Dead Island Trailer Analysis

In September 2011 there was a game released called Dead Island. It was a zombie-shooting game with the theme of a tropical resort. It was promoted by this trailer, which was central to their marketing campaign.

The trailer was well-received and got people excited for the game, and it sold relatively well. However, the game itself had underwhelming critical reception, some calling it “mediocre” and citing that the tone was inconsistent, sometimes sad like the trailer, other times more silly. It received a 71/100 aggregate score on Metacritic.The game sold well partly because this trailer captivated people’s attention, despite not showing any footage of what it was like to actually play the game.

Two stories are told side-by-side in this trailer. The first is a girl fleeing from zombies, eventually ending in her rescue. The second is footage being played in reverse (or rewinding) of the same girl from her death back to the point of rescue. During the reverse shots it’s revealed the girl has become infected and becomes a zombie after the rescue, making the parents’ emotional struggle to save their daughter all in vain.

I would heavily mention the trailer relies on sad piano and violin music, but I must keep the idea of the visual in mind. The rewinding footage is also in slow-motion while the straightforward footage is in rapid, loud shots like a horror movie. The straight-forward shots are so quick they are almost subliminal, perhaps being fully aware the audience is familiar with what fleeing from a zombie is like. 

It opens with zooming out of the girl’s eyes, to reveal she is lying on the ground dead, then the reverse footage starts playing. She is wearing a pink shirt with some kind of vacation resort logo in it, and she’s covered in blood. This is showing how the brutality of the zombie setting has completely crushed the young, innocent, defenseless child. 

It also has a big focus on the parents in the reverse footage, indicating their desperation and determination to protect their daughter (and themselves). Blood starts off excessive, then rewinds to have less before actual violence and injuries occur. As the reverse footage ends, what is normally the parents saving the girl in reverse it is showing them carrying her to her doom. 

The final reverse-motion shot is bloodless to emphasize more emotion than gore/violence. The father (who in normal time is rescuing his daughter) is letting go of her as her fate has already been sealed by the zombie infection.  

The title of Dead Island appears, followed by footage of before the outbreak. The family is smiling, happy, arriving at the hotel, going to their room, unpacking their bags, and taking a family picture together while waving hello to the camera (or goodbye to the audience that knows their fate).

Reaction:

The most common way for a game consumer to be displeased with a game is if they expect something good and get something bad. And there were plenty of people who bought the game and were displeased.

Personally, I had watched the trailer before the game was released and wasn't particularly impressed. I felt it was standard for good trailers to have an emotional connection. Looking at it closer, that final shot of letting go is really what seals the deal.

The goal of the trailer was to hook zombie fans on an emotional level rarely seen upfront in marketing of the genre, and by design and result it seemed to have worked. But the industry as a whole has notoriously relied too much on trailers that don't feature gameplay footage. It's not bad to have both a cinematic and gameplay trailer at all, but I do feel people were misled by this trailer. The game doesn't even start out on the same emotional state as seen here.

I feel a very special anger towards Dead Island's marketing, as it was not wholly representative of the game's content.

Gangs vs. Government - Movie screenshots

The viewer is treated to a truly surreal sight in one particular scene in the movie Marathon Man (1976). Visually, these two screenshots from the scene depict a bizarre difference between the law and the citizens. And all without words.

In Marathon Man, a student is on the run from Nazi dentists and two-faced, corrupt, secret government agents (we are seeing the latter). The student can’t enter his apartment, and asks a neighbor to “rob him”, getting him clothes and his gun. In exchange they can steal stuff like his TV. But when the agent confronts them, this happens.

                       

With an expletive, the neighbor mocks and dismisses the agent, and he leaves.

Just visually speaking (no, I am not confusing my film and visual culture classes taught by the same instructor. I’m not crazy. YOU’RE CRAZY), we can determine a lot from this.

First of all, the audience is supposed to root for the gang. The gang is helping their neighbor and is getting a TV or stereo in exchange, an informal business transaction. The viewer is supposed to treat a street gang as benign, a force of good. The agent is working against our innocent protagonist, and is helping the Nazis, perhaps in exchange for a cut of the profits. The government agent hired to represent the people is corrupt, a force of evil.

You can see from their faces that the gang fears the law and the law appears to be in control. In the actuality of what we’re seeing, the thieves have the guns and the control over how it plays out. They are quick to realize this, and taunt the agent out of there. Yet they still fear him and his retribution. Note how the gang has a variety of stances when preparing for a shootout, as they have a diverse number of beliefs in the way they should deal with the agent.

We can definitely see a difference of money. The agent is very well-dressed in a suit and tie, and is so well-paid that he is probably on the clock during this scene. His gun is bigger, and possibly better. The gang is wearing only casual clothes and has very small, but many guns. The agent is also white, and the gang of various non-white races (except perhaps the man on the far left, whom it’s a little hard to tell).

There is also a big telling of the balance of power. The government is a few people representing the many, and yet they do not in any way represent the people. The people vastly outnumber the government, especially if they are armed (this could be great evidence to be used in the current gun control debate). It could also go for the “V for Vendetta” saying of “People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of the people.”

Finally, take note of the neighbor on the far right, crouched down and picking the lock. If you were to watch the scene in its entirety, you would notice that at no point when the agent confronts them does he even flinch or acknowledge he’s there until he eventually taunts and tells him to leave. In a twist, the neighbor is representing the people (the student, Levy) and not the government.

Before the agent enters the scene, the neighbor knows that he can continue his good task and the friends and people around him will protect and support him should anything happen. I’m willing to bet when they were acting this out the actor for the neighbor had to be specifically told not to flinch at the agent’s arrival, because they were trying to prove a point here. Perhaps that point is that society and friendship are more helpful to a person than the government is.