Star Trek Beyond - Part 1

[Kyle]

It cost little to nothing to put something on the internet. Video packages playing up the nostalgia while linking it to the new movie.

You're forgetting the costs of man hours. You're forgetting the costs of buying out domain names. You're forgetting the costs about getting sites to post articles about it. Do you think comingsoon.net and ign and everywhere else just always post whatever they want? A lot of that is paid for. And that is only skimming the surface. Basically there are costs in there you're forgetting.

Of course using your logic here again, why does anyone ever spend money on advertising months out?

As said it highly depends on what you are marketing and what your chances are in earnings.

If you have an established brand name and the shot of earning a lot more and have something really strong, you market the hell out of it because in the end it will pay off.

If you have an established brand name but the product isn't up to par with the past two and you will likely earn less as a result of that already, you blitz it closer to release so that you don't spend as much and have less you need to recoup.

If you have a brand new property - say Deadpool for example - marketing is essential because no one is familiar with your product at all.

Bottom line is, what goes for one never goes for all. That is why each film's marketing is approached differently.

ALSO - quality of 'Skyfall' and 'Beyond' will be radically different. 'Skyfall' is regarded as one of the best Bond films ever, whereas 'Beyond' I'm seeing the consensus as it being enjoyable and fun but nowhere as good as the last two; so the studio knew they were going to recoup advertising costs very, very easily with 'Skyfall' whereas with 'Beyond' that is significantly more questionable. How you market and how much you market depends entirely on what the actual product is. It's like spending the same amount marketing a slinky as you are a brand new action packed Captain America toy with fighting grip - what goes for one, could damage the other.

Keep in mind, I keep saying I doubt it will be as good as the last two - so those saying they're covering something up, I actually align with them. Just, I'm also excited and hoping that I don't see a lot because that is exceedingly rare. With that said, I see it being hopefully high 60s, low 70s on rotten tomatoes (Into Darkness was 82, Star Trek and Skyfall were 92).

 

[I Am The Knight]

Is this a joke? Star Wars isn't Star Trek.

I don't know the film's quality but one thing is for sure, the studio doesn't have faith in it.

Kyle's post was probably the (unintentional) funniest post I have read in a while.

 

[Kyle]

Kyle's post was probably the (unintentional) funniest post I have read in a while.

The funniest thing to me is people with atrocious reading comprehension who add statements in that were never said.

The teaser trailer has been playing and building up interest in those who liked the last ones to at least know that it's coming out. I believe it's better to hardly know anything about the plot so that most of it is new - the last film to do that was Star Wars, despite different circumstances I liked that I basically knew nothing and would be more than happy with that being the case here. The past Star Trek films have built up enough of a following that you are looking at the box office coming in around the same range; this film will most likely domestically do 200,000,000 or close with a long or short build up to it. It's the third film. The second isn't as highly regarded which will take money away and this won't be as highly regarded as the second which will take more money away. The possibility of it being as good as the last two is very, very slim. Spending a lot more to push the marketing is over doing it because of that, I don't see how they can easily recoup that money with what they have on their hands. Which isn't to say it's horrible, but the general consensus will be "fun, but not as good as the last two." Those saying do more, have a Skyfall campaign - to me that's a joke because you don't spend the same amount of money marketing an average product as you do a phenomenal product that you know is going to deliver and earn a lot of money: spending the same amount of marketing money on a "fun, but not as good as the last two Star Trek" film as you would "one of the best Bond movies ever made." Yes, quality of the product does mean a lot. It's like spending the same amount to market a slinky as you would a state of the art Captain America toy - one is at a lot more risk of losing money than the other because of that. So do I think they should go all out? Hell, no. They're looking at already a decrease in earnings for a product that will be viewed as not up to par with previous installments. It will do "well" with those who really liked the past two, but because of the product and it clearly looking like a step down already - I don't see it reaching beyond that. To me, doing a whole lot more would just make it a whole lot harder to recoup on it - they're selling a mini van, not an Aston Martin. Some films you blitz on so you spend less early on, having a known name brand helps these kinds of campaigns. Other movies either haven't built up a brand name or are a lot safer to go full out with. Here, as said, a lot more outside of a blitz campaign I see as being a big risk because it's already a product basically guaranteed to make less because they (the studio) aimed much lower.

 

[Supernova]

This has been so under the radar since the first trailer that I forgot it was coming out in july.

 

[Broseph44]

Hey Kyle, break things up into paragraphs. It's annoying to read your entire novel of a post.

 

[I Am The Knight]

 

[Inhuman117]

2 weeks til the New Trailer i don't want wait anymore

 

[Warhammer]

This trailer better be amazing because I've lost interest in this film. Crappy as hell teaser trailer + not an ounce of marketing so far = disinterest. I mean, I'll still see it but I have zero anticipation for it. And I like Star Trek and tentpole science fiction films.

 

[Mysteryman]

So, is there going to a STB Movie Magazine?
I cannot find any info about one.

 

[TheVileOne]

You're forgetting the costs of man hours. You're forgetting the costs of buying out domain names. You're forgetting the costs about getting sites to post articles about it. Do you think comingsoon.net and ign and everywhere else just always post whatever they want? A lot of that is paid for. And that is only skimming the surface. Basically there are costs in there you're forgetting.

The cost of that is literally zero. Not sure what you think you know. But websites and media outlet report on new stuff when it gets released. Or, studios and companies invite them to events to check out new material. This isn't paying $2.5 million for a Super Bowl TV spot.

Kyle, you are splitting hairs here.

If you have a brand new property - say Deadpool for example - marketing is essential because no one is familiar with your product at all.

Bottom line is, what goes for one never goes for all. That is why each film's marketing is approached differently.

Your argument makes no sense considering all the bells and whistles that Star Trek Into Darkness received. Not to mention the film getting an extended IMAX preview with The Hobbit.

ALSO - quality of 'Skyfall' and 'Beyond' will be radically different. 'Skyfall' is regarded as one of the best Bond films ever, whereas 'Beyond' I'm seeing the consensus as it being enjoyable and fun but nowhere as good as the last two; so the studio knew they were going to recoup advertising costs very, very easily with 'Skyfall' whereas with 'Beyond' that is significantly more questionable. How you market and how much you market depends entirely on what the actual product is. It's like spending the same amount marketing a slinky as you are a brand new action packed Captain America toy with fighting grip - what goes for one, could damage the other.

So basically, you are saying that Paramount doesn't have faith in Star Trek Beyond so they are spending less in marketing costs on it because it's been testing poorly with the focus groups watching the rough cuts of the film?

 

[Rowsdower!]

The way Paramount is handling this movie, it's almost like they're saying, "WELP, Star Wars is back now, so we're throwing in the towel."

 

[Kyle]

Some of the stuff is free, yeah - while other stuff is paid for. How that is all divided specifically, I don't know. But, some of it is paid for and targeted specifically: "let's place an ad or spot in so and so magazine or trade." How each site and trade works, I don't know all I know is some of it is paid for. Outside of print, but the number of trailers and TV spots is all financial as well. I am guessing you pay more for two trailers than you do for one since trailer companies won't make a trailer for a production company for absolutely free, then they'd be out of business. Nothing as large as a Superbowl TV Spot, but yet again nothing really is. It's still money that accumulates over time - some films go all out, others really can't. I'd say this one shouldn't which is probably why they aren't.

Star Trek Into Darkness while controversial, somewhat, among larger fan circles was still a quality film. Not as good as the first, but still quality. With the hype built up from the first, you'd naturally assume it would be a good and safe investment to continue spending on it. Especially internationally. Also Into Darkness would go into the first category I listed, not the Deadpool one: "If you have an established brand name and the shot of earning a lot more and have something really strong, you market the hell out of it because in the end it will pay off." I would say 'Into Darkness' fits into that category, domestically it didn't pay off but worldwide it did.

Exactly, there isn't a large amount of faith in it. But, didn't we know that from the start? JJ left, anyone of equal caliber wouldn't jump at the chance to continue something that someone else started - they'd want more creative control over it. So they took a step down which, as said, will result in a smaller box office so not going overboard with it isn't surprising at all to me. They're aiming to maximize their profits by starting the marketing late so that what marketing they have is fresh without spending money on the build-up since spending more money will make it harder to earn a good profit. Poorly is a stretch - as said 72%, hopefully but not seeing it much higher.

Will it bomb? Highly doubt it unless it's flat out terrible because they've built up a viewership. Will it do mediocre and less than the last two? I'd place money on it. So, I can understand why they're not doing more - maximizing profit relying more on brand name and the built up audience from the previous films. I don't see any more going really outside of those that showed up to the last two and I do expect a noticeable dip due to quality. And as said, as a viewer I'm happy with them not showing a lot because it's rare that films don't show a lot - so for me, at least what is there will be a surprise.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The way Paramount is handling this movie, it's almost like they're saying, "WELP, Star Wars is back now, so we're throwing in the towel."

 

[Octoberist]

Wait was there test screening for the film already?

 

[Kyle]

Wait was there test screening for the film already?

Probably. Among executives, their families and such. But not what you think of in terms of "testing" classically.

 

[Octoberist]

So you're just guessing?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So you're just guessing?

You are just catching on there Octoberist.

 

[Kyle]

So you're just guessing?

No. Having work experience in the industry and knowing it's only a couple of months away I can say with certainty that the executives have at the very least seen a rough cut of it (cut together, temp music, unfinished effects - which is because work often goes to the very last minute). Audience screenings doubt it. Executive screenings, if not I would be highly surprised since the audience or at least office screening would be pretty soon by now. Basically have the higher ups seen it? I'd be seriously worried if they haven't. By office - typically production companies have screenings with interns, assistants, etc. prior to wide audience ones. If exec screenings haven't happened we'd be in a heap of trouble because those are the first notes that come in to shape a final film, pacing, and everything.

Basically executive and higher up screenings are what tell them if they need reshoots. So, those taking place? It'd be a slim chance that they haven't by now.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I heard that the studios gave it a standing ovation. Always a good sign.

 

[Marvolo]

Some said that some people gave BvS a standing ovation at the ealy screenings.

We saw how that turned out.

 

[I Am The Knight]

WB people always give standing ovations to their comic book movies.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Some said that some people gave BvS a standing ovation at the ealy screenings.

We saw how that turned out.

I think that was Tacit Ronin's joke. Not one bad movie that didn't get a Standing Ovation.

 

[titansupes]

 

[TheVileOne]

Hardly impossible there have been focus test screenings for the film.

 

[Marvolo]

Star Trek Beyond Official Trailer 2

[YT]XBIH02zQp5I[/YT]



Beam me up, Scotty!