Aug 5 2012, 8:30pm
You've done me the courtesy of trying to clarify your meaning until I get it. I'll sincerely try to do the same for you and others who seem to agree with you,
Black Breathalizer: My ideas on "the marketing" of Film 3.
Our differences on this are inherent in your statement,
I must confess I'm rather taken aback by the negative reaction here to the phrase, "carefully orchestrated" when it comes to marketing a movie. Marketing a film is about building the audience's anticipation for its release and minimizing any negatives that might be associated with it. Everything about marketing a product is carefully orchestrated. Why should that elicit cynicism? It's just what marketing is.
"It's just what marketing is."
My head knows that our world as it is runs on commerce and, when practiced honestly, it's a necessity and a help for us all. I've heard salesmen describe the process as a game, talk about the "art of the deal", and claim it's how the world operates. That's one world view. Sir Denis wrote, however, and I agree:
We are talking about marketing here. There is no shortage of examples of subterfuge in marketing. Some would argue the entire practise is defined by showmanship and slight of hand. That we are often sold something that isn't quite what we thought we were paying for has become normalised. As such, and lofty philosophical arguments aside, people have become sensitive to being mislead.
(...and here is where I give you my answer, BB): as a corollary to that, in my case, of being sensitive to an assertion that someone I respect may have deliberately misled others as part of a business decision. The word "orchestrate" equals "manipulate" in my mind, and that doesn't sound very nice, does it, precious? Dismiss me as naive, but it doesn't sound complimentary or even neutral. A person who saw the logic of playing the game as it exists would not react to such an assertion the same way I did. "That's just what marketing is, Lissuin. No black mark against him. No big deal." But to me that would be a big deal, and why, from what little I know of Peter Jackson, I think Silverlode's explanation for how the film addition and announcement developed is more likely correct. http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=476693#476693. I agree that there was discussion of a third film from the beginning, Peter says it in an interview, but I reject the idea of purely premeditated manipulative marketing goals leading up to last month's announcement.
A cynical person might think, "She's a PJ defender because she's had a little bit of exposure", and they would be right, but not for the reason they would think. I've seen first hand how well people are treated in that operation, at all levels of involvement. Mine has been temporary and limited, but I felt respected and well-treated from day one, and that basic decency comes from the top in any organization. I've experienced both good and bad ones over the years. The world of the film extra in Miramar is not the world of big studio machinations, but it is indicative of a certain world view: that creativity is valued and that individuals have worth and deserve respect - and that attitude gets respect in return from employees. It's a two-way street at that work place, and I would sincerely hope that people believe that it is also meant to exist between Peter and the fans. He has certainly offered fans more than any other director I know of in the form of video production blogs and dvd special features. I find your statement regarding the vlogs strongly indicative of our differing viewpoints:
Peter Jackson's video blogs about the making of the Hobbit films have been carefully orchestrated. The decision to make them as well as the decisions about what to cover and when to release them are all part of a marketing plan.Does that make them somehow dishonest? Does it mean that Peter Jackson doesn't really care about the fans after all? Of course not.
I would say that rather than a marketing plan, it's his generous desire just to show us how it's done, to get more people in on the fun, to share something he's excited about - for free - because he loves what he does. These mini-productions take time and resources to make. The marketing mind would say it's just investment in advertising, but a quick check on his blog and YouTube shows only 250,000 views of PV#8 - that's mostly us, folks, the ones who are going to see the movies anyway. I, like Dormouse, get crazy at this phenomenon: "People seem to have this longing for everyone's motives to be more complicated and more devious than first appears" - and the common perception of marketing is, unfortunately, of some level of deviousness. But honestly, how into it does Peter look on the LOTR special features? How silly and delighted does he look when he's showing us around his studio? It's genuine. He's like that. Excuse me, but it does sound cynical to say that it's all part of a marketing plan.
Is Peter Jackson a good business man as well as creative, highly motivated, and obsessed with making the best films he can? Obviously. Does that mean he has to keep some information private until the proper time to release it. Obviously. Did I misunderstand you and some others here that it smelled like a manipulative move for some tricksy reason? Did I? You tell me. Would I take offense at that assertion? Yes, I would. It just doesn't seem generous - in my world view.