Then, it’s sensible to think that every film will be considered a product to exploit economically. There’s nothing wrong with it.
Simplifying a lot, let’s distinguish between two kinds of producers:
The producers’ original idea with “The village” was to create a new sixth-sense-like movie (a film with suspense, scares and a surprising end). That primary idea was proposed to Shyamalan, and he actually accepted it and did so. But Shyamalan’s creative freedom restructures a supposedly horror movie into a movie about horror.
And then it comes: the marketing strategy. Since the project had been approved before film shooting was finished, expectation was created by means of some images which supplied the customer (the future member of the audience) with the following information:
Wow! The expectation is served and, according to that, it’s great. Good job!
But the problems arise when you have created a fixed image in the customer (which will expect a product equal to that image) and, afterwards, you give that customer a different thing. It doesn’t matter if it was a good thing: the fact is that the customer becomes disappointed. Example: if you want a DVD, and the salesperson packages an excellent TV instead of the DVD, you will think that person is stupid. Ok. This is what happened with “The village”.
What are the advantages and objections of a marketing strategy like that?
In the short term:
However, the biggest damage will come later: Shyamalan’s upcoming film will need a very good promotional campaign so as to convince the distrustful audience from “The Village”. Good luck, Shyamalan!
All in all, with its mistakes, “The Village” is itself a risky project (almost with the brilliance of “Unbreakable” and “The Sixth Sense”), harmed by a conformist and wrong marketing strategy.