Trek-XI is gonna flop f***** big!

[blaXXer]

Let me paraphrase the OP at this point in time to help people new to the thread:

OP: LOUD NOISES!!!!

Thank you very much.

Also, I find it a bit far-fetched to start advertising a movie 300 days before it hits the cinemas...I mean WTF?

 

[cultcross]

Paramount's decision to sit out Comic-Con won't negatively affect the "Star Trek" film one bit. It's a fannish tempest in a teapot.

So says one of our grizzled elders. What do others say?

"Comic-Con has become the single most relevant event for the movie industry now. All you have to do to see that is to look at the films that are successful right now, and it's all comic-book event movies," said Jon Favreau, the director of the hit film "Iron Man." "Last year, before we went to Comic-Con, nobody was talking about 'Iron Man,' but by the end of our presentation to those 6,500 fans [in the main hall] they were sending instant messages and writing blog posts, and we instantly had a buzz around the world."

So the director of a comic book movie thinks comic book movies are big news and should be at comic con? Not really surprising. Hundreds of very successful movies are released every year that have nothing to do with Comic Con.

"You ignore San Diego, and you'll pay the price," Godsick said [Hollywood veteran Jeffrey Godsick, the president of marketing at Fox-Walden]. "If you don't have a presence there, fans will assume you're hiding something. Comic-Con is the ultimate platform for reaching the fans that are most passionate, the ones that line up for the opening Friday night. The presentations have become so elaborate and strong too that it's dramatically upped the experience for fans. So they expect a lot."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-

Which is precisely what we've all been saying - Comic Con appeals to those who will already be there on opening Friday night. Odds are, the vast majority of comic Con attendees are already planning to see Star Trek, if there was ever any chance of persuading them. The trick to marketing a movie is not niche conventions, you need to reach the general audience, who don't read message boards, attend or talk about conventions, and wouldn't automatically go see a film based on Star Trek. And those people become sated by overmarketing - placing a product not out for nearly a year won't help snag them, so Paramoutn would be throwing away money on fans who will already be seeing the film. Wait till around January, and you'll see the marketing machine kicked into gear.

 

[Rhaenys]

Well putting the sombrero discussion aside for a sec, I really truly hope the movie will be great. I will be an optimist about it. What i am worried about is how much revenue it will generate. For some reason i have a feeling that if it doesn't do well with box office ticket sales, it could be the final nail in the coffin and there could be no more Trek. Don't get me wrong, just because a movie doesn't do well at the box ofice doesn't mean it is a bad movie, we have many examples of this. I just want it to make money so we will get more Trek in the years to come.

This post reminded me... What is more important for you, guys? That we get a good movie or that it earns money? Or you think that these two go together...?
Because, if it doesn't earn enough money, we won't get new ST movies or series for a long time or never. So,what is more important? I guess it depends on what you want...

 

[HRHTheKING]

Comic Con was in July 2008.


Star Trek XI comes out in May 2009.

It's quite early to start promoting it aggressively.

 

[T'Cal]

I agree with 22 Stars.

Me too, the whole William Shatner playing the nacelles was funnier.

You mean it actually STARTED being funny?

But yes, enough's enough ffs.

Oh, and I'm bored by the sombrero schtick. It was mildly humorous at first but wore thin very quickly. I like to run with a joke but know when to move on to the next bit. Move on to the next bit, please...

You guys tell me who's in charge of the "mexican hat thing"/"sombrero schtick" and I'll be sure to pass the word along. Meanwhile, try not to beat up on people for being able to see the fun in it, okay? Like the badgers and the sloth wars did before, this, too, will run its course.

T'Cal: speaking of wearing thin, the constant chorus of "they should promote this movie (Star Trek) exactly the same way The Dark Knight was promoted" you're injecting into every thread here lately is becoming transparent. It's okay for you to hold an opinion, but we get it, already. Message received; over and out.

I don't if I should be insulted by your remark or impressed that you read my posts. I'm impressed! Almost as impressed as I was by the marketing of TDK... Where's my sombrero???

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So says one of our grizzled elders. What do others say?

Doesn't matter, really. I'm right, and they're wrong.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Which is precisely what we've all been saying - Comic Con appeals to those who will already be there on opening Friday night. Odds are, the vast majority of comic Con attendees are already planning to see Star Trek, if there was ever any chance of persuading them.

The trick to marketing a movie is not niche conventions, you need to reach the general audience, who don't read message boards, attend or talk about conventions, and wouldn't automatically go see a film based on Star Trek. And those people become sated by overmarketing - placing a product not out for nearly a year won't help snag them, so Paramount would be throwing away money on fans who will already be seeing the film. Wait till around January, and you'll see the marketing machine kicked into gear.

So Paramount was smart to present Iron Man in July 2007, but failing to present Star Trek in July 2008 was an even more brilliant marketing strategy?

 

[Squiggy]

They're. Not. The. Same. Movie.

Ironman needed a lot of buildup, Star Trek already has around 30 million bucks built in from us people who'll see anything with "Trek" in the title.

 

[Bad Bishop]

They're. Not. The. Same. Movie.

Ironman needed a lot of buildup, Star Trek already has around 30 million bucks built in from us people who'll see anything with "Trek" in the title.

That would be fine, if a lousy $30 million at the box office is Paramount's definition of success.

If anything, Star Trek (no big stars, last film a failure) needs more push than Iron Man did.

 

[Squiggy]

I'm not saying that it'll only do 30 mil (opening weekend), just that that 30 mil is built in from the people who willingly saw Nemesis in the theaters.

If they sat through that, they'll flock to this.

THEN on top of that 30 you'll have people that are curious about the reboot, people that'll want to see it because I'm sure it'll be sold as an "action" movie and not a Trek movie and it isn't opening the same weekend as LOTR, Potter, or something else to siphon money away.

The only people that care about Nemesis being a failure are us trekkies that are going to see Trek opening weekend anyway...the movie audience doesn't care (as they obviously didn't see it before) if they remember it at all.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

It's only likely to flop if it's a bad 'general population action movie.'

As a lifelong trekkie, friends and I plan to see it. As above, 30 Million to start... now put a good film on top of that and non-trekkies will do the rest.

 

[ST-One]

One other reason that they aren't giving us much to look at (or even glimpses into what the story might be) could be: They don't want to give us too much time to shred every little bit of information to pieces and yell 'Crap' months before the movie is released.

 

[shapeshifter]

I think the film received all the publicity at and around the Con it needed.

The new posters were visible at the Con, right? The average non Trek fan attending the Con had to see them and now knows, if He didn't before, something Trek is coming.

Downtown SD had ST banners hanging from every lightpole throughout the Gas Lamp Quarter, (THE GAS LAMP QUARTER!!!! another first in Trek advertising that I am aware of) so all those non Con attendees hanging out downtown are getting exposure to something Trek looming in the distance.

It seems to me that all the non fans are getting exactly what they need for now; subtle, unobtrusive hints that something Trek is coming.

The OP here seems motivated by personal impatience. Try to relax, everything's going to be fine.

 

[JRS]

Im very curious of how many non trekkies or those who dont like scifi are interested of seeing this film. Many people still think when they hear the word Star Trek will think about some oddballs in pyjamas and rubber ears and then they say how nerdy it is and so on.
I mean even if most of the trekkies would go see it i doubt it would bring enough money from the box office, considering the films large budget. So it may flop financially.
I know that Abrams and others have said that they target the regular folk also but im curious how they are going to manage that in reality without ruining the Star Trek spirit. I guess one must wait and see.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Trek is something that doesn't appeal to Joe Sixpack or the much desired teen/early 20s demographics. Star Trek is seen as a nerdy and geeky program

Maybe in your home town?

ST:TMP, ST IV, Seasons 3-7 of TNG and "First Contact" had sufficient appeal to the "Joe Sixpacks" and their families to get them watching. Why would JJ Abrams' ST movie, with a big budget and high profile be any different?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I mean even if most of the trekkies would go see it i doubt it would bring enough money from the box office, considering the films large budget. So it may flop financially.

Past Paramount marketing surveys tell them - with confidence - that ten percent of the audience are Star Trek fans, and only one percent are avid collectors of ST merchandise. Now, the figures for attendance at ST: TMP and ST IV are skewed because some fans went back to see the movies many times over, but Paramount is comfortable knowing that they can't just make ST movies for people who call themselves ST fans.

And that are large number of the general cinema-going public go to see a ST movie because it's traditionally a well-promoted science fiction movie suitable for family viewing (usually), with good acting, directing and SPFX.

 

[cybersoldier]

As the old saying goes....."Absence makes the heart grow fonder"...and after Nemesis and Enterprise i am quite happy to see Trek have a bit of a breather, have a good clean out, and start afresh next year with what i think will be a very exciting rebirth of our beloved franchise.

I agree but I would have loved a better farwell for TNG first, but I might give this movie a try

 

[cybersoldier]

One other reason that they aren't giving us much to look at (or even glimpses into what the story might be) could be: They don't want to give us too much time to shred every little bit of information to pieces and yell 'Crap' months before the movie is released.

It's going to happen any way

 

[warpus]

I never said I don't want to see it. I am just afraid that they are running out of time to bring this movie to the attention of the non-Trekkers.

At comic-con?

riiiiight

makes as much sense as complaining that the latest 3 bears movie wasn't advertised at furry-con, anyway

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And Paramount is trying my patience, my hardcore patience. My sweet, sweet patience. For the last couple of years we fans have endured torture bit by fucking bit, only to not have at least some pay off in the end.

Oh please. For the general public, Trek XI does not even yet exist. Your "disappointment" counts for jack squat.