A Look at the Effects of Giving Too Much Away in Trailers

Scene from Pete's Dragon

This weekend marks the latest release from Disney called Pete's Dragon. It's a remake of one of the more obscure 70's films that they have made, and it has been receiving a ton of great reviews. However, there is one thing that is striking in the marketing. While the film looks majestic in the best Disney ways possible, I take issue with how the film is choosing to show off the titular character. While it started initially in posters as a giant green creature hidden behind trees, the dragon has since begun to appear in front of the camera, even tearing through interstitial reviews. As fun as this film still looks, I still think that there's a need to cut down on showing us what is essentially your biggest selling point. Had Disney not directly shown us the dragon, maybe it would be a little more interesting going in.

The one truth is that we're living in a time when marketing isn't known for playing clever. In most cases, trailers come out sometimes months and even a year in advance to build up momentum. It is in here that the mystery remains and we don't get answers. However, the closer to release day that things get, the more likely that we are to see those secrets. In some cases, it adds crucial spoilers from the film. However, the bigger issue in general is showing the spectacle upfront. The Jungle Book a few weeks back also relied on showing the various animals in grand detail during their promotion in order to raise interest. While it makes sense in a conservative fashion, showing it too much tends to have the opposite effect.

This isn't just true in Disney films. Suicide Squad was recently released and featured trailers with increasing amounts of information. This culminated in a Comic Con trailer, almost a year after the first one dropped, that revealed who the big villain was. There was way too many details that may have not hurt the box office, but it definitely left little to the imagination. Where most people are going to see Harley Quinn and Deadshot fight criminals, the knowledge of what is ahead only makes things a tad more loathsome. While some tastefully do it outside of direct trailers, there's still the risk of the unassuming consumer getting a trailer with too much information before any week's release. 

In this case, Pete's Dragon seems to be one of the more egregious despite being one of the more exciting August releases. The early advertisements were keen on not giving away too much of the character design. Now, it's impossible not to know what the dragon looks like. There's even images on Google. However, I do believe that it was a cost-free mistake from a marketing standpoint, as it means that there's less to go to the movie for. While most of us will likely go for the story, the idea of discovering what Pete's dragon looks like for the first time in the film will be ruined by seeing fly through advertisements. Maybe it's just that I believe that this could've made for an exciting mystery for viewers, but I do still feel like updating the design is some incentive to get butts into seats.

So, how then do I propose that trailers try and keep things teased until the very end? In all honesty, it is pretty difficult to do unless you are an auteur of marketing. Most studios thrive on giving away too much in the trailers with incentive that you'll show up anyways. X-Men and The Avengers films don't need to release anything, and dedicated fans will show up. It's just that a trust has been built, and it thankfully counteracts exposing too many details. Even then, Captain America: Civil War walked up to the line of a spectacle moment by showing the centerpiece fight scene between several superheroes, but cutting before it actually took place. Even if other moments were used to death in marketing, it was a crux to the selling point that actually I feel worked.

But what about the auteurs? In my honest opinion, there are very few who actually live up to the long term auteur marketing. David Fincher's teasers are works of art that reveal key information over cryptic designs, such as in the unassuming Gone Girl teaser where it looks like Ben Affleck is framed for murdering his wife. People who have seen the film will notice why the trailer is brilliant despite the underwhelming trailer. Of course, Fincher has flipped the coin into the other direction with the very long The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trailer which played randomly before films and gave away possibly more information than any other film in recent years. Still, there was style and cool that made it like a mini-movie. Likewise, The Wachowski Siblings released Cloud Atlas' now iconic teaser that spanned just as long. Of course, that film had the high concept, multiple story arcs to work with, making anything that it gave away far more cryptic than Fincher at his best.

Even in 2016, there are those few that keep the idea of a teaser trailer alive. Earlier this year saw J.J. Abrams-produced 10 Cloverfield Lane, which may have had the curse of being a Cloverfield trailer that put too much pressure on it to be more of the same, but the original teaser managed to still impress. It is in part because there was no expectation for it, as well as the clever use of "I Think We're Alone Now," which featured footage of the central cast in a bunker trying to survive unknown strife. One could argue that it is the Cloverfield monster, but even that is vague enough to leave one wanting more. Later trailers would give some things away, but the twist int he third act remained mostly in tact. Even in recent weeks, Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk trailer managed to depict the crucial moments of the film without giving any context. The audience still feels tension and the results are wonderful.

Nolan's trailers are hit and miss, with most being a display of spectacle instead of a coherent understanding of story. This can work in a film's favor, specifically like Inception's impressive set designs. Nolan knows how to make the viewer want more, and has done so repeatedly for most of his recent career. Abrams has done so as well both for his own films, like Star Trek, and his produced work, like 10 Cloverfield Lane. There are other masters, but those in the mainstream cinema business rarely are given a shot to do something without big moments being spoiled or ruined by ads. 

My advice is to give enough away to get the viewer interested in the film, but not enough to feel like they've seen the film. Some trailers have been way too explicit in this regards. However, I do think that on average, films don't give away too much of one or the other. They usually don't do it for both, which is unfortunate but an understandable part of the marketing campaign. You have to know what you're seeing, or else why would you see it? Still, I think that knowing the story about Pete's Dragon as well as seeing Pete's dragon feels like a marketing failure in some regards, because it doesn't leave much else to be seen. Had the story been a mystery and the dragon present. That would be one thing. Inception did this excellently. However, there has to be something for the viewer to want. 

Speaking as I have a column called Trailing Off that attempts to explore trailers on a weekly basis, I do think that I have some say in what appeals to me. I know that I am not a marketing guru who knows how to make the perfect pitch. In all fairness, Pete's Dragon has looked delightful for the most part and I do intend to see it. However, I still feel cheated that the dragon was shown because it was the selling point. I'll admit that very few trailers exist in memory beyond their expiration date, but I still think that there's potential to make them work on a level that isn't entirely disposable. I don't know what that is, but I have a theory.