watch Trailer vs. Teasers

As for me, I have always considered a TRAILER to be about 60 - 120 seconds long, and generally establish the mood and setting of the film it represents.

TEASERS, on the other hand, seem to traffic is mystery, creating just enough interest for the view to say "Mmmmmmmmm. Okay, interesting." It is the first shot fired, usually long before the trailer arrives.

SHROUD TRAILER

This is the trailer (1:45) we finally settled on for Shroud after about a month of editing. The music was provided by Wolfgang Lackner. We also added the credits to the end like a real film. It's not bad.

http://www.shroud-movie.com

Thereafter, we trimmed about 13 "fat"minutes off the first hour of Shroud, bringing it down from 1:51 to 1:38 run time. It definitely moves along better now.

Now, compare that to these two teasers...


SHROUD TEASER - TEUTONIC KNIGHTS

The low resolution MySpace video is located here:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=18404033

The high resolution file is located here:

http://www.studio930.com/teutonic_knights.com

This teaser is far and away my favorite component of the Shroud marketing materials. Scored by Nathan M. Johnson, a brilliant composer, this piece is simultaneously wistful, promising and triumphant.

The simplicity of the teaser is part of its charm to me. Four images connected by fade to blacks, with four reversed taglines culminating in the promise of victory.

This teaser introduces the anachronistic idea of medieval plate armor during the American Civil War.


SHROUD TEASER - THE LEGEND OF CINECUSA

The low resolution MySpace video is located here:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=18840541

The high resolution file is located here:

http://studio930.com/cinecusa.mov

This teaser is also scored by Nathan M. Johnson.


Feedback always welcomed.

Jetrefilm

I concur with your definitions and agree that teasers are way more fun than trailers. How little can you show and say and hook folks into wanting more? I'd probably be hooked having just seen those, but then the trailer and all of its ass-whomping guarantees it. I hope your distribution deal gets sealed soon because I can't wait to see your movie...it's pretty apparent you are about to tell a fantastic story and I'm looking forward to it.

Technically a trailer is a commercial 61 seconds or longer. It's an advertising term (not just movies) and is reserved for all commercials that exceed the 60 second commercial spot length. You don't usually see actual movie trailers on TV, you see them in the theater, due to spot length requirements.

I'll take a look at these when I get a chance.

The trailer is good if that's a theatrical trailer. There isn't any action or suspense until almost the end, but in a theater, no one is going to walk out. If that's for the Internet, I'd recut it. Takes to long to get to the "good" parts and you know how audiences are these days. Looks like a good flick! Laura Croft as El Mariachi in a way?

I agree with Indietalk. I think just a few seconds of tightening that trailer up for internet consumption would make all the difference. You've got the right idea trying to build the trailer up to those last few seconds. I would just kill a little of the beginning and maybe throw in a little more of the exciting stuff.

The movie looks terrific, at any rate.

Yup. Your definition of teaser is correct...just enough footage to lead to interest, without giving any of the plot away. Obviously you understand these definitions and ideas...you're doing just fine with all aspects of marketing.

I'm most curious--I must say--about how the medieval aspect fits into the western theme. The trailer doesn't suggest it at all (other than the illustrated book with the sketched suit of armor), but the teasers and photos do...

Why keep that out of the trailer yet sprinkle it all over the marketing kit?

Why put that in the teaser, but not in the trailer?



Thanks.

As I understand it with a teaser there's more artistic licence. You are trying to get people's attention. Often doesn't include any content from the film it's advertising. I had to make one and it was only allowed to be 10-20 seconds long.

A trailer is normally a lot longer and contains cut together footage of the film.

Personally I prefer a teaser because they don't give anything away. These days films are ruined for you in trailers, often giving away the best bits.

Trailer looked beautiful, some of the acting was weak though. Would be interested in seeing it none the less when it's released.

What camera did you guys shoot on?

I have an idea. Edit little subliminal action clips with a sound effect in the beginning of the trailer while you're establishing the story. Like flash frames of action. This will keep their attention until you get to where you show it. Just an idea.

Well, the picture looked gorgeous and the costumes looked nice, but it still just seemed like a rough edit to me. I felt the actions shots should have been quicker so I notice less camera tricks that were used to pull them off. I felt like the sound effects needed just a little more tweaking (Especially the sound of the wooden handled axes coming out of her belt and making the sound of metal swords leaving their metal sheaths). And I can't put my finger on it but something doesn't quite fit when there is dialogue going on. Perhaps that was the stuff that had to be re-dubbed in post.

But it looks like you spent your small budget wisely and like I said before visually stimulating. The movie definitely looks like it has potential.

Those all looked beautiful.

Doesn't a teaser usually come out when a company is starting the hype? So, filming can still be going on, but they'll take a shot or just a quick moment and create something to peak your interest. Where a trailer shows you a quick synopsis of the story. A teaser doesn't come out after a trailer, because full post production is in full swing when trailers are complete.

Shroud Trailer

I am about 70% happy with the trailer. It was definitely rushed and not as tight as I could have been. A recut may be forthcoming in October 2009 -- may not, we're consider the viability of it.

Since it is a first film, it's obviously my first trailer. My next film will most likely be edited by a professional editor, as well as the trailer.

Please bear in mind, all the concessions were not made by choice, but imposed by budget. At some point you are out of money.

Here's a point I wanted to touch on: sound design.

Again, I almost no money for sound design, so I got exactly what I could afford. But on the point of the hatchets, there were several times in the sound design session where I really had to push for accoustic innovation.

I am so [expletive] tired of hearin the SAME SOUND EFFECTS in every movie. Then they were showing up in mine! It's like the sound designers in Hollywood have created standard noises for everything, and everyone just keeps re-using them from the sound library.

For example: if I hear the "Wilhelm Scream" one more time...

I had to redub 95% of the entire film because the sound was compromised on set.

What I know about sound, is the same thing I know about everything else: everyone just repeats what they are familiar with, even sound designers. I already know on my second film, I am going to have to bring a serious budget to GET NEW SOUNDS.

I cannot say this enough: I am so tired of hearin the exact same sound canvases in every movie.

I can forgive some penniless independent film, but when a director has $50M up to $200M there is simply no excuse for skimping on original sound. Thank god some directors know that in Hollywood.

This also proves there is a difference between a "technician" and an "artist" -- the field notwithstanding.

I don't want to work with a sound "technician" again. I want to work with a sound "artist."

For example, there is a scene where the main character, Victoria, shoots a cowboy five times, twice in the lungs. He's on the ground dying. Well, if you are shot through the lung, well, there is A HOLE THROUGH YOUR BODY TO YOUR LUNGS. When you try to breath you would hear both soft gurgling of air rushes past blood, and given the pulp of the entry wound, you would hear whistling, even if briefly. A noise recounted by hundreds if not thousands of military medics in their battlefield memoirs.

No one thought of this. During the ADR, they just volunteered the "...ughnn...ughnn..."

No.

You have to consider anatomy. And I learned that sometimes a sound designer is really a sound technician and not a sound artist. Why am I, the director, having to tell the sound people this?

A sound designer should have FAR AND AWAY more technical knowledge of the sound canvassing and exporting, and formats -- sure, but they should also understand how to reinvent a sound to make it totally novel.

So, yes, trust me, I was frustrated as well.

In the end, my sound team gave me a functional M&E and professional dubbing.

Now, am I glad I made this film? Of course. I want to be a filmmaker and I knew even before I began that this inaugural film was going to have its flaws. First films are exactly, first films.

But please remember, guys: I started this film with $15,000 from my father. I didn't have the money to shoot the script I wrote, but I tried anyway.

Everything that's been pointed out in this thread I already knew a year ago, but I appreciate the critiques anyway as they confirm my observations.

Jetrefilm

I thought the sound design sounded fine...at least in the trailer. I think you have nothing to justify...for the budger (or any budget) this looks like a quality picture. I've seen a ton, and been in a ton of indie films...and you guys have put together a very nice production here.

With any film, you are going to get criticism, hopefully constructive, and you pulled of a period piece with elaborate costumes as your first feature film. It looks like a huge undertaking, especially for 15K. I am sure you are proud of it and you should be. If you made it for 1.5 mil you'd still get criticism, but at that budget level, there would be less of an excuse for getting it right, so don't worry so much about criticism.

As far as a sound designer being an artist, you can't expect them to know every sound. Why did you, the director, have to come up with the sound for the lungs? Well why not? The director is not just the director of the picture. You are also the director of the sound. The sound designer is working for you, so you should fell comfortable saying what sound you want where. I know what you are saying, you hire a sound designer to design the sound, but that doesn't mean he/she doesn't need a little direction.

You could even bring in a technical advisor for certain sounds. Someone that worked in an emergency room who has heard that sound. Sounds grim, but it's supposed to be realistic, right?