"Star Trek" = the biggest box office hit of 2009

[indranee]

that much is true.

why saddle ourselves with open minds?

 

[indranee]

John, I think some people here forget exactly how "kitschy" and "corny" and "campy" TOS has always been.

CotEoF and a few other episodes aside, TOS was never comparable to something like Twilight Zone.

I think we need to get our perspective back on TOS in order to give this movie its due.

 

[Scotty]

The real test will be how profitable the film is. At $150 million to make, doubling that to include marketing, it has to get past the $300 million mark to begin earning a profit. It will, but how much, and how much this appears as a percentage compared to other films, will be the true measure of its financial success.

Ticket and DVD sales are not the only source of income. I read a couple of weeks ago that the FX channel secured the broadcasting rights to Trek XI for 24 million.

 

[Amaris]

John, I think some people here forget exactly how "kitschy" and "corny" and "campy" TOS has always been.

CotEoF and a few other episodes aside, TOS was never comparable to something like Twilight Zone.

I think we need to get our perspective back on TOS in order to give this movie its due.

Exactly. Star Trek had it's serious moments, but it was overall a fun, campy show set in space.

J.

 

[MvRojo]

Congratulations, Star Trek! It was well-deserved and no matter what, the naysayers have been silenced.

You know what, you're right. I thought this was a poor film, but since it has made a shit-ton of money I now realise that it is a fantastic piece of art. It's not like as if a bad movie has ever been a financial success before.

I think he was referring to those who thought the movie would bomb.

 

[startrekwatcher]

I think it was very good filmmaking. "Lowered the bar"? That's all a matter of perspective, now, isn't it? I think rose colored glasses have been the order of the day for many who strongly dislike this movie as a Star Trek movie.

Not in my case. I don't treat TOS as something to be worshipped. Abrams can reboot it all he likes just as so long as it was entertaining and well-done.

Look, I love the Original Series. It is my favorite Trek. However, for every "City On The Edge of Forever", we have a "Spock's Brain".

I'm not treating XI as a series but as essentially a two part episode. So just because TOS had weak episodes, like any show does, doesn't mean I'm going to give XI a pass.

It's not uncommon, to despise something so much because it's new and seems to usurp the foothold of that ever so sacred cow.

Except TOS was never a sacred cow to me. In fact it isn't even my favorite or second favorite Trek series so I didn't have the investment in it as a lot of bashers do. I also don't despise XI. I just find it to be a film that has a lot of issues that prevent it from being a solid film.

 

[indranee]

John, I think some people here forget exactly how "kitschy" and "corny" and "campy" TOS has always been.

CotEoF and a few other episodes aside, TOS was never comparable to something like Twilight Zone.

I think we need to get our perspective back on TOS in order to give this movie its due.

Exactly. Star Trek had it's serious moments, but it was overall a fun, campy show set in space.

J.

and not just "campy". it was poorly written many, many times. And the Children Shall Live anyone? The Apple anyone? not to forget Spock's Brain (I actually love that ep).

in that sense, this movie improves upon the bunch of 'em by leaps. let's not kid ourselves. we aren't talking Dr. Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia.

sci fi has always had an element of suspension of belief in it. it's what makes it science fiction. it's not SUPPOSED to make complete sense. it's SUPPOSED to be a bit hokey, a bit corny, a bit unrealistic. nevertheleless, it entertains... makes you laugh (at it and with it), cry, jump up and down in your seat. occasionally, it should make you think.

this movie did all of them and more. just like TOS.

we're not talking Oscar material, folks. it's just a Tee Vee show!

 

[Phily B]

Well I won't be seeing Transformer 2 cause of that douchebag Shia LaBeouf, I boycott all his films after Indy 4.

 

[Amaris]

I think it was very good filmmaking. "Lowered the bar"? That's all a matter of perspective, now, isn't it? I think rose colored glasses have been the order of the day for many who strongly dislike this movie as a Star Trek movie.

Not in my case. I don't treat TOS as something to be worshipped. Abrams can reboot it all he likes just as so long as it was entertaining and well-done.

Look, I love the Original Series. It is my favorite Trek. However, for every "City On The Edge of Forever", we have a "Spock's Brain".

I'm not treating XI as a series but as essentially a two part episode. So just because TOS had weak episodes, like any show does, doesn't mean I'm going to give XI a pass.

It's not uncommon, to despise something so much because it's new and seems to usurp the foothold of that ever so sacred cow.

Except TOS was never a sacred cow to me. In fact it isn't even my favorite or second favorite Trek series so I didn't have the investment in it as a lot of bashers do. I also don't despise XI. I just find it to be a film that has a lot of issues that prevent it from being a solid film.

I understand that, and I'm not saying you despise the film. My comment was aimed more for those who really are almost violently opposed to the film. For you, I'm simply saying that "lowered the bar" is completely subjective. I love high concept movies, I love movies that make you think long after the credits roll, and sometimes I just love a movie that has action, drama, a common bond with the audience, adventure and a healthy dose of comedy. I believe Star Trek qualifies for the last one. It may not be 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it's not dumb. It may have action and adventure, but it's not Rambo: First Blood. It has comedy moments, but it's not American Pie. It may have sexy, attractive young actors, but it's not She's All That. It has slick special effects and gorgeous cinematography, but it's not Star Wars. It is Star Trek, and it's making new headway, not lowering the bar, but changing the scale by which we measure.

and not just "campy". it was poorly written many, many times. And the Children Shall Live anyone? The Apple anyone? not to forget Spock's Brain (I actually love that ep).

in that sense, this movie improves upon the bunch of 'em by leaps. let's not kid ourselves. we aren't talking Dr. Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia.

sci fi has always had an element of suspension of belief in it. it's what makes it science fiction. it's not SUPPOSED to make complete sense. it's SUPPOSED to be a bit hokey, a bit corny, a bit unrealistic. nevertheleless, it entertains... makes you laugh (at it and with it), cry, jump up and down in your seat. occasionally, it should make you think.

this movie did all of them and more. just like TOS.

we're not talking Oscar material, folks. it's just a Tee Vee show!

Agreed! Now, I would have been irked by the movie if it had tried to pass itself off as a cerebral movie, one filled with great depth and high concepts, but it didn't. It passed itself off as a fun thrill ride, and it succeeded. Good Trek has always been thrilling. If I wanted deep concepts and high ideas for a two hour motion picture, I'd watch the large library of DVDs on my shelf which do just that. In a theater, I want sweeping starscapes, bright, vivid colors, fast or moderately paced action, adventure, and characters I can get excited about enough to care. Again, Star Trek accomplished this and more, and I believe it followed in the footsteps of TOS and then made it's own spin on things.

J.

 

[indranee]

I understand that, and I'm not saying you despise the film. My comment was aimed more for those who really are almost violently opposed to the film. For you, I'm simply saying that "lowered the bar" is completely subjective. I love high concept movies, I love movies that make you think long after the credits roll, and sometimes I just love a movie that has action, drama, a common bond with the audience, adventure and a healthy dose of comedy. I believe Star Trek qualifies for the last one. It may not be 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it's not dumb. It may have action and adventure, but it's not Rambo: First Blood. It has comedy moments, but it's not American Pie. It may have sexy, attractive young actors, but it's not She's All That. It has slick special effects and gorgeous cinematography, but it's not Star Wars. It is Star Trek, and it's making new headway, not lowering the bar, but changing the scale by which we measure.

J.

nice!!

 

[wekkuli]

If one just examines the various elements in the film I don't see how it can receive the praise it does.

The actors are solid but are pretty much relegated to action figures or exposition dumpers. The VFX are outstanding but shouldn't substitute for a good story. The Uhura/Spock romance was neither good nor bad just "there". The emotional fallout for Spock was limited to two rather shallow and brief scenes. We had some silly comedy gags like Kirk with big hands which I found puerile and not the least bit clever or funny. Vulcan was destroyed for spectacle. Amanda was a plot device. Old Spock was little more than a plot device. The villian was an uninteresting plot device. The writers failed to sufficiently provide the necessary background when it came to Spock/Nero and the events in 2387 choosing instead to relegate this information to a four part comic book series which actually did do a fairly good job in adding some interesting stuff to the mix. Kirk/Spock's relationship, which Abrams said was at the core of the film, was treated in a very shallow manner and like so many things suffered from the fact the writers were doing too much.

The final battle was formulaic with Kirk fighting and Spock crashing the ship into the Narada and being sucked into a black hole.

This is not good filmmaking.

Can you think about any other family blockbuster that's not like that? I mean, this kind of movie is usually forced to have most of those elements just to reach the widest possible audience.

Star Trek (2009) is a thrill ride and certainly doesn't need to be over-analysed.

 

[startrekwatcher]

If one just examines the various elements in the film I don't see how it can receive the praise it does.

The actors are solid but are pretty much relegated to action figures or exposition dumpers. The VFX are outstanding but shouldn't substitute for a good story. The Uhura/Spock romance was neither good nor bad just "there". The emotional fallout for Spock was limited to two rather shallow and brief scenes. We had some silly comedy gags like Kirk with big hands which I found puerile and not the least bit clever or funny. Vulcan was destroyed for spectacle. Amanda was a plot device. Old Spock was little more than a plot device. The villian was an uninteresting plot device. The writers failed to sufficiently provide the necessary background when it came to Spock/Nero and the events in 2387 choosing instead to relegate this information to a four part comic book series which actually did do a fairly good job in adding some interesting stuff to the mix. Kirk/Spock's relationship, which Abrams said was at the core of the film, was treated in a very shallow manner and like so many things suffered from the fact the writers were doing too much.

The final battle was formulaic with Kirk fighting and Spock crashing the ship into the Narada and being sucked into a black hole.

This is not good filmmaking.

Can you think about any other family blockbuster that's not like that? I mean, this kind of movie is usually forced to have most of those elements just to reach the widest possible audience.

That is why I've pretty much stopped going to the movies these days. They are loud, full of explosions and have very little in in the way of sharp writing and intereting character moments.

Just because XI is keeping with the current standards of acceptable filmmaking doesn't mean I have to ignore the issues I had with it. And it isn't like I hate it. It is entertaining on one level but that fades in subsequent attempts to view it. For an example of a well done action flick off the top of my head would be the older Indiana Jones films and for a Trek example I'd point to FC or TWoK or TVH.

 

[VOODOOXI]

A top five domestic box office finish is looking more and more likely.

Last year Wall-E made the top five while grossing $223 million dollars. It seems likely that "Star Trek" will end it's run with more than $230 million dollars.

The only films that will just about definitely pass it are "Transformers II" and "Harry Potter" which could/should top $300 million each.

Beyond that there are only a handful of films that could pass it. Those films incluse, James Cameron's "Avatar" and Pixar's "Up". Beyond that I don't see too many films (although there is always one that comes out of nowhere) that could pass "ST" in the U.S.

 

[Galactic Alignment]

yep, all indications suggest that it's not just trekkies who're making this movie the success it's deemed to be.

Oh, indeed, from personal anecdotal evidence. I took my girlfriend along to see STXI, and she really didn't want to go and see a sci-fi film - I had to agree to see the next Harry bloody Potter film with her in order to get her co-operation. Now, she's someone who has never seen any Star Trek before, didn't even know the iconic Enterprise design, or anything beyond the fact that there was a famous pointy-eared alien. And? She absolutely loved the film. Goes to show, if you make a sci-fi film, make one that non-nerds can like and enjoy, and you'll make more money. That's not exactly rocket science (LOL).

 

[Captain Fine]

As long as it stays in the top 5 I'll be happy, although top 3 would be better

Oh and I motion that we open a separate thread for haters of this film, so they can criticize it in peace. I'm a little tired of hearing the negativity in every single thread I open. But that's just my opinion.

Personally I'm all for the de-nerdification of Star Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The real test will be how profitable the film is. At $150 million to make, doubling that to include marketing, it has to get past the $300 million mark to begin earning a profit.

No, and no.

People do continue to love that formulation, though.

 

[Devon]

Well I won't be seeing Transformer 2 cause of that douchebag Shia LaBeouf, I boycott all his films after Indy 4.

No. No. No! No no no no no!

 

[dave_R_treker]

Star Trek #1,(even if for a short time) I wouldn't have thought possible a year ago.

Star Trek has already made over $260,000,000 worldwide. It will easly make over $300,000,000. It still yet to open in Japan, Hong Kong, and India (according to Boxofficemojo).

 

[Star Treks]

Am I the only one slightly skeptical about the potential box office of Transformers II? It looks like the kinda flick that gets a huge opening weekend but drops off quick (like Wolverine), not a solid movie that people are going to keep coming back to again and again.

 

[Aragorn]

There's more robots and more robots fighting in the new Transformers. And the real Devastator (well, minus dead Bonecrusher and plus a couple robots who weren't part of the original combination)! And Megan Fox! What's not to look forward to?