Is a $72.5m Opening Weekend Enough For Star Trek? 820
brumgrunt writes "At first glance, JJ Abrams' Star Trek has won over audiences as well as critics as it stormed to a $72.5m US opening weekend. However, Den Of Geek sounds a note of caution. Can it hold an audience for a second week? How do its numbers stack up? And as Wolverine looks like its struggling to reach $200m off an $85m opening weekend, is Star Trek yet the huge hit blockbuster that some of the headlines are suggesting?"
first post! (Score:5, Informative)
What Critics? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What Critics? (Score:5, Informative)
Rotten tomatoes has it rated at 95%, which means that there are very few critics that don't like the movie.
Which is precisely why the summary says "At first glance, JJ Abrams' Star Trek has won over audiences as well as critics".
Reviews are the key to the second wave (Score:5, Informative)
You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! (Score:5, Informative)
According to Entertainment Weekly, 70-75 million is how much the previous movies got in *total* income. So even if this new Trek ended right now, it still did as well as all the previous movies. That's nothing to be negative about.
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:5, Informative)
Space Admiral Farragut would strongly disagree. (the real wet-navy Farragut was given command of a prize ship at age 12, and attained a command of his own at age 22)
Re:You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Worst Case (Score:3, Informative)
At least the kirk from the other movies always fixes the timeline.
Are you suggesting The City on the Edge of Forever [wikipedia.org] will have a happy ending? I know that Balance of Terror [wikipedia.org] will be different. My only question is how George's crew knew they were Romulans and not just some crazy Vulcans...
Re:What Critics? (Score:3, Informative)
From Websters...
Critic:
1. a person who judges, evaluates, *or* criticizes: a poor critic of men.
2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.
Emphasis mine.
A movie critic doesn't necessarily dislike a movie... They judge or comment on them. There are tons of critics of the new Star Trek film. Read any review in any newspaper/blog, and you are reading a movie critic's remarks.
Read the other numbers (Score:4, Informative)
Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com]: Trek 95% v Wolvie 37%
MetaCritic [metacritic.com]: Trek 84% v Wolvie 44%
'Nuff said.
Re:first post! (Score:2, Informative)
Wolverine had less of a fan base
Especially among critics.
Rottentomatoes average of Top Critics:
Star Trek: 91%(about as good as it gets)
Wolverine: 15% (about as not good as it gets)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/?critic=creamcrop [rottentomatoes.com]
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wolverine/?critic=creamcrop [rottentomatoes.com]
Re:first post! (Score:3, Informative)
Wolverine imdb [imdb.com]=6.9
Star Trek imdb [imdb.com]=8.6
Those unfamiliar with IMDB scores might think that is pretty close, but it isn't. Star Trek is nearing Dark Knight territory (8.9), whereas Wolverine is closer to the X-Files=6.8 (and I mean X-Files, not the first X-Men=7.4)
My review. (Score:3, Informative)
This was better then the last 3 movies combined.
I liked the way the characters were introduced (minus Kirk).
I liked the story line.
I liked the character development.
I loved the fanboy nods.
I hated everything else. The lens-flare was so horrible (in my theatre) that there were entire scenes in the film that I could not see due to the film being completely white-washed. I was tempted to leave within the first 15 minutes due to the lens flare.
The bridge: I have seen the future; and it is an Apple iMac inspired hell. The translucent glass was everywhere and it looked like ass.
The engine room: the scale was completely wrong, and was jarring. I liked the idea of having a 'mechanical' engine room, this looked more like a Detroit Big-3 factory then a nuclear sub.
In summary: The story was decent, the film was distracting. This is the last Trek for me.
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the outcry around Ron Moore's re-imagining of Battlestar? It was brilliant, yes, but it was different, and how dare he!!!
Yes, this is different to the Trek we know. Accept it as such, and you can enjoy it. Refuse to accept this, and you're denying yourself a whole new franchise. Those that refused to accept the new Battlestar denied themselves a series that was considered by many to be one of the very best things on TV. Personally, I loved the new BSG and I thoroughly enjoyed this Trek film, despite many plot points that just annoyed me, not least Delta Vega looking to be about 500'000 km from Vulcan, and Nero's poorly thought-through punishment for Spock.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Informative)
Was it these people? http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film [theonion.com]
Re:first post! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Informative)
Definitely agree with your first two points. Thank heavens Spock's TINY LITTLE SHIP was there to save the universe by shooting the drill cable a couple times.
3) Because black-hole-Vulcan has exactly the same gravitational attraction as regular-Vulcan; it's the same amount of mass. That part makes sense.
4) I'd have to rewatch it, but I'm pretty sure they warped away from Earth (I remember a brief chase) before the final confrontation.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:3, Informative)
It was a damn good addition to a series that's been in the shitter since 1996.
No no, Deep Space Nine ended in 1999, not 1996.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Star Trek of the 1960s was on film and edited on film, making it easy to convert to HD -- e.g. just redo the effects.
Star Trek The Next Generation will be a little difficult because, after each episode was shot on film, it transferred to video for editing and effects. To do a remastering in HD, it will require redoing the editing and the effects -- possible, but will the cost be justified? I just hope that the costs get low enough that they eventually do DS9 in HD.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Informative)
Sulu offered nothing either and was basically "Harold" (from Harold and Kumar fame) on the bridge of the Enterprise... oh and he could fence. Was that an attempt to pay tribute to Picard or just an excuse to do a pointless and extremely cheesy sword fighting scene (I can't believe CmdrTaco thought this was the least cheesy Star Trek film!) ?
I haven't seen the movie yet so I can't speak to this incarnation's characterization but in "The Naked Time" Sulu runs around with a fencing foil, if I recall correctly. It's probably a reference to that, not Picard, though it was probably also an excuse for a cheesy sword fight.
Re:first post! (Score:2, Informative)
People learning a fictional language?!? WTF?!?
Try telling that to folks who speak Esperanto [wikipedia.org]
IIRC, there are now more Klingon speakers than Esperanto ones.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Informative)
These rays are so energetic that any thing with a line of site within 1000 light years is toast.
We are 8000 light years from a star [discovermagazine.com] that has probably already gone supernova. The light just now arriving to earth from it shows that it is on the brink of going supernova at anytime.
If it has gone supernova and one of the gamma ray streams is aimed at us,(The poles don't seemed to be aligned with us right now. But dying stars aren't exactly stable things.) then lights out for life on the planet. The planet may survive. But life most definitely won't.
The problem is, that collapsing the star into a black hole will with some kind of exotic matter not prevent the gamma ray burst. They are caused by the acceleration of matter by the gravitational collapse of the star.
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the time officers were from upper class families because they could read which was vital for planning, following orders, issuing orders, etc. That's not to say that good officers could not be found amongst lower classes if they demonstrated skill or bravery.
What you called "imbecilic, barking at the moon, rabid lunacy" was often times neccessary and practical.. You've captured a sloop while at sea. You need someone to sail it to the nearest friendly port. Most of your capable officers are either (1) sailing all your other captured vessels or (2) waiting at port after capturing other vessels as it may take weeks or months to get to that port. Your only available officer is a 12 year old. By the way, this is the 1800s most sailors were likely illiterate. So mostly likely you are going to send over the 12 year old who can navigate and read a map. Also if you are sending over a 12 year old, most likely you are not sending him to port alone. If you are down to that level of reserves, you will most likely be escorting the vessel back to port, but you need someone in charge that handle the daily tasks of sailing a vessel. While we can't know what the sailor thought, we do know that they did not mutiny when placed under the command of a 12 year old so they must have not thought the idea as too "insane".