STAR TREK Official Thread -- Reactions *Spoilers*

[AndyDursin]

They're estimating a robust $7 million for Thursday's shows. That's very good. Apparently today and tomorrow will let you know how well it's going to open.

Clearly it's not going to be a record breaker, but with word of mouth being what it is, I don't see this movie dropping anywhere in its 2nd weekend the way most blockbusters do. Repeat business is going to be strong -- in fact my wife wants to see it (and she's not a fan!), so I'm jumping at the chance while I can

BTW the more I think about it, Urban nailed McCoy more than maybe anyone else in the cast. For a guy who's been bland in lame movies like DOOM and PATHFINDER (which was a guilty pleasure, admittedly), it was a real surprise to see his performance. Hopefully there will be more of him in the next one.

Pegg I liked, but I think Urban was even better.

[Eric W.]

And...


I loved it!


I really have no complaints to speak of except that I wouldn't have minded the score being better. For me I think I can offically write MG off with this score. He put up a functional but TOTALLY forgettable and bland score.

There are some major things that happen in this film and some of which is very emotional and I remember at least three times where I instinctively was looking for Goldsmith's main theme which obviously isn't fair to MG but then there were some other instances, especially with the old Spock scenes and some other things where I needed that music to pull my heatstrings a touch, pull me in, and hit me in the chest like another character in the movie and it didn't happen.

Your description of the music in your review is pretty much dead on. I found it to be generic, forgettable, functional, and just kind of "there." It's not a BAD score it's just...meh.




Past this, I'm not the biggest fan of the cinematagrophy and the shake cam was overdone but not a federal case by any means.

The time mechanics and all that make perfect sense. They ran it tight. They ran it well and I'm really about as happy as you can be all the way around. This 2 hours blazed by so that's always a good sign.

They have a clean, new slate and it makes perfect sense. By having Nero comes back as far as George Kirk and 25 years before our people are even in the Academy or born...yeah, OF COURSE everything is different after that.


EVERY character got a special moment was important in this thing which is where Trek has had problems in the past in all incarnations. I love EVERY cast member without exception.

Urban was also Eomer in LOTR. And the villian in the second Bourne film.

He opened my eyes in this thing. EVERY cast member is a gem to me. I loved them all.





SPOILERS:


The Kobayashi Maru Test scene was a realy gem. If you're a Trek fan watching that there's no way you're not laughing out loud enjoying that. That was a great scene.





There's a few minor things I'm not clear on fully:



1.) Nero comes back in time and wipes out Kirk's father's ship and all that. For the next 25 years or so...what does Nero do? Just sit in that spot and wait?

EDIT: I heard there's a supposed deleted scene where Nero was held prisoner by Klingons for most of that 25 years. There's some mention I remember in the movie about "45 Klingons ships being destroyed" I think... It's a bit unclear. This might be the kind of thing they restore for the home video release. They should if it's there.


2.) Spock Prime.

Before we get into Back to The Future like craziness...his timeline is basically wiped out and yet he remains there at the end of the film. Shouldn't he have disappeared?

He's STAYING in the past and a past that's not even his.

I guess I can live with that but it's kind of strange isn't it? It's also kind of bizarrely satisfying: Spock was trying reunify Romulans and Vulcans as an Ambassador and now he'll finish his life out as a true world rebuilder and basically helping Vulcan civilization as a whole come back from near extinction.

He mind melded with this new young Kirk. Kirk has himself a heck of an amazing advantage depending on how much really happened in that mild meld. There's a lot of interesting ramifications there.

Feel free to fire away and I might think of more but overall I'm very happy and I can see them getting years of mileage easily with what they did here.



I agree with your review Andy and I also doubt I see a better movie this summer. When the summer is over, I bet this thing stands as king.

[AndyDursin]

Eric,
Agreed! I actually saw it again tonight -- Joanne actually did want to see it, and she loved it also (my wife loves a Star Trek movie -- who would've thought!). This time there was a load of applause when the credits ran. I think this one is going to play for weeks, and convert whatever naysayers are out there. Really, you have to be a REAL grinch to not enjoy this movie, in my opinion

I read about the Klingon prison part in an interview earlier today. It might make sense to restore it, but on the other hand, I can understand why it was cut -- Abrams said it took away from the main story, and stopped the movie dead. Although it fills in a gap in the narrative, it's also something that's not entirely necessary. Either way we'll see it as a deleted scene on the video release, which is good. Plenty of other things were cut with Winona Ryder and Ben Cross, but the movie is SO polished, so finely-tuned, I'd rather not have a "Director's Cut" muck with the pacing. It works great as is.

Giacchino's score is okay. There are sections of it that I liked, it's really his main theme that doesn't do anything for me. If he had composed something more appealing, more upbeat, more memorable, I think he would've had a gem. As it stands, it's one of the few aspects of the film that's not all it could have been.

[AndyDursin]

Before we get into Back to The Future like craziness...his timeline is basically wiped out and yet he remains there at the end of the film. Shouldn't he have disappeared?

That's what separates Abrams and the writers' view of time travel and changing the past from say, BTTF. In this instance, Spock and Nero didn't merely change the past -- they created a parallel universe, an alternate reality -- so Spock "Prime" is very much a part of that now. What happened before DID happen, it just happened in a different reality. What happens from here, in this alternate universe, is a clean slate. They could have elaborated upon it further but it's there in the scene where Spock, Uhura and everyone basically spell it out.

Interesting stuff because I assume that's exactly what will end up occurring on LOST as well (same writers too)...the future can be changed, in other words, but you won't be disappearing into thin air just because of those changes. What happens when you change the past is it creates a mirror/alternate reality from those changes.

It's probably even more complicated but that's the gist I got out of their views. It's a pretty complicated scientific theory they have!

[AndyDursin]

Good news already on the box-office front. $75 mil is a good start -- next weekend will be a real key because I predict it's going to hold up big-time when word of mouth kicks in. These early international estimates are also a good indicator.

FRIDAY 9:45 PM: Sources tell me that the North American opening number for Paramount's Star Trek grosses today is looking like $25 million. So, adding in Thursday 7 PM-Midnight night screenings, the reimagined space odyssey has made $32 million so far. My insiders say the total weekend number now could easily reach $72M. "But it still has a shot at $75M if it gets any bump on Saturday," an exec explains. To put that in perspective, a domestic weekend total under $50M would have meant the pic didn't attract a new and younger audience and relied instead on the franchise's older but loyal fanbase of Trekkies. It was risky for Paramount to market the movie as "not your father's Star Trek". But the critical reviews for JJ Abrams' reboot have been 90+% positive.

I hear the studio is celebrating international figures already: how "it's pretty spectacular" that Star Trek's debut in the UK, Australia, and Germany made almost the same as Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine's in those territories last weekend. Star Trek opened day and date in 54 countries Friday, and the goal of this new pic was to finally attract more filmgoers overseas. "Remember, this movie franchise has never done $100M international before," an exec reminds me tonight.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

[Eric W.]

Eric,
Agreed! I actually saw it again tonight -- Joanne actually did want to see it, and she loved it also (my wife loves a Star Trek movie -- who would've thought!). This time there was a load of applause when the credits ran. I think this one is going to play for weeks, and convert whatever naysayers are out there. Really, you have to be a REAL grinch to not enjoy this movie, in my opinion

I think you're right. Now as a long time Trek fan I have a few minor quibbles and sure, I have some mixed feelings about the idea that basically the timeline of the last 40 years of Trek is basically finished for all intents and purposes but what they did here was very solid.

I read about the Klingon prison part in an interview earlier today. It might make sense to restore it, but on the other hand, I can understand why it was cut -- Abrams said it took away from the main story, and stopped the movie dead. Although it fills in a gap in the narrative, it's also something that's not entirely necessary. Either way we'll see it as a deleted scene on the video release, which is good. Plenty of other things were cut with Winona Ryder and Ben Cross, but the movie is SO polished, so finely-tuned, I'd rather not have a "Director's Cut" muck with the pacing. It works great as is.

Partially agreed. There are some holes in the narrative that need to be addressed. I wouldn't mind seeing theaterical and director's cut both come out (at the same time) and people can watch what they want.

I've agreed with a few of the criticisms I've seen out there but when I see some of these really grinchy Trek fanboys throw out the "lazy writing" accusation I simply say to them: Lazy writing? Nemesis? Generations? Insurrection? Voyagar? Enterprise? Basically the last 15 years or even more of just about anything Trek related even as far back as some latter TNG episodes? Hello?

That accusation just does not fly for me after watching Trek die an Alzheimers like death like I had that culminated with an abomination known as Nemesis.

Giacchino's score is okay. There are sections of it that I liked, it's really his main theme that doesn't do anything for me. If he had composed something more appealing, more upbeat, more memorable, I think he would've had a gem. As it stands, it's one of the few aspects of the film that's not all it could have been.

It flirts with taking the film down a notch IMO. It's not the same kind of harm effect that a complete composer miscast can do like Gregson-Williams on Narnia films or Man in the Iron Mask, but when you need a score to put you over the top...it just doesn't happen here.

At best, I call the score a neutral. It's just there. Like I said, I think I can pretty much write off MG for the reasons you and I talked about a while back in this thread.

That's what separates Abrams and the writers' view of time travel and changing the past from say, BTTF. In this instance, Spock and Nero didn't merely change the past -- they created a parallel universe, an alternate reality -- so Spock "Prime" is very much a part of that now. What happened before DID happen, it just happened in a different reality. What happens from here, in this alternate universe, is a clean slate. They could have elaborated upon it further but it's there in the scene where Spock, Uhura and everyone basically spell it out.

Yeah, I felt pretty good about that. I don't have a problem with that.

Interesting stuff because I assume that's exactly what will end up occurring on LOST as well (same writers too)...the future can be changed, in other words, but you won't be disappearing into thin air just because of those changes. What happens when you change the past is it creates a mirror/alternate reality from those changes.

It really does remind me a lot of Lost, althoug the shenanigans going on there are a lot more complicated than what this was.

I was looking for maybe John Locke or Richard Alpert or Ben in a cameo as Starfleet Admirals or something.

It's probably even more complicated but that's the gist I got out of their views. It's a pretty complicated scientific theory they have!

Bottom line: They make it work and the dissent I've seen out there is SO minimal relatively speaking...and we know how Trek fanboys can be...that it's nothing short of a miracle outright that they've pulled this off as well as they have to vast majority of love and praise from fans and non fans alike.

That's all that matters.

Good news already on the box-office front. $75 mil is a good start -- next weekend will be a real key because I predict it's going to hold up big-time when word of mouth kicks in. These early international estimates are also a good indicator.

FRIDAY 9:45 PM: Sources tell me that the North American opening number for Paramount's Star Trek grosses today is looking like $25 million. So, adding in Thursday 7 PM-Midnight night screenings, the reimagined space odyssey has made $32 million so far. My insiders say the total weekend number now could easily reach $72M. "But it still has a shot at $75M if it gets any bump on Saturday," an exec explains. To put that in perspective, a domestic weekend total under $50M would have meant the pic didn't attract a new and younger audience and relied instead on the franchise's older but loyal fanbase of Trekkies. It was risky for Paramount to market the movie as "not your father's Star Trek". But the critical reviews for JJ Abrams' reboot have been 90+% positive.

I hear the studio is celebrating international figures already: how "it's pretty spectacular" that Star Trek's debut in the UK, Australia, and Germany made almost the same as Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine's in those territories last weekend. Star Trek opened day and date in 54 countries Friday, and the goal of this new pic was to finally attract more filmgoers overseas. "Remember, this movie franchise has never done $100M international before," an exec reminds me tonight.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

No question about it. I'm with you. I don't think I'm going to see a better movie this summer and I'll be surprised if this doesn't come out as the box office champ of the entire summer as well.

[mkaroly]

I bought my tickets today for an early show tomorrow morning (Happy Mother's Day to everyone's moms out there in the Aisle Seat, BTW), and I must say that I am PUMPED about it.

[AndyDursin]

Bottom line: They make it work and the dissent I've seen out there is SO minimal relatively speaking...and we know how Trek fanboys can be...that it's nothing short of a miracle outright that they've pulled this off as well as they have to vast majority of love and praise from fans and non fans alike.

People loved the movie last night, I could hear some kid go "again!!" and the place erupted in applause when it was over.

I have some mixed feelings about the idea that basically the timeline of the last 40 years of Trek is basically finished for all intents and purposes but what they did here was very solid.

I wouldn't close the door totally on that. Who's to say they don't do a series set after Nero and Spock disappeared in the other future reality?

No question about it. I'm with you. I don't think I'm going to see a better movie this summer and I'll be surprised if this doesn't come out as the box office champ of the entire summer as well.

What, TRANSFORMERS 2 and G.I. JOE didn't look that good? lol. The whole theater laughed outloud when the G.I. JOE title came up on screen!

Nikki's box-office projections have it down a little to about $70 million. That's still strong because it shows it's opening beyond the core fanbase. I would think with word of mouth the movie is going to hold up well.

This is kind of like a BATMAN BEGINS situation -- that movie had to win people over, it didn't open like gangbusters and indeed it only made $200 million. Yet, after people saw it on TV and video, folks became convinced it wasn't just another Schumacher movie, and it reignited that fanbase, you saw how well THE DARK KNIGHT did. I'm not saying a sequel to STAR TREK would ever equal THAT kind of performance, but it goes without saying a sequel to this movie could far outperform this one.

The two scenarios are very much the same -- franchises that had faded due to a number of creative and commercial missteps, that needed to win people over through making a bold cinematic statement that would appeal to fans and casual viewers alike. Both have been successful, but the fruits of their work in terms of box-office dollars only really showed with their second installments -- AFTER that base had been expanded.

The only thing I'll say is that I think Abrams' movie is even better and more successful than both of Nolan's films. But that's just me.

[AndyDursin]

I bought my tickets today for an early show tomorrow morning (Happy Mother's Day to everyone's moms out there in the Aisle Seat, BTW), and I must say that I am PUMPED about it.

Enjoy it Michael! I hate billing movies as being 4-star worthy and then having people disappointed, but I have to say, this one completely delivered in a way I haven't experienced in a long, long time.

[Eric W.]

What, TRANSFORMERS 2 and G.I. JOE didn't look that good? lol. The whole theater laughed outloud when the G.I. JOE title came up on screen!

TF 2 I can wait for home video and GI Joe...some of that looked ok but I really wasn't that impressed with it.

I think Terminator is going to be good, though.

Nikki's box-office projections have it down a little to about $70 million. That's still strong because it shows it's opening beyond the core fanbase. I would think with word of mouth the movie is going to hold up well.

No question about it. I saw your box office thread and I think that's a very strong opening. I see nothing but good things for this.

This is kind of like a BATMAN BEGINS situation -- that movie had to win people over, it didn't open like gangbusters and indeed it only made $200 million. Yet, after people saw it on TV and video, folks became convinced it wasn't just another Schumacher movie, and it reignited that fanbase, you saw how well THE DARK KNIGHT did. I'm not saying a sequel to STAR TREK would ever equal THAT kind of performance, but it goes without saying a sequel to this movie could far outperform this one.

It does. I guess they knew what they had since we already saw news a month or two ago about plans for the sequel already underway.

I think Trek is back and it's back strong!

The two scenarios are very much the same -- franchises that had faded due to a number of creative and commercial missteps, that needed to win people over through making a bold cinematic statement that would appeal to fans and casual viewers alike. Both have been successful, but the fruits of their work in terms of box-office dollars only really showed with their second installments -- AFTER that base had been expanded.

I honestly don't think Trek is waiting for that. The base is being expanded now. You've personally witnessed that and so have I and you can scour the Internet very quickly to see plenty of evidence of mostly love from non Trek people. The base has already expanded in just the few days this thing has been out.

The Trek fan base will be a lot larger when this movie has finished its theaterical run and will get even bigger when it hits home video. If the sequel comes out and is as good or hopefully even better...then that's just more fan growth that will happen.

Make good movies and people will come and they'll want more and they'll come back for more.

[AndyDursin]

One thing I didn't mention, because it's really not that big of a deal -- the kid playing young Kirk was HORRIBLE. Joanne even mentioned it to me after the movie was over. He bore no resemblance to Chris Pine and his delivery of his lines was simply atrocious. Even some folks on the FSM board mentioned it too...just for what it's worth.

[AndyDursin]

..and the news gets better

SATURDAY 10:30 PM: Sources tell me that Paramount's Star Trek did $26M Saturday. That's 9% more than the J.J. Abrams reboot made on Friday, which is a surprise and demonstrates that the pic is widening well beyond its rabid fanbase of Trekkies. I hear the studio is now confident the 3 1/2-weekend total on 3,849 theaters will reach $75M (which includes Thursday night's $7M screenings and Sunday estimate of $18M). The 3-day weekend totals $68M.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

[Eric W.]

..and the news gets better

SATURDAY 10:30 PM: Sources tell me that Paramount's Star Trek did $26M Saturday. That's 9% more than the J.J. Abrams reboot made on Friday, which is a surprise and demonstrates that the pic is widening well beyond its rabid fanbase of Trekkies. I hear the studio is now confident the 3 1/2-weekend total on 3,849 theaters will reach $75M (which includes Thursday night's $7M screenings and Sunday estimate of $18M). The 3-day weekend totals $68M.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

I read a piece today in the paper, probably AP, that says if you adjust for inflation and all that this Trek film far and away blows away the opening weekends of ALL the previous Treks. The previous Trek king was First Contact and this is on course to beat it out by at least $20 million on opening weekend totals when adjusted for inflation.

Like I said earlier, it's not waiting for a sequel...new fans are coming into Trek NOW and there's your proof. If it were just core Trek fans making their rounds there's no way you'd see numbers anywhere near these kinds of figures.

An earlier comment you made that I missed:

The only thing I'll say is that I think Abrams' movie is even better and more successful than both of Nolan's films. But that's just me.

It's not just you. Dark Knight is a difficult film to get into. It's psychologically disturbing and there's nothing fun about it whatsoever. Batman Begins at least had some balance between dark and some sense of fun as Bruce becomes Batman.

For a third film I really hope they swing the pendulum back to at least the balance that Batman Begins has otherwise I'm going to personally lose interest.

This Trek film is easily far more fun and accessible for a wide range of audiences. I think the figures will ultimately speak to that as as well.

[AndyDursin]

Oh yeah, there are definitely people going beyond the fanbase in to see it. I was more talking about how the film opening not being as high as, say, WOLVERINE was in the right context.

According to Box Office Mojo the movie did $72 million for the 3 days and $76 since opening. It'll be fascinating to see how it does NEXT weekend. I get the feeling it's going to "hold" very well.

[mkaroly]

Exceeded my expectations. Incredibly entertaining film. My main complaints would be the score, and that light reflection off the camera lens that occurred too much as well as the ADHD style editing. However, amazing move and this was the film NEMESIS should have been. There si something about the character of Spock that always moves me...not sure why. It was great seeing the ST gang back on film and back in action. Kirk's character is not developed beyond the impulsive cowboy, but I didn't care. Perhaps the best thing about the film was that there was no Rick Berman in sight!!!!!!!!! Go see it if you haven't yet.