[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

...no, it's not. It's to get sales. If they listed the actors people don't recognize, the movie would get less publicity, and isn't that a bit counter-productive?

[(Anonymous)]

Right?
And you can see it everywhere. The most recognizable name(s)are on the posters, no matter if their character(s) gets murdered 13 minutes in. See Gwyneth Paltrow and Contagion for example.
It's marketing.

This way people who never thought about seeing the movie, will at least think about it, then hopefully go and then maybe become a fan of an actor whose name wasn't on the poster, because they're impressed with the performance/think they're pretty/other reason.

[(Anonymous)]

Or how they pushed Brad Pitt in 12 Years A Slave even though he was only in it for like...2 minutes

[(Anonymous)]

Like nobody ever watches movies with a 'cast of unknowns'. There are ways to get publicity besides who's in it and I wouldn't call Mischa Barton big box office magic. While I do understand the name recognition value, that argument doesn't hold the water Hollywood thinks it does. 'Foreign' actors aren't always that foreign to people in the west. At the very least, they could have stuck Yadav's name on the end, or put Kal Penn in the middle instead of tacking him on like an afterthought. Because putting the white people's names front and center sends the message, once again, that even a story like this is only worth telling if it's through a white lens, and that the audience is too stupid to empathize if that viewpoint isn't there.

But a star's billing can often be part of their contract.

[(Anonymous)]

And can often be a part of salary negotiations. Movies are absolutely a business. And with regards to name recognition, if you have someone people know, you use their name for the marketing - it would be awfully strange not to use such an easy tool at your disposal.

[diet_poison]

Because putting the white people's names front and center sends the message, once again, that even a story like this is only worth telling if it's through a white lens, and that the audience is too stupid to empathize if that viewpoint isn't there.

Look, if you're deciding which actors to put on the posters that are being marketed to a certain audience, you pick the ones they'll recognize. It really doesn't have to be any deeper than that. It's like you're determined to find problems that aren't there.

I don't deny that the white lens attitude is an issue, I just really do not think this is a direct manifestation of that. Indirect, maybe, but not direct. The people who picked the publicity names didn't do it with a racist bias - they picked the names that will net them the largest number of views and the most money.

[(Anonymous)]

Fewer people would watch it. That's a guarantee. Don't pretend just because there's a market for foreign films in the US that means it's anything like big market because it really isn't. Given that this film is highly unlikely to be in wide release, it needs all the help it can get. "That argument doesn't hold the water Hollywood thinks it does"? What does that mean? You know "The Namesake"? Starring Kal Penn and a cast of Indian actors, great reviews, adapted from a bestselling novel? You think many people have heard of it outside of the festival circuit and the art house set? That audience set isn't enough to make a profit off of, and besides, they would have gone to see it anyway. If you only market it to them, you're doing a bad job.

Basically, I only care about what the actual movie is like and not one bit about the marketing as long as it does what it's intended to do: get people to see the film. Once they do, they can make up their own minds, and then we talk about whether or not they are too stupid to empathize with alternative viewpoints. Seriously, we haven't seen the film and you want to argue about name placement on a poster, talk about a hair-trigger need to be offended.