Declarative George Sez: No More Voiceovers

Why does it seem like movie trailers are regressing to the way they were made in the 1980s? Not that the last ten years of movie trailers have always been great, but there's been a shift away from telling the audience what the movie's about, to showing them what the movie's about. And for the better, I must say. In fact, the norm has been that any telling is usually done via a text card or two. Granted it's a shame that means less work for your Don LaFontaines, but really, with the exception of trailers directed at children, there's really no need to have to beat your audience over the head with what your movie's about, because, quite frankly, it's not that hard to follow a two minute preview of a movie, and if you don't get it, all the more reason to check the movie out. Right?

The first sign was the "Horton Hears a Who" trailer. I'll concede that, yes, this is a movie aimed at children, so it's fine to spell things out for a five year olds who don't know what's going on. I do have a problem though when the Horton trailer is shown before "Superbad", to an audience presumably smart enough to follow what's going on and why it's going on. I mean, if you're going to advertise Horton before "Superbad", do us all a favor and make a trailer that doesn't seem like it was supposed have been shown before "Bratz". That said, I was fine with it. I mean, "Horton Hears a Who"? Of course they'd want a trailer that makes sure you follow everything. It's a kids movie, right? And because it stars Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell, sure you might want to advertise it before "Superbad" because there's probably a lot of folks there who like them too.

The reason why this has become an issue for me stems from another trailer I saw on HD net, on their program that shows new theatrical trailers for an hour or whatever. It's a mixed bag, but some of them are quite good, and they look great in HD. But there were a few, can't remember what they were, that stood out as being... quite frankly, amateurish, which is my way of saying they couldn't tell a story clearly enough on their own so they added a narration. It bugged me, but I don't think I thought much of them because they probably weren't important releases, and, really, they were a couple out of a dozen or so. Not cause for alarm really, but certainly they stood out enough for me to wonder why they had to have a narrator walk you through the synopsis instead of, I don't know, perhaps giving you the synopsis visually. Isn't that the point of film, to convey through visuals? The moving picture, as it were?

At this point I realize I'm harping on this like a little pissant. I mean, trailer narration? Really? How asinine a topic to give even a second thought to, no? But if you're like me, an avid movie-goer who likes to get there early enough to catch the previews and see if there's anything good or at the very least enjoy the surprise of a few minutes of movie that a trailer holds, then you're probably noticing that these throwbacks are a real threat to the modern trailer. And if you doubt me, think back to your favorite trailer, and odds are it didn't have a narrator holding your hand through the two minutes of story.

And in case you think I'm going too far with this, here's a new trailer that I think ably proves my point.



I know if I saw that in theaters I'd be pretty miffed. How about you?