Subject:
|
Re: Castle = yes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Oct 2003 02:55:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1118 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
| |
Okay, so I’m a Tolkien nut, but this isn’t just about Tolkien. Take the
X-Files. It was a weekly show for years. Then when it was made into a
movie, people said “oh, it has to explain lots of background because all
these people have never seen the TV show”. Huh? What person says “Well, I
really dislike this genre, so I’m not going to see it when it comes into my
living room free every week, but now that it’s in a theater, I’ll suddenly
decide I’d like to shell out $8 and go stand in line for it.” Same with Star
Trek and ST:TNG.
|
To answer you about X-Files: it was recommend to me to watch the TV series. I
caught an episode that had to be one of the worst (a season opener that featured
lots of voiceover - just dreadful unless you knew what went on before). I gave
the series a pass. For the movie, the paper did something great - a quick
primer in the basics of the core conspiracy background, so I knew who Cigarette
Smoking Man was, Well-Manicured Man, The Lone Gunman, etc. So armed with that,
I could actually follow the movie. From there I could then have a clue about
the series (and caught two really good episodes). Thank heavens for Turner
repeating the episodes in order so I can finally put it all together (they are
back in year 1, for anyone interested).
The important point here is that the movie was the trigger point. Movies create
further interest in a book (go to the book store - Tolkien is back to a full
rack the way he was in the late 60’s early 70’s). More importantly, they have a
strong marketing campaign that raises awareness and cross-marketed products can
ride that wave of advertising to increase sales. Many people may not be willing
to sit down and read a 1200 page book. Watching a movie for a few hours they
can handle. If they like it, they may try the book.
Lego doesn’t want to ride the coattails of the movie because of its nature. Why
not just base it on the books? Because the visuals from the movie are so
powerful that that’s what the public will expect. And the books themselves do
not create that powerful advertising wave that they can ride on.
I’m not saying this is right or what I want, I’m just looking at it from the
same business vantage that I think Lego does. The same vantage that just about
any business would. They can make more money by linking in with Harry Potter
with the marketing wave created by the films (both the initial release, and then
the video/DVD release). To make the license pay for itself, they have to sell
more product then they would on a similiar product (say, Castle). To do that,
they have a better chance with the intense marketing campaign of a movie.
| |
P.S. I personally don’t want licences. I’d rather see TLC develop free-form
castles without set story lines and let the builders use their own
imaginations. Call me an idealistic fool.
|
How many Harry Potter minifigs do I need? Now, I now have over 100 Black
Falcons - and I won’t turn down getting more. Give me real Castles! But I
still have a use for Harry Parter.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Castle = yes
|
| (...) Can I go off on a bit of a rant here (not against Lenny, just in general)? When the heck did our society become so centered on movies?!?!?! Lord of the Rings has been voted the best book of the 20th century, and it's been out for 50+ years. (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.castle, FTX)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
