Originally Posted By monorailblue I suppose I'm in the minority, but I can't think of a recent Disney movie I'm less excite about than Big Hero 6. Snoooooze.
Originally Posted By darcy-becker I wasn't that excited about Wreck-It-Ralph but I really loved it. Give it a chance.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA To me, watching a preview of 'Big Hero 6' is no different than standing and watching 'Main Street Maniacs' for 10 minutes -- or playing a couple games at Starcade -- it's just one part of a larger Disneyland experience.
Originally Posted By monorailblue Well, I'm sure my kids will watch it and I'll see it eventually and probably like it. But the marketing has done nothing for me.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I think it's a good idea to have the previews, but it'd be nice if they found a permanent location for them outside of where an attraction should be. I don't mind that it temporarily takes the place of EO since EO is so horrid, but I'd like to see something permanent come back there, and the movie previews moved to their own location.
Originally Posted By doombuggy "I'm less excite about than Big Hero 6 Snoooooze" I'm with you I didn't laugh once during previews unlike the WAY over reacting of the adults around me. I'm sure it will do ok but it's ssssoooooooo off the comic only kids will like it thanks to fart jokes.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Everyone (adults included) during the 2-3 times we've seen preview at the movies really seemed to enjoy it and laugh a lot. I laughed. I don't laugh easily. I'm not laughing right now. *scowl*
Originally Posted By Bellella How much do they spend on really expensive light-up signs that they're only going to use for a few weeks at a time? Not that I care anymore.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Probably less than the amount of money they make from people seeing the previews and deciding to see the movie in theaters and/or spreading positive word of mouth to others.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt That's actually a good question. I wonder who foots the bill for the transition and operation of the temporary shows - the park or the studio?
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I think I heard the studios do. For example, when the Maleficient preview was playing at ITTBAB, I read that the studio paid for an all new digital projection system, and now that the preview is over, ITTBAB benefits from the upgrade. Seems like a win/win for all involved.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros The Studio foots the bill for these sorts of things. Like Bellella, I've also wondered about how much those signs cost. The Maleficent one looked fairly temporary (though good for it's intended use), but the Guardians one looked like they spent way more money than they needed to on it. I'm always happy when they're investing in the parks, but I really wonder if that's the wisest use of an advertising budget. In reality, how many people watch the preview in the park? And how many of them go see it in theaters, who would not have otherwise seen it in theaters? It's a great use of synergy, but I suspect that it makes a minimal difference on the bottom line
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Since the studio is covering costs I would assume it's included in each film's marketing budget, which, in the case of the movies in question, is likely very generous.
Originally Posted By doombuggy My only gripe with showing them at the parks with in house FX is it's misleading. kind of pointless when it's not that way in theaters.
Originally Posted By believe Its not misleading. Most people see it in 2D in the theatres. But then again, most people see it at homeon the small screen ondvd.
Originally Posted By believe On Sunday, they were giving free kites to everyone who saw the preview. Actually a pretty good giveaway compared to the buttons and paper horns they gave for Malifecent.
