The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Concerning the comparison shots of Spock And Kirk (Nimoy/Shatner&Quinto/Pine)....
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-09-2008, 12:24 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

The point of marketing * la Abrams is to make people talk, that's why deducing anything from a few pictures or even a trailer is nice and funny speculation, but one can only judge the film after having seen it. A trailer is not a summary, it is a marketing instrument.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-10-2008, 10:56 AM
JBElliott's Avatar
JBElliott JBElliott is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
It's no surprise Quinto's hair (wig) and eyebrows look different, since he couldn't keep the Spock look forever -- he had to get back to filming HEROES.
That's no excuse if that is the case. If the people taking the picture had wanted to, then they could have made Quinto look exactly as he did during the filming of the movie.

I just surfed over to Empire's web site and took another look at the images of Nimoy and Shatner (NS) next to Quinto and Pine (QP).

The NS image looks in every way superior to the QS image. The Spock and Kirk in NS look real while the Spock and Kirk in QS looks like some generic SciFi characters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:11 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
The point of marketing * la Abrams is to make people talk, that's why deducing anything from a few pictures or even a trailer is nice and funny speculation, but one can only judge the film after having seen it. A trailer is not a summary, it is a marketing instrument.
Which is a risky move. Traditionally, trailer footage has come from the part of the film known as the "Fun & Games" portion, which usually runs from about the 30 minute mark to just shy of the one hour mark. This is where the majority of the action, the other half of the major action set being the finale.

The reason for that is simple -- it answers just enough questions in the prospective viewer's mind to generate new questions even more likely to draw them to the theater for the answers.

Understandably, some of that is impossible with a retelling of Star Trek, because this story to some degree both is and is not already a known quantity.

Still, it seems highly improbable to me that Abrams had anyone wreck a '60s 'Vette just for a trailer. I think what's in the trailer will be in the film, albeit with varying degrees of the footage being what we think it is depending on the context of the surrounding footage we're not being shown.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:13 AM
starbase Britain's Avatar
starbase Britain starbase Britain is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Default

i just wondered why they went to all this bother about recreating that famous magazine cover only to have new kirk in a completely different colour top! it doesnt make any sense. i think they look so cool though. im so excitied.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:16 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Oh, I'm all for fans staying engaged and discussing the pros and cons of releases.
And if fans see more cons than pros? If I write something that stinks, for example, I want to know it stunk so that I can glean the useful criticism out of the vitriolic garbage, take that useful criticism and go back over my work to see if and where that criticism fits, and then improve. But you don't get the useful without the vitriolic.

Quote:
I just see no point in those who slam ANYTHING new automatically without considering or knowing the full context -- I notice this happens a great deal with trailers, where naysayers fill in the gaps of what they don't understand with invective.

Engaged and involved discussion is great, rants not so much.
Engaged and involved discussion is for us. It's happened already at the studios, and the things they miss there are things they're going to miss from us, too -- in the event they have time to read places like this. Improbable, but not impossible.

The rants are useful to them.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:23 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
And if fans see more cons than pros? If I write something that stinks, for example, I want to know it stunk so that I can glean the useful criticism out of the vitriolic garbage, take that useful criticism and go back over my work to see if and where that criticism fits, and then improve. But you don't get the useful without the vitriolic.



Engaged and involved discussion is for us. It's happened already at the studios, and the things they miss there are things they're going to miss from us, too -- in the event they have time to read places like this. Improbable, but not impossible.

The rants are useful to them.
That's what me and Mission wanted to say, that a few pictures and a trailer will tell us very little about the upcoming movie, because Abrams has used viral marketing in his previous work like Lost or Cloverfield. The purpose is not to reveal much answers but to create more questions, to make people talk and to thus spread info about the movie.
And if you post here in the hope to reach the powers that be, that is a vain hope. Taking biased samples from internet forums is just illogical if one wants to evaluate the opinions of (potential) viewers. If the movie industry does try to get viewer opinions, which I don't know, conventional polls are the logical choice.
This is a place for us to talk, not to reach anyone at the top
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-10-2008, 01:37 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

I'm all for a mix of pros and cons, all I balk at is people who rail about the failures of a film they haven't even seen based entirely on a pre-judged bias against the project, though they lack a body of evidence as proof of their claims.

"Cons" are constructive comments if they're based on reality, not personal vendettas or paranoid fantasy.

I totally agree that a cult of yes-fans would kill any hopes for quality in TREK going forward, of course. But based on history, that will never happen with TREK fans.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.