Abrams On Lack Of 'Star Trek' Promotion

[TrekToday]

Paramount strategy is responsible for the current lack of Star Trek XI promotion.

As reported by IGN.com, J.J. Abrams would have liked a bit more promotion for Star Trek XI, including a panel at Comic-Con, but Paramount felt it was too early to rev up the promotion machine full-throttle just yet. "But that is what Paramount is feeling [that it was too early]...This was part of their strategy.

There will eventually be good things coming though. "Star Trek is going to be a much bigger advertising campaign, for sure," said Abrams. "And they're letting us do some real cool things down the line, so at a certain point...I couldn't force them to do a panel [at Comic-Con]."

Working on Star Trek XI continues as if the movie were due out in December as originally planned. "We're in this place now where we have trailers," said Abrams. "It's making me nuts. Even though the movie is coming out in May, the truth is we have all the stuff that we would've had. We're on schedule, the same schedule we'd supposed to be on. So we're going to be done, we're going to have a movie that's ready to come out in Christmas."

To hear Abrams, head to the video located here.

[Cmndr J Crichton]

Could Abrams have any pull on when this movie is released? Why not oush shooting schedules back to coincide with the May releae date. It seems kind of wasteful to sit on a movie for 5 extra months when it's completed. Why not release it in January? Or February? All the other big holiday movies are done. People will want something new. Star Trrek comes out, and wham! Breaks alll kinds of early year release record. Or......Release it when Wolverine and Terminator 4 at coming out the same month, and it tanks. It's Nemesis times 1000 all over again. They seem to have it all together in there in the production department, but the studio seems like the same people that caused the first nail in the coffin for Trek. Star Trek is on thin ice right now. If 'Star Trek' Isn't succesful, I fear we won't see any new Star Trek for a very lomg time. So Paramount, change the release date to January. Abrams hit a home run with Cloverfield in that month, plus 5 months is way to long to sit on a movie.

[Basil]

I'm already losing interest, the way I lost interest in Indiana Jones (for which I own all the DVDs and have seen the previous films many times) and have yet to see. At this point, I'm not really all that concerned about how great the advertising campaign will be nor in the constant Berman/Braga-esque iterations by the producers/writers/stars/etc. about how "awesome" it is.

[donners22]

It's already had a hell of a lot more press coverage (here at least) than the last few Trek films. There's no point building it up this far out, especially when that would be quite costly.

[tomalak301]

I'm glad there is a news story about this. I don't go to the Movie forum, or Trekmovies.com so I don't know anything about this movie. Still, the biggest scifi event of the year has come and gone, and we don't have a theatrical trailer to the movie yet, stating this is paramount's strategy? Um, really? So not talking about it, having it come out the same time as other big blockbusters, and not advertising it at all is thier strategy for the big bad comeback of Star Trek? I don't get the marketing sense from those decisions. Also, I agree with an above poster saying why not release it in Feburary or March. Why not be the only kid on the block in a sea of bad movies after awards season and actually make some money not just in the first week but in the few weeks after. I mean it sounds like it's coming out the same time as Terminator, and Watchmen. That's not good news for Trek and the comeback that it is promising.

[Evil_Kirkneivel]

One thought of interest I had while reading this: since Abrams says the movie is on production schedule to be released in December, that means there could be a DVD screener copy floating around in December...

[Jack Bauer]

Hopefully they'll release a trailer before the end of the year.

[Pioneer]

J.J. is blaming Paramount but he still won't release any spoilers. So I'm not falling for it. Throw us a bone, J.J. or shut the f*ck *p.

[TJinPgh]

Cmndr J Crichton wrote:

---

So Paramount, change the release date to January. Abrams hit a home run with Cloverfield in that month, plus 5 months is way to long to sit on a movie.

Once again, I find myself believing that Paramount moved this movie to May out of necessity, not confidence.

As I've said in the past, Abrams and Co have spent entirely too much money on this movie. Your comment about Cloverfield being a success in January is a valid one, when placed in the context of a movie that cost about $35m to make.

It made a ton of money the first week or two, then dropped off quickly after that.

Star Trek cost nearly double what Cloverfield GROSSED to make. Sorry, but there's no chance in Hades that it's going to make it at any time of the year but Summer.

Frankly, I think the reason there's been no promotion of this film is because they've already spent too much money on the film, and they're going to need all the press they can get closer to the film if they want to have even a prayer's chance of recovering what they've spent.

[Augustus]

As I recall JJ and friends have only spent what Paramount GAVE them to spend. I don't believe that they went over budget or that Paramount is scrambling to try to cover unexpected costs...

[TJinPgh]

Augustus wrote:

---

As I recall JJ and friends have only spent what Paramount GAVE them to spend. I don't believe that they went over budget or that Paramount is scrambling to try to cover unexpected costs...

It's a producer's job to secure funds. They gave him what they asked for. I doubt very seriously they said "here's 150 mil. Think you can spend it?"

As I recall, the head of Paramount at the time Abrams took on this project was an admitted Star Trek fan. I'm sure the idea sounded good to him at the time.

Then again, as I've said before, if it weren't for the success of Lost, this movie, with the exaxt same story and cast, would be a direct to video feature.

[Procutus]

Cmndr J Crichton wrote:

---

Could Abrams have any pull on when this movie is released? Why not oush shooting schedules back to coincide with the May releae date. It seems kind of wasteful to sit on a movie for 5 extra months when it's completed. Why not release it in January? Or February? All the other big holiday movies are done. People will want something new. Star Trrek comes out, and wham! Breaks alll kinds of early year release record. Or......Release it when Wolverine and Terminator 4 at coming out the same month, and it tanks.

Man, I couldn't agree more! I've been saying for months that I think it's dumb to sit on a finished film for that long, if they really are going to try to have it completed by December.

But since they aren't, then use the extra time to make the film look as incredible as possible, fer cryin' out loud! Don't make the same mistake as 1979 when Paramount rushed TMP into theaters before it was completely finished. Trumbull had told the studio he could've given them the best effects possible (at the time) if they had waited until February or March of 1980 to release the movie.

It's just my opinion, but I think its dumb to rush it to completion on the original schedule, but sit on it for five months.

Just my .02 worth. I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Augustus]

TJinPgh wrote:

---

It's a producer's job to secure funds. They gave him what they asked for. I doubt very seriously they said "here's 150 mil. Think you can spend it?"

As I recall, the head of Paramount at the time Abrams took on this project was an admitted Star Trek fan. I'm sure the idea sounded good to him at the time.

Then again, as I've said before, if it weren't for the success of Lost, this movie, with the exaxt same story and cast, would be a direct to video feature.

I agree. My point is what has been spent is what Abrams and Paramount agreed upon. As far as I know, no budget over runs or such are a concern..

too early to rev up the promotion machine full-throttle just yet.

I agree 100 percent.

For me, all of this chatter and "news" is doing wonders to create LESS interest in the movie for me. Soon, going to the movie will be the anti-climax, the let down after all the hype being posted and talked about.

[TJinPgh]

Augustus wrote:

---

I agree. My point is what has been spent is what Abrams and Paramount agreed upon. As far as I know, no budget over runs or such are a concern..

Very true. And, it wasn't my intent to suggest that they were over-budget, but rather over-budgeted.

While it's true we may not know enough about this film yet to declare it bad, we also know nothing about this film that suggests it's capable of making $150m, either.

Sadly, Trek has a tarnished name in the eyes of the general mainstream public. Quite honestly, it has for a long time.

As much as I think everybody here would love for a Trek film to gross this kind of money, the simple truth is that there's nothing about it (thus far) that suggests that this movie is capable of doing something that no other Trek film has.

My personal thoughts on recasts aside, this movie could have been made on a far smaller budget than it is, giving it a far better chance of succeeding (with the definition of success being any movie that makes more than it costs to produce).

Will that stop Paramount from pushing this film at some point? Probably not. But, not having SOMETHING at the last Comic-Con before the movie's release MAY be an indication that they are looking for a way to cut their losses.

Anybody going to the Comic-Con who is likely to see this movie will go whether they are present there or not. So, Paramount may feel their money is better spent trying to squeeze blood out of that rock known as the general public than preaching to the choir.