Sometimes I love the news (Lucas is finally getting the hint)

[JonnyFrag]

The marketing aspect is sort of a red herring. Most media outlets are owned under a few huge umbrellas, so really marketing boils down to moving money from one subsidiary to another. Advertise on tv? Then you pay Televison company XYZ $25 million to run ads, which now shows ad revenue , but both companies are owned by BigMcLargeCo.
And with the Internet, viral word of mouth advertising is cheap and effective IF USED CORRECTLY. Take a look at Blair Witch Project vs Snakes on a Plane. Blair Witch was a terrible movie, but a brilliant marketing and money making example. Made for nothing, put a (relatively) small amount up for a website, use some man hours posting stuff (again cheap overall) and BLAM instant profit off a total peice of excrement.
Snakes on a Plane? The way to use the Internet wrong. Have the studio place too much emphasis on the Internet marketing, force feed viral content, get an entire marketing department invovled in making several websites etc... BLAM! Poor box office turnout for a piece of excrement (*I cannot say for sure since I have not seen it, but come on..how great can it be?)
The funny thing is that the bigger the name (or franchise) the MORE money they sink into promoting it. But in reality, how much more do you need to say other than Star Wars Episode whatever opening May 19th etc... Spiderman 3 opens X date. I say let 'nuff said be 'nuff said and let the fans and Internet do the work for you. The money on marketing should and needs to be used more for the independent movies, stuff that normally would not get seen, or have a Burger King tie in. Those types of movies get the way short end of the marketing dollars stick. They also happen to be the more original, better crafted, and more worthy of attention usually.

And one other note to add here. Did you happen to notice something else? It seems that originality and craftiness seems to pay off more than overbearing, un-original ideas using these examples. But those are two things Hollywood is generally lacking.

The idea of a HUGE summer blockbuster, with a ton of expensive tie ins and 'everywhere you turn' marketing. This is a realtively new invention. In fact, it was invented int he summer of 1977. So basically George Lucas invented this system. Careful what you wish for Lucas, you just might get it. Schmuck.

[Tarantulas]

It's very much like how the early days of the United States Civil War was fought.  They used Revolutionary War tactics and as a result it was a bloodbath of carnage.

It will take Hollywood time to adapt to this new market.  Look at what the lead time for DVDs used to be... it took at least 8 or 10 months for a movie to exit theaters and then appear on DVD... Now its a matter of weeks.

[Sharktopus]

The marketing aspect is sort of a red herring. Most media outlets are owned under a few huge umbrellas, so really marketing boils down to moving money from one subsidiary to another. Advertise on tv? Then you pay Televison company XYZ $25 million to run ads, which now shows ad revenue , but both companies are owned by BigMcLargeCo.

But this only works with big studio movies. Lucas, despite the huge amounts of cash he's throwing around, still thinks he's making independent movies, as evidenced by his micromanagement style. He doesn't want to make Star Wars anymore, but rather smaller, more experimental films like back in his USC days, and it's gonna be awfully difficult to get the 20th Century Fox marketing behemoth (or any other studio machine, for that matter) behind "out there" stuff like THX 1138 the special edition or whatever he'll make. Without Star Wars or Indiana Jones, George Lucas is not bankable name for the movie-going public.

[mrbakasan]

But this only works with big studio movies. Lucas, despite the huge amounts of cash he's throwing around, still thinks he's making independent movies, as evidenced by his micromanagement style. He doesn't want to make Star Wars anymore, but rather smaller, more experimental films like back in his USC days, and it's gonna be awfully difficult to get the 20th Century Fox marketing behemoth (or any other studio machine, for that matter) behind "out there" stuff like THX 1138 the special edition or whatever he'll make. Without Star Wars or Indiana Jones, George Lucas is not bankable name for the movie-going public.

I think that there is a great deal of truth to that.  Spielberg can throw his name around and people will often pay attention (not that it's always a good thing), but I think your spot on about Lucas needing his franchises. 

[mrbasehart]

But this only works with big studio movies. Lucas, despite the huge amounts of cash he's throwing around, still thinks he's making independent movies, as evidenced by his micromanagement style. He doesn't want to make Star Wars anymore, but rather smaller, more experimental films like back in his USC days, and it's gonna be awfully difficult to get the 20th Century Fox marketing behemoth (or any other studio machine, for that matter) behind "out there" stuff like THX 1138 the special edition or whatever he'll make. Without Star Wars or Indiana Jones, George Lucas is not bankable name for the movie-going public.

I'm not sure if I completely agree with this.  If Lucas wants to make smaller films (let's say under $20 million), I think movie studios are at least going to give him the benefit of the doubt.  He's made them all a lot of money over the past 30 years, and pre-Star Wars he made a couple of very good smaller movies.  Whatever happens, I'm sure his first film will be very interesting...

[Sharktopus]

I think that there is a great deal of truth to that.  Spielberg can throw his name around and people will often pay attention (not that it's always a good thing), but I think your spot on about Lucas needing his franchises.

Exactly. Spielberg is one of very very few directors with name recognition among the general movie-going public. In fact, I can't think of any others beside Hitchcock (Who doesn't seem to making movies anymore...), Quentin Tarantino, and maybe M. Night Shyamalan. I've always been amazed when movie advertisements proclaim "A film by Rob Cohen!" I think the only people who know who he is hates his movies. Sure, there are directors who have fan followings, like the Tim Burton, Wes Anderson, David Cronenberg, the Coen Brothers but they're not household names. Anyway, with Lucas, plenty of people know him as the guy who did Star Wars, but I doubt that would send them out to the theaters to see anything og his other than more Star Wars movies, at least just on the strength of his name. And if George makes some weird little high concpet movie that the studio doesn't think it can promote, "A George Lucas film" won't mean squat. I hate Hollywood.