It will go down as one of the biggest film marketing fiascos of all time, especially in light of positive reaction this film is getting.

Yup. It was a neither here nor there approach. The marketing made it seem dumb and non-appealing for casual audiences and by distancing itself from the Trek fanbase, it didn't rally its home crowd as well.
Live your own destiny imperfectly than live an imitation of someone else's perfectly

Sell it as a mix of fast and furious and guardian of the galaxy
And 'Mad Max'. Marketing pitch: 'Cause those movies were rad, yo'.
http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/1450127628/Star-Trek-Jump.jpg

But the big fanbase is one of Star Trek's strongest featurestrying to separate it from th legacy is a stupid idea.

What the F were they thinking?
Sell it as a mix of fast and furious and guardian of the galaxy ? If that is the case, and you want do attract a broader audience than the geek image of the series will tend to do (or take those fans for granted) you want to distance yourself from the franchise legacy, not talk about it and associate yourself too much with it and a 50th year anniversary.
Not a bad bet to do necessarily, but when you half commit it is hard to achieve something.

Very true. Though, I have a theory they may be trying to assess whether 'star power' is still a thing and see if they can draw people in on Lawrence & Pratt's name alone.

Would say non existent, at least that an extremely cheap marketing, none
I imagine they will do some burst when the trailer's will start to roll out, I would guess around Magnificent 7 release and Pratt world press tour for it.

Passengers marketing is pretty bad.

Truth

If you were judging on sheer can't-even-be-bothered-to-pretend-to-come-up-with-anything-new in the belated sequels stakes, Jason Bourne would be a clear winner. Even the marketing was directly copied from Goldeneye. It's the Cannonball Run 2 of the franchise - just a trip to the bank for all concerned.
"Security - release the badgers."

I think Through the Looking Glass should win. The only reason why the first one made the money that it did was because 3D was all the rage. Also waiting six years did not help.

Well, there goes the summer if they did.
"Security - release the badgers."

How about a 'Most Unnecessary Sequel' award? I'm not even sure what movie would win that this year

I was?..
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com:443/data.filmboards/images/upload/mwNlD.jpg?fb
Edit: finally got around to watch the movie and **** me hold tight is it a glorious mess!
The cast is good, there are some nice ideas - visually. But tone, editing, characters having, well, - characters - everything save for purely technical credits (not CGI though. CGI sometimes screamed "reshoots") is off. Quite amazing really. I only got to see "directors cut" of BvS and it was only marginally better than this (not having to juggle an ensemble and having the luxury to introduce new Batman/Wayne as "ah, fck it - here's new Batman/Wayne. You know the dude). Can only wonder wtf happened it theatrical release of BvS

if it does from the first
monday
it's down to the film itself.
Why did you say that
daaaaaay
?
It also turns out, as a belated congrats, that Allblacks was spot on about Suicide Squad's performance. I suspect if BvS hadn't been such a deadening experience, people wouldn't have contorted themselves into shapes to try and be charitable to Suicide Squad in comparison, despite, arguably, being as bad, if not worse.
Shut it, Love Actually! Do you want me to hole punch your face?

As we'd say whenever in a meeting, marketing can buy you an opening if you spend enough, but if it does from the first monday it's down to the film itself.
"Security - release the badgers."

Batman V Superman: like Beyond, a confused campaign that constantly changed direction and sales pitch with every trailer and increasingly marginalised Superman to make it look like a Batman movie because they know how to sell those. But as with the previous three, having a weak product that didn't know what it wanted to be would have challenged any marketing team.
Sadly, I think the proof is in the pudding (the pudding of, er, opening weekends) that this strategy demonstrably
worked
, even if we can debate how many of those millions were going to see the film regardless.
Star Trek almost certainly qualifies, since it's very clear that Paramount gave up on chasing that casual audience that they put a lot of effort into getting onside for the previous two films. Indeed, it's actually done worse than an adjusted First Contact, opening and all, which is pretty rough going.
Shut it, Love Actually! Do you want me to hole punch your face?

Of course, Pegg was a big part of the marketing problem - telling Trekkers to beep themselves and going on about turning it in GOTG meets Ocean's 11 hardly got things off to a flying start after Paramount had just got rid of the original writer-director who had told them the same thing on his blog.
"Security - release the badgers."

I still think 'Star Trek Beyond' is a worse offender. I mean, Disney's lame marketing for 'Pete's Dragon' at least didn't hurt the reputation of the film itself while Paramount's marketing for 'Star Trek Beyond' arguably caused the film's reputation to collapse entirely.
Oh I agree very much. That first trailer had me baffled (even Simon Pegg couldn't resist dissing it).
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

I still think 'Star Trek Beyond' is a worse offender. I mean, Disney's lame marketing for 'Pete's Dragon' at least didn't hurt the reputation of the film itself while Paramount's marketing for 'Star Trek Beyond' arguably caused the film's reputation to collapse entirely.

You could add 'Pete's Dragon' to that list. This was a film that could have played well with adult audiences as well given the approach to the material it took, but Disney never tried to reach beyond the typical family/kids audience with their campaign.
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

it would have be something that ended up being very received, but flopped because the marketing materials didn't do a good job of exciting the audience
Which pretty much sounds like Beyond, though I'd probably go for generally well received rather than very well. Along with Ben-Hur it's a film that from the very start the studio gave away the fact they had absolutely no confidence in it whatsoever and never recovered. The insane decision to almost completely sever it from the 50th anniversary (though its gone from most WW theaters by the time it rolled round) was truly infantile.
But then it's been a year of pretty bad campaigns:

• Ben-Hur: incredibly late out of the gate and never able to generate any interest, though in this case they were hampered by a bland cast and unimpressive footage. The pitch to the faith market looked like a last minute Hail Mary play, but one that took place in the car park five miles down the road rather than the stadium.
• Jason Bourne: shamelessly lifting taglines and poster designs from old Bond movies while slagging off the Bond films sends out pretty weird signals, but since the film itself was such a shameless cashgrab it was probably hard to come up with an original take to pitch.
• Ghostbusters: not so much for the way the Ghostgamergaters spun everything into completely misrepresentative soundbites but for that bland first trailer that failed to make that all-important good first impression the way similarly ridiculed and reviled during production films like Tootsie, Dances with Wolves, Titanic and Casino Royale did (all media jokes and whipping boys until the first trailers turned them around). Even a good trailer would have got a lot of hate - there's no way the trailer was bad enough to justify the suspicious number of hate it votes - but had they used the better international trailer first instead it probably wouldn't have got so much negative traction.
• Batman V Superman: like Beyond, a confused campaign that constantly changed direction and sales pitch with every trailer and increasingly marginalised Superman to make it look like a Batman movie because they know how to sell those. But as with the previous three, having a weak product that didn't know what it wanted to be would have challenged any marketing team.
• Gods of Egypt: DOA from that first teaser with unfinished CGi - with no inate pre-existing market for the material it's first impression was its last so that the better second trailer made no impression at all.
• The Legend of Tarzan: a mostly decent movie given a poor campaign that tried to sell it as The Dark Knight of jungle movies with grim, lifeless visuals and unfinished CGi that did the film no favors and felt like it was just being released as a contractual obligation when they'd have been better off stressing the old fashioned adventure angle the way The Jungle Book so successfully did. Yet the film still wildly overperformed the insanely low expectations (remember, this was a film almost everyone insisted wouldn't pass $100m WW and would be the next Pan), so something must have worked, though from the strong holds I think it has a lot more to do with being one of the few summer films to be better than its reviews or expectations than the campaign.
• Shin Godzilla: none of the trailers for this have been any good and the awful US one seems like an office injoke ("Hey guys, let's just use awkwardly lensed closeups of bit players overacting instead of Godzilla - go on, I double dare you!"), but despite making the film look cheap and the big feller look an immobile irrelevance it looks like the film itself is strong enough to still make a ton of cash (in Japan at least) anyway.
  "Security - release the badgers."

I need to think for a little while before I think what could be considered the worst marketed film of the year (it would have to be something that ended up being very well received, but flopped because the marketing materials didn't do a good job of exciting the audience).
But I do agree Paramount could have done a better job of marketing Star Trek Beyond, especially in light of the 50th anniversary. Maybe they should have taken some notes from Sony's marketing of Skyfall. Or even go back to their own history and see how they tied Star Trek VI's release with the 25th anniversary. Many years after its release, the Star Trek VI teaser is still a beautifully crafted celebration of the Enterprise's many previous adventures. I didn't hate the "Beastie Boys" teaser like a lot of people did, but they should have made a more celebratory teaser.
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine