StarDestroyer.Net BBS

. And what killed TMP was not its trailer but it's agonisingly slow pace and the negative buzz that developed.

The TMP trailer was basically a montage of faces from the movie with a voiceover saying "look, it's those TOS guys! Go see this movie!", followed by... quick clips of the three action scenes in the movie. Fire torpedoes! Red alert klaxons! People running and shouting!

Just like, I dunno, the new Trek trailer perhaps? Could it be that this setup has worked for trailers for quite some time? Could it be that an exhilarating, attention-grabbing trailer, even if it belies the actual movie, is a sound marketing technique?

Bounty wrote:Could it be that an exhilarating, attention-grabbing trailer, even if it belies the actual movie, is a sound marketing technique?

The Corruptor is the best example of that. Slow paced drama turned into a buddy cop action movie.

Bounty wrote:

. And what killed TMP was not its trailer but it's agonisingly slow pace and the negative buzz that developed.

The TMP trailer was basically a montage of faces from the movie with a voiceover saying "look, it's those TOS guys! Go see this movie!", followed by... quick clips of the three action scenes in the movie. Fire torpedoes! Red alert klaxons! People running and shouting!

Just like, I dunno, the new Trek trailer perhaps? Could it be that this setup has worked for trailers for quite some time? Could it be that an exhilarating, attention-grabbing trailer, even if it belies the actual movie, is a sound marketing technique?

And the fact that this approach has failed —on a measurable curve— for the last three films says nothing to you?

Besides, who do you think you're kidding trying to parallel the far more coherent TMP trailer to that ADD-oriented trailer for this upcoming movie?

Is the new Trek trailer officially available online?

Enigma wrote:Is the new Trek trailer officially available online?

Monday for the official release. 'til then, it's bootlegs.

And the fact that this approach has failed —on a measurable curve— for the last three films says nothing to you?

Because of the trailer, or because the franchise was in freefall from FC onwards?

Besides, who do you think you're kidding trying to parallel the far more coherent TMP trailer to that ADD-oriented trailer for this upcoming movie?

The only difference is that they're thirty years apart and audiences have gotten used to quicker editing (something which, for the record, I don't think is a good evolution at all). The content however, the focus on action scenes, and the editing to emphasise spectacle and excitement are the same.

And the fact that this approach has failed —on a measurable curve— for the last three films says nothing to you?

But has worked for hundreds of other films...

Trailers get people wanting to see it, but if reviews of the final product are crap people won't go see it regardless of the trailer.

That said a bad trailer on a good film makes for a sleeper hit. Trouble is blockbusters can't afford to be sleeper hits.

Oh and I liked the trailer, it made me want to see the film. I'm not really a fan of Star Trek, I stopped watching it when I was a kid so i'm not emotionally invested or anything and all these faults people are pointing out seem a little odd to me. The Star Trek was an action adventure show at heart, why pretend this film needs to be anything different?

So it's a team of wacky misfits on the Federation's biggest, baddest starships?

I imagine/hope subsequent trailers will maybe elaborate more on the story itself.

Zac Naloen wrote:The Star Trek was an action adventure show at heart, why pretend this film needs to be anything different?

I'd dispute the use of the word action in there. Some of Trek's best offerings didn't have much action at all.

The first teaser, I had some hope for this. It captured the right feel for me. Now, not so much. This looks like they threw Top Gun, Star Wars, and 90210 into a blender and used Star Trek names to fill in the blanks on their madlibs plot.

Saw it last night. It's certainly better on the big screen than the bootleg. The effects look pretty. Star Trek has been due for at least, an aesthetic make-over since it maintained the TNG-era look for far too long. I still maintain the same reservations about the film though. At the very least though, it made Star Trek seem fun for the first time in quite awhile.

One way or another, we'll find out in May.

Personally, I wasn't going to see it until I saw this trailer.

'Course, I sometimes watch movies just for the cinematography, and to be perfectly honest, it was the cinematography that drew me in here.

Oh, by the way, Patrick? With all due respect, fuck off.

Don't think that you can insinuate that the trailer is ADD-oriented (and that's somehow a bad thing) without somebody who actually has ADHD reading it.

Manus Celer Dei wrote:What? That's not a shuttlebay. You've got a screencap from Battlestar Galactica mixed up in there somehow. It's the Galactica's Viper bay.

Nope. Watch the trailer. It's in there. Besides, those shuttles look nothing like Galactica's shuttles.

FSTargetDrone wrote:

Manus Celer Dei wrote:What? That's not a shuttlebay. You've got a screencap from Battlestar Galactica mixed up in there somehow. It's the Galactica's Viper bay.

Nope. Watch the trailer. It's in there. Besides, those shuttles look nothing like Galactica's shuttles.

I think he was being ironic. The bay might be part of that starbase or something, through the shape of it... that thing might just fit in the bigger ass of the new Enterprise.

Bounty wrote:I think he was being ironic. The bay might be part of that starbase or something, through the shape of it... that thing might just fit in the bigger ass of the new Enterprise.

Hehe, ok.

Ryan Thunder wrote:Personally, I wasn't going to see it until I saw this trailer.

'Course, I sometimes watch movies just for the cinematography, and to be perfectly honest, it was the cinematography that drew me in here.

Oh, by the way, Patrick? With all due respect, fuck off.

Don't think that you can insinuate that the trailer is ADD-oriented (and that's somehow a bad thing) without somebody who actually has ADHD reading it.

Well, if all that appeals to you is lots of flashy explosions, knock yourself out.

Bounty wrote:

Besides, who do you think you're kidding trying to parallel the far more coherent TMP trailer to that ADD-oriented trailer for this upcoming movie?

The only difference is that they're thirty years apart and audiences have gotten used to quicker editing (something which, for the record, I don't think is a good evolution at all). The content however, the focus on action scenes, and the editing to emphasise spectacle and excitement are the same.

The thing of it is, it's still possible to offer something a lot more coherent to a contemporary movie audience both for a trailer and a feature film. This thing coming up appears to have all the earmarks of a movie whipped up by committee and following a set of marketing points. Same approach which has been failing consistently for the last several years which is why the Franchise is in freefall.

Patrick Degan wrote:Well, if all that appeals to you is lots of flashy explosions, knock yourself out.

Hey, there's more to a movie than just flashy explosions (they aren't bad, though.) Give me well-done cinematography, and I'll probably watch it. That means good use of dramatic camera shots, such as the rotate-around shot we see of Spock getting transported. That's something I don't think we've ever seen from Star Trek before.

Of course, I'll have to see the whole movie to judge effectively, but even if the plot turns out to be a reeking pile of horseshit, well, the movie's still salvageable for me.

The HD version is out. Only on Apple for the moment, which sucks since the Apple site and Ubuntu don't play nice.

Same approach which has been failing consistently for the last several years which is why the Franchise is in freefall.

An approach which hasn't been apparent from anything but the trailer, a trailer that's cut to do what a trailer is supposed to do: be eye-catching. I don't see what your hang-up is here, other than being upset the movie isn't how you would have done it.

This thing coming up appears to have all the earmarks of a movie whipped up by committee and following a set of marketing points.

I remember watching Babylon 5 on DVD. Than taking a look at the ads at the end. Those things always look like they were designed by a committee for people with ADD.

Of course, if you want a less maniac trailer, I think they have that out as well.

The bay might be part of that starbase or something, through the shape of it... that thing might just fit in the bigger ass of the new Enterprise.

Its on Earth, note the sunlight coming in from all the windows.

I've seen the trailer an me like. Me like it very mooch.

The HD trailer is just beautiful... can't wait to see some screencaps of everything that's going on it in all their HD glory.

Jon wrote:The HD trailer is just beautiful... can't wait to see some screencaps of everything that's going on it in all their HD glory.

I didn't see the new trailer in HD on Apple's website. Trailer 1 in HD is the trailer for Clovershit and Trailer 2 in HD is the first Trek trailer.

Edit: Can anyone else confirm that this is happening?

Some interesting things that weren't very visible in the SD version:

Kirk's license plate

Weird buildings in the Iowa skyline

Enterprise under construction

From the descriptions, this might be Nero's ship

And what looks like Klingon prison guards man-handling Nero.

There are a few good up-close shots of the Kelvin too, but AviDemux running on my junker of a laptop has trouble moving frame-by-frame

Bounty wrote:
Enterprise under construction

Love it...