A Look at the Downside of Movie Marketing

Tom Hanks in A Hologram for the King

With the movie season starting to kick into full swing, one is likely pinning down weekly reminders of new releases. With most people preoccupied by The Jungle Book's positive reviews, one could be forgiven for not knowing what the smaller films are. However, what if I were to tell you that a new Tom Hanks movie was opening this Friday? Did you even know? Considering that he is coming off of the Oscar-winning Bridge of Spies and is already a household name, it still would be difficult for anyone to tell you what that movie was called, let alone what it's about. Is it the fault of the movie? Not entirely. It's probably in part to do with the marketing.

It may seem cynical to thrust so much skepticism onto one film, but it does seem likely that A Hologram for the King is doomed at the box office. Just consider the variables. While I did cover it for Trailing Off, I also noted that it was a conventional trailer, and one that didn't necessarily make me want to see it. Sadly, that's the extent of the marketing in a nutshell. Compare that to other "small" films opening this weekend, such as the Susan Sarandon comedy The Meddler. It may not be expecting to do great business, but at least it has a reputation. Critics are enjoying it and the cast and crew have been making the press rounds (Sarandon has recently appeared on WTF with Marc Maron). 

What can you honestly say for A Hologram for the King besides that its title does most of the lifting, and quickly reminds you of "The Emperor's New Clothes." While it is likely that it is playing off of the trust that audiences like Hanks, it is one of those signs of marketing that unfortunately reflects the downside of consumerism. One could easily blame the amount of competition currently out as to why a Hanks film would fail. However, I think that audiences probably need to be made aware of the film first. For instance, Batman v. Superman's marketing was exhaustive and year in the making. It is why it opened big. There was anticipation.

The general case for bad marketing gets lobbied onto the films with no names, but still plays in 2000+ theaters. These are the films like Creature (starring a pre-Supergirl Mehcad Brooks) that distributors seem to think will be a sleeper hit. While this has happened and it once sent It Follows from a V.O.D. release straight to theaters, it isn't common enough. Most of these films, like Creature, are titles that are more reliant on the cheap budget and the belief that curiosity will sell tickets. It's a cynical way and the general response to those titles are a resounding no. Of course, the real reason that they bomb is that people weren't made aware of the film, or more importantly not given incentive to see it.

Very few movies with big stars fail solely because of marketing. The Lone Ranger famously bombed despite making a decent chunk of change. Even Hanks' last collaboration with director Tom Tykwer called Cloud Atlas didn't do too well stateside largely because of the budget and the abstract imagery. Still, it was the most expensive independent movie ever made - and its cult status worldwide saved it in the end. However, A Hologram for the King looks to be nothing like either of these films in terms of budget or even on a recognizable level. It isn't likely that anyone in a few years will notice it as a Hanks film, save for the purists who see everything anyways.

Was there a way to make this film more noticeable? While there are ads starting to pop up on TV, the story is too abstract to dwindle down to a selling point. Hanks is in it, which will sell some. However, just know that Bill Murray tried going to the desert last year in Rock the Kasbah, and it ended up being a gigantic bomb. This isn't to say that Middle East stories aren't profitable. It's just that white men adjusting to foreign cultures isn't always the best resource for guaranteed success. 

Of course, here's the general part where no name movies need to thrive in order to make half a dime. It needs to do well with the critics. Say what you will, but a good recommendation goes a long way as to raising an unknown film's profile. Speaking as Rotten Tomatoes clocks the film at having no reviews, it's almost as if nobody has or will see it. Compare that to The Meddler, which has played festival circuits and has some acclaim behind it. On RT, it has 75% approval rating. People are at least aware that this film exists, even if it's had far less advertising space than A Hologram for the King.

The thing is that I really like Hanks and while I don't consider him to be the box office draw anymore that would justify this being a $100+ million hit, I would assume that in better hands, this would be a modest one. I'm unsure how it will do globally, but the lack of awareness in the United States has me thinking again about the importance of marketing. It's not to make audiences feel like they've seen the entire movie. It's to get audiences to know that you have one. If A Hologram for the King ends up coming out of next weekend with any modicum of success, I will greatly apologize for my foolish words. However, it's a cautionary tale in motion, and one that I feel reflects poorly on the marketing and not the cast involved.