Open Forum Friday: Do Heavily Hyped Movies Ever Live Up To Expectations?

Posted by on May 23rd, 2008   Filed under: Fandom, Open Forum Friday, Posters and Marketing

openforumoverhype.jpg

Every summer, movie fans find themselves faced with more and more movies that are absolutely off the charts in terms of hype and anticipation… and every summer, it seems that very few of these blockbusters are able to fully satisfy their target audience. You may think that this is old news, and that it’s just a given that massive Hollywood productions are empty and unfulfilling, but why should this be the case? Wouldn’t moviegoers eventually stop paying money if they were being consistently disappointed?

I guess there are a lot of ways to explain this, one being the fact that plenty of people just go to the movies for something to do on a Friday night. But I think a bigger factor is the pre-release buzz, which causes people to go in believing that these movies are going to be masterpieces on every level, and hoping for something that is almost impossible.

They’ve done studies on consumer behaviour and found that overhyping a product is a bad thing because it creates unrealistic expectations, and you are more likely to take notice when a product underdelivers rather than when it overdelivers. Huge marketing campaigns may appear to ensure a strong opening weekend turnout, but in the long run they are generating negative word of mouth and quick box office drop-off (not to mention less DVD sales). What do you think, is the hype machine primarily to blame, or are these movies just plain bad? Do blockbusters ever live up to fan expectations? Is Hollywood digging itself into a hole here? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Well, most of these massively hyped movies are in the realm of the comic-nerd-fanboy. They will never, regardless of what happens, live up to the hype they build up. And I believe that’s precisely how they ( the fanboys) like it. Today it’s all about seeing a film just to be able to shit all over it on imdb or on a blog.

    To me, Hollywood does best with under the radar surprises like “The Bourne Identity” a few years back. But then, of course, they make hyped sequel after hyped sequel because it was successful in the first pass.

    I think Hollywood just tries to give people what they think they want, but the problem is– people don’t know shit.

    And the internet doens’t help. I am just as guilty as the next guy, but when we have access to all of the info about a movie, months before it’s release, it just takes some of the magic out of seeing the finished product. And thus, it’s inevitably a let down.

  • Well I think Iron Man lived up to its expectations for most people

  • That’s true… but was it a genuinely great movie, or did the previous months of the year just set the bar so low that it couldn’t possibly fail? Even though there was plenty of hype from a marketing standpoint, I think most people went in with relatively tame expectations, and the movie overperformed.

  • I totally agree with Sean, Ironman didn’t have Spiderman or Batman or X-men expectations, and it exceeded expectations because of that. It only exceeded expections because all people wanted was something that didn’t suck not something that was actually good.

  • Dan

    I feel that Ironman did live up to expectations because it took a different route in terms of a superhero movie but I feel Tony Stark is the type of character that gets people really into the movie…I feel that someone is more prone to enjoy a character like Stark because he’s “real” as opposed to bitchy and depressed like Spiderman. I also feel that Crystal Skulls did not live up to expectations because it was too far out there. I don’t know, I just wasn’t fond of the new Jones movie and I feel it was overhyped which only contributed to the movie sucking.

  • Nostalgia is built in hype. People put such high expectations on new iterations of classic film franchises, sometimes forgetting that parts of what made the originals so great is that we all saw them when we were children.

    I think Crystal Skull was okay on its own, just not as amazing when put in with the original trilogy.

  • I think Spider-Man 3 is great entertainment. Both Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 I was very exicted about as well and I liked both of them. The real masterpieces that are going to be remembered are another thing though. The internet sometimes seems to believe that the comic book films are the masterpieces of cinema of their generation, usually people who have watched the godfather and think that they have acquainted themselves with cinematic history – afterall imdb.com says its the best, but they really shouldn’t be held in that regard. If they entertain without being clumsy or mindnumbing they are adequate, but in the end, they are the butter that makes the bread seem that much more important.

  • Well how exactly is spiderman 2 so wonderful other than just being good, because your saying that these films are considred disappointments because there over hyped and not because they were just bad, right? but wasn’t spiderman 2 hyped?

  • I just wish everything wasnt a CGI shit fest…big movies have no integrity anymore. fucking computers.

  • Also, now see if you can stay with me on this…Iron Man was great, only because it was good, when it could have been really bad…our expectations are so lowered these days that anything that isnt embarassing is a pure relief.

  • ———————————————————
    I just wish everything wasnt a CGI shit fest…big movies have no integrity anymore. fucking computers.
    Posted by Bob the Slob on May 24th, 2008
    ———————————————————

    I agree. This especially applies to so-called horror movies especially.

    As for hype on movies….I dunno the last hyped up movie I liked was “The Blair Witch Project”, which had least added some mystery to the story before the film came out. I thought that was very clever.

  • Ryan

    I don’t think the hype machine was responsible for the critical failure of Spider-man 3. It was entirely based on the expectations built after Spider-man 2. I believe that was the best comic book movie of all time, and most faithful to the subject matter. To me it was perfect entertainment. It doesn’t have the artistic integrity and emotional impact of The Godfather, but it was much more entertaining than that film. You can’t watch The Godfather as many times in a year as you can Spider-man 2. If you say you can it’s hard for me to believe you.

    Even more, I like CG. As a pro hopeful filmmaker myself it makes me happy that some of my ideas could be realized with as much realism as possible. I want to see things I could never see in real life on film (or preferably HD) and CG is the harbinger of that dream. I just think 90% of directors have no visual style so they end up shitting all over everything and making close-up shots w/o practical effects and other things that are easily on the “what NOT to do with CG” list.

  • CG is good in small doses. Most movies simply overdose. As far as horror– that’s a whole different story. Digital blood is the worst thing to happen to horror in years. It just looks awful. I respect a film more when it uses practical effects– I know when something is fake, and I’d rather have it be a practical fake effect than a digital one.

    And for Spiderman 3, part of what ruined it for me was hearing that the budget was upward of $350 million. Adding money to a subpar project does nothing to help it– it’s just a really expensive turd.

  • I find dry ice smoke effects more frightening than CG ghosts or silly (unrealistic) monsters.

  • Of course hype has a lot to do with it, but there’s also the difference in opinions from person to person.

    I personally really liked Spiderman, Spiderman 2, and Spiderman 3. I believe all of those were greatly hyped up. There are plenty of other examples. X-Men 3 and Transformers on the other hand were hyped up a lot and I just thought they were horrible films.

    In my opinion it’s really a case by case basis as to whether something will perform well depending on the hype, the subject matter, and the quality of the film itself, along with several other factors.

  • Captain N

    I believe hype is filmgoer created, so to speak. The studios put the marketing out there and we begin the measure of expectations from what we see.

    Expectations are different with every person, as stated above. Whats more is with certain films, people are willing to over look its flaws and allow its good traits to be more apparent. Spiderman 3 and Transformers come to mind. Both are terrible terrible films. Both have their haters and lovers.

    As for the debate about CGI ruining movies, that’d be a great topic, if it hasnt been used yet and I’d like to put in my two cents. I strongly believe that CGI is not ruining film. Not even an over abundance. CGI has nothing to do with the script. A bad script is a bad script. I dont feel CGI is dictating the way a script is written anymore now then the way a particular effect would dictate something from the 80’s or 70’s or so on. Its a tool, a fantastic tool, that allows filmmakers to create worlds unlike before. I’ll end it there, its a bit off topic :-P.

  • hmm. but I don’t think anyone is saying CGI hurts the script. I think people complain about CGI because often times cgi action scenes are unengaging.

    In particular CGI characters in action scenes aren’t as exciting as action scenes with stuntmen. Think about the Spider-Man 3 finale vs Zoey Bell on the hood of the car in Death Proof.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark vs Crystal Skull would be a better example but I haven’t seen Crystal Skull.

  • joe

    Marketing is dumb.

  • albelamail

    Max payne is a movie I waited so long to see. wow it was done in superior way. Always love to see my game hero in action. Mark Wahlberg is just like the payne in the movie. This was out standing performance by him. Fire power and the shooting skills of the game have been imitated well. Though I have watch it online by using http://www.80millionmoviesfree.com had the feel of a life time with this remarkable movie.

  • Thomas Lewis