The following essay was written by Elycia Arendt on December 3, 1996. All television commercials analyzed in the paper will be available to download in Quick Time format, as well as a written transcript. This was written for an Advertising in America seminar. This page will begin with an abstract of the paper to give you an idea whether or not you want to read it, followed by: the paper itself, written transcripts of the Braveheart and Independence Day television commercials discussed, and the works cited. If you use this paper for any purpose, you MUST cite me. No plagiarism please.

When you are done, Visit Some

other Elycia Sites...

Abstract

        In Hollywood a war is currently being waged between the behemoths of advertising, the blockbusters, and the under dogs of artistry, the independents.  This paper attempts to expose and define the battle between blockbusters and independents through their treatment by the media and their differing approaches in marketing.
        By analyzing a wide range of newspaper articles, entertainment trades, and television commentaries, each genre's defining content and marketing approaches are exposed. Specific emphasis in this paper is placed on the campaigns and treatment of the blockbuster Independence Day and the independent Braveheart.
        This paper attempts to prove that while blockbusters are the winners in the war at the box office, it is ultimately the independents who claim a lasting victory.

Movie Marketing:

Blockbusters

versus

Independents

By: Elycia Arendt

FTS: Advertising in America

December 3, 1996

        Twenty-one years later, Hollywood has become a town governed entirely by money. It is a town where a film is deemed a "winner' or a "loser," as in Entertainment Weekly's quarterly report, not by critical reviews but by its profits; its box office receipts. Today, studios will sacrifice artistry for money. As one anonymous studio executive put it, "Its more important to have bragging rights on an opening weekend than to have bragging right about the Oscars" (Weinraub, "Summers..."  2).
        This acquisitive mentality in Hollywood has created a vicious battleground. Studios set film against film hoping to snag the number one seat at the box office and completely eliminating to competition in the process. The winners in this war are the films that manage to pass the $100 million mark. The only proven way to claim that prize is to create a blockbuster.
        Blockbusters are not movies; they are events. They are the pure creations of publicity departments, not filmmakers. Months before these films are released, the marketing campaign begins. Publicity departments release teaser trailers in theaters and to television shows such as Entertainment Tonight to create the early buzz. By strategically airing commercials on high ratings events such as the Super Bowl or popular shows such as Friends, a movie's 'sneak peak' can reach millions of potential audience members. Ad agencies can now pre-sell a film months before it is even released. These pre-sold blockbusters gain so much momentum that they can create pandemonium on opening weekend. The opening of a blockbuster often time becomes news itself. News programs go on the scene to local theaters where people camp out in order to be the first to see a blockbuster such as Independence Day. The Tuesday night preview of Independence Day took in $11.1 million, the largest ever for a night preview (Barron  1-2).
        Independence Day, as well as many other blockbusters, owe their immense popularity to their marketing campaigns. From television commercials to web sites, tie-in merchandise to fan clubs, a blockbuster has every inch of America covered. With box office receipts often reaching $600 million worldwide, it is no wonder why a studio will sacrifice their cinematic souls to have a wining formula blockbuster (Russell, "Winners"  1).
        This is not to say, however, that cinema as an art form has been completely obliterated. Still struggling, but steadily gaining in popularity are the independent or art films. These are films that do not adhere to the basic studio formula, which includes: big stars, old material, or special effects, but rather emphasize stories and film as an art form. The presence of independents demonstrates the way in which smaller studios are counter programming the blockbuster-saturated market. "The public is thirsting for films other than what the studios deliver," according to Michael Baker, the co-president of Sony pictures Classics (Bowe Hearty  1).
        The popularity of independents has caught the attention of the major studios. With the huge success of independents such as Pulp Fiction, which cost only $8 million and earned $210 million worldwide, studios have decided that they want a piece of the independent market. Companies such as Walt Disney, Turner, Polygram, News Corp., and Sony have moved into the independent film arena by either funding existing independent studios or creating their own (Weinraub, "Independents..."  1).
        The newfound popularity of independents has been reflected in an increase in their production value as wells as top Hollywood actors flocking to their doors. Actors such as Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and Susan Sarandon have all agreed to take pay cuts or waive their fees in order to be involved in independent film projects. The provocative fare traditionally served by the independents suits the stars' palettes, who are tired of the formula blockbusters. While blockbusters tend to let special effects be the star, independents allow the actors (Weinraub, "Independents..."  1-2).
        Independents also allow a venue for original and often risqué subject manner. A film such as Trainspotting, which follows the lives of Scottish heroin addicts, would never have been made as a major studio film. The subject matter is simply too risqué. Nor would many actors have been allowed by major studios to play the very real and complex characters often found in independents. Nicholas Cage won an Oscar last year for his alcoholic character in the independent film Leaving Las Vegas and Nicole Kidman won a Golden Globe for her vixen weather girl in To Die For. The independents, not the blockbusters, are the films that steadily supply Hollywood with award winning material. But in a world dictated by box office receipts, independents face tremendous odds against the sheer force of the blockbusters. As these two genres differ sharply in content, so too do their marketing campaigns. It is a battle where everyone is fighting for a piece of the pie and everyone ends up with a different flavor.
        The total average cost for making and promoting a major studio film is $54.1 million. Only twenty-seven films even earned that much at the domestic box office in 1995 (Caro  2). With studios risking such obscene amounts of money on movies, they all pray for a major blockbuster to fall into their laps. This is a high-risk enterprise because for every Independence Day or Jurassic Park, there is a Last Action Hero or Cutthroat Island.
        To insure some amount of success, studios often resort to the three proven ways to make a blockbuster. The first is the use of super stars such as Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise. The second is to use preexisting material such as a true story, a popular novel, remaking an old movie, or bringing a popular television show to the big screen. The third, final, and most popular method of late is using lots and lots of special effects (Caro  3). The summer blockbusters of 1996 all exemplify these formulas. Independence Day and Twister both touted amazing special effects, and Mission: Impossible had super star Tom Cruise and was based on a popular television show. Sometimes a blockbuster will incorporate all three elements such as the Batman films, which are based on a famous comic book, star super stars such as Jack Nicholson and Jim Carrey, and always show off glitzy special effects like the Batmobile.
        The main problem facing blockbusters is how to sell the same product over and over without the audience realizing it is the same thing. It is all in the packaging, the ad campaign. An advertising campaign can make or break a blockbuster. It is the marketers who control the tide in Hollywood. Names like Buffy Shutt or Kathy Jones are hardly household names, but they are among the elite in Hollywood who can turn an ad campaign into gold. Jones and Shutt's campaigns include: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop, and Apollo 13 (Eller  1). As successful as those films were at the box office, their campaigns pale in comparison to the new text on how to sell a blockbuster: the Independence Day campaign.
        Hollywood first began to quake when this film about alien invasions first claimed the mammoth 4th of July weekend for its debut. The entertainment trades such as Entertainment Weekly and Critics' Choice each had notices when Fox grabbed the rights to the film.  The Fox campaign aimed to the general public began very early on. By releasing a teaser trailer in theaters at Christmas and a 30 second ad airing on the Super Bowl, ID4, as it was nicknamed, became the hot topic around American water coolers (Dretzka  4). The studio began to gradually release more trailers and ads, but all of them used very little footage of the film. No aliens were shown, but the use of preordained catch phrases and lots of special effects pre-sold the film to American audiences (Dreztka  5).
        For example, the television ad "Theaters" [see Appendix] revolves entirely around explosions and special effects. In fifteen seconds we manage to see the White House, a block of buildings, dozens of automobiles, a base filled with Harrier jets, and the film's logo, explode. Blockbuster advertisements are often centered on nonstop action and in this case, nonstop explosions. The bevy of exploding cities in this ad might reflect a society's longing to revert back to small-town or family values, but it is more likely motivated by the logical alien invasion plot in the film and our jilted bloody thirsty attitudes. The most exploited scene from the film, an explosion, does however play on a theme currently rampant in our country. While most people would not want to see their home explode, people will gladly pay to see other people's homes blown up. In ID4's case, the exploding home is the president's. Our country's distrust of the government, with conspiracy theories and what not, makes that single shot worth seeing the entire film. People want to see the White House being blown up and advertisers know how to exploit that savage wish. The White House being blown up by a spaceship is the one constant image in the ID4 campaign.
        The ID4 campaign did not simply stop at movie trailers and television ads, but incorporated every area of the media available. Television shows like Entertainment Tonight were granted exclusive behind the scenes looks at Independence Day, as were countless magazines such as Entertainment Weekly and TIME. The ID4 web site was one of the most popular ever with more than 2 million hits a day (Barron 2). Not to be left out, the studio created an amazing amount of tie-in merchandise for the film, which was out in stores well before the film's release. The reaction to this media saturation was so overwhelming that Fox had to move up the opening day from July 4th to July 3rd, and incorporate a night preview on July 2nd.
        Everyone was swept away in the event that was ID4, including many film critics. Several reviews simply regurgitated the ID4 press release and sang the praise of the marketing campaign (Barron, Judell, and Masiln articles). Two of the countries most trusted film critics, Siskel and Ebert, did watch the film for its cinematic worth, instead of its marketing, and gave it two thumbs down (Ebert  1). Most of the country sent angry letters attacking their reviews, but Siskel and Ebert stuck to their original reviews of the film.
        With Independence Day now available on videocassette and the ad campaign no longer dominating our lives, America is getting a second untainted chance to experience the film. Entertainment Weekly, one of the loudest cheerleaders for ID4, recently reviewed the film on tape.  They found it to be a "collection of stock characters, moldy plots, and received notions" (Burr  101). These hardly seem choice words for the "winner" of the summer of 1996 (Russell, "Winners"  1). Still, the campaign behind ID4 managed to generate over $300 million domestically, nearly as much internationally, and is set to make even more with videocassette sales. Independence Day, as well as many other blockbusters, make nearly $1 billion before the audience realizes the movie isn't that great. It was simply another spawn of the blockbuster formula that studios have sold us time and time again. What was popular was not the movie, but the "event" created by the ad campaign. Once the campaign has ended, blockbusters tend to fade and leave little enduring power.
        The movies that do have a lasting effect are the independents. While the huge monolithic blockbuster campaigns are dominating the media, independents are trying desperately to be noticed. Counter programming is the key to their success. In 1993, Sony Classics released Orlando, based on the 1928 Virginia Woolf novel, on the same opening day as Jurassic Park. The ad campaign was simple, "For all of you who don't want to see a movie about dinosaurs...[there's] Orlando" (Bowe Hearty  2). Orlando broke records in its exclusive engagements that weekend (Bowe Hearty  2).
        Unfortunately, most independents cannot take such a simple and straightforward approach. Unlike blockbusters, which can afford to spend millions of dollars on extensive advertising campaigns, independents have limited funds. They also suffer from limited screenings. While blockbusters can afford to hold 3000 screens across the nation, independents cannot. They tend to follow the old method of releasing a film, in which it opens in select theaters and then gradually expands the number of screens as interest in the film builds (Goldstein  1). Independents also rely heavily on critical approval. Where audiences tend to ignore negative reviews of blockbusters, as in the case of Siskel and Ebert versus ID4, critical approval can make or break an independent. Critical praise can sky rocket a film like Pulp Fiction and disapproval can destroy a film like Barb Wire.
        Even with critical praise, it is still imperative that the independent studios can sell their movie to the public. A blockbuster can often get away with telling the audience absolutely nothing about the film in its ads. In "Theaters," the ad never mentions that Independence Day is about an alien invasion. Will Smith, one of the only two people clearly shown in the commercials says, "That's what I call a close encounter," hinting at the alien presence in the film. However, this phrase is only revealing to the audience if they are familiar with the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind or the alien abduction phenomenon. For those people who are not, the commercial is simply a series of explosions and is meaningless. For the whole of the potential audience however, blockbusters do not need to explain themselves. They have been pre-selling it to the public for months, and deep down we all know the movie will follow the three proven formulas for a successful blockbuster. Their ads are filled with explosions and special effects to grab our attention, but rarely contain much more. Independents on the other hand, cannot abide by the same rules. The general public often knows little or nothing about the content of a new independent film. The ads for these films need to tell the audience what it’s about and with very little money available for advertising, independents need to make every penny count.
        The commercials and movie trailers for independents are like tiny films in and of themselves. They often give a brief plot summary as in "For Love" a thirty-second television ad for Braveheart [see Appendix]. Unlike blockbuster ads such as "Theaters" which uses quick and abrupt edits, independent commercials tend to use fluid fading techniques as in "For Love". This technique allows the commercial to flow like a movie rather than flash like a music video. These ads often give a brief summary of the film's content and try to tug at our emotions whether it is anger, empathy, love, etcetera. While blockbusters aim for our primitive wants in movies such as explosions and violence, independents grab hold of our most complex needs such as freedom as in the Braveheart ads.
        Independents do not have the money blockbusters have to pour into extensive advertising and as a result their advertisements are far more complex. Independent film advertising has far more text than a blockbuster. One can eliminate the narration and dialog form the ID4 commercial and still understand its meaning. The same cannot be said for he Braveheart commercial. The narration, the dialog, and the images blend together and are dependent on each other. Independent filmmakers assume we have the capacity to think when we are at the movies. Films are a way of escaping the real world, but that does not mean they have to be mind numbing as blockbusters often are. The commercials for independents evoke this heightened sense of complexity.
        This complexity is apparent in the use of imagery in the Braveheart ad "For Love." It is quite obvious that the editor took great pains to have underlying themes in the commercial reflecting the plot points of the film. For example, whenever Mel Gibson is in a serious battle scene or giving a speech, there is always at least one man clearly visible behind him. The theme reflected in the film is that his character William Wallace led the Scots to freedom and that men followed him. Another ingenious editing tool was a clever fade out through three images. The first image is of Mel Gibson and Sophie Marcaeu kissing which fades into flames, representing their flaming passion. That flame, in turn, fades into the flames of a battle scene and completes a circle of interrelating plots in the film. Another image in the commercial is revealed when a man flings a sword into the air and a few shots later it pierces the ground, forming a cross. This shows the constant underlying theme of religion in all military conflicts in the Braveheart time period. Needless to say, it is extremely difficult to find such imagery in the ID4 commercial.
        Independents do not simply target the intellectuals, but also demographics that the blockbusters tend to ignore. Blockbusters generally target boys, young to middle aged men, and especially teenagers, the jackpot audience for a blockbuster. Women, elderly, minorities, and everyone else are typically ignored. The ID4 ad displays violence, explosions, and only two actors, Will Smith and Vivica A. Fox. It is interesting to note that both are African Americans, a demographic typically ignored by blockbuster campaigns. These two actors were probably displayed because of their appeal to teenagers and young adults however, and not to combat old advertising stereotypes. Will Smith is highly recognizable for the younger crowd from his music, television, and film careers. Vivica A. Fox might be recognizable for her soap opera work, but was more than likely chosen because she plays the noble stripper in the film. A stripper as the heroine is far more likely to attract male ticket buyers than the typical female movie go-er.
        Independent films attempt to cater to all demographics. They often try to create a balance of many themes in their commercials, instead of one image such as explosions. Spike Lee's films tend to cater to the urban and the African American movie go-ers, while a film based on a Jane Austen novel brings in primarily women. Independents do not follow the strict formulas that blockbusters do and as a result, their diversity allows for films and advertising for neglected demographics.
        In recent years, some of Hollywood's top actors have flocked to the independent scene to broaden their resumes and test their talents. Their presence has given independents a new weapon in their ad campaigns; star appeal, one of the three proven formulas for a blockbuster. With a big Hollywood star, independents can fight fire with fire. For example, last year's Sense and Sensibility gained tremendous momentum by showcasing its stars Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant in its ads. Last year's Best Picture Braveheart used this technique as well. Knowing full well Mel Gibson's power to bring in audiences, Mel's face was flashed onto all of the Braveheart advertisements. Once the stars have brought them in, audiences can be pleasantly surprised by the quality and creativity found in this type of film. But even with the secret weapon of star power, independents still have a tremendous battle to face.
        Braveheart has more than proven its worth by receiving 10 Oscar nominations and 5 Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for Mel Gibson. That film, however, was constantly attacked and ridiculed by the industry for its only 'modest' box office success. In Entertainment Weekly's quarterly "Winners and Losers" report, they called Braveheart a disappointment, a "recouper" but not a coveted "hit" or "smash" ("Winners..."  1). Two issues later the magazine had to issue an apology and correction as they had "misreported" Braveheart's domestic gross. It turned out that Braveheart was not a big disappointment as they had originally made it out to be. Still, the damage was done, and the correction was only a tiny paragraph in a section few readers read ("Corrections"  3).
        This is not the only instance where Braveheart was scrutinized over the issue of money. Critics' Choice was especially harsh on Mel Gibson's investment in the film. Gibson invested $15 million of his own money and waived all of his fees to be in the picture. Critics' Choice pointed out that "Braveheart will have to gross more than $100 million before his backend kicks in" ("Mel Gibson..."  1). As Entertainment Weekly blatantly pointed out, Braveheart did not make $100 million plus as a blockbuster would, and so the implication is that Mel Gibson wasted his money. So what did Mr. Gibson get for his money? He got two Oscars, one for Best Picture and the other for Best Director on only his second directing job. He also received a pay raise on his film project following Braveheart, Ransom, in which he was paid $20 million to star. These hardly seem to be terrible repercussions for Mel's investment, but in a world governed by box office receipts, publications sponsored by major studios will attack independents on any level they can. The blockbusters have the ready cash to combat any advertisement and any praise connected with an independent. There is to be no competition and the ultimate goal is to win the audience's affection and their money.
        In the end, one has to wonder who is the winner in all of this. Does a flashy million-dollar ad campaign bring in billions of audience members? It most certainly does. Does a small provocative film with only a few ads and critical approval have any chance of bringing in billions of audience members? It most certainly does. Blockbusters and independents end up winning different battles.
        The blockbuster, with its glitzy packaging and mammoth marketing campaign can absorb an entire country for a summer. Every inch of the media is covered with its logos and sings its praise. But the blockbuster is constantly reinventing itself. While Independence Day was still going on strong at the box office, newspapers had already begun to gossip about next summer's potential blockbusters: Batman and Robin, The Lost World [sequel to Jurassic Park], Alien 4: Resurrection, and Men in Black (Goldstein  3). The blockbuster is only king for a short time. Soon enough another blockbuster will come along and claim the crown for themselves.
        After the heat of the summer blockbuster has cooled and Oscar season approaches, it is the independents that claim the crown. Academy voters quickly become familiar with the films most of America had missed. At Oscar time, the blockbusters are all but forgotten and the independents enter the spotlight. Braveheart, a film attacked constantly by a covetous Hollywood, finally received the respect it so richly deserved at the Academy Awards.
        Advertising campaigns for films last only as long as when the film is in theaters. The influence of the campaigns, so overwhelming in the heat of the cinematic battlefield, fades over time. Commercials are forgotten, newspaper ads are lost, and catch phrases loose their irreverent wit. We are simply left with the film itself to remember the time we spent in the theaters. Twenty years from now, when we watch Independence Day we may remember something of what the "event" surrounding it felt like. We'll vaguely remember the country being crazy about blowing up aliens and the thrill we got out of seeing the White house blown up on our computer screens, but it will be just that, a distant memory. Often, when we go back and watch a blockbuster we can remember the thrill, but we cannot relive it. All we are left with is the film itself and perhaps some old merchandising. Blockbusters are creations of advertising agencies, not filmmakers. When the ads disappear we strain to remember why these films were so important to us. All that is left is the cocoon that housed a butterfly that has long since flown away.
        The films that will endure, long after their ad campaigns have faded away, are the independents. Independents are created out of respect and admiration for the art of filmmaking. They do not succumb to the modern rules of Hollywood. Box office receipts and profits do not govern their productions. These few and proud film makers put forth their best and most creative efforts to captivate audiences. Mass marketing does not dictate in the world on the independent, it is avoided. For that defiance of mass marketing, independents are rewarded with something blockbusters rarely achieve. Blockbusters become mere mementos of a remembered summer, a one time glorious event that can never be recreated. Independents, however, steadily gain in popularity and are passes on from generation to generation. Films that were ridiculed and laughed at by their contemporaries live on to a time when they can be fully appreciated. The glorious revelation and revenge of sorts for independents, is when they have come to a point when they are no longer obscure, but are our beloved classics.

Appendix:

Transcripts and Downloads of

Braveheart and Independence Day

Television Commercials

"Theaters"

15 seconds

TV Commercial for the film:

Independence Day

Download Now

"For Love"

30 seconds

TV Comercial for the film:

Braveheart

Download Now

Written Transcript for "Theaters" and "For Love"

Works Cited

Barron, James.  "Crave a UFO war? Line up!"  The New York Times  4 July 1996: 1-3.

Bowe Hearty, Kitty.  "Summer's Gnats Versus the Behemoths."  The New York Times 12 May 1996: 1-3.

Brantley, Ben. "Lots of Blasts and Flames but Very Little Warmth."  The New York Times  16 June 1996: 1-6.

Burr, Ty.  "Personal F/X."  Entertainment Weekly  29 Nov 1996: 101-102.

Caro, Mark.  "While Studios Crank Out More Movies and Make More Money, Costs Have Soared and So the Drums of Doom are Beating."  The Chicago Tribune  14 April 1996:  1-6.

"Corrections."  Entertainment Weekly  1 March 1996: 2.

Dretzka, Gary.  "Filmstrip Tease: A 2-Hour Movie's Success often Depends on the Effectiveness of its 2-Minute Preview."  The Chicago Tribune  5 July 1996: 1-6.

Ebert, Roger.  "Braveheart."  The Chicago Sun Times  24 May 1995: 1-3.

Ebert Roger.  "Independence Day."  The Chicago Sun Times  3 July 1996: 1-4.

Eller, Claudia.  "Hits and Ms.'s: Duo has Universal Marketing Touch."  Los Angeles Times  6 May 1995: 1-2.

Goldstein, Patrick.  "now There are Bigger Sharks in the Water Every Summer."  Los Angeles Times  18 Aug 1996: 1-6.

James, Caryn.  "The Splash Epic Finds New Life in the 13th Century."  The New York Times  23 May 1995: 1-2.

Judell, Brandon.  "ID4: Independence Day."  Critics' Choice  22 Nov 1996.  Critics' Choice Online.  Online.  America Online.  28 Nov 1996.

Maslin, Janet.  "Independence Day: Space Aliens and Chance to Save Planet."  The New York Times  2 July 1996: 1-4.

"Mel Gibson Invested $15 million in Braveheart."  Critics' Choice  19 April 1995.  Critics' Choice Online.  Online.  America Online.  15 Oct 1996.

Russell, Joe.  "Losers."  Entertainment Weekly  30 Aug 1996:1.

Russell, Joe.  "Summer Box Office Report."  Entertainment Weekly  30 Aug 1996: 1-4.

Russell, Joe.  "Winners."  Entertainment Weekly  30 Aug 1996: 1.

Thompson, Anne.  "Sizing Up Summer's Stock."  Entertainment Weekly  8 Sept  1995: 1-3.

Weinraub, Bernard.  "Independent Films Adapt to Grasp of Major Studios."  The New York Times  24 July 1996: 1-6.

Weinraub, Bernard.  "Summer's Big Bangs Yield to Thoughts of Oscars."  The New York Times  10 Sept 1996: 1-3.

"Winners and Losers."  Entertainment Weekly  8 Sept 1995, 1-3.

Back to Home Page