Foul Play: Recent Movie-Themed Toys Raise Skepticism

This week, I decided to set out into the blogosphere seeking to build on my last post concerning the marketing of Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight, as well as to expand my understanding of film marketing through the findings and opinions in other blogs. In my searching, I discovered that over the past few days, thanks in part to the annual New York Toy Fair, two major new figurines have been either released or announced for Paramount's Cloverfield and The Dark Knight respectively. As this is often a large part of the marketing campaign for these types of large-scale blockbusters, high interest regarding these developments was to be expected. Due to a couple of sensitive issues having to due with the choice of characters represented in the molded plastic, however, questions have been raised regarding the timing of each of the announcements and the potential negative effects that they could have on the films they represent. The first blog that I came across was called cinematical, and the post by Erik Davis entitled, "Mattel's Ledger-Inspired Joker Doll Revealed!" discusses the release of a doll version of Heath Ledger's Joker portrayal (see right) and whether or not the Ledger resemblance and early release date of the toy is cause to make a fuss against Warner Bros. after all. The second post that I responded to was found in the blog, Slashfilm and was written by Peter Sciretta. The post, entitled, "RANT: The Cloverfield Monster is NOT a Spoiler," identifies the problem that many have with the newly announced (and photographed) figurine: That it serves as a spoiler for the film itself. The post proceeds to define what a "spoiler" is and makes a case to the contrary. In addition to commenting directly on the authors' blogs, I have included a copy of these comments below for the sake of convenience.

"Mattel's Ledger-Inspired Joker Doll Revealed!"
Comment:
Thank you for this post, as it further illuminates an issue that I, as well as most of those interested in film marketing, have seen grow ever since Ledger's passing: How does Warner Bros. proceed in marketing their blockbuster film which had, in large part, been focused on Ledger's character? Many industry pundits had predicted that their strategy would change, possibly drastically, with the possibility of a change in focal character seeming the most likely scenario. With this latest toy release, however, all that can be virtually thrown out the window. I believe this, in the end, will prove to be the right move for the studio.

There are a couple of reasons why this release makes sense and why I feel it is clearly not a case of capitalization on the actor's death. The first and most obvious has already been mentioned as a comment on this post but let me reiterate: It takes more than a month to produce an action figure. Undoubtedly, this action figure was in production half a year ago. Perhaps the toy was always scheduled to come out at this time, which brings me to my second point. If this is true, and this early release was always part of the plan, then kudos to Warner Bros. A month ago, they found themselves in a predicament by losing the actor whom they had focused so much of their ad campaign resources around. Instead of walking on eggshells and letting all that good work go to waste, they stuck to their game plan and proceeded as usual, and with the endorsement of the Ledger family, I might add. While I can not know for certain if this toy release has always fit in to the long term plans of the company prior to Ledger's death, the details mentioned indicate that this is probably the most likely scenario to have occurred.

"RANT: The Cloverfield Monster is NOT a Spoiler"
Comment:

Thank you for this fascinating response to the Cloverfield toy release. It is interesting that the debate on where to draw the line on “what is a spoiler” could boil over when talking about an overpriced action figure, but the issue has been raised nonetheless. I agree with you in that seeing the Cloverfield monster is not a spoiler for all of the reasons you mention. I differ, however, in my assessment over who is at fault for the concept of the spoiler to have gotten alarmingly out of hand.

True, the studios have played a major role in this hysteria, but I feel it has had less to do with being overly cautious about production details, and more to do with dumbed-down ad campaigns that choose to focus on one, easily spoiled detail or character rather than hype the film as a whole. At first glance, Cloverfield might seem to be a film of this type, considering that the look of the creature was shrouded in mystery prior to the film’s release. It wasn’t just the monster, however–it was the WHOLE movie that was mysterious. For this reason, a glimpse, heck, a whole gander at the beast would not be enough to spoil the film. I will agree that seeing the creature on the screen for the first time is an exciting moment and one that I do not wish to be taken away from potential viewers, but I feel that “spoiling” the monster’s look beforehand is much more in the viewer’s power than he or she believes. As far as I know, Paramount has been relatively delicate in showing pictures of the monster, and I do not see pictures of this new action figure splashed on billboards, as the studio did with their teaser posters (see left). Audiences tend to spoil movies for themselves, and I don’t think a toy, released well after the film it is based on, should be made to take the blame.

Treading Lightly: The Marketing of Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"

It's been covered by nearly every major news outlet in the world: Heath Ledger, the young actor whose star was rising with every passing moment, was pronounced dead at age 28 on January 22nd from an apparent drug overdose. While his life tragically came to an end that day, the event has triggered a blockbuster-sized dilemma for Warner Bros., the studio that will soon be releasing Ledger's latest, and possibly last, feature film, The Dark Knight. Until now, the marketing campaign has focused primarily on Ledger's character, the twisted and mysterious re-working of Batman's nemesis, the "Joker" (see left). Thus arises the question: Should the studio elect to keep their ad campaign as it is and risk a public outcry over the exploitation of Ledger's death, or should it change the focus of its advertisements and potentially lose profit? Many people close to the industry, seemingly caught up in emotion resulting from the unexpected death of the young star, have been predicting drastic changes in the handling of all marketing materials concerning Ledger. While their concern is valid and has, no doubt, been taken into account by the studio, the stakes riding on the success of the film, as well the history of the ad campaign itself, make it all the more clear that the best decision is to continue the marketing for the film as planned.

Filming of The Dark Knight had already wrapped at the time of Ledger's death and, although some questions remain about the post-production element of the filmmaking process, Warner Bros. has announced that there are no plans to change the film's content in light of the loss of one of the film's major stars. With that being said, there are major questions surrounding the studio regarding the direction that their movie advertisements will now take. While the film has long been anticipated by fans of the comic and those close to the film industry, the release of a 2-minute long theatrical trailer late last year sparked a huge wave of hype which the studio was still riding when the tragedy occurred. Like the film's previous advertisements, the trailer focused almost exclusively on the Joker character, whose appearance gained Ledger and the studio much praise. To discontinue its use of this character so soon after this highly successful trailer launch would be a monumental risk to Warner Bros. as the trailer served primarily to strengthen the connection of The Dark Knight to the Joker. More than anything else in the film's marketing campaign, which had up to this point been mostly viral ads and gimmicks, this widely publicized trailer demonstrates how central Ledger had been to the selling of the film to fans, and how much the studio could loose by phasing his character out of the spotlight.

As mentioned earlier however, the release of the trailer, while still a first glimpse for some, was hardly an introduction of the Joker to the film's ad campaign. Ever since the initial marketing for The Dark Knight began this past summer, The Joker has remained its central focus. The marketing techniques used, which included scavenger hunts, hidden websites, and fake newspapers, were clearly intended to generate curiosity, not only over the character itself, but over his portrayal by Ledger, whose casting was questioned by many when it was first announced. By having a marketing strategy that has remained consistent for so long, one could conclude that to continue the same strategy is not an attempt at exploiting the actor in question. In fact, it could be argued that to change the strategy might even draw negative attention to the film and the studio's handling of Ledger's death. Some however, such as Lew Harris, the editorial director of Movies.com, think that a change in marketing strategy should be in order. "I think they have to take Heath Ledger's face off the posters," says Harris. "I think the studio will be extremely sensitive and not want to be seen as trying to benefit from the tragedy in any way." With a track record of consistent marketing featuring the Joker, Warner Bros. can take solace in the knowledge that, should they choose to continue it, one only needs to chart the progress from the beginning of the campaign to see that their interest in the deceased actor as a marketing focal point has hardly been reactionary, and therefore, is lacking ill intent.

Luckily for Warner Bros. there are a number of avenues that can be traveled in their marketing campaign to allow them to soften the blow of Ledger's death that won't require them to scrap what they have already accomplished thus far. One of these possible adjustments revolves around another supporting character in the film, Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart), who eventually transforms into the villainous "Two-Face." While the Harvey Dent character has appeared in some early marketing materials, often as the butt of the Joker's gags (see right), it has hardly been indicated that there were plans to evolve his character into a centerpiece for the entire campaign and to eventually replace Ledger's Joker. Still, this is what some, including an unnamed source close to the project, say has been the plan all along. Another marketing hurdle that Warner Bros. has seemed to have leaped cleanly over concerns many of the film's licensing agreements having to do with the Joker. Early on in production of the film, when Ledger's take on the character was beginning to emerge, the studio executives apparently figured that, due to the intensity of the character, they would not use the actor's likeness on many of its products aimed at 5 to 9-year-olds. Therefore, these products, which often depict a cartoon version of the popular character can now be distributed as planned. By continuing to use these preplanned strategies, Warner Bros. can continue to market their film without making a drastic and jarring change to their ad campaign while still keeping Ledger's face from turning up on billboards.

Regardless of the presence of alternate advertising strategies however, there is a general feeling that the studio will continue to feature Heath Ledger at the forefront of their campaign. "I think it would be a mistake to take him away from the marketing campaign because in a morbid kind of way people want to see his performance because he's passed away," says Stuart Levine, assistant managing features editor at Variety, "And because if you're a fan of the franchise you want to see how he plays the Joker." For their part, Warner Bros. recently released a statement indicating that the marketing for The Dark Knight would not change, though the statement addressed neither the planned progression of the campaign nor its future focal point. One thing is clear, however: Much time and effort has gone into the efforts of marketing this blockbuster, including that of the campaign's focus, Heath Ledger. Since it is clear that the focus on his character is not a recent move, the smart financial decision, in this case, coincides with the smart moral decision. One should let the film do what it was created to do: make money. In the process, and with the right handling, it will also produce a lasting tribute to the talents of Heath Ledger--a tribute that, no doubt, would be diminished if Warner Bros. simply pulled the plug on the Joker at this all-important juncture.