GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
The following preview has been approved for your entertainment:
A quantitative content analysis for arthouse and mainstream movie trailers.
Entertainment Communication Masters’ Thesis
Elisabeth Doll 13931970
Supervisor: Dr. J.W.J. Beentjes
July 1st, 2022 Word count: 7,334
Abstract
The study aims to identify the main structural differences in movie trailers for mainstream and arthouse movies. This thesis proposes that there are key differences in how they are assembled as each movie trailer has its own purpose, a commercial one for mainstream movies and an artistic one for arthouse movies. Hedonic and eudaimonic needs for entertainment were used as theoretical background. A sample of one hundred movie trailers was selected, with an equal representation of arthouse and mainstream movies released in the decade 2010-2019. A content analysis was conducted, identifying items from the trailer’s intertitles and the movie’s contents and characteristics. Findings revealed that arthouse movie trailers alluded to awards, film festivals, and cast and crew more so than mainstream movie trailers, which, conversely, were richer in mentions of film studios, prior works, spectacular effects, outro jokes, and a narrative structure. Lastly, no significant difference was identified in relation to movie content rating scores and release date timings.
The findings of this study suggest that movie trailers from the two categories are, indeed, structured by distinctive characteristics.
Keywords: movie trailers, arthouse, mainstream, eudaimonic, hedonic, entertainment, structure
Introduction
Trailers function as a source of information for audiences, which could have a major influence on their movie selection (Gemser et al., 2006). Trailers are defined by Maier (2009) as “multimodal texts in which several semiotic modes are combined, and parts of texts created for other purposes are transferred, rearranged and supplemented to attain a promotional purpose”. They are now a means used to preview several types of media: cinema, television, and internet (Johnston, 2008). In particular, movie trailers play a crucial role in the promotion of long feature films in the cinema industry (Hoffmann, 2021). In fact, they are made specifically to create anticipation in the viewers, in order to impress and urge them to watch the advertised movie (Maier, 2009). As stated by Karray and Debernitz (2015), often most of the budget for the promotion of a movie is spent on trailer advertising. The authors argue that movie trailers influence what movie a consumer will decide to view and as such influence the movie’s final revenues at the box office.
The purpose of this paper is to determine the differences in structure between mainstream and arthouse movie trailers. A difference in how they are assembled is to be expected as each serves its own purpose and audience – for a mainstream movie it is primarily commercial for a consumer base that seeks distraction (Hadida, 2010) in contrast to the more artistic purpose of arthouse films.
The research in this thesis is useful for people working in movie production, as it highlights principal elements regarding the way mainstream and arthouse trailers are built, while also posing the question of whether there is a correlation between trailer structures and box office profit and critical success.
Film theorists consider film trailers a veritable film genre in their own right, deserving of more scholarly attention (Hoffmann, 2021). By analyzing the key differences between the structure of arthouse and mainstream movie trailers, this paper is contributing to an area of
academic literature that is currently scarce. This study will also take into account how trailers can be crafted to appeal to the eudaimonic or hedonic needs of potential consumers through signals such as reviews, awards, and even cast billing. Therefore, based on the results, trailer editors and studios can use the evidence to produce trailers best suited for their target audience.
It has been reported that there is a difference in how arthouse and mainstream movie trailers are not only produced but also how they are consumed across audiences. Consumers of mainstream movies rely heavily on trailers as their main source of information, while arthouse moviegoers are more likely to be influenced by reviews (Gemser et al., 2006). In contrast with mainstream movies are arthouse movies (Przylipiak, 2018). Gemser et al. (2006) stated that mainstream movies are analogous to ‘major films’ and are dominant in the cinema industry, while arthouse films are commonly labeled as ‘independent’. A further distinction is made by Zuckerman (2003) in relation to the market film distributors are aiming to reach – mainstream movies are targeted at a mass market, while arthouse movies are for a more defined and narrow audience.
According to Finsterwalder et al. (2012), the movie industry has remained an internationally growing sector in different countries, for this reason, the present study considers movies released in the second decade of the 21st century. The recency of movie trailers contributes to the relevance of their success and their appealing qualities to consumers (Zhong et al., 2018). The body of this introduction can be summed up in the following research question:
RQ: What differences in trailer structure can be identified between high-grossing mainstream films and acclaimed arthouse movies released internationally in the decade 2010-2019?
The layout of the thesis is structured in the following order: following this initial
introduction, the theoretical framework will firstly outline the differences between mainstream and arthouse movies, followed by how their characteristics can be related to eudaimonic and hedonic needs for entertainment, and lastly looking at the structural elements of arthouse and mainstream movie trailers and how they differ. For the latter, a dual distinction will be made between the intertitles shown in the trailer and the actual footage taken from the movie. Then, the study’s methodology will be presented, covering the sampling and design process and reliability analysis. The main research findings will follow this in the results section and finally, the discussion will indicate the study’s conclusions and limitations.
Theoretical Framework Arthouse & Mainstream
Bagella and Becchetti (1999) make a distinction between the artistic and commercial qualities of arthouse and mainstream movies by studying, respectively, their degree of artistic versus commercial qualities. According to their definition, arthouse movies (which they refer to as ‘film d’autore’) emerge as productions requiring more creative effort (“labor-intensive”) and are dependent on the director or filmmaker’s visions and artistic perceptions. Mainstream movies conform to more commercial, business-oriented results (“capital-intensive”), employing an abundance of ‘special effects’ for which many technological means are implemented during the production process, with the narrative (and ultimately the director’s capacities) playing a secondary role.
The Concept of Entertainment
The consumption of entertainment media is primarily driven by the appeal of enjoyment (Vorderer et al., 2004). Numerous studies were conducted on the functioning of media enjoyment, with findings showing enhanced enjoyment due to engagement on a
psychological, affective, and cognitive level (Vorderer et al., 2004) or research describing it as a stance on an emotional, cognitive and behavioral level (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004). The mood management theory explains how media entertainment can result in jovial sentiments and pleasant attitudes with enjoyment, acting as a divertissement, as the final objective (Zillmann, 1988). The audience’s choice of media entertainment has the underlying purpose of feeling pleasant emotions while reducing negative emotional states (Zillmann, 2000). However, the concept of ‘enjoyment’ is just one of the inferences as to why media entertainment is valued and represents just a surface-level reason as to why it’s consumed. (Bailey & Ivory, 2018).
This perception of media enjoyment as ‘hedonic’ is mostly acknowledged and unquestioned in research (Oliver & Raney, 2011), but it doesn’t adequately depict the complete range of reasons for entertainment consumption (Bartsch & Hartmann, 2016).
Research was also aimed at the possible interest in media entertainment for non-hedonic needs, referring to more substantial, purposeful, and intellectually demanding media consumption reasons (Bartsch & Hartmann, 2016). Tamborini et al. (2010) argued that enjoyment can be defined as the fulfillment of both hedonic and non-hedonic needs.
Hedonic vs Eudaimonic
Oliver and Raney (2011) juxtapose the concept of hedonic (pleasure-seeking) to that of eudaimonic (meaning-seeking) concerning media entertainment motivations. This claim is not an absolute concept, but research has shown potential connections between eudaimonic and hedonic motivations. Findings suggest that interactions exist between the audience’s affective needs and emotional needs when viewing media entertainment (Bailey & Ivory, 2018). This research will consider the dual distinction made by Oliver and Raney (2011), which sees two dimensions in the choice of media entertainment. On the one hand, hedonic gratifications are associated with enjoyment and pleasure; on the other hand, eudaimonic gratifications are linked to meaningfulness and intellectual significance.
Radošinská and Hrotkova (2014) claim that hedonic purposes are prevalent in mainstream media productions, as they are central during the production and distribution process, in order to evoke distinct emotional responses and to appeal to a broad audience. By contrast, eudaimonic needs can be met through more insightful entertainment with ‘higher artistic value’, that is to say – arthouse movies (Oliver & Raney, 2011).
The difference between arthouse and mainstream movies is not mutually exclusive, long feature films can further be broken down by the most prevalently rendered genres. As for individual genres (drama, comedy, romance, musical, etc., and their branching chains such as romantic-comedies), each will have a different measure of success. Some genres may occur more frequently, however, this is dependent on the measure of the success based on the prevailing circumstances (Simonton, 2009); hedonism was connected to a preference for comedy, action, and adventure movies, whereas eudaimonic intention was linked to a preference for dramatic, political, historical, war, and suspense films (Igartua & Barrios, 2013).
Such claims support a distinction between hedonic motivations for mainstream movies and eudaimonic motivations for arthouse movies. This is connected to the central research question of this paper, to the extent that the same reasoning can be applied as a theoretical base to explain the identifiable differences in structure between the movie trailers of high-grossing mainstream movies and arthouse films.
Elements of Movie Trailers
Movie trailers are formed by information from two kinds of contexts: one that directly portrays the story and characters of the film and the other that shows visual elements that enrich the audience’s knowledge regarding details about the production and distribution of the film such as the title, cast members’ names, and release date (Maier, 2009). This dual distinction, between intertitles and the actual content of the long feature film, will be
considered in the characteristics that interactively structure a movie trailer.
Intertitles are elemental components of film trailers. They discontinue the flow of scenes taken from the movie to provide additional information in order to attract the public by displaying captivating graphics of written text, logos, or images (ŠIdiškytė, 2016). Such elements may include mentions of movie awards, press-critics reviews, release dates, cast, and producing or distributing studios’ names.
Awards – or connections to a film festival – serve as signals of quality for the audience, helping them decide what to watch (Gemser et al., 2007). Film studios spend millions of dollars annually on movie advertising campaigns – in 2021 alone, 2.04 billion U.S. dollars were spent worldwide on cinema advertising (Statista, 2022). These big investments by the film studios in promotional activities are also to increase their chances of winning movie awards, with major film studios even hiring award consultants to help them increase their chances of winning (Gemser et al., 2007). Data derived from the European Film Awards show how a considerable part of the arthouse movies audience is influenced in their choice by reading reviews and by attending local movie festivals (Gemser et al., 2006).
Audiences rely on creditable quality indicators to form expectations about the caliber of the movie and hedonic or eudaimonic gratifications actualized by the vision of the movie (Gemser et al., 2007). The preceding discussion leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Arthouse movie trailers show more references to prestigious movie awards or film festivals, compared to mainstream movie trailers.
Movie critics are deemed as experts in their sector and their assessments are perceived by the audience, who will be influenced whether to choose to watch a certain movie (Tsao, 2014). While mainstream movies and their respective trailers are designed and proposed to impress and amaze spectators, while focusing on the economic returns (Gemser et al., 2006), arthouse films instead have a strong need for the opinion of critics, as reviews are
fundamental to reach and inform their distinct target audience (Lampel & Shamsie, 2000). For arthouse fans, the influence of a movie critic may help shape their eudaimonic entertainment experience; their enjoyment is closely tied to thinking deeply about the themes featured in the story (Lewis, Tamborini, and Weber, 2014), and the effort and motivation required to invest in the film (Möller & Kühne, 2019). A critic can thus impart information through their review (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006) and studies suggest a correlation between reviews and a movie’s success (Basuroy et al., 2006). This can be summarized in the following hypothesis:
H2: Arthouse movie trailers present more critics’ press reviews compared to mainstream movie trailers.
While rating systems serve a pragmatic role, such as helping parents decipher what’s suitable for their children, they also help the audience make informed decisions about which movies are suitable for viewing and that may more likely match their tastes (Gentile, 2010).
The specification of a film that falls into a certain category – for example, an R rating (Restricted) or PG (Parental Guidance) according to the parameters, in this case, of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) – can make the product more or less profitable (Cerridwen & Simonton, 2009). As reported by Clement et al. (2006), studies on the motion picture industry show that audience rating scores can, in fact, play a part in box office results.
Film studios often aim to obtain more inclusive ratings, in some cases organizing reshoots or re-editing scenes, as age-restricting categories do not allow for wider audiences to see the movie and tend to perform more poorly at the box office (Terry et al., 2011).
H3: Mainstream movie trailers mention the movie content rating score to a greater extent compared to arthouse movie trailers.
Release dates can also influence a film’s performance. Summer blockbusters and movies released during the winter holidays tend to attract a larger audience (Gemser et al.,
the Christmas period (Vogel, 2001). Movies that are heavily supported usually coincide with profitable seasons like Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. (Karray & Debernitz, 2015).
Depending on the type of film being released, studios aim for certain seasons; for instance, action and family films generally have a release window in summer (King, 2002). Owing to the commercial interest of mainstream movies, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a favorable summer or holiday season release date will positively affect box office revenues.
H4: Mainstream movie trailers’ film theatrical release dates coincide with a conventional holiday or vacation period compared to arthouse movie trailers.
The addition of a major star and/or director to the film’s crew can also influence the film’s development. Star power can positively affect a movie’s revenue (Elberse, 2007). However, this approach has positives and negatives. Some of the potential audience may avoid the film entirely based on the casting of a certain actor, while others believe that a good actor wouldn’t waste their time on an average film (Simonton, 2005). Consumers may also set expectations based on the genre of films the actor has previously appeared in (Finsterwalder et al., 2012).
Similarly, there’s proof that should a cast member be the recipient of a major award – namely Academy Awards – then this has a positive effect on box office returns (Stimpert et al., 2011).
From a more historical perspective, large studios also quickly realized the importance of giving actors special billing; “movie stars” were a sure-fire way to attract an audience (Hadida et al., 2020). Therefore, based on the allure of star power it is in a mainstream movie trailer’s commercial interest to promote famous, and acclaimed, cast and crew.
H5: Mainstream movie trailers mention more star power and awarded names compared to arthouse movie trailers.
Films that make it to theaters and attain a wide release tend to have financing from major studios. Conversely, independent studios are more likely to support productions that take risks while also avoiding large budgets (Miller, 2011). According to Gemser et al.(2007),
the products of the film industry can be classified in two ways: “Hollywood”, and independent. The former are mainstream movies that are produced and distributed by large studios, while the latter are smaller studios with fewer distribution opportunities. There’s a large number of major studios (Zuckerman, 2003), but this study will consider the “Big Six”
as Columbia TriStar, Disney, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros.
(Corona, 2009). A studio’s actions to generate awareness can be seen as an indicator to audiences that the studio has confidence in a film’s quality, thus bolstering a consumer’s confidence about what to watch (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). Major studios have made it their business to attract audiences to theaters for the last century (Hadida et al., 2020); the appearance of a big six logo for a consumer may therefore serve as a quality indicator that the film being advertised could fulfill their entertainment needs.
H6: Mainstream movie trailers introduce logos of one or more of the ‘big six’ major film studios compared to arthouse movie trailers.
Movie-building contents and characteristics will be considered in addition to intertitles, as they play a fundamental role in the structuring of a movie trailer. Clips from the movie are displayed in order to increase anticipation before the distribution of the long feature film in cinemas (Karray & Debernitz, 2015). Contents presented in movie trailers may involve the movie’s incorporation of ‘spectacular’ effects, the notion of whether it builds on prior work, occasionally a joke in the outro, and its narrative structure.
A film may receive more attention upon release if the trailer contains clues from prior works (Gemser et al., 2006). Sharing a relationship with prior work, or being part of a series, can increase the likelihood of wishing to attend a film (Preece, 2011). A movie may also be linked to previous films, either as a sequel or as a remake (Simonton, 2005). In the case of sequels, they’re all but pre-marketed already by their predecessors. For that reason, sequels account for a large number of mainstream films (Simonton, 2009). The sequel builds on the
original’s commercial success (Elliott et al., 2017). Sequels may have to walk a fine line, though. If there is too much similarity, it may affect the perceived level of hedonism the franchise is still capable of, it suggests there is a limited extent of sensation value in terms of novelty and variety (Bohnenkamp et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it can be assumed that mainstream movie trailers will recall a positive experience associated with prior work and feed into the hedonic fulfillment of the consumer experience with a franchise.
H7: Mainstream movie trailers build on prior productions related to the movie it depicts, compared to arthouse movie trailers.
“Spectacularity”, that is to say, special effects and novelty, are proven to attract a crowd (Miller, 2011). Special effects can serve as “signaling properties” that help convince a consumer about a movie’s quality (Gemser et al., 2006). Whether it’s practical effects (like explosions and makeup) or computer-generated imaging, visual and sound effects can increase arousal and sensory stimulation which play a key part in hedonic consumption.
Including special effects in a trailer can thus rear interest and help box office returns (Karray
& Debernitz, 2015). Gemser et al. (2006) claim that arthouse movies generally have smaller production budgets than mainstream movies and thus will not necessarily showcase spectacular effects to the same extent, as such a key promotional signal for the audience is therefore lacking. Thus, it can be presumed that mainstream movie trailers will incorporate more special effects owing to their larger production value.
H8: Mainstream movie trailers incorporate more “spectacular” effects and scenes compared to arthouse movie trailers.
Trailers tend to end with calm, slower footage, often showing the main actor in a close-up, either making a comic or tough statement (Shambharkar & Doja, 2015). Owing to the hedonic nature of movies, reaching out with emotional appeals in the trailer – such as trying to evoke pleasure and arousal – can influence the choice of viewing a particular movie. If the primary
emotional appeal of a trailer is to target a consumer’s yearning for pleasure (fun and enjoyment), they’ll mostly consist of humor (Karray & Debernitz, 2015). Adding a joke or a comic scene to a trailer indicates to the audience that they can expect more in the theatrical release; as humor is associated with positive affective moods, then hedonic fulfillment will accompany their viewing (De Ridder et al., 2022). It may therefore be presumed that mainstream movie trailers might attract mainstream movie audiences by appealing to their desire for hedonic fulfillment.
H9: Mainstream movie trailers tend to show a funny scene or a joke moment in the outro compared to arthouse movie trailers.
Thompson (2000) and Bordwell (2006) propose a narrative structural division of movies. According to their elaboration, movies can be broken down into four acts (set up, complicating action, development, and climax), with the addition of a prologue and epilogue in some cases (Cutting, 2016). In general, movie narratives have a similar structure to other works of fiction (e.g., plays, novels, or folktales), but may be limited by runtime constraints, modulation, and unique dispositions (Cutting, 2016). Just like movies, trailers also tell a story to present the film they are talking about with the aim of persuading, entertaining, and attracting interested audiences (Maier, 2009). However, as trailers are composed of many snippets from the final long feature film, it is not always clear that they are shaped according to principles of a basic narrative structure (Jensen, 2014), since the narrative thread alternates with moving visuals, graphics, natural sound, speech, music, narration, and intertitles (Jensen, 2014).
Akin to the four-act structure of movies, trailers adopt three distinct sections: an introduction to the characters and the environment where the film takes place; a suggestion of conflict and a change in the story’s direction; and lastly an increase in the pace of the trailer and a hint about the film’s resolution (Finsterwalder et al., 2012). A trailer’s narrative can
help anchor the desired emotional register it seeks to evoke by contextualizing or framing it, thus making it more understandable (Jensen, 2014).
The effectiveness of a trailer is further increased by teasing the audience with hints of what they’ll see in the full feature film (Oliver, 2006). Clips from the full-length feature are an indicator of the film’s tone and offer a glimpse at its story – the trailer serves as a chance for the consumer to window shop and enjoy a free sample before they decide if the film is for them (Finsterwalder et al., 2012). It could be thus claimed that movie trailers are in essence a condensed version of the full-length feature they seek to promote (Oliver, 2006) – by keeping with the narrative structure of a long feature film, consumers are given a promise of what to expect in full.
Taking these elements into consideration, potential differences between the narrative structure of mainstream and arthouse movie trailers will be examined by answering a sub-question to the main research question:
RQ1a: Do mainstream movie trailers portray a storyline that coincides with the narrative structure of long feature films, as compared to arthouse movie trailers?
Methods Design
A content analysis of a sample of 100 trailers for arthouse and mainstream movies released internationally over the years 2010–2019 was conducted. Although more trailer options exist – e.g., teaser, first, final, video clips (Hoffmann, 2021) – and are available, this research takes into consideration only the first standard theatrical trailer. The trailers were retrieved from Youtube.com: the majority of the potential cinema audience (69%), can be influenced in deciding whether to watch a certain movie at the cinema through this platform
(Oh et al., 2017). The coding steps, procedure, and requirements are explained in more detail in the Codebook in Appendix A.
Sample
To select the 50 mainstream movies of which the trailers were coded, the list Top Lifetime Gross (IMDb, 2022b) was consulted because mainstream movies are primarily produced by major film studios and promoted by exhaustive marketing (e.g., movie trailers) with a view to its profit (Przylipiak, 2018). The list contained the highest-grossing movies sorted by their worldwide gross theatrical revenue with a cinema release included between 2010 and 2019. For the selection of arthouse movie trailers seven lists were initially considered: The 100 best movies of the decade by IndieWire (Ehrlich, 2019), The essential must-see top 50 arthouse films (IMDb, 2014), Feature films tagged with the keywords
"arthouse" and “independent film” (IMDb, 2022a), Film list: Arthouse (Letterboxd, 2019), 25 best film directors of the 2010s (Prestridge, 2019), Top 50 movies of the decade (Sweatman, 2020), and The 25 best arthouse films of the 2010s (Zanon, 2020). A cross-referencing method was applied: if a title featured in 2 lists or more it was included in the final selection. From 435 singular items across the seven lists, this resulted in a unified catalog of seventy-three titles representing a selection of arthouse movies.
A further criterion for the selection of the movie trailer titles was that the movies did not fall under the category of ‘documentary’ and they are, therefore, a work of fiction. For this study, it is more feasible and generalizable to only focus on works of fiction, which may share a common storyline’s arc and thus have more comparable structural contents and advance the reasoning related to the external validity of this study. From the resulting lists, fifty titles for both categories are selected through simple random probability sampling.
Inter-coder reliability
Two female students (Coder 1 and 2) performed as coders for this study; the coders are
both attending a master’s study in Entertainment Communication and have a broad knowledge of cinema and moviemaking. They both were familiar with the study’s research question: Coder 1 had consulted and trained Coder 2 on the topic of the study, delineating the idea behind some of the variables, without exposing in detail the specific questions present in the codebook. During the coding process, coders independently answered the questions through a Qualtrics XM website portal questionnaire. Inter-rater reliability coding took place over a four-day period and took circa 20 hours total to complete.
For intercoder reliability testing, a subsample was decided among movie titles to have a variety of aspects of movie trailers represented. In order to determine the number of items to double code, research by Lombard et al. (2002) was consulted, which proposed that intercoder reliability testing should be validated on a number of items ranging from 10 to 50% of the overall sample. Therefore, a subsample of twenty items, corresponding to 20% of the overall sample size, was selected for intercoder reliability testing (see Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix C).
To assess intercoder reliability, Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff, 2004) was used, with .67 set as the minimum level for the measures; the values were computed with the statistical software SPSS (IBM Corp., 2020), and the results are shown in Table A.
The results of the intercoder reliability testing showed that the majority (56%) of the double-coded variables obtained a perfect Krippendorff’s alpha (e.g., V1A, V2C, V3B, V5B, V8B_4, V10A) with a value equal to 1.00. Most of the remaining variables obtained kalpha scores ranging from .68 (V8B_1) to .92 (V6B) which are considered excellent (N=5), good (N=5), or sufficient (N=3) and therefore accepted as reliable. For three items (V1B_1, V1B_2, V8B_6) a kalpha value was not computed by SPSS due to a lack of variance; therefore, percent agreement was used to assess the reliability. A cross-tabulation of the three items resulted in contingency scores of 100%. Once the inter-coder analysis was completed and the
reliability of the codebook was ascertained, Coder 1 continued the process of testing the remaining 80% of the sample.
Table A
Inter-coder Reliability Computation Results
Variable Item Labels Krippendorf’s α Agreement
V1: Awards V1A festival_award 1.00
V1B_1 presented - (N=7) 100%
V1B_2 nominated - (N=7) 100%
V1B_3 won 1.00
V1B_4 selected 1.00
V1C count_awards 1.00
V2: Critics V2A critics_reviews 1.00
V2B count_critics .71
V2C star_reviews 1.00
V3: Rating V3A audience_rating .80
V3B mpaa_or_not 1.00
V4: Release
Date V4A date_coming_soon .90
V4B holiday_vacation .83
V5: Stars V5A cast_names .90
V5B festival_related 1.00
V6: Studio V6A big_or_not .90
V6B big_six .92
V7: Prior work
V7A original_work .88
V7B_1 prequel 1.00
V7B_2 sequel 1.00
V7B_3 remake 1.00
V8: Effects V8A spectacular_effects .90
V8B_1 explosions .68
V8B_2 prostetic_makeup .81
V8B_3 CGI .76
V8B_4 animatronics 1.00
V8B_5 gunfire .84
V8B_6 stop_motion - (N=12) 100%
V8B_7 motion_capture 1.00
V8B_8 animation 1.00
V9: Outro
Joke V9A funny_joke 1.00
V10: Narrative Structure
V10A narrative_acts 1.00
V10B four_acts .81
Notea. Krippendorf’s alpha value: ≥ .90 = Excellent; ≥ .80 = Good;
≥ .67 = Sufficient; ≤ .67 = Low
b. Percent Agreement value: acceptable: ≥ 75%
c. Labels were shortened to fit the table, full items’ descriptions are in Appendix A.
Results
The chi-squared (χ2) test is a statistical analysis that measures the association between categorical variables (Ugoni & Walker, 1995)and is therefore applicable for the present study to determine the significance of the variables’ values to support the hypotheses. An index was previously computed on SPSS using the values of the items, differentiating between the data collected for arthouse and mainstream movie trailers. The variables’ hypotheses were tested using a chi-squared test for binary nominal data; Table B presents the computed values per movie trailer type for each item.
In order to test the first hypothesis, the presence of mentions of movie awards or film festivals was analyzed in arthouse and mainstream movie trailers. The relationship between the categories arthouse (N=22) and mainstream (N=0) was significant (χ2(1)=28.21, p=.00).
However, two further coded items (V1B e V1C) were not possible to be computed: as there
were no references to movie awards or film festivals in mainstream movie trailers, not all the assumptions for using the chi-squared test were met. H1 was supported as arthouse movie trailers contain more references to movie awards or film festivals than mainstream movie trailers.
Similarly, hypothesis 2 was dedicated to understanding the prevalence in movie trailers of references to movie critics’ press reviews in the categories of arthouse and mainstream. Mainstream movies (N=0) didn’t contain any press reviews in their trailers compared to the arthouse ones (N=23); the relationship between the categories was however significant (χ2(1)=29.87, p=.00). Any further analysis for this variable on the items V2B and V2C was not computed as not all the assumptions were met in order to process a chi-squared test. The evidence from this sample shows that there is a significant difference in the distribution of critics’' press reviews in movie trailers and therefore H2 is supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that mainstream movie trailers would contain more references to movie content rating scores compared to arthouse movie trailers. 48% of arthouse movie trailers contained references to this item, similarly to 42% of the mainstream movie trailers.
Since most movie content rating score references did not differ significantly between the two categories (χ2(1)=0.36, p=.546), H3 is rejected.
To test hypothesis 4, which predicted that mainstream movie trailers’ film theatrical release dates would coincide with a conventional holiday or vacation period compared to arthouse movie trailers, two items were coded. V4A measured whether arthouse and mainstream movies presented references to theatrical release dates in their trailers. Item V4B further analyzed whether such references were related to a conventional holiday or vacation period. Although mainstream movies (N=20) portrayed more theatrical release dates in their trailers than the arthouse category (N=48), no significant difference was found for item V4B (χ2(1)=0.00, p=.974), therefore H4 was rejected.
Hypothesis 5 supported that mainstream movie trailers would mention more star-power, and awarded names compared to arthouse movie trailers. Analyzing item V5A, there is a significant difference in the two categories of movie trailers (χ2(1)=40.96, p=.00), however not in the expected direction, therefore H5 is rejected.
The sixth hypothesis supported that mainstream movie trailers introduced logos of one of the major “big six” film studios more than arthouse movie trailers. This was analyzed by item V6A: 96% of mainstream movie trailers contained references to one of the “big-six” film studios, compared to arthouse movie trailers. Item V6B was utilized to report which one of the major film studios was referenced. Concerning the specific “big-six” studios mentioned in the movie trailers, since 8 cells had an expected count of less than 5, not all the assumptions for using the Chi-Square test were met. However, item V6A proved the difference between the two categories as significant (χ2(1)=46.07, p=.00), therefore H6 was supported.
In order to test hypothesis 7, it was analyzed whether the trailers of mainstream movies were related to prior productions, compared to arthouse ones. From the full sample of N=100 trailers, 88% of mainstream movies were based on prior work compared to 8% of arthouse films. Moreover, three more items (V7B_1, V7B_2, V7B_3) measured whether the prior production referenced fell into respectively the categories of prequel, sequel, or remake, but no significant difference was found in the two categories. Overall, as the prior-production references differ significantly between arthouse and mainstream movie trailers (χ2(1)=64.10, p=.00), H7 was supported.
Hypothesis 8 stated that mainstream movie trailers incorporate more ‘spectacular’
effects and scenes compared to arthouse movie trailers. H8 was supported, as the difference between the categories or arthouse (N=13) and mainstream (N=49) was significant (χ2(1)=55.01, p=.00). Moreover, nine further items were analyzed to discern the kind of
‘spectacular’ effects movie trailers contained. A significant difference was found for four
items (V8B_1, V8B_5, V8B_6, V8B_7), demonstrating a difference in the portrayals of effects in mainstream and arthouse movies trailers, namely: explosions, gunfire sequences, and the use of stop motion and motion capture.
To test hypothesis 9, one item was dedicated to understanding the occurrences of funny scenes or a joke moment shown in the outros of movie trailers. The relation between the categories was significant (χ2(1)=4.11, p=.043). Arthouse movie trailers (18%) were less likely to show a funny scene or a joke moment in the outro than mainstream movie trailers (36%), therefore H9 is supported.
Lastly, the RQ1a questioned whether more mainstream movie trailers would portray a storyline that would presumably coincide with the narrative structure of long feature films, compared to arthouse movie trailers. Answering the query of whether from a movie trailer it was possible to point out a narrative structure by recognizing one or more of the 4 narrative act elements, item V10A found a significant difference in the two categories (χ2(1)=5.20, p=.023). Mainstream movie trailers (N=42) seemingly portray a more discernible storyline than arthouse movie trailers (N=32), therefore supporting RQ1a.
Table B
Absolute Counts and Column Percentages of Item Present per Movie Trailer Type
Variable Item Arthouse
N=50 Mainstream
N=50
V1: Awards† V1A 22 (44%) *** 0 (0%) ***
V2: Critics† V2A 23 (46%) *** 0 (0%) ***
V3: Rating V3A 24 (48%) 21 (42%)
V4: Release Date V4A 20 (40%) *** 48 (96%) ***
V4B 8 (16%) 19 (38%)
V5: Stars V5A 41 (82%) *** 9 (18%) ***
V5B 9 (18%) 0 (0%)
V6: Studio† V6A 14 (28%) *** 48 (96%) ***
V7: Prior work† V7A 4 (8%) *** 44 (88%) ***
V7B_1 0 (0%) 5 (10%)
V7B_2 2 (4%) 35 (70%)
V7B_3 2 (4%) 7 (14%)
V8: Effects† V8A 13 (26%) *** 49 (98%) ***
V8B_1 4 (8%) ** 37 (74%) **
V8B_2 6 (12%) 24 (48%)
V8B_3 9 (18%) 42 (84%)
V8B_4 1 (2%) 12 (24%)
V8B_5 4 (8%) * 30 (60%) *
V8B_6 1 (2%) * 0 (0%) *
V8B_7 3 (6%) *** 36 (72%) ***
V8B_8 3 (6%) 7 (14%)
V9: Outro Joke† V9A 9 (18%) * 18 (36%) *
V10: Narrative Structure† V10A 32 (64%) * 42 (84%) *
Notea. * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001
b. Variables for hypotheses confirmed as supported are marked by the symbol†
c. The table includes only the items with the conditions necessary to be tested by χ2.
Discussion
In this study a quantitative content analysis was performed comparing the structuring items of movie trailers, among the categories of mainstream and arthouse movies. In particular, the main research question this study aimed to respond to was: What types of differences can be identified in the structure of a trailer between high-grossing mainstream and acclaimed arthouse movies released internationally in the decade 2010-2019?
This was the first empirical investigation on the topic. The main items considered ranged from elements present in the movie trailer’s intertitles (e.g., movie awards or film
festivals, release date, film studios), but also analyzed elements taken from the movie’s own content and characteristics (e.g., spectacular effects, outro scene). For additional future studies, supplementary elements omitted by the present research could be investigated, namely: audio, music, and language choices.
In the ensuing sections, findings will be discussed in relation to theoretical or empirical backgrounds. Afterward, the main study’s limitations will be laid out, followed by suggestions for future studies focusing on similar variables.
Conclusions
When examining the first hypothesis, findings support the directionality of the relationship between the categories of mainstream and arthouse movie trailers. Results support that arthouse movie trailers tend to include more mentions of awards or making a film festival’s official selection, confirming the theoretical background claiming that audiences tend to rely on such quality indicators (Gemser et al., 2007) as cues for their entertainment needs. Nonetheless, an observation must be made – none of the mainstream movie trailers from the current study’s sample portrayed such occurrences. This could be related to the fact that a film’s release date may not coincide with the announcement of award nominations from major film festivals. Future studies could take into consideration how long a trailer is published before the movie’s actual release date.
Another feature of the current study confirmed by hypothesis 2 was that arthouse movies tend to portray more press reviews from critics compared to mainstream movie trailers. This relates to the audience’s tendency to be influenced by movie critics’ opinions in order to fulfill their eudaimonic entertainment needs, as they are most interested in the movie’s emotional aftermath (Lewis, Tamborini, and Weber, 2014).
Three hypotheses have been rejected either for a lack of difference in the computed results (respectively, H3 and H4) or for a difference in the study’s findings concerning the direction between the two categories (H5).
The study’s third hypothesis aimed to find a higher occurrence of movie content rating scores in mainstream movie trailers. Even if movie content rating scores may influence box office earnings (Clement et al.,2006), there was little difference to be found between mainstream and arthouse movie trailers rated by such scores. Further studies focusing on specific country releases could focus on this item, as movie rating scores are not applied by the same organizations worldwide (MPAA for the United States, Kijkwijzer for the Netherlands) (Saurwein & Latzer, 2010).
As already mentioned, the fourth hypothesis was rejected due to the lack of difference resulting from one of the measuring items. H4 disputed whether the theatrical release dates of mainstream movie trailers would coincide with conventional holidays or vacations, in comparison to arthouse movie trailers. Although a difference in the frequency of whether movie trailers announce a specific release date among the two categories was found, hypothesis 4 should be rejected when looking at the results for V4B, which focused specifically on the kind of release date such trailers referred to. The limited number of movie trailers that portrayed a release date, therefore explains the narrow difference value found from the computation of this item.
Hypothesis 5 is disputed by its findings, which did not confirm that mainstream movie trailers cite the names of their cast and crew more frequently than their arthouse counterparts.
This assumption was based on a theory claiming that including such mentions was proven to have an impact on box office revenues (Stimpert et al., 2011) – and in turn, correlating this claim to mainstream movies. Therefore, hypothesis five was not supported by the opposite directionality of the results.
When verifying if mainstream movie trailers introduced logos from the major film studios more frequently than arthouse movies, the sixth hypothesis was supported. It is in major studios’ interest to attract a wider audience (Hadida et al., 2020), therefore it is no surprise that they are also the ones promoting movies belonging to the mainstream category.
This information is received by the audience as an indicator of film quality, thus reinforcing their motivations for movie choice. A second item further recorded which of the big six film studios was mentioned. For arthouse movie trailers, Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox received the majority of mentions, with each appearing equally (N=5); for mainstream movies, Disney was in the majority.
In hypothesis 7, mainstream movie trailers were proven to be more likely than arthouse movie trailers to build on prior productions related to the movie in question. While this claim is supported, it’s worth noting – as in the research of Bohnenkamp et al., (2014) – that displaying too much similarity may affect the level of hedonism consumers see as attainable from a franchise. In sum, mainstream movie trailers build on the familiarity of intellectual properties linked to the trailer in question to bolster a sense of hedonic feeling in their consumers.
The eighth hypothesis tested whether mainstream movie trailers are more likely to include ‘spectacular’ effects compared to arthouse movie trailers was proven to be confirmed.
This observation is in line with Gemser et al. (2006) who noted arthouse movies are less likely to contain “signaling properties” by virtue of their reduced budget. We can deduce that the use of special effects are employed more often in mainstream movies not only for budgetary reasons, but as Miller (2011) theorized, as novelty is also proven to attract a specific audience.
Hypothesis 9 supported the assumption that adding a joke in the outro of a movie trailer may occur more frequently at the end of mainstream movie trailers compared to
arthouse ones. This relates to claims by De Ridder et al. (2022), who argued that the pursuit of hedonic entertainment is associated with humor and amusing circumstances.
Lastly, a sub question was raised alongside the main RQ to determine if mainstream movie trailers are more likely to use a narrative structure in line with long feature films, in comparison to arthouse movie trailers. This study’s findings proved that this was, indeed, the case. As Oliver (2006) noted, movie trailers are in essence a condensed version of the full-length feature; as such, this gives the consumer a chance to gain an insight into the tone and perhaps even some highlights of the entire film (Finsterwalder et al., 2012). Future studies could further investigate the relationship between trailers and feature films in terms of structure; this could be achieved by running a comparative analysis between a film and its theatrical preview.
Main limitations
Three major restraints characterized the conducting of this study. Firstly, time constraints affected the possibility of creating a larger sample. One hundred movie trailers (50 arthouse movies and 50 mainstream movies) from the time period of 2010-2019 was used, but the size of the sample may be reductive in the capability of generalizability of the study’s results.
Moreover, the current study also did not take into consideration whether some movies were destined to be released on streaming platforms, or take into account the influence that the rise of streaming has had on media consumption and how trailers in the age of streaming can alter a consumer’s decision on what to watch. Furthermore, this thesis didn’t investigate what content streaming platforms seek to provide their audience in preparation of a new release. Streaming platforms’ way of advertising may be different from those productions that are intended for a real life paying theatrical release.
Finally, while the codebook items described and coded turned out to be reliable as proved by the analysis, there was a lack of scales on which to base the coding process. Coders were also similar in background and perception and therefore they could be biased in their understanding.
Future directions
The focus of this study was on content analysis, there was no qualitative aspect involved during this time. Future research could be conducted with regard to how movie trailers are perceived by the audiences – particularly measuring whether certain characteristics are more persuasive than others.
As mentioned previously, the sample size took movies from 2010-2019 into account, it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study on the differences of movie trailer contents. The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the movie industry, particularly their impact on theatrical releases, may be of particular interest.
Lastly, this study mainly focused on the first standard theatrical trailer released for the promotion of a movie; future research could highlight differences in this study’s findings and results in comparison to other versions of movie trailers, namely teaser trailers or the final trailers released in proximity to the theatrical debut of a long-feature film.
References
Bagella, M., & Becchetti, L. (1999). The determinants of motion picture box office performance: Evidence from movies produced in Italy? Journal of Cultural Economics, 23(4), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007579421768
Bailey, E. J., & Ivory, J. D. (2018). The moods meaningful media create: Effects of hedonic and eudaimonic television clips on viewers’ affective states and subsequent program selection. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(2), 130–145.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000122
Bartsch, A., & Hartmann, T. (2016). The role of cognitive and affective challenge in entertainment experience. Communication Research, 44(1), 29–53.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565921
Basuroy, S., Desai, K. K., & Talukdar, D. (2006). An empirical investigation of signaling in the motion picture industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 287–295.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.2.287
Bohnenkamp, B., Knapp, A. K., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Schauerte, R. (2014). When does it make sense to do it again? An empirical investigation of contingency factors of movie remakes. Journal of Cultural Economics, 39(1), 15–41.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-014-9221-6
Bordwell, D. (1979). The art cinema as a mode of film Practice. Film Criticism, 4(1), 56–64.
https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/art-cinema-as-mode-film-practice/docv iew/222728459/se-2?accountid=14615
Bordwell, D. (2006). The way Hollywood tells it: Story and style in modern movies.
Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520932326
Cerridwen, A., & Simonton, D. K. (2009). Sex doesn’t sell — nor impress! Content, box office, critics, and awards in mainstream cinema. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(4), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016492
Clement, M., Fabel, S., & Schmidt-Stolting, C. (2006). Diffusion of hedonic goods: A literature review. International Journal on Media Management, 8(4), 155–163.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s14241250ijmm0804_1
Corona, V. P. (2009). The Big Six. Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies, 39(1), 87–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/flm.0.0085
Cutting, J. E. (2016). Narrative theory and the dynamics of popular movies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1713–1743. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1051-4 de Ridder, A., Vandebosch, H., & Dhoest, A. (2022). Examining the hedonic and eudaimonic
entertainment experiences of the combination of stand-up comedy and human-interest. Poetics, 90, 101601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101601 Ehrlich, D. E. K. (2019, November 6). The 100 best movies of the decade. IndieWire.
https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-movies-of-2010s-decade/
Elberse, A. (2007). The power of stars: Do star actors drive the success of movies? Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.4.102
Elliott, C., Konara, P., Ling, H., Wang, C., & Wei, Y. (2017). Behind film performance in China’s changing institutional context: The impact of signals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(1), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9501-0
Finsterwalder, J., Kuppelwieser, V. G., & de Villiers, M. (2012). The effects of film trailers on shaping consumer expectations in the entertainment industry — A qualitative analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6), 589–595.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.07.004
Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2007). Why some awards are more effective signals of quality than others: A study of movie awards. Journal of Management, 34(1), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309258
Gemser, G., van Oostrum, M., & Leenders, M. A. A. M. (2006). The impact of film reviews on the box office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures.
Journal of Cultural Economics, 31(1), 43–63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-006-9025-4
Gentile, D. A. (2010). Are motion picture ratings reliable and valid? Journal of Adolescent Health, 47(5), 423–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.016
Hadida, A. L. (2009). Commercial success and artistic recognition of motion picture projects.
Journal of Cultural Economics, 34(1), 45–80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-009-9109-z
Hadida, A. L., Lampel, J., Walls, W. D., & Joshi, A. (2020). Hollywood studio filmmaking in the age of Netflix: A tale of two institutional logics. Journal of Cultural Economics, 45(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-020-09379-z
Hennig-Thurau, T., Houston, M. B., & Sridhar, S. (2006). Can good marketing carry a bad product? Evidence from the motion picture industry. Marketing Letters, 17(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-7416-0
Hoffmann, C. R. (2021). Cut to the chase – How multimodal cohesion secures narrative orientation in film trailers. Discourse, Context & Media, 44, 100539.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100539
IBM Corp. (2020). SPSS Statistics (27.0) [Windows]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Igartua, J. J., & Barrios, I. (2013). Hedonic and eudaimonic motives for watching feature films. Validation of the spanish version of Oliver – Raney’s scale. Communications, 38(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2013-0024
IMDb. (2014, July 13). The essential must see top 50 arthouse films. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls070273880/?sort=release_date,desc&st_dt=&mode=sim ple&page=1&ref_=ttls_vw_smp
IMDb. (2022a). Highest rated movies and TV shows tagged with keywords “arthouse”,
“independent-film.” Retrieved May 19, 2022, from
https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=arthouse%2Cindependent-film&
ref_=kw_ref_key&mode=simple&page=1&release_date=2010%2C2019&sort=user_
rating,desc
IMDb. (2022b). Top lifetime grosses.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross/?area=XWW
Jensen, C. S. (2014). Reduced narration, intensified emotion: The film trailer. Projections, 8(1), 105–125. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2014.080107
Johnston, K. M. (2008). The coolest way to watch movie trailers in the world. Convergence:
The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507087946
Karray, S., & Debernitz, L. (2015a). The effectiveness of movie trailer advertising.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 368–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1090521
Karray, S., & Debernitz, L. (2015b). The effectiveness of movie trailer advertising.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 368–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1090521
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x
Letterboxd. (2019, December 15). Film list: Arthouse. Retrieved May 19, 2022, from https://letterboxd.com/njo/list/arthouse/
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human
Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
Maier, C. D. (2009a). Visual evaluation in film trailers. Visual Communication, 8(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357209102112
Maier, C. D. (2009b). Visual evaluation in film trailers. Visual Communication, 8(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357209102112
Miller, J. L. (2011). Producing quality: A social network analysis of coproduction relationships in high grossing versus highly lauded films in the US Market.
International Journal of Communication, 5(20), 1014–1033.
Möller, A. M., & Kühne, R. (2019). The effects of user comments on hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences when watching online videos. Communications, 44(4), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2015
Moore, C. A., Bednall, D., & Adam, S. (2005). Genre, gender and interpretation of movie trailers an exploratory study. Deakin Research Online.
https://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30005815
Nabi, R. L., & Krcmar, M. (2004). Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: Implications for mass media effects research. Communication Theory, 14(4), 288–310.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00316.x
Naficy, H. (2010). Multiplicity and multiplexing in today’s cinemas: Diasporic cinema, art cinema, and mainstream cinema. Journal of Media Practice, 11(1), 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.11.1.11/1
Oh, S., Baek, H., & Ahn, J. (2017). Predictive value of video-sharing behavior: Sharing of movie trailers and box-office revenue. Internet Research, 27(3), 671–708.
https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-01-2016-0005
Oliver, M. B. (2006). Using sex to sell movies: A content analysis of movie trailers. In S.
Kalyanaraman (Ed.), Sex in consumer culture: The erotic content of media and marketing (pp. 13–30). Routledge.
Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful:
Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption.
Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x
Preece, S. B. (2011). Coming soon to a live theater near you: Performing arts trailers as paratexts. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.392
Prestridge, J. (2019, December 20). 25 best film directors of the 2010s. Close-Up Culture.
https://closeupculture.com/2019/12/19/25-best-directors-of-the-2010s/
Przylipiak, M. (2018). The notion of mainstream film in contemporary cinema. Panoptikum, 19, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.26881/pan.2018.19.01
Radošinská, J., & Hrotkova, S. (2014). Hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of media entertainment. European Journal of Science and Theology, 10(1), 149–158.
Saurwein, F., & Latzer, M. (2010). Regulatory choice in communications: The case of Content-Rating schemes in the audiovisual industry. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 54(3), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2010.498846 Shambharkar, P. G., & Doja, M. N. (2015). Automatic classification of movie trailers using
data mining techniques: A review. International Conference on Computing, Communication & Automation. https://doi.org/10.1109/ccaa.2015.7148349
ŠIdiškytė, D. (2016). Multimodal language of the intertitles in the trailers of american Romance-Comedy feature films. Studies About Languages, 0(27).
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.27.13746
Simonton, D. K. (2005). Film as art versus film as business: Differential correlates of screenplay characteristics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23(2), 93–117.
https://doi.org/10.2190/dm5y-fhem-cxqt-uexw
Simonton, D. K. (2009). Cinematic success criteria and their predictors: The art and business of the film industry. Psychology and Marketing, 26(5), 400–420.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20280
Statista. (2022, March 7). Global cinema advertising expenditure 2014–2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273715/global-cinema-advertising-expenditure/
Stimpert, J. L., Laux, J. A., Marino, C., & Gleason, G. (2011). Factors influencing motion picture success: Empirical review and update. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 6(11). https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v6i11.2488
Sweatman, A. (2020, January 20). Top 50 movies of the decade. Arthouse Garage.
https://arthousegarage.com/top-50-movies-of-the-decade/
Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., Grizzard, M., & Organ, A. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x
Terry, N., Butler, M., & De’Armond, D. A. (2011). The determinants of domestic box office performance in the motion picture industry. Southwestern Economic Review, 32, 137–148. https://swer.wtamu.edu/sites/default/files/Data/137-148-89-338-1-PB.pdf Thompson, K. (2000). Storytelling in the new Hollywood: Understanding classical narrative
technique. Choice Reviews Online, 37(09), 37–5012.
https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.37-5012
Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media
entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388–408.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00321.x
Zanon, G. (2020, January 14). The 25 best arthouse films of the 2010s. Taste of Cinema -
Movie Reviews and Classic Movie Lists.
http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2020/the-25-best-arthouse-films-of-the-2010s/
Zhong, Y., Menezes, T. L. S., Kumar, V., Zhao, Q., & Harper, F. M. (2018). A field study of related video recommendations. Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240323.3240395
Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276488031003005 Zillmann, D. (2000). Mood management in the context of selective exposure theory. Annals of
the International Communication Association, 23(1), 103–123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2000.11678971
Zuckerman, E. W. (2003). The critical trade-off: Identity assignment and box-office success in the feature film industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1), 27–67.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.1.27
Appendix A Codebook Coders ID
Coder 1: 1 = Elisabeth Coder 2: 2 = Laura
General coding instructions
The coders will find a detailed description of each variable to be coded in this codebook. The variables that need to be coded for the trailers are listed in the “Overview of the variables” chapter of the present Codebook and subsequently described in more detail in the paragraphs following the aforementioned section. The coder is to follow those instructions to make coding decisions and fill out the codebook as it is presented in the Qualtrics
Questionnaire at the following link:
https://uva.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_en6Ww41QWu9Juw6.
The trailers are to be watched in their entirety at least once; subsequently, the coder can then roam in the video while responding to the Qualtrics Questionnaire, which needs to be filled in once for each trailer, a total of one hundred times, twenty times for reliability testing. There is no specific order to follow for the coding procedure concerning the items.
Trailer sources
Trailers were retrieved from YouTube.com. All coding materials have been provided for each coder. All the information related to how to access and watch each specific trailer in order to start the coding process is collected in the following Google Sheet link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/165LlP1-9B7bg-JZJda_PlhRMH-o-IxqCajTR26Jb3_
E/edit?usp=sharing. The medium length of the considered fifty trailers is 2 minutes and 19 seconds. Considering the time necessary to code the one hundred required items for the present study, it is expected that thirthy hours will be necessary for the coding procedure.
Identification of movie titles
The ID for each movie title is composed of three elements.
The first digit will represent the distinction between arthouse and mainstream movies, identified with the capital letter A (arthouse) and M (mainstream). The second digit will refer to the items being trailers, rendered by the capital letter T. Resulting from the first two steps, the possible results are the following: AF (arthouse film), AT (arthouse trailer), and MF (mainstream film), MT (mainstream trailer).
The two letters will be followed by the assigned serial number of each movie title, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B; and Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix C for reliability testing. The order of the titles of the movie trailers is derived from the process of simple random probability sampling and is therefore displayed casually. For reliability testing, the assigned serial number to each movie title is preceded by the capital letter ‘R’.
[Example]
The ID of the trailer of the 16th mainstream movie title “Skyfall” is MT16.
Reliability testing: The ID of the trailer of the fifth arthouse movie title “Boyhood” for pilot testing is ATR5.
Description Units
1) Registration unit: The entirety of each movie trailer 2) Context unit: The entirety of each movie trailer
Research question and hypotheses
RQ: What types of differences can be identified in the structure of a trailer between high-grossing mainstream and acclaimed arthouse movies released internationally in the decade 2010-2019?
H1: Arthouse movie trailers show more references to prestigious movie awards or film festivals, compared to mainstream movie trailers.
H2: Arthouse movie trailers present more critics’ press reviews compared to mainstream movie trailers.
H3: Mainstream movie trailers mention the movie content rating score to a greater extent compared to arthouse movie trailers.
H4: Mainstream movie trailers’ film theatrical release dates coincide with a conventional holiday or vacation period compared to arthouse movie trailers.
H5: Mainstream movie trailers mention more star-power, and awarded names compared to arthouse movie trailers.
H6: Mainstream movie trailers introduce logos of one or more of the ‘big six’ major film studios compared to arthouse movie trailers.
H7: Mainstream movie trailers build on prior productions related to the movie it depicts, compared to arthouse movie trailers.
H8: Mainstream movie trailers incorporate more ‘spectacular’ effects and scenes compared to arthouse movie trailers.
H9: Mainstream movie trailers tend to show a funny scene or a joke moment in the outro compared to arthouse movie trailers
RQ1a: Do mainstream movie trailers portray a storyline that coincides with the narrative structure of long feature films, as compared to arthouse movie trailers?
Variables’ Overview Dimension 1: Intertitles
V1. Awards V2. Critics V3. Rating V4. Release Date V5. Stars
V6. Studio
Dimension 2: Movie’s Content V7. Prior work
V8. Effects V9. Outro Joke
V10. Narrative Structure
V1: Awards
For this variable, the aim is to detect whether there are mentions in the entirety of the movie trailer of movie awards.
V1A - Code ‘yes’ if there are Film Festival or Movie Award (at least one) mentioned in the youtube clip (at least one). Code ‘no’ if there are no such mentions in the video.
If you coded ‘no’, you can ignore questions V1B and V1C.
V1B - The purpose is to establish the kind of mention of the movie in relation to a Film Festival or Movie Award. The categories are not necessarily self-exhaustive and the choice of them depends on what is clearly written in text on the overtitle slide in the trailer. Choose 'yes' only if such mention appears related to the movie the trailer is referring to.
1=[presented] 2=[nominated] 3=[won] 4=[selected]
V1C - Please count the number of times these kinds of mentions appear in the trailer.
E.g.: A logo with reference to a Winning Movie at the Venice Film Festival: 1 mention.
