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)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Decide for yourself on this one... imo.
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, 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:4, Informative)
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:
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Come on, man... The story wasn't hard to follow. You know why it was this way.
It's an alternate timeline. The "future events" of the Star Trek Universe are not destroyed; they're alive and well in another timeline. What kind of Star Trek fan are you?
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:4, Funny)
So... you purchased an HD version of a series shot on 1960s-quality TV equipment? You're a trekkie alright!
Re:first post! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
With older film stock, its more important to deal with the loss of colour, ISO levels, the acceptable level of noise when the show was recorded, etc..
They can digitally clean up the picture to make the scenes more clear, but really, does cleaning up the picture on Star Trek TOS really improve the viewing experience? I mean really, the sets weren't exactly rocket science.
At least if they decided to remaster TNG, they could bring up the CGI to modern day levels making it more palitable to the younger generation without sacrificing the spirit of the source.
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:5, Funny)
U-Matic: 1971
Betacam: 1982
Did they get betacam by slingshotting around the sun?
Re:first post! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus to be 100% honest, I didn't want to go opening weekend because I was worried about being surrounded by a bunch of basement dwelling neckbeards who were going to be spouting off about canon the whole time. Speaking to some of my friends, I wasn't the only one who felt that way. I have a feeling that it's going to remain strong. It's just an overall great movie.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I'm glad I could make an appearance.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
So you dislike the TOS movies, TNG, TNG movies, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, learning Klingon, and are ashamed of Trekkers, yet you are still a Trekkie? I'd say your just some guy with an affection for a show from your youth.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
"People learning a fictional language?!? WTF?!?
If people are learning it, is it still fictional?
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your issue isn't with scientific inaccuracies so much as plot holes. Sci-fi, even hard sci-fi, is a lot of hand waving with varying degrees of effort to remain internally consistent.
Fringe is intentionally screwball, hence the name "Fringe". It's not intended to be anything like real science, in any way, in fact is usually a blatant exaggeration or misrepresentation. For gods sake the last episode presented spontaneous combustion of humans as "plausible" while "pyrokinesis" was "that Stephen King thing". It makes for a good show, but I wouldn't put down my physics textbook if I had a final coming up. It is the definition of brain-candy sci-fi.
Star Trek sometimes attempts to be very "realistic" in that everything they present has traditionally fell under the category of "plausible". Transporters, warp drives, energy weapons, etc. I still think it's a bit hokey to poke holes in their view of science, it is, after all, created for your viewing pleasure.
I haven't watched the new Star Trek, I probably will have to wait until DVD thanks to having a 14 month old, but thus far Starfleet has never really shown itself to be a very top-down organization. The Star-ship captains seem to have wide latitude for making policy, and are given extreme lenience on broken rules.
What would be a huge let down is if this is a war/sex driven soap opera, and not a somewhat more cerebral presentation of conflicting ideals. It would be very disappointing if BSG, previously the goofiest of 70s campware, became more intellectual than Star Trek.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, my main problem was with the completely absurd idea that a ship swallowed by a black hole is transported through time, when everyone knows that you first have to realign the deflector array in order for that to happen!
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
It did go by fast. I saw it with fellow fanatics and non-fanatics, and both groups liked it. If I had to say, I would say the non-fans liked it more than the fans. Which is good news for the word-of-mouth, after opening weekend crowd.
Frankly, it was a fun movie to watch. Lots of action, lots of flash. Enough old-school Trek to satisfy all but the unsatisfiable basement dwellers.
I plan to take my sons to see it this weekend. My 15yo thinks Star Wars has more action than Trek, he says Trek is just "people sitting around, talking". A viewing of the new movie and a few select Dominion War episodes should set his ass straight!
Re:first post! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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: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: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: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:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked the movie a lot. It was a good movie, but I agree with GP that it wasn't good "Star Trek". It has nothing to do with the alternate universe explanation (it's far from the first time we've seen this, the Mirror universe provides precedent in several episodes).
It's more about the theme of the movie. It was about action rather than sci-fi. Star Trek explored issues in the future in a way that causes people to reflect upon the present. Star Trek had tons of aimless drivel among its episodes, but the best parts of Star Trek weren't action setpieces, but episodes that made you think. The franchise has touched upon issues like capital punishment, homosexuality, evaluation of moral perspective, discrimination and bias, tradition vs. progression.
However, these things are not easily handled in the framework of a movie. And hell, I like action movies too. I liked the new Star Trek movie and I'm interested in where they go from here.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's worth keeping in mind that it IS a reboot. If the reboot isn't successful, they'll probably not do much else with it, but if it IS a nice success, then they'll have established a fanbase that'll hopefully allow them to explore once again all of those areas that made star trek so special. And I can't think of a better way to Reboot something than to give a thoroughly enjoyable experience for the masses.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then every person you've talked to is dense.
Depends what one means by "faithful representation". The new movie has a Kirk very much like the old Kirk, a Spock very much like the old Spock, and so on. But is that what makes it Trek?
Overall this was an action movie with slick special effects and some comedy. The first two Star Trek series were decidedly about moral dilemmas and the promise of a utopian future for humankind. Thus to someone who thinks the "essence of Trek" is this "analysis of the human spirit", this new movie doesn't faithfully represent Star Trek: it has a ship named Enterprise with a captain named Kirk, but it is thematically very different from the original incarnation.
And of course there are many other ways to analyze the question of "faithful to the original". I won't comment on which interpretation I think is right... But it's important to remember that "faithful representation" has everything to do with perspective.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
an alternative universe
(in comic book guy voice) Ah yes. A precedence set forth in Star Trek, Season 2, Episode 33: "Mirror Mirror". Worst. Episode. Ever.
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: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:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
and a starship captain at a younger age (lots of opportunity for stories about a less experienced but still excellent captain)
This is where the movie lost me. Maybe it is because of my background in the USN, but the 4th wall was completely destroyed for me by the clumsy way the writers inserted Kirk into the Enterprise chain of command.
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.
Unfortunately, I didn't - which caused me to suffer through the utterly improbable scene where this same person, who is not an officer, has been not only forcibly removed from the bridge but has actually been expelled from the ship itself, somehow manages to cause a mutiny on the ship and become captain by making fun of Spock's mommy.
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*.
Fortunately, he is able to dance around while 15 or so enemies are shooting at him and avoid being hit. I haven't seen such improbable writing since the A-Team.
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 just don't get it. I'm honestly not trying to troll here (check my Karma, I don't do that) I really just don't understand how anyone could take this the least bit seriously, much less praise it.
The worst episode of TNG had better writing and plot than this movie.
It depresses me to hear the masses rave about it.
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.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd. I heard the exact opposite, from die-hard star trek fans that refused to watch the other recently released movies because "they're just SO NOT star trek". After suggesting they should watch it, they fell in love with it (again).
Maybe not being faithful in its representation of star trek made it faithful to it. I mean, if ST was about anything (well, more so the series, less so the movies) it was pushing the envelope of what's "standard" in its own world.
My guess is that people had enough of the cookie-cutter heroes without an edge or a speck on their shiny white armor. People don't want heros on podests. They want heroes they can identify with. And a drunk medic and a cheating smartass wanna-be captain certainly is closer to home to the average movie goer than a Earl Grey tea sipping diplomat.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
...if ST was about anything...
Star Trek was about addressing and commenting on the norms and issues of current society. You go back and watch the original series and it is very obvious--and that's what was so endearing about he series. It wasn't about phasers, proton torpedoes, and teleporters. Those were just a veneer or a vehicle for people to think.
While I don't disagree that people relate better to characters who have flaws, it was also the shining optimism that Star Trek showed us. It showed us that despite our flaws, our societal qualms, we overcame, united as a species, and sprung from the cradle from which we had evolved. Humanity had proven itself master over its environment--we have yet (in our reality) to master ourselves. Star Trek's legacy shows us what we're capable of once we accomplish that.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm?
Maybe it's my personal experience, but every single person I have talked to...
There's a reason they're single, man.
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.
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)
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:5, Funny)
The premise is that this is an alternate timeline for Star Trek. So in this version Kirk can act, doesn't wear a toupee or a girdle...
George Takei, you're on /. ?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially they explained it in the movie: It's an alternate reality -- alternate timeline. Spock and the Romulon's gett
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the humanity... ...seriously... you behave as if this were some actually important matter, like Peter Jackson's disgusting rape of Lord of the Rings.
Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (Score:4, Funny)
And thank god he did.
Honestly the old start trek was ridiculous. Sanitized, clean, WE must do it this way because it is good and right to do....
God that made me sick.
I loved enterprise because it was gritter, the ship broke when anyone sneezed, and the humans got their asses kicked at every turn. Plus willing to cross the line into "kind'a-evil" in order to get the mission completed is very human.
The movie I really hope is a lot more of what enterprise showed it could be. I want kirk standing in front of the federation tribunal giving everyone a double middle finger and then runs out killing guards and vowing to make the endorians extinct simply because he hates their chowder.
Out of control, ruled by emotion, ready shoot aim... THAT"S humanity. and that makes for a better trek storyline.
Honestly, DS9 should have had a lot more crime and unrest, and voyager should have ended with cannibalism.
Re:first post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this movie could re-gain some lost loyal fans. The fact that it wipes the slate clean and pretty much starts the franchise over again is a GREAT thing IMHO. Yeah, it's a little over the top, but that's probably what the franchise needs... Everyone is sick of stupid buzz words that don't mean anything, sitting along side a totally swiss cheesed universe.
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:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to see it until it comes out on DVD.
Why is the parent modded Insightful?
He hasn't even seen the movie yet.
Worst Case (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Worst Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Worst Case (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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: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:Worst Case (Score:5, Insightful)
I got a kick out of Zephram Cochrane too. After all, if you literally are living in a post-apocalyptic world why wouldn't you be somewhat of a nihilist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ;)
potential (Score:5, Funny)
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between Trek and Wolverine is that fanboys were excited about seeing Wolverine while fanboys were enraged at the idea of a Trek reboot (thus the bigger opening weekend).
Except Wolverine was horrible. Really, really bad. For people who were fans of the characters, the movie completely got the characterizations wrong. For people who just wanted to see a good movie, the writing was atrocious and the story was just weak.
And Trek was really quite good - ESPECIALLY for a Trek film. There was enough there that new audiences could get into it and enjoy it as a film, and it was well done enough that fanboys have to grudgingly admit it was not the worst. movie. ever.
One opens strong and then tanks once people realize just how bad it is, the other opens a little less strong and I imagine it'll keep going strong for awhile.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And Trek was really quite good - ESPECIALLY for a Trek film. There was enough there that new audiences could get into it and enjoy it as a film, and it was well done enough that fanboys have to grudgingly admit it was not the worst. movie. ever.
It may not be the worst movie ever, but it is kinda like releasing a Sherlock Holmes movie where he runs around with a giant gun killing people until he solves the crime. Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
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:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it might be a good action movie or whatever, but is hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
Funny, then, that the generally acknowledged best ST movie (Wrath of Khan) was nothing more than a revenge/action movie without a single philosophical monologue to be seen.
ST has *always* been about *both* action and thoughful plot, but which you got depended on the episode. The Naked Time? Action. The City on the Edge of Forever? Thoughtful plot. To claim ST was only one or the other is to be blinded by fanboi-ism.
Reviews are the key to the second wave (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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 freebi
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!
Re:As long as (Score:4, Funny)
Re:As long as (Score:5, Funny)
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.
sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek, however, is not going to struggle because it's about as perfect a reboot of the Star Trek franchise as one could hope for. Sure, hardcore Trekkies might rage about this or that and it isn't a flawless movie so someone will try to prove their movie critic cred by picking it apart but the reality is that it's an excellent movie that people are going to recommend to their friends.
Simple lesson to be learned - make a good movie and you'll have long term success. Make a hot movie and you'll have a great opening weekend. Make both and you'll have a great opening weekend and long term success. It's not rocket science.
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.
What a ridiculous topic (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
It's all relative to expectations (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Fandom (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone keeps saying Abrams wasn't a trek fan, but does anyone know if the actual screen writers (Orci and Kurtzman) are? It's like people forget the director doesn't pull a completed movie out of thin air without the involvement of anyone else.
I liked the film, I guess, and I thought Quinto nailed the young and conflicted Spock, but I would like to declare a moratorium in Hollywood on the use of black holes. A "temporal anomaly" would have been fine. And someone please explain to these writers exactly how BIG the galaxy is.
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:I'm in the minority here - the movie was bad (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that the movie is often just STUPID.
Romulus' sun goes supernova... what, the Romulans, who have starship technology, didn't know in advance?
The Romulans don't evacuate?
The Federation sends ONE BLOKE (Spock) to save their sun?
Chekov knows how to use the transporter a certain way, so he has to take elevators and run through corridors to get to the transporter? Its a huge ship. He can't communicate with anyone down their? The systems aren't interoperable? He's the only guy who knows how to do what's needed?
And Bad Boy Alternative-Universe Kirk...
- just rides up to the Federation Recruitment Facility on a motorcycle and jumps aboard a shuttle, no check-points, no questions
- bangs a green (literally) programmer so he can cheat the Federation exam?
- gets to be First Officer because Pike respected his dad?!
- gets strangled by a Vulcan and at least one Romulan and still has a trachea?
- is marooned on a random, dangerous Class M planet that just happens to have Nimoy-Spock and Scotty as residents?
A general reply to the seemingly overzealous hater (Score:4, Insightful)
Preface : I am a lifelong Trek fan. I'm not "hardcore", I haven't ever been to a convention, but I have enjoyed the franchise.
For those complaining that Abrahms "wiped his ass" with the franchise ask yourself one question:
Would you rather there be no more Star Trek?
That was the option, re-invent & reboot or buh-bye. I'm glad they chose the former. They even took considerable pains to write into the story a plausible reason for it (time travel creating a splinter/alternate main timeline.) Admittedly this is a departure from some of the previous handling of temporal plot lines, but I'm workable because they needed a reboot. You still get Nimoy as Spock. I'm honestly glad he was the only original cast member in it.
My wife is a more intense fan than I am, to the point of having a real emotional attachment to the Trek universe/story. The first 8 minutes of the movie made her cry it was intense enough. She loved it and is already planning when we'll be going to see it again.
Even Nimoy said in an interview said that people who were hurt because it was disregarding previous canon and resetting things were doing so because they had an illogical connection to the minutiae of the universe rather than the story of the universe.
Besides, they didn't reset everything. Apparently Enterprise is still canon. (i.e. reference to Archer and his beagle)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
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: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".
Re: (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 ne
Re:What Critics? (Score:5, Funny)
Critics generally like it. Fans generally like it. The public generally likes it. We're only one week into it and it's already being debated as if Apple produced it -- I half expect somebody to complain that the new Star Trek movie doesn't support Ogg or that it sucks as a smartphone. We all know that a year from now the movie will be raking in the dough from video sales, and a question like "What about the SECOND week?" will seem even stupider then than it does today.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Err, these things do not happen sanity-based fleets. No Ensign jumps to Captain in 24 hours, bypassing all the senior officers with many more years of experience. As to the level of sanity in the war of 1812, just the fact that you could become a mid-shipman at the age of 12 (or younger) speaks volumes. This sort of thing happens today only in such centres of civilization as Darfur, Somalia and Afghanistan....
And even in such an insane fleet it took Farragut 10 years to make it to Captain.
There's a few other factors. For the argument of Alexander becoming King when young, we've seen infants named king. This does not mean they're up to the task. Alexander was a man of extraordinary ability given the position to fully employ them. But he is an exception, not the rule.
With regards to Farragut, trying to draw comparisons between wartime and peacetime militaries is problematic to begin with but there's also the matter of advancing technology. We would tend to make an equivalency between a fighter pilot from WWI flying canvas and wood biplanes and a modern fighter pilot strapped into an F-22. There is no equivalency. The planes cost a thousand times more, they take more training to fly, and are very damned complex. They have to be for the abilities they possess. So to say that it's reasonable to have someone wash out of the armored cavalry and then finagle a position flying F-22's and point out it happened in WWI, it's just not a reasonable comparison.
Now someone will bring up that war can cause selection pressures not present in peacetime. Someone like a Patton would not have been able to rise to high rank in a peacetime army but was able to get away with his behavior because he won battles. Likewise with Grant; he was a disheveled alcoholic and a failure at most things in life but he won battles; Lincoln said he'd send a case of whiskey each to his other generals if they could fight like Grant. But when peacetime comes, the pressures are removed and things get back to normal. A winning general might be forgiven eccentricities by dint of his service but a drunk without a record isn't going to be cut any slack. In WWII, the Wehrmacht was forced to use boys and old men as infantry. Rest assured, they're not doing so now.
Now I'm sure someone will say that this is all because we mollycoddle kids in this country and don't give them responsibility. Ok, please point out any other navy in the world that would give command of a national flagship to a kid. I'm not talking about a PT boat from WWII. I'm not even talking about a WWII sub. I mean something like a modern diesel-electric, a modern nuke boat, a destroyer. It's just not happening.
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (Score:5, Funny)
"Die StarTrek, die...what?"
It was German. He was really saying: "The Star Trek, the..."
Re:Time will tell (Score:5, Funny)
An Enterprise bridge designed by Apple
Wasn't it in The Next Generation? No tactile feedback on consoles, consistent UI everywhere even when it comes at the expense of usability, and no fuses anywhere (saves a bit of manufacturing cost and keeps the margins high). Sounds like an Apple design to me...