Star Trek Into Darkness

Status
Not open for further replies.
I want Cumberbatch's voice to be Bane'd the **** up. I want no one but me to be able to make out what the **** he's saying. NO ONE! :cmad:
 
We'll probably get a Super Bowl spot next month followed by a full trailer in February or maybe March with GI Joe.
 
interesting that they wouldnt realese a normal 2 minute trailer in december. is hollywood chaning?
 
I'd love to see Abrams actually show how Klingons went from regular looking people to having ridges.

Yeah, it would take away the mystique, but you guys know full well how I feel about that. :p
 
The marketing for the film has been pretty lame especially coming from a 4 year gap between the 1st film and it's sequel.

The film better be pretty good at least enough to sell its self.
 
Bruce Malone said:
The marketing for the film has been pretty lame especially coming from a 4 year gap between the 1st film and it's sequel.

The film better be pretty good at least enough to sell its self.
Click to expand...

Star Trek 09 also had poor marketing, the only thing that helped the film was the second trailer and the very positive early reviews. It's like if JJ doesn't want anyone to watch his films, he's so secretive.

Most big blockbuster have a teaser a year before release, as well as a teaser poster, including some behind the scenes/magazine interviews e.g TDKR, the Hobbit.

I remember last summer when TDKR was filming during the day, in public, Nolan and his crew didn't care, but JJ? He put shipping containers around the set...
 
Bruce Malone said:
The marketing for the film has been pretty lame especially coming from a 4 year gap between the 1st film and it's sequel.

The film better be pretty good at least enough to sell its self.
Click to expand...
The marketing hasn't really started yet, give it time. It's going to release that footage with The Hobbit and I think a trailer as well. That's a good start before 2013.
 
ThePowerCosmic said:
The marketing hasn't really started yet, give it time. It's going to release that footage with The Hobbit and I think a trailer as well. That's a good start before 2013.
Click to expand...

Yeah and the trailer is confirmed at 1:03. That's ridiculously short for a trailer 6 months out when you consider absolutely no marketing material has been released. Most films have a teaser and a poster at this point. Its also ridiculous considering when they announced the trailer they said it was a full trailer. And add on the fact that it has been 4 years since the first one. Time for JJ to come back to earth and show us what he has been up to.
 
Marvolo said:
Yeah and the trailer is confirmed at 1:03. That's ridiculously short for a trailer 6 months out when you consider absolutely no marketing material has been released. Most films have a teaser and a poster at this point. Sits also ridiculous considering when they announced the trailer they said it was a full trailer. Time for JJ to come back to earth and show us what he has been up to.
Click to expand...

Most of the films for 2013 don't have a trailer yet, and ST will possibly get a poster when the trailer releases. ST will have released 7(or 8?) minutes of footage, which will be more than a lot of the 2013 films have done so far.
 
ThePowerCosmic said:
Most of the films for 2013 don't have a trailer yet, and ST will possibly get a poster when the trailer releases. ST will have released 7(or 8?) minutes of footage, which will be more than a lot of the 2013 films have done so far.
Click to expand...

In IMAX which many dont have access to or cant afford or wont afford. Films ao far that have done IMAX previews start their marketing a year out. Yeah most films in 2013 havent started marketing yet, but Abrams needs to capitalize on the lack of marketing from the other films and start selling this film. The time for tiptoeing and pussyfooting around is over.

But besides all this my biggest grip is i find it insulting that he is releasing 9 minutes to IMAX and the best he can come up with for standard theaters is a minute. Its insulting. Especially considering its probably because of his OCD with secrecy.
 
Last edited:
Marvolo said:
In IMAX which many dont have access to or cant afford or wont afford. Films ao far that have done IMAX previews start their marketing a year out. Yeah most films in 2013 havent started marketing yet, but Abrams needs to capitalize on the lack of marketing from the other films and start selling this film. The time for tiptoeing and pussyfooting around is over.

But besides all this my biggest grip is i find it insulting that he is releasing 9 minutes to IMAX and the best he can come up with for standard theaters is a minute. Its insulting. Especially considering its probably because of his OCD with secrecy.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean and I agree.
 
Sawyer said:
Yeah, two minutes of nothing. :o
Click to expand...

Dog, that teaser trailer was diesel. I don't mean the announcement trailer with the welders and JFK speech. Now that I think about it, that even got released 9 months before the film came out.

Marvolo said:
In IMAX which many dont have access to or cant afford or wont afford. Films ao far that have done IMAX previews start their marketing a year out. Yeah most films in 2013 havent started marketing yet, but Abrams needs to capitalize on the lack of marketing from the other films and start selling this film. The time for tiptoeing and pussyfooting around is over.

But besides all this my biggest grip is i find it insulting that he is releasing 9 minutes to IMAX and the best he can come up with for standard theaters is a minute. Its insulting. Especially considering its probably because of his OCD with secrecy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that kills me, too. It could at least be over 2 minutes. After 4 years, Paramount should really get the ball rolling on this marketing.
 
I liked all the trailers for star trek 1. Even the announcement trailer showing the construction of the enterprise. As someone who was not a Trek fan at all the announcement trailer got me interested.
 
The construction trailer came out when the movie was still supposed to be released in December, too.
 
I'd say that's pretty accurate. Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and The Undiscovered Country all trump Star Trek 2009's story for sure, and I would argue The Motion Picture remains interesting from start to finish even with it's pacing. Even The Final Frontier's basic premise is more interesting, although far weaker in execution than the J.J. Abrams film.

If they can approach the writing of the earlier films and combine it with the action and pacing of 2009, they could make a truly phenomenal sci-fi movie. Unfortunately we have Kurtzman and Orci.
 
I always felt the reboot needed to be like this to be able to tell a story of friendship and introducing the characters to a new generation, and additionally creating a story that allowed for a new universe to be born while the original is still intact. Doing all that was no easy feat. And this is coming from a long time Trek fan. I felt there was no other way they could really have fit more into it with the objectives that the film set out to do. Now with Into Darkness I hope they go into a good "Trek" like story.
 
Just to recap the trailers for Star Trek 09

- January 2008: the "under construction" teaser (which, as pondslider noted, advertised a December 08 release date)
- November 2008: First Theatrical Trailer
- February 2009: 30 second Superbowl Trailer
- March 2009: Second Theatrical Trailer
 
Blackheart said:
I'd love to see Abrams actually show how Klingons went from regular looking people to having ridges.

Yeah, it would take away the mystique, but you guys know full well how I feel about that. :p
Click to expand...

Star Trek Enterprise already answered that question:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Klingon_augment_virus

And Enterprise seems to be the only Trek series intact in the altered timeline since it took place before Nero's incursion.
 
Ya the Klingon thing was already delved into. That's why I mentioned it in my original post last page about the Klingon's and what he would do with them.
 
Visiting Arkham said:
I'd say that's pretty accurate. Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and The Undiscovered Country all trump Star Trek 2009's story for sure, and I would argue The Motion Picture remains interesting from start to finish even with it's pacing. Even The Final Frontier's basic premise is more interesting, although far weaker in execution than the J.J. Abrams film.

If they can approach the writing of the earlier films and combine it with the action and pacing of 2009, they could make a truly phenomenal sci-fi movie. Unfortunately we have Kurtzman and Orci.
Click to expand...

The Motion Picture interesting? The fastest thing to happen in that movie was when Spock blasted himself towards the opening of Vger.
 
Wasn't the original Trek film mockingly dubbed "The Motionless Picture" by Trek fans because of how boring it was?
 
I would argue being re-introduced to the crew and the gargantuan wonder of VGER holds the film together, though I understand why people aren't too hot on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll
Star Trek (2009) vs. Star Trek Into Darkness
3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
7K
MrMaooz
MrMaooz
T
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 6
6 7 8
Replies
176
Views
7K
AVEITWITHJAMON
AVEITWITHJAMON
T
  • Locked
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 5
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
28K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 4
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
44K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
21K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,427 (members: 33, guests: 1,394)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,560
Messages
21,760,303
Members
45,598
Latest member
Otewe2001

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"