The Ads

[Dave Scarpa]

The Vibe that the ads are generating that this is a star trek that "Normal" people can enjoy really bothers me. I consider myself to be a typical fan, loved the series for the last 30 years, but don't dress up, don't go to conventions.. I've given Paramount a lot of money over the years on trek, why do they hate me so much now ? Anyone else a bit miffed at this vibe?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not. It's a very sensible tack for the marketing people to take and I hope that it pays off...because if "normal" people - that is, people who've never been interested in Trek - don't get interested in this movie then Star Trek is finished and all the fannish money you and I have thrown at it or are willing to throw at it will not make any difference in that regard. We, alone, don't account for enough income.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I'm not. It's a very sensible tack for the marketing people to take and I hope that it pays off...because if "normal" people - that is, people who've never been interested in Trek - don't get interested in this movie then Star Trek is finished and all the fannish money you and I have thrown at it or are willing to throw at it will not make any difference in that regard. We, alone, don't account for enough income.

But Paramount is still falsly under the impression that Nemesis Bombed because "Normal" Mainstream viewers did not go. No Nemsis Bombed because it was up against Lord of the Rings and it sucked. I agree that going in the direction that they did was needed, I still think they could have done it while maintaining the past details Fan know and new viewers would not get or care about.

 

[Ovation]

It's a business first and foremost. If the "powers that be" believe that current marketing efforts, despite some minor (mostly perceived and unintended) slights at "the fans", will generate more revenue than not, then that's what they'll do (and have done). In the end, it's not any more complicated than that.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I don't think they're really saying fans aren't normal or anything. It's just that they want the general public to know that they can really come and see this without much Trek knowledge at all.

 

[Cheebo]

I'm not. It's a very sensible tack for the marketing people to take and I hope that it pays off...because if "normal" people - that is, people who've never been interested in Trek - don't get interested in this movie then Star Trek is finished and all the fannish money you and I have thrown at it or are willing to throw at it will not make any difference in that regard. We, alone, don't account for enough income.

But Paramount is still falsly under the impression that Nemesis Bombed because "Normal" Mainstream viewers did not go. No Nemsis Bombed because it was up against Lord of the Rings and it sucked. I agree that going in the direction that they did was needed, I still think they could have done it while maintaining the past details Fan know and new viewers would not get or care about.

Except this is not Nemesis. Nemesis has a 60 mil budget, this has a 150 mil budget. There are not enough Trek fans to make this profitable. It NEEDS "normal" people.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm not. It's a very sensible tack for the marketing people to take and I hope that it pays off...because if "normal" people - that is, people who've never been interested in Trek - don't get interested in this movie then Star Trek is finished and all the fannish money you and I have thrown at it or are willing to throw at it will not make any difference in that regard. We, alone, don't account for enough income.

But Paramount is still falsly under the impression that Nemesis Bombed because "Normal" Mainstream viewers did not go.

That's not false, that's absolutely true.

And yes, "Nemesis" sucked.

The important distinction there is that "normal" - or "casual" - moviegoers don't bother with movies that look awful or uninteresting to them or that they hear "suck" -whereas most Trek fans will if the title of the film contains the words "Star" and "Trek" right next to each other in that order.

The initial domestic box office take of "Nemesis" can be almost entirely accounted for by four or five million trekkies seeing the film. For everyone else, "Maid In Manhattan" was preferable.

 

[USS Gettysburg]

The stigma requires it. For some reason being a fan of Trek has really gotten a bad rap in the past 20 years. Jokes get harsher over the years I guess, I don't know. But in social settings with my generation, (23-29) I am always fearful of saying anything about Star Trek to people. You just get the oddest looks in public now. Yet, Grey's Anatomy doesn't, which I would propose is further from reality than Star Trek and has had uncannily obsessed fans of McSteamy and McDreamy. Personally I don't get it, but there is a very strong stigma in the younger generations. So the market strategy is probably a must, although I fear that it merely further separates the two fan bases by saying that you can either be a cool new Star Trek fan or a basement dwelling geek Star Trek fan. Why can't they just say a movie for all?

BTW ditto to Dennis. I know I'd go see Star Trek: Paint Drying if it were in theaters. There is definitely a difference in movie viewers.

 

[Borgminister]

I can't get worked up about that aspect of Paramount's advertising strategy, because if it helps get the masses out to the movie, all the better.

Besides, the campaign as a whole has been nothing short of masterful, IMO.

 

[God Magnus]

I haven't been getting the "normal" vs. "abnormal" vibe. The feeling I'm getting from the ad campaign is more like "Don't worry if you haven't followed this thing for 40 years, you'll still get this." Nowhere have I seen Paramount demonstrate "hate" for hardcore or old skool fans.

That said, there is a stigma attached to being a Trek fan. Somehow, we're pegged as the "ultimate nerds" but the fact is, every fandom has its extremists who wind up outshining the majority who are just every day people who happen to enjoy something different than most.

In order for ST to do well, it has to appeal to both hardcore and casual fans, and I think that's what the marketing campaign is going for.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I haven't been getting the "normal" vs. "abnormal" vibe. The feeling I'm getting from the ad campaign is more like "Don't worry if you haven't followed this thing for 40 years, you'll still get this." Nowhere have I seen Paramount demonstrate "hate" for hardcore or old skool fans.

Quoted and Boldened For Truth !

 

[section9]

I'm not. It's a very sensible tack for the marketing people to take and I hope that it pays off...because if "normal" people - that is, people who've never been interested in Trek - don't get interested in this movie then Star Trek is finished and all the fannish money you and I have thrown at it or are willing to throw at it will not make any difference in that regard. We, alone, don't account for enough income.

But Paramount is still falsly under the impression that Nemesis Bombed because "Normal" Mainstream viewers did not go. No Nemsis Bombed because it was up against Lord of the Rings and it sucked. I agree that going in the direction that they did was needed, I still think they could have done it while maintaining the past details Fan know and new viewers would not get or care about.

Nemesis bombed because Nemesis sucked the Blue Penis of Dr. Manhattan.

Dune Buggies in the 24th Century?

Two words: "Jesus wept."

Even in the Happy, Postmodernist and exceedingly BOOOOOOORRRRRRRINNNNNNGGGGG 24th Century, .....in Space, No One Can Hear Jesus Weep at Bad Writing and Cheesy, made for TV Effects.

And a Holidy-Inn Red Velvet Room band for Riker and Troi's wedding? Jesus, wasn't the Free Credit Report.com band available?

ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!

 

[seigezunt]

I haven't been getting the "normal" vs. "abnormal" vibe. The feeling I'm getting from the ad campaign is more like "Don't worry if you haven't followed this thing for 40 years, you'll still get this." Nowhere have I seen Paramount demonstrate "hate" for hardcore or old skool fans.

Quoted and Boldened For Truth !

QFT-squared.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I haven't been getting the "normal" vs. "abnormal" vibe. The feeling I'm getting from the ad campaign is more like "Don't worry if you haven't followed this thing for 40 years, you'll still get this." Nowhere have I seen Paramount demonstrate "hate" for hardcore or old skool fans.

That said, there is a stigma attached to being a Trek fan. Somehow, we're pegged as the "ultimate nerds" but the fact is, every fandom has its extremists who wind up outshining the majority who are just every day people who happen to enjoy something different than most.

In order for ST to do well, it has to appeal to both hardcore and casual fans, and I think that's what the marketing campaign is going for.

I Think "This isn't Your Father's Star Trek"

And "Finally a Star Trek for everyone"

pretty much qualifies.

 

[God Magnus]

I Think "This isn't Your Father's Star Trek"

And "Finally a Star Trek for everyone"

pretty much qualifies.

Qualifies as...?

I've seen both terms mentioned, and neither one indicates "hate" for old skool/long time fans.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I Think "This isn't Your Father's Star Trek"

And "Finally a Star Trek for everyone"

pretty much qualifies.

Qualifies as...?

I've seen both terms mentioned, and neither one indicates "hate" for old skool/long time fans.

Complete the sentence.. Not You Father's Trek...which was silly and stupid...

And Finally a Star Trek for everyone...not just nerds....

 

[God Magnus]

Complete the sentence.. Not You Father's Trek...which was silly and stupid...

And Finally a Star Trek for everyone...not just nerds....

To use your method, my interpretation of those tag lines has been:

Not your father's Star Trek...so you don't need to go back and watch hundreds of hours of DVDs to understand it.

Finally a Star Trek for everyone...including older fans who ran away after the last few years of not-so-awesome Trek entertainment.

I think we imprint our own biases onto any ad campaign or media exposure. I just did it above, but I tend to read positive intent (which makes sense when marketing and a studio wants maximum people buying tickets and merchandise). If you choose to read negative, that's your prerogative of course. I merely seek to offer an alternative interpretation.

 

[Michael Chris]

Complete the sentence.. Not You Father's Trek...which was silly and stupid...

And Finally a Star Trek for everyone...not just nerds....

Which is the feeling of the mainstream audience that they are trying to reach. They are trying to counter that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Complete the sentence.. Not You Father's Trek...which was silly and stupid...

And Finally a Star Trek for everyone...not just nerds....

Your sentence-completion exercise is personal and idiosyncratic.

For instance, to the extent that "Finally a Star Trek for everyone" means anything it simply means "Hey, you! If you haven't been interested in Star Trek before, pay attention here! Buy a ticket!"

 

[archeryguy1701]

For who knows how long, Star Trek was a very much niche market. Only certain groups of people would go to Trek movies. Now that Paramount has thrown $150million at this project, they can't afford to hope that Trekkies will carry the movie.

I know I've mentioned this before, but I feel it's worth beating this dead horse again. Nemesis was written by a huge Trekkie for Trekkies. Enterprise was a show meant to give Trekkies more backgrounds and an origins story of sorts for their favorite universe. Two shows, both directed at Trekkies, both failing. I think we've proven that we can't be relied on to carry a movie or TV show. Paramount won't throw $150million at this project, and then have the movie and all the advertising directed at Trekkies. They're trying their damnedest to make Star Trek profitable and viable again, and that means they need a new audience in.

So, am I bothered? No. Just because the advertising isn't directed at me doesn't mean that it's bad advertising. Hell, the ads have been getting me more and more excited. I think this is just another case of people looking for something to be upset over.