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.