She-Hulk: Attorney at Law

[kidfresh512]

I'm always a bit amazed by people who excuse a bad trailer and urge the viewer to wait and watch the movie/show before deciding.

A trailer is a commercial. It's whole point is to sell you on something by putting the best aspects of the show/movie on view (or at least hinting at them). If, instead, it made the viewer think a major aspect of the show/movie isn't put together well it failed and there's no valid reason to expect the viewer to tune in.

I honestly can't think of any other industry that expects its consumers to purchase and try a product despite bad marketing. You don't see, for example, Ford or GM putting out a commercial where the wheels fall off or the rear gas tank catches fire on the theory that drivers should "wait and see" how the car drives after buying one.

Especially when you consider in a similar fashion, how something like the First Sonic trailer, and that fan outcry. Made them revisit the CGI and create a far better visual product. If its possible for the studio to pivot and perfect things after the public gets a peek its worth it imo. We have seen change happen now.

Maybe that wont be the case here maybe they don't have much time to pivot but discussing it has merits at least.

[wleakr]

The Moon Knight trailer didn't do much for me, but the finshed product was AMAZING!

[Mark Trail]

If that's not a false equivalency, then there is no such thing. There is a big difference between waiting and seeing on a car where the wheels fall off and an hour long show on a subscription service you probably already have. Entertainment is the definition of a low stakes endeavor.

I get what you're trying to say and I am in no way defending the less than great trailer. In fact, I agree with you, but the metaphor is clumsy.

Not really. In either case, the point is the fallacy of an ad that tells potential customers the product does not do what it should. In the case of a car, the product is supposed to be reliable transportation. In the case of a movie or TV show, the product is supposed to be entertaining. Yes, the stakes are higher in the former but the metaphor still holds.

But if it makes you feel better, replace the earlier analogy with "You don't see, for example, Kelloggs or Post putting out a commercial where the cereal tastes bad or looks unappetizing and not nutritious on the theory that diners should "wait and see" how the food tastes after buying a box."

[thwhtGuardian]

Not really. In either case, the point is the fallacy of an ad that tells potential customers the product does not do what it should. In the case of a car, the product is supposed to be reliable transportation. In the case of a movie or TV show, the product is supposed to be entertaining. Yes, the stakes are higher in the former but the metaphor still holds.

But if it makes you feel better, replace the earlier analogy with "You don't see, for example, Kelloggs or Post putting out a commercial where the cereal tastes bad or looks unappetizing and not nutritious on the theory that diners should "wait and see" how the food tastes after buying a box."

Because that analogy doesn't work, expectations on food and cgi heavy ads are different.

[Scott Taylor]

Because it is well known that the marketing people and the people who actually made the product never talk and had nothing to do with each other. That is the same in all industries. Some movies with laughable marketing or no marketing have ended up being amazing. And we all know how many movies have had incredible trailers only to then completely suck!

For instance, I don't want to miss out on a good show just because some Disney exec ordered the marketers to release a trailer at a certain date, whether or not the footage was ready.

[HollowSage]

While I understand why they chose CGI, it does take away from the character to do that, in my opinion. A big part of the character's being is her sex appeal, and that just becomes at best an awkward thing with an all CGI character. At worst it will be laughable.

I will still watch it, but getting strong vibes that this could end up being funny for the wrong reasons.

If a drawing of the character in a comic book can have sex appeal then why would a cgi rendering of the character lose that? Neither representation is real.

Is the problem that cgi She Hulk is surrounded by real world environments and real people? Well that didn’t stop some people from finding Jessica Rabbit or Holli Wood sexy.

While not everyone will find a tall and green woman attractive I’m sure many will in spite of her being cgi.

[HollowSage]

Not really. In either case, the point is the fallacy of an ad that tells potential customers the product does not do what it should. In the case of a car, the product is supposed to be reliable transportation. In the case of a movie or TV show, the product is supposed to be entertaining. Yes, the stakes are higher in the former but the metaphor still holds.

But if it makes you feel better, replace the earlier analogy with "You don't see, for example, Kelloggs or Post putting out a commercial where the cereal tastes bad or looks unappetizing and not nutritious on the theory that diners should "wait and see" how the food tastes after buying a box."

If you really want a better analogy then how about a comic book. The cover of a comic book is an ad for the story inside. Sometimes the art on the cover is by the same artist and gives you an accurate idea of what’s inside and sometimes it does not. The cover art may not be to your taste but you may still enjoy the story told inside.

[wleakr]

If you really want a better analogy then how about a comic book. The cover of a comic book is an ad for the story inside. Sometimes the art on the cover is by the same artist and gives you an accurate idea of what’s inside and sometimes it does not. The cover art may not be to your taste but you may still enjoy the story told inside.

That is a damn good analogy!

[WebLurker]

I'm always a bit amazed by people who excuse a bad trailer and urge the viewer to wait and watch the movie/show before deciding.

A trailer is a commercial. It's whole point is to sell you on something by putting the best aspects of the show/movie on view (or at least hinting at them). If, instead, it made the viewer think a major aspect of the show/movie isn't put together well it failed and there's no valid reason to expect the viewer to tune in.

I honestly can't think of any other industry that expects its consumers to purchase and try a product despite bad marketing. You don't see, for example, Ford or GM putting out a commercial where the wheels fall off or the rear gas tank catches fire on the theory that drivers should "wait and see" how the car drives after buying one.

Because the trailer is not the TV show or the movie. It's only fair to judge something by the final product, not the marketing.

[Mark Trail]

If you really want a better analogy then how about a comic book. The cover of a comic book is an ad for the story inside. Sometimes the art on the cover is by the same artist and gives you an accurate idea of what’s inside and sometimes it does not. The cover art may not be to your taste but you may still enjoy the story told inside.

Nah. The cover of a comic book is supposed to induce the reader to pick up the issue. A bad cover doesn't do that.

[Mark Trail]

Because the trailer is not the TV show or the movie. It's only fair to judge something by the final product, not the marketing.

This is exactly why this mentality is so amazing. By your argument, everyone should watch everything, or just watch things at random, rather than try to make an informed decision before choosing to spend time and money on a viewing experience.

[phonogram12]

I mean, I'm guessing this is why movie reviewers review the whole movie and not the trailer.

[HollowSage]

Nah. The cover of a comic book is supposed to induce the reader to pick up the issue. A bad cover doesn't do that.

Who determines if a cover is “bad”? An artist doesn’t draw a bad cover on purpose, unless that’s the point. Some people may like it while others don’t. What may turn you away might catch another’s eye. Just because it doesn’t work for you doesn’t mean it’s not working.

[Starter Set]

By your argument, everyone should watch everything, or just watch things at random

Doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me. Try things by yourself instead of just watching what some people are telling you to watch.

[HollowSage]

This is exactly why this mentality is so amazing. By your argument, everyone should watch everything, or just watch things at random, rather than try to make an informed decision before choosing to spend time and money on a viewing experience.

I wouldn’t exactly call watching an ad for a thing making an informed decision since that only tells you what they want to show you. The trailer alone may not be enough. Some people won’t even watch them for fear they may spoil too much.

That’s why reviews are a thing and there’s also word of mouth. However there is nothing wrong with just taking a chance on something. Going in blind to something can be a fun experience itself.