Yeah the whole arc of her character ends with her finding a new "family" on the Enterprise. It kind of sucks that she isn't in this one.
The First Trailer
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
Yeah the whole arc of her character ends with her finding a new "family" on the Enterprise. It kind of sucks that she isn't in this one.
That has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that OldTrek was seen, in the 90s and early 2000s, as a geek thing and didn't have the mass appeal that the new movies have. It doesn't matter if you love them or hate them. It's a fact.
Until then, above 11.400.000 views on youtube. 50.500 likes and 20.800 dislikes.
I will agree with that. This trailer feels a bit rushed to make the December deadline that the studio no doubt set. Though, it is an action trailer set up before an action film, so that's not unreasonable.
However, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the trailer or that I will hold the trailers failings against the final product, since directors and producers (and especially writers) often have little say in a trailer's production.
TFA premier date has been known for ages, why would they suddenly decide to rush it?
Any number of reasons really. Pick one.
For instance, the fact that it's only been about six/seven weeks since shooting wrapped would have given them little time to get a trailer together before December regardless of whether or not they knew the date. Especially if they were wanting an action-heavy trailer, since that would require at least some of the CGI to be finished beforehand.
I know, that's like less than 1%* of the trailer's total views. Yuuuuuuge! [/trump]
*to clarify, it's .18%!
The pressure is on the studio for the next trailer to be a lot better.
The massive increase in the overseas gross for Into Darkness was almost entirely down to China, and I assume the fact that it got a Chinese distributor that was actually able to put the film on show, as opposed to Star Trek 2009 which looks like it only got a very limited release with an $8.5m gross.
Paramount can throw all the money it likes at these Abramsverse Trek films, but the fact is, the first two films' return on investment hasn't increased to any noticeable degree on what the TOS and TNG movies were achieving up until Insurrection and Nemesis ie global box office was roughly 2.5 times budget. Personally, I see no point in Paramount pissing off large swathes of the fanbase with Abramsverse movies when the films are no more financially successful. Paramount may have achieved the holy grail of getting non Trek fans to watch NuTrek movies, but that's an irrelevence if it's not making you more money.
Last edited:
On youtube? that's barely a hiccup.
No relevance whatsoever. Did I say that as many people had watched Pegg's opinion of the trailer on youtube as the trailer itself?
There are loads of movie and sci-fi sites carrying stills and a synopsis of Pegg's comments. People don't have to watch the video on youtube. Youtube isn't the only video site on the internet.
There are also a ton of websites that have carried the trailer. So what's your point?
Pegg disappoints me, honestly. He went on a tirade about how this stuff isn't that important then turns around and feeds the fans that take this stuff way too seriously.
How large are those "swathes*," in actuality, and would you be able describe them using accurate and verifiable numbers?
Please place that figure in comparison to total numbers of Trek fans ("Trek fanbase" being at very best a nebulous kind of thing to attempt to quantify - "core Trek fanbase," doubly so) or to total audience for the movies, or to any figure at all which clearly demonstrates that said "swathes" amount to more than a noisily disgruntled fraction of a fraction of one percent of the people who will watch?
If you are unable to provide any suitably accurate figure in support of your "pissed-off swathes" argument, perhaps I could invite you to hop down off your soapbox and join the rest of us fans for conversation which is a wee bit more relaxed and civil. After all, one can only shout the same few slogans a finite number of times before it becomes meaningless noise for everyone else.
* I think "swaths" was the word you really wanted here, but giving it the benefit of the doubt.
No relevance whatsoever. Did I say that as many people had watched Pegg's opinion of the trailer on youtube as the trailer itself?
There are loads of movie and sci-fi sites carrying stills and a synopsis of Pegg's comments. People don't have to watch the video on youtube. Youtube isn't the only video site on the internet.
It has all the relevance in the world, given your position.
If the argument is so many more people watch the trailer than have listened to what Pegg said, and it's likely that a huge chunk of the people who heard what Pegg said are "Trekkies," then it seems to me he played it smart.
I didn't like the trailer. I found it boring. I realize it's just a teaser, but I didn't feel teased. I know I'm in the minority, and I know lots of you love the trailer, and that's cool. I'm glad, genuinely.
But Pegg's comments made me personally more interested in watching the film. His comments made me feel as though he gets why some of us didn't really care for the this trailer because his reasons seem to reflect my own. And what he describes is more of what I hope to see when the film comes out. And since he was a key part of this film behind the scenes, that's reassuring to me.
A lot of the action in the last part of STID was equally boring and fell flat to me. I know most of you won't understand that, and I can't really explain it myself, it's just...I guess you can't control your emotional reaction to art, and movies are no different. But the reason I say that is because I saw STID, and then this trailer seemed to scream "you think we were heavy-handed with action in STID?...just wait!" So from my perspective, that's the opposite of motivating. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else, but...there you go.
Similar threads
