Slashdot Mirror
Is a $72.5m Opening Weekend Enough For Star Trek?
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?"
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.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Why did they need to erase everything that had happened? Answer: to become free of the arthritic horror of Backwards Compatibility.
Wolverine is struggling because it sucked. People went to see it and warned their friends away because, though there were some good elements to the movie, it was terrible, as a whole. Horrendous script and patchwork story - it was a movie by committee. We know that a good movie can be made with a superhero character (Batman, and Ironman to name two recent examples) but Wolverine was everything that is bad about a superhero movie.
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.
Why not? Alexander was King at age 20, and that was real reality, not some sci-fi movie.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
I took the implication was that the Queen was just another drone that was chosen to embody the collective consciousness. It made for some interesting dialog between Data and the Queen. But I think the the idea is that even though the Borg have a collective consciousness why would that uber-mind be cold and emotionless. Since its probably damn near impossible to portray the traditional disembodied group echo as having emotion I think the Queen was a reasonable plot vehicle as a "Borg Mouthpiece" much as Locutus was meant to be.
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.
The two films could make the same amount of money, and Star Trek would be regarded as a hit and Wolverine as a disappointment. Wolverine cost about $60 million more to make, so it needs to make more money to turn a profit. On top of that, Wolverine is getting compared to the earlier X-Men films, while Star Trek is being measured against the previous Trek movies. X2 and The Last Stand both made over $200 million domestically. In contrast, no Star Trek film has ever done over $150 million, and Nemesis did much less than that ($67 million). It boils down to the fact that the studio had much higher expectations for Wolverine, and it's being judged accordingly.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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?
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
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.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
"People learning a fictional language?!? WTF?!?
If people are learning it, is it still fictional?
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
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)
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Rip or no, I would have preferred that they left in the Klingons and ditched the scene.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
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.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
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.
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.
Wrong. Klingon is an artificial or "constructed" language, like Esperanto or Ido (or Quenya), but with an actual grammar and vocabulary, it is every bit as real as any natural human language. On the other hand, Star Wars, which makes up languages as it goes, is full of fake languages.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
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.
Bye!
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?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.