The First Trailer

[Admiral Bear]

They've fucked up with the trailer to be honest.

Nope.

It's going to be seen by tens of millions of people this weekend...and not one out of a million will give a fuck that Kirk flies a motorcycle or that it's not scored with orchestral musak.

They got it in front of Star Wars. That's what matters.

I suppose it depends if people see Star Wars at major cinemas. I know some small independents go straight to the main feature. My local one screen in town which has reopened for a week (it closes for winter) just to show Star Wars, has never shown trailers or adverts. Straight in to the movie, no messing. I love it. It's comparatively cheap as well.

It also seems that Pegg's lemon sucking facials over the trailer are making as many waves as the trailer itself.

http://www.avclub.com/article/wincing-simon-pegg-admits-he-didnt-new-star-trek-t-230006

He then asked Trek fans to “hang in there” and “be patient,” before shooting a look that says either, “I am in deep existential pain,” or “I am about to get yelled at by a PR representative” at the cold, unblinking camera.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/12/17/simon-pegg-star-trek-beyond-responds-to-trailer

 

[SalvorHardin]

How much time has passed between this movie and the last? Enough time for Carol to get knocked up and leave?

According to Lin, two and a half years between movies. Half way through the 5 year mission.
More than enough time for anything to happen.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It kind of feels like the marketing is just so unimaginative. It just shouts that they saw GotG being popular and so are copying that trailer.

Guardians of the Galaxy didn't invent the use of contemporary pop music and a focus on action-packed scenes mixed with lighthearted comedic moments with its trailer.

Besides, the use of Sabotage is more self-referential than anything else, calling back to Kirk's love of the Beastie Boys in the previous two films.

 

[JWPlatt]

I really Hope they're wont be a TREK 4

That's definitely "Gene's Vision" in action, take something away from millions that enjoy it, because it doesn't work for me.

+1,000,000

 

[Paradise City]

It's an indifferent trailer because it's a montage of action clips set on a planet. There's nothing there to separate it from any other scifi flick overweight with FX.

A good trailer hints at a unique villain or some other distinguishing factor through which it would intrigue a general audience. Then we can talk about a good trailer.

This trailer committed the opposite sin of the Superman v Batman trailer . It revealed too little. And too little I mean to the mass audience on first viewing and not some trekkie willing to do a painstaking screen grab "excavation".

 

[Franklin]

It's an indifferent trailer because it's a montage of action clips set on a planet. There's nothing there to separate it from any other scifi flick overweight with FX.

A good trailer hints at a unique villain or some other distinguishing factor through which it would intrigue a general audience. Then we can talk about a good trailer.

This trailer committed the opposite sin of the Superman v Batman trailer . It revealed too little. And too little I mean to the mass audience on first viewing and not some trekkie willing to do a painstaking screen grab "excavation".

I beg to differ (please, please, please let me differ ). I'd think the first teaser should try to lure in as many folks as possible. Anything unique or with "distinguishing" factors would seem to be the opposite of appealing to that general audience. Generate curiosity. Make Joe Six Pack and Jane Chardonnay think, "That was 'Star Track'? Hmm. I'll be dogged. That looked like fun. Might be worth paying attention to."

 

[DWF]

I saw the trailer before The Force Awakens and it looks pretty good. I have some misgivings about the plot, but it should be interesting to see how they get out of that situation. It certainly doesn't look or feel like any Star Trek movie they done before.

 

[Paradise City]

It's an indifferent trailer because it's a montage of action clips set on a planet. There's nothing there to separate it from any other scifi flick overweight with FX.

A good trailer hints at a unique villain or some other distinguishing factor through which it would intrigue a general audience. Then we can talk about a good trailer.

This trailer committed the opposite sin of the Superman v Batman trailer . It revealed too little. And too little I mean to the mass audience on first viewing and not some trekkie willing to do a painstaking screen grab "excavation".

I beg to differ (please, please, please let me differ ). I'd think the first teaser should try to lure in as many folks as possible. Anything unique or with "distinguishing" factors would seem to be the opposite of appealing to that general audience. Generate curiosity. Make Joe Six Pack and Jane Chardonnay think, "That was 'Star Track'? Hmm. I'll be dogged. That looked like fun. Might be worth paying attention to."

Putting in a distinguishing feature in there is maximising the audience at first viewing. It's luring people in, in the way that you say here. Giving a general audience a hint that in this film there's a peculiar menace, a villain entirely unique to this film that no another film has got and is threatening our heroes in some new and disturbing way. That's maximising the opportunity afforded by the trailer. This trailer is not maximised in that way - it is a mere action montage. And with a mere action montage, people whom have no particular interest in science fiction won't engage with that due to the absence of any evidence of a substantial storyline within the film.

Sure, the trailer works to the extent it gets the logo out there and is a signal that there's a film coming and it gets fans chatting online and so forth but my point is they didn't maximise the opportunity afforded when issuing a trailer and you need to do that in order to create "space" between it and other fx driven scifi flicks so as to maximise that general audience.

 

[fireproof78]

It's an indifferent trailer because it's a montage of action clips set on a planet. There's nothing there to separate it from any other scifi flick overweight with FX.

A good trailer hints at a unique villain or some other distinguishing factor through which it would intrigue a general audience. Then we can talk about a good trailer.

This trailer committed the opposite sin of the Superman v Batman trailer . It revealed too little. And too little I mean to the mass audience on first viewing and not some trekkie willing to do a painstaking screen grab "excavation".

I beg to differ (please, please, please let me differ ). I'd think the first teaser should try to lure in as many folks as possible. Anything unique or with "distinguishing" factors would seem to be the opposite of appealing to that general audience. Generate curiosity. Make Joe Six Pack and Jane Chardonnay think, "That was 'Star Track'? Hmm. I'll be dogged. That looked like fun. Might be worth paying attention to."

Putting in a distinguishing feature in there is maximising the audience at first viewing. It's luring people in, in the way that you say here. Giving a general audience a hint that in this film there's a peculiar menace, a villain entirely unique to this film that no another film has got and is threatening our heroes in some new and disturbing way. That's maximising the opportunity afforded by the trailer. This trailer is not maximised in that way - it is a mere action montage. And with a mere action montage, people whom have no particular interest in science fiction won't engage with that due to the absence of any evidence of a substantial storyline within the film.

Sure, the trailer works to the extent it gets the logo out there and is a signal that there's a film coming and it gets fans chatting online and so forth but my point is they didn't maximise the opportunity afforded when issuing a trailer and you need to do that in order to create "space" between it and other fx driven scifi flicks so as to maximise that general audience.

It depends on the trailer. I don't necessarily think Beyond did it well, but it didn't do it poorly either. As you say, it is a bit generic, but that leaves the field still open, which is often what companies want.

I mean, I knew nothing about "Pitch Black" but when I saw the trailer for Chronicles of Rddick, it got my attention, even though it revealed little save for some action beats strung together, that were largely nonsensical. It got my attention and I ended up seeing it. So, it worked.

I think the trailer was hastily put together by the studio for the December launch. Good, bad, indifferent, it's out there. And people are talking about it.

I thought it was unique enough to make me wonder what happened to the Enterprise. That was my hook. How does this all happen. So, it worked for me.

 

[photon70]

Well, considering they had 7 weeks of post-production, I think they did ok.

As Lin said, some of those short special effects sequences in the trailer can take 6 to 7 months; so they've had people working in dark rooms around the clock just to get the trailer out in a very short time.

Did the studio market the wrong angle?

Well, they marketed one angle which was action, fun and some humour for a certain demographic, the under 25s.

Looking forward to the next trailer.

 

[Overgeeked]

Made me laugh. This is right on the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr_1K5YOAq0

Whichever of you glorious people did this, well done.

Now see about a TNG or DS9 version of that...

 

[martok2112]

Yes, the YouTube video of the Old Enterprise crew seeing the trailer, and their reactions was indeed amusing, as were some of the whiny comments that followed it.

Methinks the author of that video, however, had a far greater sense of humor than many of the "OMG It's not Trek" whiners who commented on it.

Even though some aspects of the video were inconsistent (Old Uhura in gold one moment, red the next, gold right after that, etc), the editing was quite top notch.

Overall, well done.

Still love the trailer. Anxiously, yet patiently waiting for the movie.

 

[dommecracy]

Guardians of the Galaxy didn't invent the use of contemporary pop music and a focus on action-packed scenes mixed with lighthearted comedic moments with its trailer.

I don't think anyone's claiming it did.
But to think that the marketing department didn't look at GotG's success as "inspiration" would be naive.

 

[martok2112]

Sounds familiar.

Like back in the late seventies when Paramount took inspiration from the success of a certain movie called Star Wars to propel Trek from a small screen revival to big screen premiere.

 

[Leo Walsh]

They've fucked up with the trailer to be honest.

Nope.

It's going to be seen by tens of millions of people this weekend...and not one out of a million will give a fuck that Kirk flies a motorcycle or that it's not scored with orchestral musak.

They got it in front of Star Wars. That's what matters.

I suppose it depends if people see Star Wars at major cinemas. I know some small independents go straight to the main feature. My local one screen in town which has reopened for a week (it closes for winter) just to show Star Wars, has never shown trailers or adverts. Straight in to the movie, no messing. I love it. It's comparatively cheap as well.

It also seems that Pegg's lemon sucking facials over the trailer are making as many waves as the trailer itself.

http://www.avclub.com/article/wincing-simon-pegg-admits-he-didnt-new-star-trek-t-230006

He then asked Trek fans to “hang in there” and “be patient,” before shooting a look that says either, “I am in deep existential pain,” or “I am about to get yelled at by a PR representative” at the cold, unblinking camera.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/12/17/simon-pegg-star-trek-beyond-responds-to-trailer

Only among the fanboise.

You're not getting it.

The overwhelming majority of people who will see this movie don't give a fuck about any of this. Pegg and Lin are out soothing the little knot of nerd bloggers and click bait artists who do.

Most folks are just finding out now, as a result of the teaser, that there's going to be a Star Trek movie. They're not trekkies and they do not care that Kirk's on a motorcycle.

Mostly what those moviegoers have to be reminded is that this won't be a snoozefest like the oldTrek movies - there's still a stigma attached to the series.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Only among the fanboise.

You're not getting it.

The overwhelming majority of people who will see this movie don't give a fuck about any of this. Pegg and Lin are out soothing the little knot of nerd bloggers and click bait artists who do.

Most folks are just finding out now, as a result of the teaser, that there's going to be a Star Trek movie. They're not trekkies and they do not care that Kirk's on a motorcycle.

Mostly what those moviegoers have to be reminded is that this won't be a snoozefest like the oldTrek movies - there's still a stigma attached to the series.

I'm getting perfectly well, thanks. But it's nice of you to show such concern.

I'm afraid it's you who's not getting it. You seem to have an axe to grind against the original films. Aside from Insurrection and Nemesis, they all made decent returns on their budgets, ballpark about 2.5 times budget if memory serves.

Your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of people who will see this movie don't give a fuck about any of this" holds no water, especially when the Abrams films haven't improved on the above ratio, and that Darkness took $29m less than Star Trek 2009 at the US Box office. Seems that many US Trek fans do "give a fuck".

 

[F. King Daniel]

Of course, the MASSIVE global increase doesn't count, because it totally destroys your argument.

 

[Leo Walsh]

If Paramount weren't making a LOT more money on these movies than on oldTrek, they wouldn't be making Trek movies at all.

End of argument.

 

[Paradise City]

I beg to differ (please, please, please let me differ ). I'd think the first teaser should try to lure in as many folks as possible. Anything unique or with "distinguishing" factors would seem to be the opposite of appealing to that general audience. Generate curiosity. Make Joe Six Pack and Jane Chardonnay think, "That was 'Star Track'? Hmm. I'll be dogged. That looked like fun. Might be worth paying attention to."

Putting in a distinguishing feature in there is maximising the audience at first viewing. It's luring people in, in the way that you say here. Giving a general audience a hint that in this film there's a peculiar menace, a villain entirely unique to this film that no another film has got and is threatening our heroes in some new and disturbing way. That's maximising the opportunity afforded by the trailer. This trailer is not maximised in that way - it is a mere action montage. And with a mere action montage, people whom have no particular interest in science fiction won't engage with that due to the absence of any evidence of a substantial storyline within the film.

Sure, the trailer works to the extent it gets the logo out there and is a signal that there's a film coming and it gets fans chatting online and so forth but my point is they didn't maximise the opportunity afforded when issuing a trailer and you need to do that in order to create "space" between it and other fx driven scifi flicks so as to maximise that general audience.

It depends on the trailer. I don't necessarily think Beyond did it well, but it didn't do it poorly either. As you say, it is a bit generic, but that leaves the field still open, which is often what companies want.

I mean, I knew nothing about "Pitch Black" but when I saw the trailer for Chronicles of Rddick, it got my attention, even though it revealed little save for some action beats strung together, that were largely nonsensical. It got my attention and I ended up seeing it. So, it worked.

I think the trailer was hastily put together by the studio for the December launch. Good, bad, indifferent, it's out there. And people are talking about it.

I thought it was unique enough to make me wonder what happened to the Enterprise. That was my hook. How does this all happen. So, it worked for me.

Well, we each have our personal anecdotes. Mine is that it was a haphazard action montage. That's what I saw when I saw it twice albeit on first viewing it was in German. My supposedly trained scifi eye thought I saw some ship being pulled into an anomaly of some sort. I needed my friends here to confirm that it was a ship being dragged into some atmosphere and then a day or so later my friends here identified as Enterprise.

But my supposedly trained sci fi eye is neither here nor there. I doubt people who are indifferent to sci fi but may otherwise engage with suitability provocative plot would've engaged with this action montage that didn't distinguish itself from other films of this genre. My chief observation is that they didn't cover all the bases with it and didn't maximise the opportunity afforded by this particular teaser outing.

 

[Trekkin]

Only among the fanboise.

You're not getting it.

The overwhelming majority of people who will see this movie don't give a fuck about any of this. Pegg and Lin are out soothing the little knot of nerd bloggers and click bait artists who do.

Most folks are just finding out now, as a result of the teaser, that there's going to be a Star Trek movie. They're not trekkies and they do not care that Kirk's on a motorcycle.

Mostly what those moviegoers have to be reminded is that this won't be a snoozefest like the oldTrek movies - there's still a stigma attached to the series.

I'm getting perfectly well, thanks. But it's nice of you to show such concern.

I'm afraid it's you who's not getting it. You seem to have an axe to grind against the original films. Aside from Insurrection and Nemesis, they all made decent returns on their budgets, ballpark about 2.5 times budget if memory serves.

Your assertion that "the overwhelming majority of people who will see this movie don't give a fuck about any of this" holds no water, especially when the Abrams films haven't improved on the above ratio, and that Darkness took $29m less than Star Trek 2009 at the US Box office. Seems that many US Trek fans do "give a fuck".

25 million less in the US...but over 80 million more worldwide.

You can quibble over the vagueries as to what profit Paramount made out of that increase. But purely in terms of 'number of people going to see the movie', that's an improvement.

Also, in what universe does "US Trek fans' indicate 'the majority of people'? The US fans are a fraction of a niche group!