• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Whatever happened to "behind the scenes" pre-release info?

Ian Keldon

Fleet Captain
Back in the heyday of Trek, for example, we'd have plentiful access to concept art, production sketches, etc well before a new project came out, or certainly afterwards.

These days it seems like it's easier to find chicken teeth than detailed production materials for sf/fantasy/superhero films and programs, and not just Trek related ones.

I've been going nuts trying to get more info on the helicarrier for the new Avengers movie, for example, but can't find more than a couple of screencaps from the Japanese trailer and some pics of the Hasbro toy.

I've also been beating myself bloody trying to find detailed costuming images from Thor.

Why have the studios stopped giving us access to the production materials? Fans have always liked and been allowed to examine them, and granting access to them generated good-will towards the producers.
 
Yeah like everyone looooved that Wonder Woman costume? ;)

If they're skittish, can't say I blame them. Who needs the aggro?
 
Being responsive to fan input generates good-will. Pre-release disclosure of such things means they have time to correct anything (such as said WW costume) that fans respond poorly to.

The end result is a better movie when fan input is solicited and respected.
 
Yeah like everyone looooved that Wonder Woman costume? ;)

If they're skittish, can't say I blame them. Who needs the aggro?

I have to agree 100%. There have been so many cases of films and TV shows being deep-sixed in the realm of public opinion that most producers just gave up doing that.

For example, Star Trek Nemesis was killed the moment an early draft of the script leaked and the fanbase turned against it. The Wonder Woman example Temis gives is a classic example (even moreso than the later leaked clip of WW killing the guy with a pipe to the neck). More recently there's been an article on one of the major blogs blaming a lame teaser from a year ago for killing John Carter's chances for success.

But beyond that there is a real concern over spoilers. Moviemakers are wanting to keep their secrets close to their chest. They don't want whole plotlines given away. Plus it's so easy now for rip-offs to occur. For example, that helicarrier from The Avengers that the OP mentions: if they put out detailed images of it now, within a couple weeks Asian store shelves (and probably quite a few North American ones as well) will be flooded with knock-offs, thereby screwing up any merchandising deal the studio might have.

And it's not as if the studios aren't allowing us advance looks. A year or two before Tron Legacy came out they played a trailer at a ComicCon. Footage from Avatar was making the rounds ages before the film arrived. And we're already seeing behind-the-scenes images from the next Trek film turn up, not to mention a whack of images taken from production of The Hobbit. Speaking of Peter Jackson - he's also the guy who issued an entire DVD's worth of behind-the-scenes videos from the making of King Kong months (or was it a year) before the movie was even released.

As far as this material after the release, it depends what you're looking for. Making-of featurettes are common issue with DVD and Blu-ray releases, and they still insist on including production art galleries on many of them (even though that's useless - a PDF file for downloading to computer works better than trying to examine a drawing on a TV screen that can't be enlarged). There are still "Art of..." books being published - I saw one for Green Lantern for sale the other day. But if there isn't one for Thor (per the OP's comment), it's not a case of generating goodwill, it's the fact the studio has perceived there simply aren't enough consumers who care to make publishing such information (online or in print) worth the effort. Or they may be prevented from doing so by licenses - yesterday my local comic shop brought in a huge Sideshow Collectables life-size bust of Thor. For all we know Marvel might have an exclusivity clause of some sort preventing any detailed drawings of Thor's movie costume from being released because companies like Sideshow want to use them for their releases. I'm just guessing, but it makes sense.

Alex
 
Being responsive to fan input generates good-will. Pre-release disclosure of such things means they have time to correct anything (such as said WW costume) that fans respond poorly to.

The end result is a better movie when fan input is solicited and respected.
By the time marketing is to a point where they can release things to the public (for example, the Superman behind the scenes videos Singer did for Superman Returns) things are WAY too far along to change. For example, with the Wonder Woman example, if it were for a movie, by the time we saw the costume that costume is already in prototypes for toys, being put on collector's glasses for McDonalds, being used to mock up posters, being built into computer models for FX shots, etc. These kinds of movies are a freight train and by the timethey would letyou see things, even a year out, it's FAR too late to make anything but very minor adjustments and changes.
 
By the time marketing is to a point where they can release things to the public (for example, the Superman behind the scenes videos Singer did for Superman Returns) things are WAY too far along to change.


That, and the fact that there's no evidence at all that paying attention to fan criticisms improves a movie in any way.
 
For example, Star Trek Nemesis was killed the moment an early draft of the script leaked and the fanbase turned against it.

This is a myth, which is unsupported by actual data, and which was also recently dispelled elsewhere on the BBS. Nemesis had its chance.

Exactly so.

The Trek "fanbase" couldn't kill a movie if they tried.

You never know until you try. The Trekkie fanbase saved a show once called Star Trek from cancellation by the same greedy corperate suits.
 
Ah, Mister Gene's Bedtime Stories. I like the one about the Evil Executives who hated Number One.
 
This is a myth, which is unsupported by actual data, and which was also recently dispelled elsewhere on the BBS. Nemesis had its chance.

Exactly so.

The Trek "fanbase" couldn't kill a movie if they tried.

You never know until you try. The Trekkie fanbase saved a show once called Star Trek from cancellation by the same greedy corperate suits.

And New Line listened to the Internet and made several changes to the movie that eventually became "Snakes on a Plane." It didn't help that movie a hell of a whole lot either.
 
You never know until you try. The Trekkie fanbase saved a show once called Star Trek from cancellation by the same greedy corperate suits.
Isn't that a myth? I thought the reason Star Trek got a third season was because the company that owned NBC back then pretty ordered them to renew the series because the same company also sold color TVs and Star Trek was apparently a big reason people bought color TVs.

A fan campaign saving a show doesn't even make sense if you think about it. NBC knew the numbers of people watching the show and they were too low, why would people already watching the show telling them they'll keep watching impress them? It's not like they couldn't figure that out on their own.
 
A fan campaign did net Jericho a second season, so I suppose there is some precedent in that.
 
By the time marketing is to a point where they can release things to the public (for example, the Superman behind the scenes videos Singer did for Superman Returns) things are WAY too far along to change.


That, and the fact that there's no evidence at all that paying attention to fan criticisms improves a movie in any way.

Yes there is. The fan outrage over the JJ Abrams' Superman script.
 
I'm all in favor of him coming out with it anyway. Just like Braga was all in favor of keeping his mouth closed about Nemesis before it came out.
 
By the time marketing is to a point where they can release things to the public (for example, the Superman behind the scenes videos Singer did for Superman Returns) things are WAY too far along to change.


That, and the fact that there's no evidence at all that paying attention to fan criticisms improves a movie in any way.

Yes there is. The fan outrage over the JJ Abrams' Superman script.

And so we got Superman Returns instead. And then the fans were happy, right?

For all we know, the Abrams version could have been a big hit.
 
By the time marketing is to a point where they can release things to the public (for example, the Superman behind the scenes videos Singer did for Superman Returns) things are WAY too far along to change.


That, and the fact that there's no evidence at all that paying attention to fan criticisms improves a movie in any way.

Yes there is. The fan outrage over the JJ Abrams' Superman script.

Wrong.

Fans were upset.

Do we have a "yawn" smilie?

Superman went through so many weird iterations in development before Warners emitted Superman Returns that there's nothing remarkable one way or or the other about how odd Abrams's take on the character was or the fact that it - like half a dozen others - didn't get made.
 
Say what you will about SR, but at least Krypton blew up, there was no space kung fu and Lex wasn't an alien.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top