Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is a $72.5m Opening Weekend Enough For Star Trek?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i'd-see-it-again-if-i-could-get-a-sitter dept.

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?"

14 of 820 comments (clear)

  1. first post! by GreenTech11 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Star trek will get the loyal fans from the earlier movies, Wolverine had less of a fan base

    --
    Laughter is the best medicine, except if you have a broken rib.
    1. Re:first post! by Wraithlyn · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    2. Re:first post! by Binestar · · Score: 5, Informative

      35MM film has more resolution than 1080P. http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm As long as you're working from the original 35MM film (and also assuming it's not degraded too much) you can easily move to HD and redo the special effects for a true HD original series.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    3. Re:first post! by e4g4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey now - the HD remasterings of TOS are excellent. The new special effects and backdrop enhancements put the remastering of Star Wars IV, V and VI to shame (they are actually faithful to the original); and it looks pretty damn good in HD.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:first post! by tcolberg · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:first post! by JRR006 · · 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.

    6. Re:first post! by Supurcell · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not only that, but every single episode of the original series' credits had a shot of Sulu with his shirt off, fencing down the corridor.

    7. Re:first post! by k1773re7f · · Score: 4, Informative
      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. This explanation will only serve to complicate the matter. But it is scientifically accurate. When a star goes supernova, it streams two gamma ray bursts in opposite directions emminating from the magnetic poles.

      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 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.

      --
      This sig. intentionally left blank.
  2. Re:Who cares? by Burkin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because the movie studio gets a bigger share of the ticket sales in the earlier weeks. As time goes on they get less of a cut as the theaters get more.

  3. Re:What Critics? by Burkin · · Score: 4, 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".

  4. Reviews are the key to the second wave by davejenkins · · Score: 5, Informative

    The opening weekend of any 'blockbuster' movie is really just a barometer for how good the hype was, how good the trailer is, and how much pent up demand there was for the adaptation. This is true for X-Men, X-Files, Watchmen, Batman, and our beloved crew of the Enterprise. 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. Star Trek is getting great reviews, and not just from the newspaper shills-- audiences generally like the film. This is different than the (lack of) buzz about Wolverine, and the outright confusion about the Watchmen. It's more along the lines of Batman Begins: your older sister asked you "Really? Another Batman movie?" to which you've replied "oh yeah-- it's that good." Expect a strong 4 week run on Star Trek.

    --

    davejenkins.com |

  5. You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. Re:Screw your alternative timeline! by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

    23 year old's don't command starships in ANY reality. Reboot, my ass. Die StarTrek, die......

    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)

  7. Read the other numbers by PMuse · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rotten Tomatoes: Trek 95% v Wolvie 37%
    MetaCritic: Trek 84% v Wolvie 44%

    'Nuff said.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)