notes.
What used to be two, three or four trailers ten years ago has ramped up to six, seven or even more—so many that marketers and exhibitors are starting to worry about poisoning audiences’ moods before the movie even begins. Plus, packing more trailers on more films only makes inappropriate trailer choices more likely.
In the US, recent changes in the MPAA’s approach to rating trailers have further mystified and complicated the problem, as BeliefNet’s “Movie Mom” Nell Minow (who broke the story last year) recently noted.
Until last year, trailers in American movie theaters were supposed to come in two basic flavors, “green band,” theoretically appropriate for “all audiences,” and “red band,” which could only play with movies rated R or NC-17. In practice, of course, a “green band” trailer for a PG-13 movie wasn’t necessarily appropriate for G-rated audiences. Still, at a basic level you could count on certain kinds of objectionable content not showing up in any green band trailer.
Those days are over. “Green band” trailers are now vaguely approved for “appropriate audiences,” which seems to mean that if you go to a PG-13 film you may see PG-13 content in the trailer—or worse. John Gholson at Cinematical recently noted raunchy humor in “green band” trailers for R-rated films like She’s Out of My League that seems to clearly cross the line into “red band” territory.
Beyond that, not all PG-13 content is created equal. Responsible parents may check out a particular PG-13 film and conclude that the content (fantasy violence, say) is acceptable for their 10-year-old—but then run into a trailer with unacceptably lewd content. Or maybe they’re okay with some bad language in an otherwise gentle film, but then they’re subjected to a terrifying trailer for a scary movie.
These trailers have supposedly been approved for “appropriate audiences”—a rather Orwellian term, Minow notes. Isn’t it the whole point of PG and PG-13 that parents have to decide when their children are the appropriate audience for something?
Obviously, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. A recent article in Hollywood Reporter complaining about overly intense family-film previews unwittingly made this point with the following dubious example:
I haven’t spoken to one parent who saw the [Alice in Wonderland] trailer before, say, a showing of the feature film Avatar, and said it didn’t scare the stuffing out of the little ones. “My sons are 7 and 9,” one mother told me, and after one look, they decided, “we’ll skip that.”
Uh huh. So the trailer for Alice in Wonderland was too much for your kids, but you’re taking them to Avatar? Certainly, the Alice trailer is pretty creepy—but it’s also a reasonably accurate representation of the film. At any rate, it’s hard to imagine many people sitting happily through Avatar but getting freaked out by the Alice trailer. The industry gets a pass on that one.
Other times, though, not so much. Last year, a mother wrote to me to complain about taking her children to see Disney’s Bolt and being subjected to a preview for Coraline.
Coraline is also a creepy film (even creepier than Alice), and the creepiness of the trailer is, again, truth in advertising. But does it belong with Bolt, a funny, sweet action comedy with only mildly menacing and upsetting content? Because you’re the target audience for Bolt, does that mean you’re ready to handle the nightmare-inducing potential of even the preview for Coraline?
What’s the solution?
A somewhat drastic approach that may be helpful in some cases is to wait in the lobby until the trailers are over and walk into the theater just before the movie begins. (Ask at the box office what time the movie actually starts.) Good luck finding good seats, though, at least if it’s a popular movie early in the release cycle.
You might solve that problem by waiting several weeks before going to the movie. In the first place, though, that might be hard on your kids if they’re really eager to see the movie; and in the second place, who’s serving who? The industry should adapt to the people’s concerns, not the other way around.
If you do run into an inappropriate trailer, it may be helpful to ask for the manager and voice your concerns. Since many trailers are selected by the exhibitor, not the distributor, this feedback may have a direct effect on future viewing experiences at your local theater.
Then there’s the whole issue of trailers on the Internet, but that’s a problem for another day.
Your thoughts? Do you like to see coming attractions? How many is too many? Have you seen a preview recently that struck you as inappropriate for the movie you were seeing? Ever gotten satisfaction talking to a theater manager? Other thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
A trend I’ve noticed recently with trailers is not about the appropriateness of their content, but more about how much thematic content they reveal. With the trailer for Brothers, for example, I felt like knew the entire storyline of the movie after watching just that 2-minute clip. Contrast that with the marketing for District 9, which revealed enough about the story to hook my interest while still preserving a good amount of mystery for me to discover when I actually watched the movie.
Most movie theatre managers have only a limited imput on what trailers are playing. The distributing film companies usually attach their own product trailers and send others that they “suggest” play with their feature. A theatre manager is usually only going to want two to four trailers. They want as many shows during the day as possible, but also want enough intermission to allow for cleaning the auditorium. There is not much incentive for them to pack that time with trailers.
So if you approach a manager, be aware that he or she can forward your complaint—and might be glad to do so—but they themselves have only a moderate amount of control of what is on the front of a feature.
Bill, thanks for your comments. You write,
“A theatre manager is usually only going to want two to four trailers. They want as many shows during the day as possible, but also want enough intermission to allow for cleaning the auditorium. There is not much incentive for them to pack that time with trailers.”
That may be changing, according to the Hollywood Reporter story my post cites, which says that “For the first time, theater operators routinely are being paid to play movie trailers.” Thus, “Trailer numbers have surged in the past decade from two to four per film to a current five to seven on screens operated by larger circuits, with an additional number of 30-second ‘teaser’ trailers often tossed in as well.”
Perhaps those decisions are made more at the circuit level than at the level of the individual theater, but I expect that theater owners benefit from considerations received at the circuit level. Certainly theater owners are in a position to communicate how trailers are being received at the local level.
Tyler, thanks also for your comments. Yes, tell-all trailers are another way in which trailers can be “too much.” I too greatly prefer trailers that intrigue without giving everything away.
I think there is some research that suggests that tell-all trailers can be more effective than less revealing trailers, since apparently some people are unaccountably more likely to buy tickets if they feel they know exactly what they’re getting. I hope that’s not true. I’d like to believe that a well-done trailer can be just as effective without giving everything away as a tell-all trailer. Maybe it’s just easier to get the desired effect by revealing everything.
I do know that at a certain point in some trailers for a movie I’m greatly anticipating, I’ve been known to shut my eyes, plug my ears and hum softly to myself…
I have stopped going to theatres to see what used to called family intertainment , but it is NOT like that no more, and 8 or 9 trailers, you don’t need to see them .
Just don’t go the movies.
“Just don’t go the movies.”
That’s an option, of course, and one I respect. I also respect parents who elect not to have a television, or Internet, etc. That’s not my choice (or yours, apparently, if you’re writing from home and not from the library or something), but it’s a valid choice that works for some families.
Those of us who elect to have a television or a computer with Internet in the house, or who elect to go to the movies, do face questions and issues that those who opt out of these media don’t face. There are also, of course, benefits to not opting out.
Opting out is a strategy that is worth bearing in mind. But it’s also worthwhile discussing how to deal with the issues that come with not opting out. Obviously, as a film writer, that’s part and parcel of what I do in this blog.
Umm, how do I say this, but Alice in Wonderland is soooo creepy, and the movie, more so. Avatar was positively tame compared to that particular movie!
“Umm, how do I say this, but Alice in Wonderland is soooo creepy, and the movie, more so. Avatar was positively tame compared to that particular movie!”
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, which is why I say you can’t please all the people all of the time.
My opinion is that Avatar is a hard PG-13, while Alice is an edgy but reasonable PG. Avatar is replete with knock-down, drag-out sci-fi violence, battlefield massacres, intense menace, crude sexual references, a brief but sensual love scene, crass and profane language and some sci-fi ethnographic nudity. Alice is creepy, but anyone hunkering down for Avatar ought to be able to handle the Alice trailer, no problem.
In general. It’s a generalization. There will be exceptions. Still, bundling the Alice trailer with Avatar is an eminently defensible call.
An observation in general. Every generation of Hollywood producers likes to repeat movies that showcased leading actors earlier. The Three Musketeers has been made several times. Romeo and Juliet, Robin Hood, are two more often repeated.
Earlier versions of Alice in Wonderland mixed together episodes from Through the Looking Glass with the first Lewis Carroll book, but that seems acceptable. Also, a couple of versions made for TV in different eras also exist. But IMO, the current “Alice” is so far off the original book that a parent has no idea whether the film is appropriate for preteens.
The Lewis Carroll books can be read to children as part of bedtime stories. My adult children (now in 40s and 50s of age) can repeat the “Jabberwocky” and “You are old, Father William” poems completely, together with gestures.
Why can’t the Hollywood types use the current actors’ voices, but stay with reasonable interpretations of the original book? Is nothing sacred?
TeaPot562
just show up 15 minutes later than “showtime”.
I think also that many people were coming in late, after the actual movie started.
In my instance, the many trailers (inappropriate or not), gives me a chance to eat my food, and take one more trip to the bathroom just before the actual movie starts.
I very rarely go to the cinema anymore. It’s very expensive so it has to be a very special movie.
I would think a very appropriate reaction would be to stop going to movies. Wait for the DVD - you can monitor the film more directly. To subject yourselves to such unwelcome and disturbing content and pay such high ticket prices for it is not only rediculous, but morally irresponsible.
Frankly, we don’t want to see any trailers. They are boring and a waste of our time. We also see few movies. None of us like most of them. We all know the entertainment business, so we see the fakery…There is some good stuff around..BUT..that is not the stuff they are selling..! YOU go to the movies..BUT..We are having fun without the trash..!
I just do not go to films. Our youngest is 17 and it is hard to find a movie that is good to watch, even at that age. I would not call Bolt “sweet”. I get so sick of bathroom humor….hate it, hate it. What is wrong with good, clean humor/fun?
Glad to hear there are people like us in the world,who don’t donate the huge sums to the entertainment world..so THEY can set our standards and control the government.
“just show up 15 minutes later than ‘showtime’.”
The trouble with that is that theaters are inconsistent in the numbers of trailers they show (and numbers of commercials and warnings and PSAs). With some films, you’ll get only the customary 3 or so while other times, it might be as many as the 6 or 7 Steve mentions. I’ve seen both movies that had one trailer attached (for a limited-release film late in its theatrical run) and movies that didn’t start until 30 (that’s 3-0, thirty) minutes until after the advertised start. I’ve also seen listings a couple of times warnings at the box-office that a particular film was being presented in digital format and so there were no trailers.
In France, this problem doesn’t exist (I’m told), because the cultural rule is that start time is the start time. That was the rule in ye olden dayes in the US too, but then was because trailers played after the film (hence *trail*ers). I don’t know whether in contemporary France they still do that or whether the trailers begin running before the advertised start.
Are there any movies being produced that are really worth going to a theater to watch? If Hollywood cannot make decent movies, stop supporting the immorality and questionable actions. Why fill you mind and your children’s mind with garbage? Stop supporting by simply not going to the movies. Find friends for your children who are not exposed to improper and/or immoral themes. (Sadly, such families are easier found in evangelical churches or home school groups than in the Catholic Church in the USA.
I think Mia has tin foil on her head—control the government??? Oh brother. And Judy - Bolt was a wonderfully sweet movie—bathroom humor? I have no idea what you are referring to here. As for everyone who is against going to movies, why are you bothering to even read this blog? Can’t you find something more worthy of your time?
Victor, you’re right, the “15 minute rule” won’t work. That’s why my post recommends asking at the box office—they can tell you the actual scheduled start time. (You can also try calling ahead of time, if you’re patronizing a theater where you can actually get a human being on the phone.)
Lots of, um, interesting comments so far … pondering further responses. I’m thinking I might get a whole blog post out of this.
One is perfectly free to hate bathroom humor, but it’s pure ostrichness to think that the subject, at whatever level of detail, hasn’t been among the favorite topics of humorists for the entire history of civilization. The reason why is very simple—all men do it (thus it’s familiar to all cultures and ranks) and it’s no respecter of social difference (thus it deflates men’s pretensions and is a rich source of irony). You can say (indeed, it’s impossible to deny) that we’ve recently traded in wit about it for depictions of it, but wit about “it” is still “it.”
Elise..Oprah Winfrey..Arnold Schwartzenegger..Clint East wood..Shirley Temple..Ronald Reagan..Jesse Ventura..to name just a FEW entertainers who are/have been influential in the government…What have you been smokin’ tonight..?
Wasn’t Ronald Reagan a good influence on Washington?
Washington is controlled by money, which is found all over the place not just in Hollywood. Wall street tycoons matter more in DC than movie stars. Buying a movie ticket is no different than buying dinner at Mickey D’s or Denny’s.. Don’t think you’re starving the beast by staying away from the movies. It doesn’t work that way.
I like trailers, but I don’t see many these days. I don’t go to the movies as much as I used to. Fortunately for me they’re all on-line, (but I admit I’m concerned about what kids are watching on-line).
I hate trailers. Why we need to see a 10-minute commercial for a 100-minute film, I’ll never know. But I think that could just be more indicative of my growing dissatisfaction with movies. With so many good serial dramas (and comedies) on television, it’s no wonder the cinematic form is devolving into little more (with exceptions of course) than flashy spectacle. People who want stories are finding better ones on TV.
Victor, you raise an interesting point: Television has become more like movies. That is, a less episodic approach to integral story arcs has developed in the last couple of decades via heavily serialized programs. Stephen Bochko’s Murder One was a pioneer in this regard, followed by Babylon 5 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. More recent examples include The Sopranos and other HBO series, Lost and House.
I admire these efforts, but I don’t have the time to invest in following them nowadays. (I did watch Murder One back in the day, and loved Daniel Benzali and Stanley Tucci’s scenes together. And I caught up with Galactica, mostly on DVD.) As a critic, it’s enough of an investment to spend two hours watching a movie in order write the review. I can’t watch a whole season of something, at least not until it’s complete and I have some assurance ahead of time that it’s going to be worth my while.
But will this style of storytelling continue to thrive on the small screen? It’s an open question.
Other Victor wrote:
“With so many good serial dramas (and comedies) on television, it’s no wonder the cinematic form is devolving into little more (with exceptions of course) than flashy spectacle. People who want stories are finding better ones on TV.”
DING DING DING ... we have a winner!!!
This is the biggest change in commercial American movies over the last 10 years or so—the chicken-egg phenomenon (each side of the coin being both cause and effect for the other) of serialized television taking over the audience for adult entertainment (in the ordinary, non-euphemistic sense of those words) while movies increasingly pander to juveniles of all ages.
Victor & Victor,
I deleted my earlier comment to “Other Victor” so that I could reframe it as a reply to both of you.
You both raise an interesting point: Television has become more like movies. That is, television used to be driven by heavily episodic storytelling in which, for the most part, each episode was self-contained and it didn’t matter which episodes you saw or didn’t see, or in what order you saw them. In general, you could start watching any show with pretty much any episode, and the theme song got you up to speed pretty much instantly.
No longer. Television has gotten more interesting and demanding. There are definitely ways in which movies have been dumbing down for decades while television has gotten smarter.
In particular, a less episodic approach to integral story arcs has developed in the last couple of decades via heavily serialized programs. Stephen Bochko’s Murder One was a pioneer in this regard, followed by Babylon 5 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. More recent examples include The Sopranos and other HBO series, Lost and House.
I admire these efforts, but I don’t have the time to invest in following them nowadays. (I did watch Murder One back in the day, and loved Daniel Benzali and Stanley Tucci’s scenes together. And I caught up with Galactica, mostly on DVD.) As a critic, it’s enough of an investment to spend two hours watching a movie in order write the review. I can’t watch a whole season of something, at least not until it’s complete and I have some assurance ahead of time that it’s going to be worth my while.
And, unfortunately, a lot of people are in the same boat. People appreciate the smarter storytelling on shows like Lost, but not everyone can make the commitment to watch it every week, or to track it down on Hulu, or whatever. Many potential fans figure that if it’s really as good as everyone says, they’ll catch up with it someday on DVD.
Meanwhile, will this style of storytelling continue to thrive on the small screen? It’s an open question.
Many potential fans figure that if it’s really as good as everyone says, they’ll catch up with it someday on DVD.
Yes.
But this is part of the reason I’m not persuaded by the article you link to. It notes that serialized programs don’t sell very well in syndication, but this has always been the case. The primary reason serialized TV never caught on for the first 40 years of the mass-medium was that the main source of after-airing money was syndication. And in that more casual viewing market, where programs are shown intermittently and different times in different cities, sold for a year at a time, etc., the TV serial suffered an overwhelming disadvantage. Got it.
What DVDs did was provide a new revenue stream, where the serial had the advantage because of the story arc. In a fragmented media culture, they also gave “cult shows” that didn’t do especially well in the ratings a chance to cash in once the word was out about the devotion the shows inspired. Watching a season of MAD MEN or THE WIRE over, say, a week, is now part of the culture of even film snobs that wouldn’t have been caught dead watching television a decade ago. But who can imagine watching a season of THREE’S COMPANY (careful to pick an episodic show I like) as a viewing event worth the 10 or 12 hours.
Neither the By the Numbers article Steve linked to nor the Broadcasting and Cable article it picked up on even so much as mentioned DVD sales and rentals, and whether they provide the kind of revenue to offset the syndication-disadvantages serial shows have.
Oh, and Other Victor ...
“Victor & Victor,
I deleted my earlier comment to “Other Victor” so that I could reframe it as a reply to both of you.”
I hereby note for the record that Our Humble Host has referred to you as “Other Victor.”
Booo-yaa
With scare quotes, Victor M. Victor is certainly not “Other Victor” to me, although I admit I haven’t had him over to my house. :)
Scare quotes, schmare quotes. You’ve made it official, bud.
I should disclose, I suspect, that it has been a private joke between Mr. Lams and me to refer to the other as “Other Victor” (and other riffs like “Victor II”) since our first St. Blogs cybermeeting almost a decade ago (gulp!)
Does a third Victor ever mistakenly get caught up in your game? Here at NCRegister.com, where users are naked handles with no contextualizing homepage link, “Victor” might not be Mr. Lams (although in fact he is).
The problem with pinning too much on DVD is that the show has to succeed and get made in the first place, which assumes finding a broadcast audience. If and when I finally watch “Lost” on DVD, it will only be because of the dedicated fans who did their best to follow the original broadcasts. With other shows, if there are too many people like me sitting it out, the show will get canceled and the DVDs will be disappointingly few (“Firefly” anyone?) if they’re released at all.
Speaking of cancellation, I was sad to learn a couple of weeks ago that it’s officially official: “Spectacular Spider-Man” will not be coming back to Disney XD. Instead, they’ll be launching a new Spider-Man series. For, um, Pete’s sake, why? Whatever happened to “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?
Yes, I am officially outed as the “Other Victor” (I suppose the buttons sewn over my eyes were a dead giveaway) of Catholic Blogdom. Both of you (Victor Morton and Steve Greydanus) are welcome at our house if you ever happen to be in Detroit (though, dear Lord, why would you be?).
If serialized television dramas do go the way of non-politicized comedy sketch shows (oh, snap!), at least maybe THEN I’ll be able to catch up on my Babylon 5 (and “Jeremiah”, J. Michael Straczynski’s OTHER show I never found time to watch… I was already pretty familiar with his “The Real Ghostbusters” ouvre—but I was too big of a Trek fan to give myself to another show back then).
That said, thanks to the modern invention of the DVR, it’s not that hard to keep up with your TV dramas. Two I can recommend are “Supernatural” (especially the current season 4 & 5 Apocalypse / Four Horseman storyline), and “White Collar” (which is pretty excellent all around). “Stargate: Universe” is pretty hit and miss and if I wasn’t a die hard Stargate fan, I’d probably skip it.
Note to Paul, Karen, Mia, Judy and anyone else who wonders whether Hollywood ever gives us any reason to go to the theater: Please see my latest post. Here is a movie that is eminently worth heading to the theater to see.
SDG,
“If and when I finally watch “Lost” on DVD, it will only be because of the dedicated fans who did their best to follow the original broadcasts.”
You’re welcome. ;-D
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.