| |
|
On Final, I agree they don't have to incorporate every element, but I have yet to see anyone understand what the film/story's about based on that particular ad, which is incredibly present everywhere. So (a) it's not doing the job of telling people what this film's like, and (b) it's turning off a number of people which may otherwise be a major part of the film's audience. On the other hand, it's not a bad looking ad and the detriment is only it's placement and prevalence, being misleading in atmosphere and narrative significance by focus and exclusion.
I'm not joking when I say a high number of people in LA (and other parts of the U.S.) think it's all about polar bears in armor smacking each other about and a barbarian flick. Maybe it's because it's such a prevalent ad, maybe it's because television ads of a more explicatory nature are being skipped over intensely by the power of TiVo, but yes, this is only a bother if you think it's not actually meant to be a film/story about barbarians on bears beating each other up (which isn't to say, in some ways, that isn't in there).
Advertisements that directly intrigue a market unlikely to be satisfied or ultimately interested in the product once it has been provided, while alienating the audience most likely to be satisfied and return customers, are, by nature, sort of failures. I don't know why I should have to explain this, either. |
|
|
