Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the i'd-see-it-again-if-i-could-get-a-sitter dept.

Sci-Fi 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?"

cancel ×

820 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Welcome to Niggerbuntu (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905423)

Niggerbuntu is a Linux-based operating system consisting of Free and Open Source software for laptops, desktops, and servers. Niggerbuntu has a clear focus on the user and usability - it should "Just Work", even if the user has only the thinking capacities of a sponge. The OS ships with the latest Gnomrilla release as well as a selection of server and desktop software that makes for a comfortable desktop experience off a single installation CD. It also features the packaging manager apeghetto, and the challenging Linux manual pages have been reformatted into the new 'monkey' format, so for example the manual for the shutdown command can be accessed just by typing: 'monkey shut-up -h now mothafukka' instead of 'man shutdown'.

Absolutely Free of Charge

Niggerbuntu is Free Software, and available to you free of charge, as in free beer or free stuffs you can get from looting. It's also Free in the sense of giving you rights of Software Freedom. The freedom to run, copy, steal, distribute, share, change the software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.

Free software as in free beer!

Niggerbuntu is an ancient Nigger word, meaning "humanity to monkeys". Niggerbuntu also means "I am what I am because of how apes behave". The Niggerbuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Niggerbuntu to the software world. The dictator Bokassa described Niggerbuntu in the following way: "A subhuman with Niggerbuntu is open and available to others (like a white bitch you're ready to fsck), affirming of others, does not feel threatened by the fact that others species are more intelligent than we are, for it has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that it belongs to the great monkey specie." We chose the name Niggerbuntu for this distribution because we think it captures perfectly the spirit of sharing and looting that is at the heart of the open source movement.

first post! (5, Informative)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905429)

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

Re:first post! (5, Interesting)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905475)

The reviews have been very good for the Star Trek movie as well, more so than for Wolverine. Should have some impact for people who aren't necessarily old fans at least.

Re:first post! (1, Flamebait)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905867)

Hmm?

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 and was not worth viewing.

Re:first post! (4, Interesting)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905941)

Who do you talk to, people who go to Trek conventions dressed in full Klingon gear? It was a damn good addition to a series that's been in the shitter since 1996.

Decide for yourself on this one... imo.

Re:first post! (5, Interesting)

KoldFusion77 (1225930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905969)

I would have to say it is the best Star Trek movies yet because it was not just like all the other Star Treks. It was nice to watch a Star trek movie without it seeming like a 90 minute episode. Nice musical scores, great directing and camera angles.

Re:first post! (-1, Troll)

Traa (158207) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905973)

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 and was not worth viewing.

Maybe you and all your friend should go out more.

Re:first post! (3, Interesting)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905909)

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! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905721)

Are there any loyal fans left after the last few movies and TV series'? I've seen every Star Trek film since The Undiscovered Country in the cinema, but there's no way I'm going to see anything else milking the franchise. This one seems to have had good reviews though, so I might rent the DVD later.

Re:first post! (3, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906051)

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! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905825)

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.

Re:first post! (1, Flamebait)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906013)

Uhm, spoiler warning? Also, you're taking this way too seriously.

A Message From a Loyal Fan (0, Troll)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905889)

Many of us loyal fans are royally pissed off with how J.J. Abrams wiped his ass with Star Trek canon in this movie.

I was willing to give him lots of benefit of doubt, but now, having seen the movie, I believe that he fucked it up good. He fucked up everything he *could have* fucked up.

Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (2, Insightful)

Binestar (28861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906009)

SPOILERS: So lets see, you're upset they didn't hit the reset button? This is a time travel episode where everything does NOT go back to how it was before the time travel. Think: Yesterday's Enterprise except they didn't send Enterprise C back. Think: The Year of Hell except the totally unexplained destroy the timeship and everything works out ok waving of the hand doesn't occur.

Essentially they explained it in the movie: It's an alternate reality -- alternate timeline. Spock and the Romulon's getting yanked into the blackhole back in time changed the original timeline. Wonder if Q cares enough to fix it.

Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27906025)

Many of us loyal fans are royally pissed off with how J.J. Abrams wiped his ass with Star Trek canon in this movie.

I thought that's what "reboot" is supposed to mean. Clean slate, reimagine anything you like without being tied to canon.

Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (0, Flamebait)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906049)

Which means it's no longer Star Trek.

Re:A Message From a Loyal Fan (1)

KoldFusion77 (1225930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906053)

J.J. Abrams is resurrecting the corpse known as Star Trek that Rick Berman left behind. Gene wanted a BOLD Star Trek. Not some horribad drama we have had to watch since TNG. The new movie is sweet

Re:first post! (2, Insightful)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905929)

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

I don't know. Maybe I am in the minority, but I feel as though this movie really is a drastic departure from the Star Trek concept. I'm not going to see it until it comes out on DVD. From the previews, it just doesn't look like Star Trek anymore. They've finally removed the last little bit from the original concept and its just another action movie. The only reason I'm interested in it at all is because it seems to be a pretty good action movie. Might have even seen it in the theater if I wasn't a bit upset about the use of the Star Trek franchise to market this kind of movie.

Then again, it is better then having them try to be faithful to the Star Trek philosophy and failing, which is what most of the Star Trek movies have been lately. Its too bad. They really had something there with TNG and it just petered out.

Pent-up Demand for the "Star Trek" Prequel (1)

reporter (666905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906007)

About 4 years have elapsed after the last episode of "Star Trek: Enterprise". Since that episode, no new television shows nor full-screen movies have appeared.

So, there is now plenty of pent-up demand for something -- anything -- related to "Star Trek". The appearance of Leonard Nimoy in the new movie will only make it even more rewarding to view. The best part of all is that the "Star Trek" prequel, unlike the first "Star Wars" prequel, is not specifically targetting a 6-year-old audience.

So, the new movie will easily meet the revenue milestone of $200 million.

"Scott, beam me into the movie theater!"

Who cares? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905431)

What does it all have to be about the opening weekend?

I don't know much about the industry, so I'd appreciate a good answer.

Re:Who cares? (3, Informative)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905449)

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.

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

Creepy (93888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905885)

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:Who cares? (1)

inhuman_4 (1294516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905981)

Same here. I liked it enough to want to see it again. I would especially like to see it in IMAX. Some of the space battles would look really good.

What Critics? (1, Informative)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905433)

Rotten tomatoes has it rated at 95%, which means that there are very few critics that don't like the movie. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/ [rottentomatoes.com]

Re:What Critics? (4, Informative)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905491)

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:What Critics? (2, Insightful)

bigdaisy (30400) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905507)

This word you keep using; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:What Critics? (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905525)

Where does it say in the summary or article anything about critics other than that the movie is winning them over?

Re:What Critics? (2, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905811)

Let me help you out a little. You seem to be somewhat lacking in the understanding of the English language.

From Websters...

Critic:

1. a person who judges, evaluates, *or* criticizes: a poor critic of men.
2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.

Emphasis mine.

A movie critic doesn't necessarily dislike a movie... They judge or comment on them. There are tons of critics of the new Star Trek film. Read any review in any newspaper/blog, and you are reading a movie critic's remarks.

Re:What Critics? (5, Funny)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905861)

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:What Critics? (1)

ParadiseBob (1126869) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905919)

The IMDB [imdb.com] already has it listed as #62 of the top 250 movies of all time.

Worst Case (4, Funny)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905437)

Just use a black hole to redo it until it's successful. Unless it was successful the first time and didn't need a full reboot. Seriously, why did we need to erase everything that happened again? At least the kirk from the other movies always fixes the timeline.

Re:Worst Case (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905533)

Have you seen the last handful of movies?

There are definitely reasons to through it all away.

Re:Worst Case (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905571)

Ouch, spelling fail.

throw.

Re:Worst Case (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905647)

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 (4, Insightful)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905819)

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.

Re:Worst Case (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905879)

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.

You hate the movie because they don't agree with your view of a fictional history?

Please, go outside.

Re:Worst Case (5, Insightful)

Nyrath the nearly wi (517243) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905539)

Why did they need to erase everything that had happened? Answer: to become free of the arthritic horror of Backwards Compatibility.

Re:Worst Case (4, Funny)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905651)

Well, Microsoft still has users

Re:Worst Case (2, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905799)

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...

Uh... yes. (4, Interesting)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905439)

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:Uh... yes. (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905763)

The last movie was a horrid fan fic given a multimillion dollar budget and directed by someone who was determined to ignore all the previous Trek stuff, whereas the current film is more an attempt to be a more modern Trek experiance while paying homage to everything else.

potential (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905943)

You know, I think they could even make a TV series out of this "Star Trek"...

Screw your alternative timeline! (-1, Troll)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905463)

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

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905591)

Good thing he's not 23, seeing how Captain Nero had a 25 year absence between the day of Kirk's birth and when he attacked Vulcan.

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (5, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905601)

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)

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (4, Insightful)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905663)

Why not? Alexander was King at age 20, and that was real reality, not some sci-fi movie.

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905695)

Die StarTrek, die...what?
Don't let us like that finish your sentences,
a good quotation is best once finished.
i don't hold it against you though, someone who speak german can't be bad.

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (5, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905751)

"Die StarTrek, die...what?"

It was German. He was really saying: "The Star Trek, the..."

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (2, Insightful)

Unnngh! (731758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905791)

Yeah...I've started wondering, am I not a trekkie any more? I didn't really watch the last TV series, I can't even tell you what it was called. I went to see the movie this past weekend and was underwhelmed. Spock was great but on the whole, there was nothing particularly interesting about it. A lot of kids running the Enterprise? Yawn. Time travel? So overdone, and not particularly well done this time. There were none of the interesting, weird, thought-provoking ideas that I'm used to seeing from the first two series. Maybe I'm just old and grumpy, but I felt the movie was deliberately dumbed down to try and get greater mass appeal.

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905895)

You're not the only one to think that. The story of the movie was flimsy.

Re:Screw your alternative timeline! (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905841)

Science fiction. Not science reality.

Yes (5, Insightful)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905483)

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.

Re:Yes (3, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905755)

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:Yes (3, Insightful)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905997)

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.

Reviews are the key to the second wave (5, Informative)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905499)

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.

Re:Reviews are the key to the second wave (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905669)

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:Reviews are the key to the second wave (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905685)

The sad thing is that your first sentence equates 'blockbuster' with "adaptation." This says a lot about the state of Hollywood... that nothing original can be a blockbuster now. Thank you MPAA.

I have yet to see it. (1)

Rungi (1098221) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905501)

The commercials always hype any new movie. I did happen to see Wolverine. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I may go see Star Trek this coming weekend but from what I've read even non Trekkies thought it was great.

I, for one, (1)

agnosticanarch (105861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905505)

am going back to see it AGAIN! This time at an IMAX!!!

Re:I, for one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905775)

lucky bastich - our IMAX isn't showing it...

I've had to settle for seeing it 5 times in the regular theater... (thank god for gift certificates)...

As long as (4, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905511)

As long as the media keeps hyping it, people of all walks will continue to go see it.

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 (4, Funny)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905727)

Are you certain you want to be emotionally attached to the kind of person who cannot even form their own opinion and, what's worse, won't let you form it, but would rather have a large corporation's brainwashing machine form it?

Re:As long as (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905887)

Duh, he doesn't -really- have a girlfriend. Welcome to slashdot.

Re:As long as (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905917)

Ad. Ackbar says: "Just don't marry her."

Re:As long as (5, Funny)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905951)

Hmm, relationship advice from a Slashdot poster. Sure, I'll take it "under advisement".

Re:As long as (1)

R_Kulio (1265846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905999)

My fiancee also never watched Star Trek before this one, but enjoyed it a great deal. I believe the previews were doing their best to show that this was going to be different from the other ones. Just like I have never watched Sex and the City (which she enjoys). But if I started seeing previews for a new movie that made it seem completely different from how I imagined it, I'm sure she could convince me to see it.

You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905529)

According to Entertainment Weekly, 70-75 million is how much the previous movies got in *total* income. So even if this new Trek ended right now, it still did as well as all the previous movies. That's nothing to be negative about.

Re:You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! (2, Informative)

R_Kulio (1265846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905629)

Yeah, but this one cost a whole lot more to make than any of the previous ones. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/StarTrek.php [the-numbers.com]

Re:You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905839)

Still good. Look at those numbers and the most successful opening weekend prior to this one was First Contact. This got $30,716,131 for a $46,000,000 budget, or 66% of the budget as the opening weekend gross. This film got just under 50%, which isn't far off. The next-biggest opening was Generations, which only got 60% and then Insurrection with a shade over 30%.

Re:You've got be kidding. 75 mil is great! (1)

R_Kulio (1265846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905945)

Actually, look at Wrath of Khan, it made 14 million in the first weekend, and only cost 12 million to make. But I do agree, it's not doing too bad, just not as good as the OP made it sound based on opening weekend alone.

Yep, and to think $72.5M is not enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905725)

...would just make them dickheads!

Friday vs thursday ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905537)

Are these numbers adjusted for the Thursday opening vs the Friday opening for everyone else ?

Geekgasm (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905597)

The movie was awesome. It had enough trekkiness to satisfy the trekkies, and it was good enough to satisfy the non-trekkies. Amazingly, I have found more in the closet trekkies than I ever imagined, including my 60 yr old mother-in-law. Unfortunately, I now have dreams involving a remake of the movie Shaun of the Dead [imdb.com] starring James Doohan [memory-alpha.org]

sigh... (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905611)

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.

Re:sigh... (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905815)

I hope it isn't a reboot of the continuity in general. I think it'd be cool if there was a series of movies that were mostly self-contained, so they could try new and interesting things more often. The mirror universe episodes in each series are widely liked for the same reason.

Re:sigh... (1)

CryptoKiller (78275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905857)

I couldn't agree more without hurting myself!

No story in star trek (1, Troll)

sjwest (948274) | more than 5 years ago | (#27906003)

Go on and mod me a troll but where was the story in the star trek film ?

The 'film' was a set of shorts with the main idea being that this is what star trek could be if you give the creatives a decent budget and decent actors who can act post tng series.

I like what they did with star trek - but there was no story per say in the reboot, and time travel stories suck.

I caught a 9AM showing on Saturday (5, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905635)

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.

who cares? (0, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905653)

Are you getting a cut of the profits?

Time will tell (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905659)

I think that most of the $ from the first weekend was mostly all the Star Trek fans coming out in full force. Hopefully word of mouth will help spread that it is a good movie that can appeal to people beyond the average Trek geek.

As a big fan of all things Trek, I am happy to see a Trek movie finally get good reviews and make a lot of $. It has been over a decade (since 1996 and First Contact) since we have seen Trek on top at the box office. And remember, in 1996 there was no such thing as thepiratebay and torrents. Literally 24 hours after Star Trek hit the theaters this past Thursday, it was up with a decent watchable copy on TPB and most other torrent sites. So to see it doing this well in spite of the easy accessibility to most Trek fans is encouraging.

But as a Trek fan, I am a little disappointed with how the storyline stacks up. I mean, Trek is known for having some plot holes here and there, but this movie really just forgoes all notion of continuity or semblance of some of the more recent Trek constants. To name a few:

  • The Temporal Prime Directive
  • In the Future, there is a division of Starfleet that watches the timeline for massive changes
  • The fact that reversing the damage caused by Neo would require a simple bit of time travel (jump to the past to reverse the damage caused, then jump to the future to prevent Neo from ever going back)
  • Neo's ship conforms to NONE of the established Romulan shiip design
  • Voyager's Chakotay-style Face Tattoos on romulans?
  • An Enterprise bridge designed by Apple

There are some things I REALLY liked (the CG, the fact that space was FINALLY silent, the constant use of the Z-Axis, etc) and I thought they did a GREAT job with the casting, but I am worried they will totally negate all the Trek that lead up to this...

Re:Time will tell (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905881)

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...

Re:Time will tell (1)

philpalm (952191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905953)

Since it is a re-boot, maybe they will explain how a Japanese name Sulu is Japanese? It is suppose to be Suru since there is no L in the Japanese spoken language...

um, yeah, so, kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905675)

That alien is Balok [memory-alpha.org] , from the TOS episode , which, oh dear lord, this thread has gone [memory-alpha.org] Full circle [wikipedia.org]

looks good to me (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905683)

The movie apparently is the most expensive [the-numbers.com] of the Star Trek movies. The first weekend box office was half it's budget which relatively speaking is a bit below average for Star Trek movies. However, given the high quality of the movie and the legs that most Star Trek movies have, I imagine this movie will make an ample profit.

Waiting till the crowds drop. (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905687)

DON'T PANIC! I'm waiting until the geek rush is over. I'll see it in iMAX. No point in fighting with people in Klingon costumes for the best seats. Besides, I didn't get a chance to finish my girlfriend's B'Etor costume.

But Wolverine was rubbish (1)

Arab (466938) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905719)

Crucially New trek is actually pretty good despite rewriting the whole continuity. Wolverine was a pile of steaming turds with rubbish CGI.

You know how wolverine is going to end becasue it's a prequel, Star trek could go anywhere because it's a different universe.

Hollywood Out of Touch (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905783)

"Struggling" to make 200 million in two weeks? I've been working on my first million for about 22 years now.

What a ridiculous topic (5, Interesting)

CPE1704TKS (995414) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905823)

JJ Abrams is already on the record saying he would be ridiculously happy with $50 million. $72 million is beyond his wildest expectations. All this nonsense about "is it good enough" is just completely masturbatory. The fact is that it has singlehandedly revived the franchise, and people who have no interest in Star Trek went to go see it. As long as Abrams can keep the storylines less fanboyish (he said he never was a fan, which is a good thing), it seems like he can keep getting people to go see it.

Re:What a ridiculous topic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905977)

What are you mumbling about. The whole "broaden audience" marketing-driven bullshit fucks everything from games to movies. What the fuck is wrong with something being for the fuckin' fans?

Vapid movie (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905859)

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.

if it isn't enough to be a blockbuster (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905871)

just travel back in time and redo the script. keep doing that until you guaranteed a blockbuster

just make sure to save the whales, and that joan collins gets hit by a truck

tangential rant: time travel is the absolute lamest aspect of star trek. i haven't seen any good science fiction come out of time travel plots except perhaps the terminator storyline. if you can alter time, where is the tension in the plot? it lets the air of the tires, so to say, in terms of suspending your disbelief for payoff. time travel is a completely lame premise in all science fiction, and that includes the current start trek movie. i can't believe that star trek writers can't write compelling script without this lame crutch. please stop

What competition does it have? (2, Insightful)

ParadiseBob (1126869) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905883)

This summer is pretty weak compared to years past. Usually there is a movie geared toward teenage boys every week until August.
"Terminator Salvation," comes out in two weeks, but after that there's nothing geared toward the 18-35 male demographic until "Transformers 2" in late July.
This summer is more full of empty weekends and movies geared toward other groups ("Angels & Demons" = adults, "Up"=children [though everyone likes Pixar movies]) than we've seen in a while. With good word of mouth, "Star Trek" should have some staying power against some thin competition.

Spoiler... like any /. reader hasn't been... (1)

gwn (594936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905899)

Who cares how it will do... More important is what they did with it... Forking the time line so they don't have to pay attention to the original was brilliant. It makes follow up movies open to anything. Introducing Kirk's propensity to bed the Jolly Green Giant's sister early in the show was hilarious. Character development was spotty at best with Bones being nothing more than one line jokes and Scotty being an afterthought... Nice to see Leonard Nimoy show up too... I do wonder why all the crew seem so bloody young? They also really do need a pizza hut or McDonald's on the ship to get a little meat on the crews bones. Visually, this was fun... not the best, but definitely fun. Final verdict, this was fun! Anyone want to bag-off work this afternoon and see the matinee?

in another reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27905963)

you have to applaud the marketeers for getting the theaters on board to sell this film
when it was more worthy of the STV title.

Average Star Trek Gross (3, Interesting)

ranson (824789) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905971)

Considering the previous 10 ST films have averaged about $70M each for their entire runs, I don't think surpassing that figure the first weekend is terribly bad at all. It's a great movie, and word of mouth is powerful. It will continue to do well.

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.

Mother's Day (1)

bugeaterr (836984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905975)

$75 million is very good. Mother's Day historically isn't a big movie going day.
On top of that, I'm speculating here, that most moms don't go for action/sci-fi fare.

Read the other numbers (3, Informative)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905985)

Rotten Tomatoes [rottentomatoes.com] : Trek 95% v Wolvie 37%
MetaCritic [metacritic.com] : Trek 84% v Wolvie 44%

'Nuff said.

One big difference (1)

ouder (1080019) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905991)

One big difference is that Star Trek is a decent movie and Wolverine was at best mediocre.

It's all relative to expectations (3, Insightful)

Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) | more than 5 years ago | (#27905995)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?