Annoyed at Warner Bros

[btk6y]

> Bobby wrote:
> 
> <Is anyone else incredibly annoyed at Warner Bros. for releasing 
only 
> 30 seconds of the trailer and then saying "Go see Scooby Doo to see 
> the rest"???  >

> Saitaina wrote:
> Not really, that's the way the world works.  Teasers and trials are 
there to get money out of you when you go buy the actual product or 
see something.  Scooby-Doo is a highly anticipated movie for Warner 
Brothers.  The same age group Harry is intended for will most likely 
be seeing it so their trying to bring in their audience early.  They 
want our money and Warner Brothers has ALWAYS been very up front 
about that.  It's rare that they let you have something for nothing.

Yes, I understand that is the way the world works, but I don't know 
if anyone ever said the world works perfectly.  If something could be 
better, don't you think it's a good idea to point it out?  Or should 
we just throw up our hands everytime a corporate entity tries a new 
money-grubbing technique to raise profits?  Following the philosophy 
of "that's the way the world works", minimum wage would be 50 
cents/hr and child labor would still be allowed.  Besides, I heartily 
DISAGREE that making the trailer available only with Scooby Doo will 
increase their profits.  Making the trailer widely available for 
download on the internet raises the visibility of the movie and 
engenders good fan relations, a MUCH better business tactic than, 
say, pissing off fans by saying "go pay to see Scooby Doo and then 
maybe you will see the trailer".  Besides, Harry Potter has a BROAD 
appeal, not just for kids, so there are plenty of people who want to 
see the trailer that have no interest in Scooby Doo.  The Matrix and 
Star Wars (and indeed the last Harry Potter movie) set download 
records for the trailers that were picked up and used as stories on 
CNN and other news networks, increasing anticipation and awareness.  
So I believe that not releasing the trailer on the internet makes 
POOR business sense (in addition to lousy fan relations), but this is 
a concept often misunderstood by business people.

> Bobby also said:
> 
> <George Lucas and the Matrix directors (being tech-savvy and fan-
> responsive)>

> Saitaina wrote:
> Warner Brothers is not known for their fan relations.  Only within 
the Harry Potter fandom have they seem to have grown a brain and 
responded with a bit of kindness to fans rather then then "Who cares 
what they think/want/feel?" Belief they have in other fandoms.

So just because Warner Bros. isn't known for their fan relations, 
does that mean we should give them a free ride?  No, we should hold 
them accountable for their actions and try to influence a change for 
the positive.

> Bobby then wrote: 
> 
> <One thing is for sure- I will NEVER allow WB to get money 
> from me for Scooby Doo.  If I ever do decide to see that movie, I'm 
> buying a ticket for another movie so that Warner doesn't get the 
> ticket sale... just my little rebellion, I suppose.>

> Saitaina then wrote:
> Just so you know...that is called stealing.  Not that they could 
track you down individually (although the theatre could...) I still 
don't think it's an appropriate rebellion but that's just my 
opinion.  I've never been one for sneaking into movie theatre's 
without paying (such as some said they would do just to see the 
trailer of HP instead of watching Scooby)

No, you misunderstood what I said.  First of all, I would never go 
see Scooby Doo just to see the trailer because I would never want to 
reward that kind of idiotic business practice.  Secondly, if for some 
reason I decided to go see Scooby Doo (independant of the trailers 
attached to it), Warner's practice has disgusted me so much that I 
would buy a ticket for a DIFFERENT movie just so that WB doesn't get 
the money.  The theatre shouldn't care because they are getting $8 
regardless.  I understand that this is not exactly following the 
rules, per se, but I don't believe this is "stealing" (especially 
since it costs me the same either way) but rather a form of civil 
disobedience in response to an act of utter stupidity.  History is 
replete with instances of people "disobeying" rules in order to 
protest an injustice.  Is not releasing the trailer on the internet 
really an injustice?  Of course not, and it's really not that big a 
deal in the grand scheme of things- but neither is my buying a ticket 
for a different movie so WB doesn't get the sale.  We can argue the 
slippery slope on both sides, so don't tell me one is worse than the 
other.  Studios MUST be held accountable because even though they are 
dealing with money and profit, they are also handling cherished 
institutions and art that holds a more important place in the public 
consciousness, and we can't let them slide just because they THINK 
they can make a few extra bucks.

Bobby