Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[JWPlatt]

Yes, "they should know what the deal is here" of a well-established mythos has merit.

 

[Franklin]

I don't think the title of a movie was ever a reason I was attracted or not attracted to seeing a movie in my life. Same with titles of books. It probably goes back to being a kid when I starting reading Catcher in the Rye and realized it wasn't about baseball. Of course, that's just me.

 

[Romulan_spy]

I despise coy promotion. Makes me think whoever is doing it is being pretentious for the purpose of hiding schlock, kind of like "Khan? Khan who?"

But isn't the point of all marketing to make potential customers curious about your product and entice them to buy it?

 

[JWPlatt]

No. Making people certain to buy is better than curiosity. "I want it!" is better than "I wonder if I want it?" is better than "Huh?"

 

[Rahul]

If you're referring to me I never saw your previous post, and my answer is: how about no?

There are plenty of reasons to post them, not least of which is the original comparison I've posted to show people how much of change in perception a popular trailer makes when the movie is going to be edited exactly the same. So there's your context to start with.. and the magnitude of the difference is also enlightening, particularly with the likes and dislikes, which some posters here were making an issue of recently.

The other comparison is the raw numbers with the previous trailer..which from what I understand, those 1st trailers tend to be the most viewed, but it's a good way to get an idea of how popular the trailer is with recent movies as well as Trek. I've posted all this info before.

Another reason is because lots of fans like to know. We keep a running tally of box office grosses when the movies come out, so the trailer views might help gauge the interest for it.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but I don't plan on stopping the occasional trailer count. I'm afraid you'll have to hide your eyes if it's offensive. That's life.

RAMA

No, it was directed at the other guy who commented first.

I don't know who's always posting Youtube-numbers here. If it's you:
Please stop dumping raw numbers.
Put them in some kind of context. Otherwise it's meaningless.The like/dislike-ratio is a nice start. If you're interested in those numbers, compare them to the like/dislike-ratio of for example the Trek09 or Into Darkness trailers. Or compare the number of views with current trailers for other high recognition propertys. But if you want to know the pure number of views on youtube it's right below the trailer. At the beginning of this thread. No need to repeat them every page.

 

[Kemaiku]

It's something done for a lot of movies around here, no one else has said a word, so please stop demanding others stop doing something because one person is getting annoyed for nothing.

 

[Rahul]

I can get talking about box office numbers. But even those are only meaningful in some sort of context. Like the budget. Or box office preditions. Talking about the general reception of a trailer is also important. But reading every other page "hey look, in the last two hours 20 more people have seen the trailer and it has two more likes!" is rather annoying.
Again: Context is everything. Put SOME sort of statement around those numbers, and you will never hear me complain again.


@topic:
If I remember correctly, the first posters for Trek09 were also just character posters of the actors without any kind of title or name on them. Not even s symbol that could have indicated they had anything to do with something called "Star Trek". In this regard, the new posters are already a big step up.

 

[SalvorHardin]

@topic:
If I remember correctly, the first posters for Trek09 were also just character posters of the actors without any kind of title or name on them. Not even s symbol that could have indicated they had anything to do with something called "Star Trek". In this regard, the new posters are already a big step up.

There was a little bit of something, bottom right.

 

[Malaika]

I like these posters with the characters more than the ones for stid.

 

[Rahul]

@SalvadorHardin:
huh. You're right. Totally erased that bit on the bottom from my mind. I just remember seeing some of them at a cinema. And much later being on the internet where the "new Star Trek posters" were shown and thinking "What? Those were supposed to be for Star Trek?"

 

[SalvorHardin]

 

[Rahul]

^THAT's actually amazing!

 

[Michael]

Love the new character posters! Although Karl Urban's McCoy looks way too photoshopped in his one. Would love to own the Jaylah one!

 

[JKM]

Love the new character posters! Although Karl Urban's McCoy looks way too photoshopped in his one. Would love to own the Jaylah one!

Yeah they air brushed poor Karl to death, and as IF he needed it to start with! Love your screen name by the way. Saw the last poster on this topic was M and immediately this line popped into my head in Michael Jackson's voice "Zed, I could be agent M!"

 

[JD]

Funko has revealed their Beyond Pop!s. We'll be getting Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, Jaylah, and Krall. I'll defintely picking up at least a few of these if I see them.

 

[wekkuli]

Eh...what have you been watching? The SFX have been better and more elaborate in every movie so far. The scale is even bigger for Beyond.

Yeah, maybe I can't see the 'big picture' and am concentrating too much on small visual details... like that unnatural glow around the explosions in STID:
http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attac...oz-trailer-enterprise-saucer-ship-chase-1.jpg

 

[CorporalClegg]

Aren't bloom effects par for the course?

 

[Dales]

spock'n'pavel

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/05/more-trek-beyond-character-posters-spock-and-chekov/

these posters are amazing. much better than STID. I am getting more excited about the film

 

[TrickyDickie]

Scotty: "I'm having a wee bit o' trouble with the transporter."

Kirk: "NO KIDDING!!!"

 

[JWPlatt]

Motorcycle. Blatant pandering to the Action Guy. Good job strategy though.