The Bitterest Pill Can Be Easy To Swallow

The Bitter Script Reader comes from the perspective of a Hollywood script reader who's tired of seeing screenwriters make the same mistakes over and over. It's a fun yet quite informative blog. This is from a recent post entitled: What Makes You See A Movie?:

A writer trying to sell his screenplay is often asked "Who's the target audience for this?" Now, it's easy to hear that question and fly into a rage over how horribly commercialized Hollywood is, with films not seen as art, but commodities designed to sell stale popcorn and salty pretzels. However, all the statement means is, "Who will see this? Who will want to see this? What viewer will this film reach?"

Check out the comments...you'll be surprised by some of the reasons given.

I tend to divide theatrical releases into two categories: movies and films. 'Movies' should be experienced at the local cinema, whereas 'films' can be enjoyed at the local Cineplex OR in the comfort of my own home. And speaking personally, I'll be swayed by films brought to us by certain writers, directors, and/or filmmakers...stars, not so much anymore (you burned me one too many times DeNiro!), and movies that demand being seen on the big, or a bigger at least, screen. Thus I've stood in line to watch Transformers or Wanted as opposed to The Reader or Revolutionary Road, even though I know darn well the latter two will be much better "films". And as for commercials and trailers, they've become more of a turnoff than a draw for me of late due to their tendency to expose pretty much the entire plot. A clever poster can actually be more seductive and enticing.



Anyway, having a sense of who will want to watch your film and why is really important to know when you're writing your screenplay. Duh. But it's a question a lot of screenwriters never seem to get around to answering until it's too late, especially up here in Canada.

What makes you see a movie?

Between Lee And My Calvin's...I Swear

I was flipping through a recent issue of Rolling Stone and came across this new Calvin Klein jeans ad.

And being so desensitized to provocative images in today's advertising I just kept flipping...but then stopped and went back for another look. Now I don't know what you see...but to me it depicts three young guys and one girl, semi-clothed, clearly engaged in sweaty sexual activity which, in my books at least, qualifies as an orgy...a gang bang even.

And I think that crosses the line.

HERE's the television spot that accompanied this ad campaign. It was promptly banned from conventional North American TV, but apparently isn't considered 'too hot' for cable and late-night television in the U.S..

Calvin Klein has a history of pushing the envelope with their ads. Most of us old folk will remember the 1980 TV campaign starring a 15 year old Brooke Shields and what at that time was an incredibly racy tag: "You wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing."


Today, of course, those spots seem quaint...cute even, because the risqué line keeps moving. That's the game you see, to successfully navigate the line of titillation and fantasy, as opposed to leaping over the line and into the abyss of taboo, perversion, and sexual deviancy.

At any rate, these new Calvin Klein print images and commercials immediately took me back to their 'kiddie porn' campaign of the mid-90's. Remember?


When those pictures first appeared in magazines, I was like...WTF? And then the TV spots started airing, which you can see in all their 'cheap wood panelled basement' glory below:



I remember just staring at my television...appalled...agape...aghast even. And yes they were promptly pulled after enough people complained, but still...ewwww, what were they thinking?? Though clearly no lesson was learned, as evidenced by this Lee jeans print campaign that ran down under a couple years ago.


I know the placement of the Lee and the whole 'Lolita with a sucker' thing is bad enough, but it's the shirtless male photographer in the background in the mirror that takes it to a new level of yuck. Yet these ads were deemed 'acceptable' by the Advertising Standards Board of Australia...go figure. Or the line has moved again.

Sidebar: I love some of the ways companies like Lee and Calvin Klein defend the ads: "It's not offensive. It is designed to reflect the brand's dynamic and innovative image..." or "...the ads were intended to convey the idea that glamour is an inner quality that can be found in regular people in an ordinary setting; it is not something that is exclusive to movie stars and models."

Um. Yeah. All I can say gentlemen, is Smell The Glove.

So what's my point. Well it certainly isn't to take Calvin Klein or Lee to task for adopting a 'sex sells' philosophy - hell, everyone does it, and we keep buying it. And I will commend the companies for effectively presenting their product in a provocative manner and thus making me remember their brand. But I guess my point is that I will never ever ever purchase or recommend that anyone else purchase a pair of Lee or Calvin Klein jeans, or any of their products for that matter. Because they're not selling sex...they're selling 'ick'.

And I'm not into ick. None of us should be.

I've Got A Bad Feeling About Dollhouse

I know that post title sounds harsh - I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon and his writing, and really want nothing more for Dollhouse to be a commercial and critical success. But I'm kinda worried about it with really nothing to base my feelings on other than my gut, and TV viewers time-honoured tradition of avoiding or abandoning much-hyped shows.

Look back at nearly every TV series that was a hit...they pretty much all became hits. TV fans are funny that way...they like to discover a series and fall in love with it, not be told to love it.

Whedon's first TV effort Buffy the Vampire Slayer wasn't a smash out of the gate. It arrived with little fanfare, but slowly and surely grew into one of the most acclaimed and influential TV series of all time. That said, it still never achieved CSI-like 'hit' numbers. But fans found it and fell in love with it and stuck with it. That's usually how it works, especially in genre television. The X Files, Battlestar Gallatica, Charmed, Supernatural, Smallville...some may have been quicker out of the gate than others, but it was the slow yet consistent growth of the fanbase that ultimately elevated them.

Look at the most of the recent or current hit North American TV programs on the tube --- The Sopranos, The Shield, Mad Men, House, Bones, CSI, NCIS, Grey's Anatomy, How I Met Your Mother, Two And A Half Men, The Office, even Corner Gas --- they all began somewhat quietly and slowly grew into what they became or are today. Sure, Lost started on somewhat of a bigger note...there are always exceptions to the rule...but I still don't remember it being touted as 'the next big thing!'


That said, I can't turn around these days without seeing an article or an ad for Dollhouse: premiering this Friday night on FOX! And I know its important to market and promote new shows...hell, it's better than no promotion at all! But there seems to be a fine line between creating interest and awareness for a program...and touting it as 'must see TV!' Strangely enough, unlike hyped movies, most people will resist if they are told they 'must' watch and 'must' love a TV show. But they are cool with it if a series becomes must see on its own.

Firefly, Whedon's last TV series before 'Dollhouse', was touted as the next big thing. It was expected to rocket out of the gate and keep going up. It never did...didn't even last a whole season. A lot of factors contributed, including network meddling and too-high expectations, but I will go so far as to say that it just never felt like I was watching something 'special' as much as I was watching something that thought it was special. Dollhouse is looking like it may also have that lack of 'specialness' working against it.

For starters, I feel I've already seen it before...either a show called Alias, or a show called Dark Angel, starring Jessica Alba.

Dark Angel: A genetically enhanced, 9-year-old female super-soldier who calls herself Max Guevara (also known as X5-452), escapes along with eleven others like her from a secret government institution where they'd been created and subsequently raised and trained to be soldiers and assassins. The series picks up ten years later as it follows the life of the now 19-year-old Max (Jessica Alba) as she searches for her missing 'brothers and sisters', and tries to live her life, evade capture, and learn to trust and love.

Okay...and the basic premise of Dollhouse?

Dollhouse: The show follows an organization that employs mind-wiped DNA-altered humans known as Dolls who are implanted with false memories and skills for various missions, fantasies, assassinations, and tasks. When they are not 'at work' they are living in a real life Dollhouse which gives the show the name. One of those mind-wiped humans, a young woman named Echo (Eliza Dushku ), is slowly starting to become aware of herself and what's going on - and wants to stop it and escape while helping the other 'Dolls'.

And then there's some of the posters:





Now maybe its just the same photographer at FOX who only knows how to take one pose (see also Fox's Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles)...



...but Dollhouse and Dark Angel sure look and sound the same. And 'Dark Angel', with all it's hype (brought to you by James Cameron), never really connected with viewers and thus fans in a big way. I'm worried that 'Dollhouse' may suffer the same fate.

And now, these new pics of Dollhouse's Eliza Dushku have swept across the net...



...and I fear when a show starts releasing tasteful but nude pictures of your star before the first episode has even aired...well, it smells of desperate.

Series TV fans want to discover the sexy (and the drama, and the funny), not have it shoved down their throats.

Why People Buy Stuff?

Weinman at TV Guidance has already covered this product and its creepy advertisement campaign in several amusing posts, but when I read that the Snuggie recently passed 4 million in sales I had to watch the commercial again and try to figure out..what's the attraction?



CNBC's Squawk On The Street's Erin Burnett even went so far as to proclaim the success of the Snuggie as proof that television (or TV advertising) as a medium isn't dead. I don't know if I'd go that far...what Allstar Products Groups President Scott Boilen had to say makes a little more sense:

Scott Boilen, president and CEO of Allstar Products Group, the company that conceived and markets the Snuggie, credits pop culture for some of its success and not necessarily the resurgence of TV.

"Every once in a while, a product transcends advertising to become part of pop culture," Boilen said to USA Today in an article by Maria Puente.

Puente also pointed out the Web phenomenon the Snuggie has become.

"Indeed, Snuggies seem to be everywhere. See them on Facebook - nearly 250 groups, pro and con; one fan club lists 5,999 members," Puente wrote. "Watch them on YouTube - nearly 300 parody videos posted, including one titled ‘The Cult of the Snuggie,' with 146,000 views as of Tuesday."

But then again, they seem to be saying that mocking a product can lead to people wanting the product. What the huh?

I still don't get it. The Snuggie is fugly, and that shot of the family in their cultish-looking Snuggies at the baseball game makes me want to run so far away from these things, and yet...they're making someone a killing.

Are the makers of the Snuggie really giving people what they want? Or do people just want what we give them. Maybe we do overthink all of this making quality shows and products. Maybe it is really only about keeping it simple, or stupid, or both.

An Untold Truth...Conveniently

“Advertising: the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.” Stephen Leacock

I've seen one poster, two trailers, and one commercial for Defiance, the upcoming WWII flick starring Daniel Craig, and found some of the ways they are marketing it...um...very interesting.

First, the print ad looks not so much like everyman and his three brothers help Jewish refugees escape their Nazi-occupied homeland of West Belarus, and a LOT like 007 (aka James Bond) kicking out the jams. Not a big shocker that they went there but still...PR guys...come on.

Then the commercial playing over and over on my TV set this weekend during the NFL playoff games buttoned itself with the voice over line: "Based on the incredible untold true story."

Trailer Number Two said the same thing, but different: "A true story...never before told."

But it was Trailer Number One that really hammered the message home with the title card: "Based on the most incredible true story...you have never heard."



I was left wondering when being just 'based on a true story' (like Valkyrie or Flags of our Fathers or Letters From Iwo Jima or The Pianist or Band Of Brothers or Schindler's List even, most of which I'd never heard of before they were released as films) became not quite good enough anymore.

Is Defiance a good film or a turd...I have no idea. But I don't like feeling manipulated, or the implication that an 'untold' true story is somehow more worthy of my attention. I'm sure the marketers were just trying to make the film sound special in this year of so many Holocaust movies they almost all cancel each other other out, as Eric Kohn writes HERE in the New York Press. But still, it smells a little like desperation....

Does this kind of subtle smoke and mirrors shtick really work on your regular average Joe public movie goer? I'd like to say no....but then they probably don't think about this kind of stuff as much as I do. Or even care.