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?"
Uh... yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Considering the last movie didn't even break even and we're only a few days in, this is fan-fucking-tastic for a trek movie.
All us dorks can rejoice ;)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as (Score:5, Interesting)
What's personal opinion when you can just follow the call of the media outlets!
What's funny is, my girlfriend is begging me to go see it this week. No, she's no Trekkie at all. But what is interesting is that over the weekend she took out my Generations DVD and wanted to watch it.
I've been trying to get her to watch it a little bit with me here and there but no dice. One new heavily hyped movie comes out and all of a sudden she wants to start watching it.
Either way I win, I just find it odd that it took major media outlets hyping/loving it before she would touch it.
I have a feeling a lot of people will see this sort of thing happening. But again, not complaining. It would be GREAT if the Star Trek fan base could be reinvigorated!
I caught a 9AM showing on Saturday (Score:5, Interesting)
Surprisingly few single guys there. Mostly middle-aged couples. Mid-40s (like me) or older. Ones I talked to were, like me, Ex-Trekkers (we got lives...) who wanted to avoid the Damn Kids With Their Cell Phones going off, and loud cross-talk, and Hippity-Hoppity "music" and dammit I forgot my point, I knew I had one somewhere around here.
Oh, yeah, we just wanted to enjoy the movie on a big screen without distractions. Which is what the 9AM showing provided. Damn good movie.
Re:Worst Case (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a certain irony there. The Next Generation was the most-successful of the Trek series, with ~12% of the U.S. audience and consistently top 20, and yet they couldn't make a single good movie.* It was the original crew that demonstrated enough star power to succeed on the big screen.
*
* No I don't think First Contact was a good movie. I hate the Borg Queen, and I miss the original concept of a cold, emotionless Borg with a single collective consciousness (i.e. no leader). Plus I hate how they turned the original Zephram Cochrane from a genius engineer into a drunken fool.
Re:Reviews are the key to the second wave (Score:3, Interesting)
That second week, and the subsequent weeks, is very dependent on the reviews. These are the people who waited for someone else to go see it opening weekend, and then wait to hear what they said about the movie.
You mean word-of-mouth, not professional reviewers. Many movie-goers, myself included, completely ignore the words of the professionals and instead wait for friends to rave about a flick. Unfortunately for Star Trek, my most trusted word of mouth review was, "it was cast well."
I'll wait for the freebie Redbox rental on Mondays or just pay the $1. It's not worth a $20+ outing to the movie theater for my wife and me.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that's going to be a big thing.
A lot of non-Trekkies are probably thinking "I haven't seen anything else Star Trek so I might not understand it.", but as the reviews come in I think a lot of them will say, "It sounds good anyway, I'm going to go see it."
I know my girlfriend is NOT a trekkie and was apprehensive about the movie, thinking she wouldn't understand any of it. In the end, she really liked the movie. The movie managed to keep the Trekkies happy, AND it also stands on its own and doesn't require having watched any earlier Trek to understand.
What a ridiculous topic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe so until they realise J.J. Abrams just swept with the back of his hand the legacy of the original crew. By going back in the past and killing his father, Kirk turns into a different more extreme person. Spock telling his younger self that emotions are good, are we going to see a disturbed Spock instead of a logical one? Worse, with Pike in a wheel chair giving Kirk command of the Enterprise, the event from "The Menagerie" never take place. Implying that everything that happened in the original series and the movies never occurred. I for one am not sure I'm ready to go along with it. It will depend on the next movie.
Vapid movie (Score:4, Interesting)
I will fully admit it was a fun movie and worth seeing once. But like all blockbuster summer movies it was just empty except random references and gags that only a trek fan would really enjoy.
A lot of the characterizations was shallow and the plot was a mess. I wouldn't have bothered seeing it if it hadn't been a Trek movie. But it was still just vapid.
It was kind of like seeing a James Bond movie where Q is absent, Bond gets no gadgets and in fact 007 only shows up for like 15 minutes where he gets rejected by the girl (named Mary Smith) and then shot in the head. Maybe a great movie but it isn't a Bond movie.
Same thing here, good movie just not a trek movie. Oh well, maybe I should just embrace this reboot because there is nothing I can do about it and there is already a plan for a sequel to this prequel.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure it didn't hit $90 million, but Paramount wanted $50 million in the first weekend, so $72 million beat its expectations.
Most of the Trekkies I know liked it so much they plan to see it again. I'm not much of a Trek fan, but I may even go with them when they do round 2.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
I saw both movies yesterday. Wolverine was good, but more drama than action honestly. It was a good story, and entertaining, but did not hold a candle to Star Trek. trek also has a much larger fan base.
For a non-3 day weekend, non-summer opening, Trek did very well, Most theatres were completely sold out. those that were not sold out Sunday can mostly be attributed to Mother's Day. It's hard to measure it's success vs Wolverine's opening week since the 2 weekends can not be compared.
I'm here at work telling everyone, if you have to choose one or the other, choose Trek...
Wolverine had no competition it;s opening weekend, Trek not only has competiition, but it also has 2 more big releases following it. It's going to have softer than WE expect numbers for several weeks, but don;t be surprised if it;s still kicking 20 million weekends 4-5 weeks from now. This moview will likely cross 300 million domestic.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Decide for yourself on this one... imo.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Average Star Trek Gross (Score:4, Interesting)
Last year, as the first trailer rolled at the beginning of Cloverfield, I was sitting there completely giddy and in awe of it. And my friends with me were laughing their asses off at me for being such a geek. They had never seen a Star Trek movie, but those same friends ended up going to the midnight showing on Thursday with me, and we're all going back to see it again this Thursday with an even larger group. All of thse folks are being introduced to Trek for the first time and love it already.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's my personal experience, but every single person I have talked to has said it is not faithful in it's representation of star trek
Then every person you've talked to is dense. This movie is quite clear about the fact that it's an alternative universe/timeline trek, and even sets up the rationale for the differences.
It's not "faithful" to the previous Star Trek universe, because it's *not* the previous Star Trek universe. The basic social structure is the same (Federation, Klingons, Romulans, etc.), and many of the characters are the same people, but the major characters undergo some very different life experiences and are somewhat different people as a result.
I think it was a great movie, and I look forward to more movies and TV shows that explore this alternate timeline, with an angrier, more aggressive Kirk who is also a hero and a starship captain at a younger age (lots of opportunity for stories about a less experienced but still excellent captain), a more outspoken and assertive Uhura, and a more openly emotional Spock (who is, nevertheless, still struggling with his dual heritage).
There's no doubt about it that this is a *different* take on the Trek universe. I, for one, find it an intriguing one and I'm very interested in what can be done with it.
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, he explained it. But he also screwed up certain canon that *couldn't* be explained by Nero's time traveling. He also added stuff that plain didn't make sense. Delta Vega being within sight of Vulcan? Please. Uhura being of a similar age to Kirk? Please. An Academy non-graduate being made Captain? Please.
Anyway, where's all the optimism of the original Trek? Seems to be completely missing.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Saw it yesterday. It's a good movie. Everyone I know is going to see it, and most of them aren't Star Trek fans. I went because I grew up watching the original series (never bothered with the rest). I'm guessing a lot of people are in the same situation.
Obviously, if you make a good film with wide appeal, lots of people will pay to see it, whatever the subject matter. This happens to be a pretty good movie released at a time when movies in general are an ocean of tiresome shit.
It's a win for everyone. Even if you're a Star Trek purist who hates this film, a blockbuster Trek film will likely mean more future money directed towards projects more acceptable to the Trekocracy and more overall mindshare for the Trek cult.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] and IMDB [imdb.com] would seem to disagree with your friends. As would I: I think this is the best Star Trek movie I've seen (and I've seen them all). Wolverine was a vaguely entertaining but ultimately shallow and formulaic popcorn flick. Star Trek has breathed life into what seemed to many a dead franchise.
Re:first post! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm in the minority here - the movie was bad (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll say right from the start that this is going to prove a very successful movie. The theater was packed, people roared with laughter at the parts that were supposed to be funny, cheered the parts that were supposed to be cheered, and clapped at the end. So by all marketing standards, this is a success.
But it isn't a very good movie, if we're actually talking about craft and workmanship.
Michael Bay camerawork is something you're either going to enjoy or hate. Did you think the camera was shaky in Galactica? Did you need dramamine to watch any of the Bourne movies? Then hold onto your butts. In this movie it was like two elephants were having sex on top of the camera. Absolutely atrocious cinematography. I'll be so happy when this fad is over. But this might not bother some people.
Where the movie fell apart is the writing. Even the positive reviews say the villain is forgettable and the plot doesn't make sense. They'll say that's not the point. Really? I thought it was the point. Our Romulan villain has a nonsensical motivation. We bring time travel into the story again and in a highly clunky fashion. Logical shortcuts are made to get our heroes into the academy, establish Kirk as an outsider who then goes on to become bestest dude ever in Starfleet, and have his little battle with the Romulans. The events we see on-screen don't flow from any sense of internal consistency but are visibly imposed by the writers. Consider the skydiving sequence. They cut one from Generations and the idea is really frickin' cool so they decided they must shoehorn it into the movie. Therefore the mining ship must have a laser it dangles off a 1000km cable in order to drill into the heart of a planet. Why a mining ship would do this we do not know. Why the beam had to be lowered into the atmosphere instead of fired from space is not explained. But this does setup a nice option of having a dangerous platform thousands of feet in the air upon which a fight might be had.
There's other instances of anti-logic throughout the film. Kirk goes from being a cadet on probation to being given command of the Enterprise. Not just assuming a brevet command during an emergency but given the post and, one can only assume rank, of captain. Of the flagship of the Federation. A very young and cocky captain made sense in the original series because the Enterprise was not meant to be an exceptional ship. It was not the HMS Victory of the Star Trek universe, it was not a ship of the line. It was pretty much a frigate -- it could range far, defeat anything it could catch, run from anything it couldn't, and get involved with all the adventures big, expensive ships of the line wouldn't. The Enterprise of TNG was the flagship, pretty much a floating embassy and symbol of the Federation. It made much more sense to have someone like Picard in charge, someone who thinks first and shoots second. But to give a kid fresh out of the academy command of his own ship, the flagship? That's almost as illogical as grabbing an engineer from an obscure outpost on a Vulcan moon, throwing him into the engine room and giving him carte blache.
There are visual things that will ruin your suspension of disbelief. The engine rooms for the two Federation ships we saw were filmed in a boiler works and a brewery. The launch pad for the Enterprise looked like a Texas refinery. These kinds of expedients can be forgiven in low-budget scifi. "Hey, we can't afford to build a good set so let's just film inside a decommissioned destroyer and pretend it's our ship." For a $150 million movie, this sort of thing is jarring. It's the kind of nit that would be glossed over if everything else was great but it stands out when the rest of the movie is exhibiting a similar slapdash construction.
Now some people really don't care about this sort of thing. I'm going to make an analogy that doesn't involve cars so bear with me. It's like porno. "Who cares why the hot chick with the tits wants to fuck the guy? She wants to fuck and I wanna see it!" Few people complain about the writing in pornos. But there are people who care about why two people want to fuck. That's called erotica. We don't really have equivalent terms for movies but that's what it pretty much boils down to.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, imdb scores are often inflated from the initial excitement. It takes about 3-4 weeks for the initial shine to wear off.
Those who've been waiting in anticipation of the movie are the ones most likely to run back to imdb and post glowing reviews so the scores are high at first. Then the actual quality of the movie determines whether the high rating sticks or gets dragged down as more objective reviews, or negative reviews start to trickle in.
However, if the rating starts off low, then the score is probably accurate and the movie is probably terrible.
Making Trek more accessible (Score:4, Interesting)
I spent the first half of the movie seething over certain major events that "changed" the Star Trek universe...but it was explained well and with the explanation it doesn't damage my inner trekker. By the time it was over I wasnt only accepting of what happened but really looking forward to the next adventure.
Without giving anything away...the fact that the old man exists at the end is enough to assure the most ardent Trekker that the canon is still intact.
If anything the new movie makes Star Trek accessible to anyone for the first time since the '60's. My kids never understood Star Trek now they are all eager to see the next one and have even asked to see this one again.
I do think this film will do much better in the long run than Wolverine. Wolverine managed to alienate many of the comic fans by taking too many liberties with the origin to the point that many refuse to see it at all (myself included). Bad reviews have just made it easier to avoid. Star Trek so far has had great reviews and curiosity will make it much harder to avoid. I went into the theatre quite jaded and left with a feeling I have not felt from a Star Trek movie since the first time I saw the Enterprise on a big screen back in '78.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
You've not seen the new film, have you? It's pretty much 20mins of backstory, then almost pure action until the very end. Not a bad way to reboot the franchise if you ask me.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure what sort of people you've spoken to, but I completely disagree. Not only did I think it was an excellent movie, but I think it ranks among the best of the Star Trek movies and this is coming from someone who prefers the more intellectual stories of The Next Generation series.
The biggest issue I had was with the villain and a portion of the plot surrounding his actions. He came off the same sort of loser we've seen from the villains of the last couple of Star Trek movies. But as for the depiction of the Enterprise, the Federation and it's crew I thought it was great.
The only concern I have at this point for potential futures movies is that they continue with these goofy villains or they slip back into mediocrity.
Re:What Critics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it was a great movie, and I look forward to more movies and TV shows that explore this alternate timeline...
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Portos. :-)
I really liked the movie... imo it sends two important messages:
- to writters: relax and write anything you like, don't worry about keeping continuity and consistency, don't worry about past facts, focus on story and plots.
- to fans: we have a whole new and unexplored Star Trek Territory to explore... "these are the voyages..."
It officially opened here in Chile a day before than in USA (yes, movies premiere here on thursdays), a really first for a Star Trek movie.
Can Quinto work in two series at the same time?
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I went as part of a 3 family group yesterday, of which 6 of the adults were TOS fans (I have even purchased the original series season I on blu-ray), and in spite of earlier misgivings about the "reboot", I liked it quite a bit, as did our whole 13 person group.
Not faithful in its representation, probably true, but completely well worth viewing. I didn't have heartburn with the way they managed to justify the new tack at all. Probably my second favorite Trek movie after Khan.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
Since 1996? I'd say, more like 1969.
And Trekkers made me ashamed to admit that I was a fan. People learning a fictional language?!? WTF?!?
Yeah, I am a Trekie!
Re:first post! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's quite reasonable therefore to reboot the universe, provided it comes with the caveat that screwing around with the timeline to resolve plots is epically lame, and should never be allowed, ever. They did not in this movie go 'we will fix the timeline, and save the people' therefore it's ok that they've diverged and will stay that way.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
The new galactica, with it's explorations of social and philosophical ideas (what is torture, what is "human"?, is democracy important? is Six incredibly hot in a red dress? er.. well... picture her with green skin) was closer to Trek than this movie was.
It had a lot in common with 1950's "Juvenile" science fiction. Incredibly young protagonists doing things better than people with years more experience, promoted ridiculously fast, and plot holes you should fly a star destroyer through.
It was a fun, dumb, summer action film. It would have been worth about $7, I paid $15 to see it in "Imax" with friends.
I thought the first half was about a "10" and the second half was about a "7". My rating of the second half drops the more I think about the film and see more stupid things.
But I loved seeing the kirk, spock, mccoy, pike, & chekov. Sulu was okay-- and I was disappointed with scotty and uhura. he was funny and she was hot but they weren't entertaining as chekov to make up for the fact that they felt like completely different people. Chekov was also considerably changed but was entertaining. They need to drop the "brilliant" bit off of him before they wesleyfy him. And I think he should not have had blond hair.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
Since they have "Spock Prime" from the alternate future, they are also set up to have new and diverging technology to do cooler things with and travel further; possibly meet Next Gen species earlier.
I can also see Neo Star Trek replacing Lost's time slot when it ends, and that this movie succeeding being the criteria for more funding. At least, I hope so...
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:3, Interesting)
He had command of a captured prize-ship at that age and rank. As such, his job was to get the ship to a friendly port in one piece and await further orders, and thus as an "expendable" junior officer he was chosen. He would have had experienced ratings for the hard stuff.
Two thumbs up from me! (Score:3, Interesting)
Me and my dad are both long-time Trek fans but not Trekkies, we both liked it, sure it was different but it was good. I can see why the frothing cosplaying hardcore Trekkies wouldn't like it - it's definitely much more "mainstream summer action flick" than you'd expect from a Trek movie - but I still give it two thumbs up. Best movie I've seen in a long time.
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:3, Interesting)
SPOILERS
I've seen others echoing the criticism of Kirk being made captain, so I just want to say...
The entire series of sequences between Kirk and Pike was that Pike believed that Kirk was a different caliber of man, and therefore worthy of bypassing the traditional "climbing of the ladder". Kirk had a battlefield promotion to First Officer, and then to Captain.
Pike's promotion to admiral obviously put him in a position where he could defend Kirk's continued existence as captain of the Enterprise.
You also had Nimoy's Spock deciding not to live in obscurity in this new timeline, so no doubt he debriefed Starfleet on his knowledge of James T. Kirk.
Hmmm... that makes me think of another interesting point... Spock also brings vast and detailed knowledge of future tech back with him, which he displayed a willingness to share; that gives the rebooted franchise a tremendous loophole to make use of any technology seen in any of the Trek franchises.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the chase scene was a dig at Lucas. It's basically a rip off of Hoth and the underwater creatures from Ep 1.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
and while I too enjoyed the film, my complaints (within it's universe and `science`) were:
1. Did the planet Vulcan, a founding member of the Federation, not have any planetary defenses? I find it hard to believe that a single miniscule (in planetary scale) mining vessel can destroy planetary defenses AND starships at the same time. I buy the fact that it wiped out the starships as it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
2. Even though half of starfleet of the Constitution class starships got wiped out at Vulcan, Earth didn't have any defenses either?
3. Delta Vega is apparently a moon of Vulcan. Why didn't that moon get destroyed in the black hole?
4. Where was the Narada when it was drilling Earth? It wasn't Saturn was it? If it was Earth, why didn't Earth (or did it?) get destroyed when the entire mass of the Red Matter destroyed the Narada?
5. The Narada didn't seem to suffer any damage from the Kelvin when it activated it's warp core on impact.
6. It seemed like you could get to Vulcan pretty fast from Earth. In the original Canon, I seem to remember a consistency of distance and time to get to other star systems. I know this is brand new and pretty much wipes that idea out but I hope that they stay consistent with that distance.
Other than that, it was great.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you ever actually watch the original show? Star Trek had gotten more thinky and philisophical with every incarnation since then until it was suffocating under the weight of its own continuity and the expectation of the fans. This movie's lack of fealty to the fans is exactly what will refresh Star Trek to something that isn't dead.
What's unnerving is fans who think they have some right to dictate the direction of Star Trek.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't seen Wolverine so I can't compare the two.
I *might* be one of those "hard to please" Trekkies who just can't be happy ... but I've never been to a convention, I can't speak Klingon, I've never dressed up in a Star Trek costume, I didn't care much for TOS (though I did like the 4th and 6th movies and didn't mind 2) or Enterprise. Voyager was "watchable". Mostly I was a really big fan of TNG and DS9.
I strongly disagree with those who say that this was the best Star Trek movie. I think First Contact or The Undiscovered Country were both far better. CmdrTaco said in his review that it was the least cheesy Star Trek flick but it had a freakin' sword fighting scene and they even approached George Lucas-like territory by adding a superfluous and annoying Jar Jar Binks like character... ugh! :(
Needless to say I absolutely hated the movie. If you're looking for pure eye candy with absolutely no substance what-so-ever then the movie might be "OK". But I didn't even like it as an action flick. I found the action scenes to be full of pretty CGI but boring to watch. Maybe I would have liked it if I were stoned.
However, my main beef with the movie was that the plot was extremely unoriginal. The plot was almost exactly the same as the Voyager episode "Year of Hell".
There were some funny moments. Maybe if I judged the movie on it's comedic merits it would watchable a 2nd time.
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
The romance between Spock and Uhura was completely cliche and unnecessary.
Kirk was made into a "rebel without a cause, who finds his cause" Hollywood cliche.
The Romulans now look different, and not for the better. They were extremely unlikable, provided nothing in the way of depth. Served only as a plot device for a very unoriginal plot.
Aside from Kirk and Spock there was absolutely nothing to any of the other characters. Checkov bordered on disgraceful. He was made into pure comic relief (which didn't even work on that level). There was nothing to his character except his funny accent which kept being used to make unfunny and tasteless jokes. 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!) ?
The end of the movie did not only destroy canon. It destroyed all future Star Treks. As a TNG and DS9 fan I felt betrayed by Star Trek paying absolutely no regard to future events that will unfold in the Star Trek universe. This is why I stopped watching Enterprise and didn't like The Phantom Menace. You go into a prequel wanting to see fictional history in action and instead you get something completely different that pays no regard to fiction that you loved. Everyone is saying "they realized that it's hard to do a good prequel and so this was a smart move"... no it wasn't! It was pure cowardice! They avoided the topic all together and took absolutely no risk. And in doing so wrote a script with absolutely no substance. No story telling. No regard for what made Star Trek. There's breaking canon to make a good movie, and there's completely rewriting the story from scratch. They chose the latter and didn't even write a good story. I'm really surprised that the "hardcore" Klingon-speaking fans aren't completely outraged like the Star Wars fans were after Phantom Menace.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
The crew of the Narada had 25 years to make repairs before Spock Prime arrived from the future. It was a huge ship, so presumably even the warp core blast only damaged it, but did not destroy it.
The scientific problem I had the most issue with was the "super-nova" that destroyed Romulus, enveloping it. Was it in the same solar system? If so, then Spock would destroy the Nova by turning the Romulan Sun into a black hole!? Or, was it in a different system? If so, then the Nova was so huge that the mass of the star could expand over distances of light years and envelop a planet in a different star system!? It made no sense at all.
In spite of that, and the various contrivances, I still liked the movie very much.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe one of my problems is that I'm too young - I'm in my mid 30's and to me Star Trek *is* TNG. It defined (for me) what good sci-fi should be, a literary device used to explore interesting philosophical and moral issues - with some hard science thrown in.
I believe that an excellent movie could have been made about Kirk's early days in the Starfleet, meeting Spock and the others, forming long lasting friendships and loyalties, with plenty of action etc... without resorting to the completely implausible.
The Klingons would have presented an excellent enemy, there really wasn't any reason to have some mining ship come back from the future.
And speaking of the future: it is a hugely exhausted plot to the point where it has become a cliche.
I might be incorrect, but off the top of my head I can think of three Star Trek movies now that have used time travel as a plot line.
Seriously, with all the writing talent out there, this is the best they can do? ANOTHER time travel plot? I'm surprised Spock didn't try to save some whales while he was there.
If another writer decides it is a good idea to make a "time travel" Star Trek movie, I'm going to poke him in the eye with a dilithium crystal spork.
Whatever happens, nerds LOSE! (Score:0, Interesting)
I cannot really care about another crappy trekky movie but I'm happy with either outcome. If after the first week it fails and ends up a disappointment like Watchmen, then the crappy trekky franchise is dead and this time it's going to be forever because no-one will be so foolish as to invest in that pile of dung anymore.
If it is a success, which is more likely, it will be even better because the new movie COMPLETELY ERASES the old trekky stuff. It's not just dead, Jim, it has CEASED TO EXIST! No more the-next-crapulation, no more deep-shit-nine, no more whatever-I-can't-be-bothered-to-remember-the-titles. Even the pathetic old series sinks forever into the toilet bowl of history and is no more. Think of it! All the novels (who wastes good toilet paper on crappy trek anyway), comics, everything made irrelevant forever! It's like shitting on the face of all the basement-dwelling, bad-smelling, ludicrously-dressed trekkie pedophile geeks everywhere!
Yes, because this is not the old, pathetic, crappy trek. This is something for the real people, the beautiful people, the athletic, sports-loving, action fans. This is jock stuff, to which nerds cannot relate.
So, either way, we win and nerds lose.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
Your criticisms are valid, and a refreshing change from "it's not Trek because there wasn't enough standing around sharing feelings..." oops sorry, "discussing ideas". Yeah, Kirk getting the Enterprise at his stage of development was highly unlikely and grated a bit. I put it down to script compression due to the need of having the "no-win scenario" scene and Kirk taking the helm in the same film. But at the end, they really should have put Kirk back in the academy, and back on academic probation. There are several possibilities they could use to give him Enterprise at the beginning of the next film, letting time pass between films.
But regarding Kirk taking the captain's chair in combat, I've never been in the military, but in one of his novels Heinlein talks about cadets given the rank of "temporary third lieutenant" on their first assignment, so that they are in the chain of command, and that historically, there were incidents, during war with heavy casualties and communication breakdown, where a temporary third lieutenant commanded a warship, and in one case where someone of that rank flew colors of a full admiral. So given that this is the limit of my knowledge, a cadet taking command in the heat of battle wasn't enough to make me walk out of the theater. It sounds like it was one of those things where the more you know, the more annoying it is.
Re:first post! (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we have a *cadet* who is on academic probation for cheating - again, let me stress, he isn't even an ensign, hasn't actually received a commission at all, but for some reason the captain of a brand new starship just magically decides he is the new first officer. Seriously? That was such utter crap, I wanted to walk out of the movie then.
Actually, I didn't necessarily have a problem with this.
One of the concepts of the original series was the "wild west" theme. The Enterprise was the only law-and-order in this part of the galaxy. Distances required a commander who could keep order and be pretty self-sufficient, because messages could take days or weeks to transfer between the Enterprise and Starfleet command.
In this kind of environment, the Captain of a ship is all powerful. Probably the better analogy, if you want to stick with Naval history, is the old sailing ships of England, where the captain was lord and master and what he said goes.
So, yes, it would be the captain's prerogative to assign whoever he wanted in whatever positions he wanted--Starfleet or not. We already know that Captain Pike was particularly impressed with Kirk and believed he would be an excellent commander. Since Captain Pike was the captain of the Enterprise, he would be able to make anybody the first officer.
(As an aside, I may be wrong about this, but for some reason I remember Kirk making Spock his first officer, which is why Spock is both first officer and chief science officer.)
Then, after miraculously taking over the entire ship, makes the utterly insane decision to single handedly attack a superior vessel, with one other person (Spock) instead of notifying the fleet that the *Earth is about to be destroyed*.
The interesting question is, what would be done about it. It looks like the bad guy had pretty much trashed the Starships that had already been sent. The only reason Enterprise wasn't among the rubble orbiting Vulcan was that Sulu left the parking brake on and made them a bit late.
So rushing back to Earth to say "Watch out! The bad guys are coming!" wouldn't necessarily have been the best move. It seems that when the bad guy got to Earth anyway, there wasn't much Starfleet could do to stop him.
Then, instead of being immediately thrown in jail along with his co-conspirators, he is rewarded with a captaincy of the Enterprise (even though he hasn't actually finished the Academy yet).
I would somewhat agree with captaincy argument. The "being thrown in jail" argument would be tough since (a) Captain Pike, the lord of and master of the ship, probably wouldn't want to see him indicted and, (b) Spock seemed to be somewhat impressed with Kirk at the end as well and since Spock was the reason that Kirk was on academic probation for cheating, he could have easily dropped the charges against Kirk, which would allow him to graduate.
The Captaincy thing has more to do with the fact that, next movie, we don't really want to see the adventures of Lt. Kirk of the USS Farragut II.
Re:first post! (Score:1, Interesting)
This is part of your problem. You're comparing Starfleet in the movie to the USN of today, a completely well organized, modern military structure. But it's not.
Starfleet is still a relatively young organization at this point. It would probably be closer to the US Navy of the early to mid 1800s. Think David Farragut.
Also look at the command structure. There's a Captain and a First Officer. The chain of command for the ship doesn't really apply after that. The Chief Medical Officer maybe? Dead.
I see you've never heard of the infamous Battlefield commission either. Prior to today's instant communication technology, in a situation much like shown twice in the movie (first with the Kelvin, and then with the Enterprise), people could be given commissions or promoted in the field without any sort of confirmation from the main command authority.
Now why would Kirk be given this? 1) It seems that Pike has kind of been watching over him anyway. 2) Kirk actually understood and knew what was going on before anyone. 3) Promoting Kirk to first officer doesn't completely mess up the rest of the chain of command.
Now look at what is left generally by the last year of the academy (in the trek world)... A cadet cruise. Aka, basically an internship where they get to put their knowledge to use on an actual starship... hmm, hadn't Kirk already done that, shown that he could hold his own on a starship's bridge? You could also take into account that the academy might be more like a college at this point, given Kirk's notion of doing it in 3 years instead of 4.
In the end, you just had a huge portion of your fleet and cadets and experienced officers killed (every ship that went to Vulcan except the Enterprise). The fact that Kirk saved the day, and that Admiral Pike recommended, and even Commander Spock probably agreed with... if you're starfleet, do you really overlook those things and say, "Well, you have 5 more PE credits to complete before you can become an officer..."
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't seen the film yet, and I'm not even a big fan of TOS, but even I know that Sulu was a fencer [wizbangblog.com]. There's a story behind it [andywibbels.com], too: