News Pegg: Star Trek Beyond Marketing Was Bad

[Kane_Steel]

This is such a wasted franchise, it's sad.

Star Trek 2009 was the perfect reboot. Perfect cast. Great leads. Great characters. Fun. It got the general audience invested and interested in Trek in a way that they never were before. Star Trek was cool and mainsteam.

And then Paramount dragged their heels with a mediocre and forgettable sequel in 2013. They waited too long. 4 years. By then, all the positive buzz and goodwill gained by the 2009 film had died down.

Marketing isn't the sole reason ST:Beyond bombed.

It's a shame because this kind of opportunity to really bring TOS to life again will likely never come again.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I am one of those who LOVED Star Trek Beyond -- thought it an excellent 50th anniversary film.
I was TOTALLY disapponted by te lack of marketing...barely saw any commercials until maybe like 1-2 weeks out.

Rihanna had a song & video , extremely loosely based on the movie...but MAN, that was like never pushed on radio or anything. So they wasted whatever they paid to make it happen.

There were no "Happy Meals" as far as I know... the first 2 were Burger King meals...but if they didn't have a contract aymore, it would have been nice for McDOnald's to pick it up..i remember getting a TMP Happy Meal (the first year the Happy Meal was really pushed by McDOnald's), and would have loved to get one for my daughters. But -- NOTHING While not the key driver, little things like that help marketing immensely.

Did the release time play any factor? Secret Life of Pets and Jason Bourne the next week -- did they take the thunder from Star Trek?

 

[Damian]

I too actually liked Beyond. Loved that Earth was not involved this time, that it was a mostly original villain (though like Nemesis, Star Trek (2009) and STID they yet again went to the TWOK villain wants revenge plot device). I thought it was great the Urban had a greater role here, that he actually got to 'be' a doctor at times, that Pegg's Scotty was more serious (continuing a trend started with STID). The only thing I really hated was the Sabotage scene. That I admit had me going 'are you kidding me'.

But I agree, the marketing was very low key and lax. I knew it was coming because I'm a Trekkie. But it almost seemed like an afterthought to Paramount. "Oh, yeah, we have a new Star Trek film coming out, if you want to see it maybe".

And no novel. I've always loved the Star Trek novels in general and have the other 12 movie tie in novels. Whatever happened to a novelization of this movie? I don't know if they couldn't get Alan Dean Foster, or they didn't want to pay him or whatever. But I'm sure they could have found a novelist to write it if that's all it was. I find most of the Star Trek writers to be a, you know, competent bunch. I think they could have handled it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

And no novel. I've always loved the Star Trek novels in general and have the other 12 movie tie in novels. Whatever happened to a novelization of this movie? I don't know if they couldn't get Alan Dean Foster, or they didn't want to pay him or whatever. But I'm sure they could have found a novelist to write it if that's all it was. I find most of the Star Trek writers to be a, you know, competent bunch. I think they could have handled it.

It was speculated at the time that the novel may have been a victim of Beyond's super-rushed schedule. After ditching Bob Orci's script they were rushing to make a release date, and still writing when sets were being built.

 

[Khan 2.0]

It was speculated at the time that the novel may have been a victim of Beyond's super-rushed schedule. After ditching Bob Orci's script they were rushing to make a release date, and still writing when sets were being built.

They should've done the novel of Orci's version

 

[CommanderTrip]

Beyond was one of the more enjoyable films I saw in 2016.

I think the real issue with the movie's performance at the box office was due to the fact that it was released during a time where the movie theatres were "congested" with potential blockbusters franchises and other new releases.

X-Men Apocalypse, Captain America: Civil War, Suicide Squad, Independence Day: Resurgence, and Ghostbusters were all released that summer, and were gunning for a piece of the box office pie.

 

[Damian]

It was speculated at the time that the novel may have been a victim of Beyond's super-rushed schedule. After ditching Bob Orci's script they were rushing to make a release date, and still writing when sets were being built.

That may be true, but they could have done a novel at some point, even if it was a month or two later.

I thought I heard somewhere that Alan Dean Foster wasn't available--or didn't get offered the money he wanted to do it, or maybe he just didn't want to do it. Of course there are plenty of other authors who probably would have jumped at the chance so that wouldn't fully explain it either (unless the movie team had the attitude it was Foster or nobody).

Still whatever the reason, it's just a little more evidence that Paramount just didn't seem to take the marketing for Beyond as seriously as they did for Star Trek (2009) or STID. It almost seemed an afterthought.

 

[Smellmet]

Beyond was one of the more enjoyable films I saw in 2016.

I think the real issue with the movie's performance at the box office was due to the fact that it was released during a time where the movie theatres were "congested" with potential blockbusters franchises and other new releases.

X-Men Apocalypse, Captain America: Civil War, Suicide Squad, Independence Day: Resurgence, and Ghostbusters were all released that summer, and were gunning for a piece of the box office pie.

Yeah as much as I had a problem with some aspects of the marketing, it's just my subjective opinion of it at the end of the day, the release date on the other hand was very challenging for Beyond to say the least. It just didn't have any breathing room to make decent figures and sank in favour of your aforementioned list of other blockbusters (you forgot Jason Bourne in that list too). The first two reboot movies seemed to have things somewhat easier if I remember.

I think after the likes of Black Panther and Deadpool have raked in serious money in traditionally non-blockbuster dates, maybe it's time to think about moving to another slot. The window for blockbuster releases seems to have widened in recent years. I think if audiences think the product is worth seeing, then they'll turn out for it, and if it's not crowded with competition, it could do better.

All this is if any further films see the light of day of course, which I'm not holding my breath over.

 

[The Wormhole]

I thought I heard somewhere that Alan Dean Foster wasn't available--or didn't get offered the money he wanted to do it, or maybe he just didn't want to do it. Of course there are plenty of other authors who probably would have jumped at the chance so that wouldn't fully explain it either (unless the movie team had the attitude it was Foster or nobody).

The story I heard was that Alan Dean Foster was contracted to do a novelization, but he got frustrated at being sent constant script revisions and being told "this is the version you have to use" with each one, so he jumped ship.

 

[CommanderTrip]

Yeah as much as I had a problem with some aspects of the marketing, it's just my subjective opinion of it at the end of the day, the release date on the other hand was very challenging for Beyond to say the least. It just didn't have any breathing room to make decent figures and sank in favour of your aforementioned list of other blockbusters (you forgot Jason Bourne in that list too). The first two reboot movies seemed to have things somewhat easier if I remember.

I think after the likes of Black Panther and Deadpool have raked in serious money in traditionally non-blockbuster dates, maybe it's time to think about moving to another slot. The window for blockbuster releases seems to have widened in recent years. I think if audiences think the product is worth seeing, then they'll turn out for it, and if it's not crowded with competition, it could do better.

All this is if any further films see the light of day of course, which I'm not holding my breath over.

Agreed. I think if the movie was released in the fall/winter, it certainly would have performed better simply because there would not have been as much competition all gunning for the same box office demographic.

 

[JKM]

It's funny, people all seem to have different reasons they think Beyond failed. It took me quite a awhile and many viewings to decide that they pretty much ripped the soul out of Beyond. Don't get me wrong. I like it, I'll watch it, but they completely ignored the character interaction that made the first two so great. That's what I finally decided made me just so Blah about it. It was a lot like TOS episode, but you couldn't put one TOS Episode out there by itself and have it be a great movie without doing more of the character development that you only see through several episodes.

I thought JJ laid great ground work with setting the characters up in the first film and then STID despite any other faults had a lot of character growth. There was Spock learning what being a friend meant as well as him stumbling through his relationship with Uhura. Kirk learning that he knew nothing etc. I could go on. It just had heart. Then along comes Beyond and undoes all of that. Splits Uhura from Spock, makes Kirk and Spock distant and suddenly Kirk without any background info, no longer wants to be a Captain?

And then the climax to that barely there character story was shallow at best. I don't think it was the story, they could've written it to show the crew coming together and realizing that what makes them so effective is each other. But that's barely there and only if you stand on your head and squint. It was just a disappointment. To me what has always made Star Trek great is the characters and their journey. There was too much story in Beyond and not enough character. It failed to come together. The best line in the movie was Kirk's line to Krall, 'I'd rather die saving lives, than live taking them.' That was the only hint of what the movie should have been because it built on Kirk's character in the previous films, i.e. dying for his crew in STID. Just my two cents. Pegg can blame it on Marketing all day, but a good movie is a good movie at the end of the day.

 

[Lexx Shrapnel]

This is such a wasted franchise, it's sad.

Star Trek 2009 was the perfect reboot. Perfect cast. Great leads. Great characters. Fun. It got the general audience invested and interested in Trek in a way that they never were before. Star Trek was cool and mainsteam.

And then Paramount dragged their heels with a mediocre and forgettable sequel in 2013. They waited too long. 4 years. By then, all the positive buzz and goodwill gained by the 2009 film had died down.

Marketing isn't the sole reason ST:Beyond bombed.

It's a shame because this kind of opportunity to really bring TOS to life again will likely never come again.

I consider 3 movies being made a miracle considering how many other lage scale special effects movies are out there.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Dr Who's 50th anniversary is how you do a 50th, almost a year of celebrating Who across many formats leading up to the 50th special which was phenomenal, then we get to ST 50th and almost nothing, then a trailer is released, then nothing until the movie, and that was how the ST 50th felt from my point of view.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Agreed. I still love that moment of Doctor Who, but Beyond didn't feel like an anniversary movie nor did it feel like a Trek movie. I felt the title didn't serve the lack luster movie ala TFF; I wanted something which was Beyond the imagination and not mountain motorbiking on a planet and then fly an ugly crappy ship before the climax.

Pegg shouldn't blame other professionals for a film which was just decent. The promoters knew it was a dud and can only do so much to bring general audiences in. I doubt the returns would've been any different if marketing was made for Pegg's standards.

 

[F. King Daniel]

fly an ugly crappy ship before the climax.

"Ugly crappy"??

I get that beauty is subjective... but seriously, "ugly crappy"?????

 

[pst]

I get that beauty is subjective... but seriously, "ugly crappy"?????

i think the franklin is totally cool crappy.

 

[plynch]

There's nothing really compelling about it. I've never rewatched it, though I have STID due to people here extolling Kirk's reticence to fire on Qonos. STB -- meh. First one I didn't see twice in theaters actually.

 

[Maurice]

I found it competent but instantly forgettable. For their flaws, there are sequences in 2009 and STID that I will rewatch, but I've never had an inkling to revisit Beyond.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Agreed. I still love that moment of Doctor Who, but Beyond didn't feel like an anniversary movie nor did it feel like a Trek movie. I felt the title didn't serve the lack luster movie ala TFF; I wanted something which was Beyond the imagination and not mountain motorbiking on a planet and then fly an ugly crappy ship before the climax. .

that's a good point. the title implied something like a 'Where No One Has Gone Before' (the TNG ep)/Interstellar style Trek adventure.. like STID it seemed to be using 'star trek' as verb to mean a 'star trek beyond' - beyond the final frontier..beyond the galaxy.. beyond imagination..
but theres didn't seem anything particularly 'beyond' about this trek other than it going beyond earth based action like the last two. what did it really mean? beyond the Darkness of the last movie?.. beyond an earth based/earth in peril movie?..beyond the 50th anniversary?..or was it a nod to the Rodenberry TOS theme lyrics? I guess it could also mean 'beyond TOS' as this film is supposed to take place after 3 years (so it could be seen like a season 4) in which case its going 'beyond' TOS?

 

[jaime]

that's a good point. the title implied something like a 'Where No One Has Gone Before' (the TNG ep)/Interstellar style Trek adventure.. like STID it seemed to be using 'star trek' as verb to mean a 'star trek beyond' - beyond the final frontier..beyond the galaxy.. beyond imagination..
but theres didn't seem anything particularly 'beyond' about this trek other than it going beyond earth based action like the last two. what did it really mean? beyond the Darkness of the last movie?.. beyond an earth based/earth in peril movie?..beyond the 50th anniversary?..or was it a nod to the Rodenberry TOS theme lyrics? I guess it could also mean 'beyond TOS' as this film is supposed to take place after 3 years (so it could be seen like a season 4) in which case its going 'beyond' TOS?

In all honesty, it’s highly likely it was Pegg getting a Madness reference into the title, and probably being amazed when nothing else turned up for the title. ‘Don’t watch that, watch this, this is the heavy heavy monster sound.....’