Weekend Actuals are In: A&D:46.5, ST:43 million

[superdeluxe]

I am just glad those that have been pounding the 'this will flop, it is still a flop' have disappeared. I miss odo's bucket.

 

[USS Gettysburg]

I am just glad those that have been pounding the 'this will flop, it is still a flop' have disappeared. I miss odo's bucket.

That's because they have totally proved their point.

 

[Squiggy]

WHAT WENT WRONG?!?!

They blew up vulcan!

JJ had doomed us all.

 

[Similitude]

I've heard conflicting numbers for the production cost, going from $150 to $250 at times, but I'm not sure if the higher numbers are including marketing (or, worse, the forstalled marketing from last summer). It'll definately go through Memorial Day...

Still, pretty huge budget all around. I just hate to see this kind of money spent on any movie, largely when I'm looking at it and wondering where all that insane amount of cash actually went. (Not being snarky to Trek here, I honestly just don't see it.. CGI is supposed to be a cheaper alternative... and if the money's going to actors, then they're getting paid too damn much!)

Actors salaries have increased at 500% above annual inflation and this makes it likely that movie making will become as it will price will rocket out of anyone's capacity to make.

MOVIES COULD COST A BILLION TO MAKE SOON.

Actors are very greedy and nasty and selfish charging $20 million for 2 hours work.

They should get unknowns instead and cut the cost down to about $10 million maximum.A law could be passed capping the total money spend on making a movie.

Right, because what we need is Corporations making more profits and the people who make the movies making less.

 

[photon70]

I'm not sure CGI ends up saving money. What it does do is save some time by allowing them to do more complicated shots. So while the same shot might be cheaper to do in CGI vs. models, it also allows them to do more stuff, which then ends up costing more in total in the long run.

Each second of screen time requires 26 frames.

Each frame, depending on the complexity of what is being modelled in CGI can take hundreds oF man-hours.

So for some movies, ie, Transformers, each second literally takes months of computer crunching to achieve.

 

[Borgminister]

Right, because what we need is Corporations making more profits and the people who make the movies making less.

Hey--corporations are persons too...

 

[Vykan12]

It's nice that Trek is succeeding in the box office, but perhaps you guys should focus on the reason why. It is a summer blockbuster action flick, and with these kinds of results, who's to say the makers of the film aren't going to repeat this formula of shallow, action-centric storylines? It's not a good direction for Trek, no matter how profitable it may be.

 

[Borgminister]

It's nice that Trek is succeeding in the box office, but perhaps you guys should focus on the reason why. It is a summer blockbuster action flick, and with these kinds of results, who's to say the makers of the film aren't going to repeat this formula of shallow, action-centric storylines? It's not a good direction for Trek, no matter how profitable it may be.

Let's see, there was the heroic sacrifice of Kirk senior, the coming of age of Kirk junior under Pike, the struggles against discrimination by a young Spock, and the absolute loss suffered by Spock with the destruction of his home world and death of his mother.

Not only that, this "formula" introduced iconic characters to a new audience succesfully, and paved the way for new exploits.

I think you are wrong--Batman Begins was very plodding in its introduction of Batman, yet we had Dark Knight as a result. You don't know the "direction" of Trek by this movie.

I've every confidence in the Supreme Court given what I've seen thus far. And look forward to the uncut DVD version.

 

[Vykan12]

Let's see, there was the heroic sacrifice of Kirk senior, the coming of age of Kirk junior under Pike, the struggles against discrimination by a young Spock, and the absolute loss suffered by Spock with the destruction of his home world and death of his mother.

None of these did much for me. Kirk Sr was sacrificed at the very beginning of the movie, and TOS knowledge aside, we knew virtually nothing about him, so there wasn't much emotional impact to that sacrifice. Though even if there were, the movie doesn't even give you enough time to dwell on it, the same which can be said of Vulcan's destruction, and many other plot points.

Kirk junior's coming of age would be a valid point if his character weren't so fiendishly implausible. His rise to command was the result of numerous coincidences, and rewarding renegade behavior, not exactly inspiring stuff.

Spock's discrimination only lasted as a glimpse of his childhood, and as a passing comment by the Vulcan committee. After that, he was distinguished and respected by all of Star Fleet.

I can agree with you on some levels about your last example, but again, Vulcan's destruction and his mother's death were moments that were hastily glossed over because of the movie's relentless pace. Aside from Spock's punching Kirk, and some of his actions later in the movie, his only real expression of grief-based emotion was kissing Uhura, which was an under-developped and poorly executed relationship that only seemed to exist to make Kirk jealous.

Not only that, this "formula" introduced iconic characters to a new audience succesfully, and paved the way for new exploits.

Or rather, it used some lazily constructed plot points to erase 40 years of cannon. Not that I have a problem with that, but they need to handle Trek far more delicately than they did in this movie.

I think you are wrong--Batman Begins was very plodding in its introduction of Batman, yet we had Dark Knight as a result. You don't know the "direction" of Trek by this movie.

I personally find The Dark Knight a tad overrated, but that is another discussion entirely. Sure, we cannot predict what future Treks might be like, but there's a decent chance it's going to have to either follow or recover from some of the awful storyline choices that this movie made.

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

It's nice that Trek is succeeding in the box office, but perhaps you guys should focus on the reason why. It is a summer blockbuster action flick, and with these kinds of results, who's to say the makers of the film aren't going to repeat this formula of shallow, action-centric storylines? It's not a good direction for Trek, no matter how profitable it may be.

Thats my main fear as well.

Star Trek was a good movie, but the main storyline was about the old TOS crew meeting each other again. Spock and Kirk in particular. With that gone the main villain storyline was pretty thin. I wish the next movie will have a bit more depth. Many movies have good storyline but still much action and CGI.

 

[Doomsday]

Right, because what we need is Corporations making more profits and the people who make the movies making less.

Hey--corporations are persons too...

Here here!

If there's one thing this recession has proved, it is that the much-maligned, often demonized corporations are the EMPLOYERS of us regular stiffs.

When corporations cease to make money, either because of oppressive taxation, or just because of slowing economy, corporations must lay off people(among other things) in order to stay in business.

Some of you might think this is unfair, and point to lay offs as proof that the corps are "out to get the regular guy". But I am a payroll professional, and I can tell you that salary/benefit expense is usually the #1 expense item on any P & L. So "reductions in force" are the quickest and fastest way of getting out of the red.

When corporations do well, they start expanding and hiring more people.

Companies are not the enemy. Sometimes their is no enemy, really, just the normal cycle of business. But often government intrustion into the private business(however well intentioned) ends up hurting more than helping.

 

[Borgminister]

Let's see, there was the heroic sacrifice of Kirk senior, the coming of age of Kirk junior under Pike, the struggles against discrimination by a young Spock, and the absolute loss suffered by Spock with the destruction of his home world and death of his mother.

None of these did much for me. Kirk Sr was sacrificed at the very beginning of the movie, and TOS knowledge aside, we knew virtually nothing about him, so there wasn't much emotional impact to that sacrifice. Though even if there were, the movie doesn't even give you enough time to dwell on it, the same which can be said of Vulcan's destruction, and many other plot points.

Kirk junior's coming of age would be a valid point if his character weren't so fiendishly implausible. His rise to command was the result of numerous coincidences, and rewarding renegade behavior, not exactly inspiring stuff.

Spock's discrimination only lasted as a glimpse of his childhood, and as a passing comment by the Vulcan committee. After that, he was distinguished and respected by all of Star Fleet.

I can agree with you on some levels about your last example, but again, Vulcan's destruction and his mother's death were moments that were hastily glossed over because of the movie's relentless pace. Aside from Spock's punching Kirk, and some of his actions later in the movie, his only real expression of grief-based emotion was kissing Uhura, which was an under-developped and poorly executed relationship that only seemed to exist to make Kirk jealous.

Not only that, this "formula" introduced iconic characters to a new audience succesfully, and paved the way for new exploits.

Or rather, it used some lazily constructed plot points to erase 40 years of cannon. Not that I have a problem with that, but they need to handle Trek far more delicately than they did in this movie.

I think you are wrong--Batman Begins was very plodding in its introduction of Batman, yet we had Dark Knight as a result. You don't know the "direction" of Trek by this movie.

I personally find The Dark Knight a tad overrated, but that is another discussion entirely. Sure, we cannot predict what future Treks might be like, but there's a decent chance it's going to have to either follow or recover from some of the awful storyline choices that this movie made.

I appreciate your point of view, but I think there are those who will deliberately try and put a negative slant on things to suit there preconception of the movie, and others who will "gush" about an imperfect movie to the point of absurdity. Although I've not read any "this is an Oscar-worth masterpiece" type statements here.

I loved the movie, and felt the events cited more deeply than you--perhaps that is because I'm not only a long-time fan (which you are too), but went into the movie excited and wanting to like it. I know how badly this had every right to turn out, and you know what?

It didn't. It did exactly what it needed to do, and left me highly optimistic about the next movie.

That, and with a smile on my face and an extra bounce to my step. At 50.

 

[Devon]

It's nice that Trek is succeeding in the box office, but perhaps you guys should focus on the reason why. It is a summer blockbuster action flick, and with these kinds of results, who's to say the makers of the film aren't going to repeat this formula of shallow, action-centric storylines?

They can't repeat it when they haven't done it yet.

 

[Similitude]

Right, because what we need is Corporations making more profits and the people who make the movies making less.

Hey--corporations are persons too...

Here here!

If there's one thing this recession has proved, it is that the much-maligned, often demonized corporations are the EMPLOYERS of us regular stiffs.

When corporations cease to make money, either because of oppressive taxation, or just because of slowing economy, corporations must lay off people(among other things) in order to stay in business.

Some of you might think this is unfair, and point to lay offs as proof that the corps are "out to get the regular guy". But I am a payroll professional, and I can tell you that salary/benefit expense is usually the #1 expense item on any P & L. So "reductions in force" are the quickest and fastest way of getting out of the red.

When corporations do well, they start expanding and hiring more people.

Companies are not the enemy. Sometimes their is no enemy, really, just the normal cycle of business. But often government intrustion into the private business(however well intentioned) ends up hurting more than helping.

I totally agree that if Movie companies are not making a profit on these movies then Actor/Director/Producer Salaries should be reducded. HOWEVER, it is clear they ARE making a profit even on those with huge and bloated budgets. Thus I have no problem with Actors/Directors and such making large salaries as the companies are raking in the money off of their work, so everyone wins.

 

[USS Gettysburg]

It's nice that Trek is succeeding in the box office, but perhaps you guys should focus on the reason why. It is a summer blockbuster action flick, and with these kinds of results, who's to say the makers of the film aren't going to repeat this formula of shallow, action-centric storylines? It's not a good direction for Trek, no matter how profitable it may be.

Thats my main fear as well.

Star Trek was a good movie, but the main storyline was about the old TOS crew meeting each other again. Spock and Kirk in particular. With that gone the main villain storyline was pretty thin. I wish the next movie will have a bit more depth. Many movies have good storyline but still much action and CGI.

Yes because saving the planet from a giant soda can with whales, finding Spock, and stopping a rogue space satellite were huge themes. The movies have never had the big messages. If you claim the previous movies had heavy handed themes then Star Trek had big themes.

 

[Borgminister]

It's nice that Trek is succeeding in the box office, but perhaps you guys should focus on the reason why. It is a summer blockbuster action flick, and with these kinds of results, who's to say the makers of the film aren't going to repeat this formula of shallow, action-centric storylines? It's not a good direction for Trek, no matter how profitable it may be.

Thats my main fear as well.

Star Trek was a good movie, but the main storyline was about the old TOS crew meeting each other again. Spock and Kirk in particular. With that gone the main villain storyline was pretty thin. I wish the next movie will have a bit more depth. Many movies have good storyline but still much action and CGI.

Yes because saving whales and finding Spock were huge themes. The movies have never had the big messages. If you claim the previous movies had heavy handed themes then Star Trek had big themes.

And you've got to be careful about being ham-handed and drama-queeny and sledgehammer pedantic in exploring any such deeper themes anyway.

Plus, with Mr. Lindelof on board with the next one, the plot should be more byzantine.

 

[Norrin Radd]

It's true that the plots of the movies have never been too "deep", which is not necessarily a bad thing. It has to be accessible for the general audience. Usually they save the "morality tale" stuff for the TV shows, which is as it should be, IMO.

 

[flemm]

Yes because saving the planet from a giant soda can with whales, finding Spock, and stopping a rogue space satellite were huge themes. The movies have never had the big messages. If you claim the previous movies had heavy handed themes then Star Trek had big themes.

Eh, compelling themes don't have to bludgeon the audience or get in the way of the movie's entertainment value. TWOK is a scenery-chewing action flick on one level. On another level it is about confronting mortality. The fact that it works on both levels is what makes it a great movie.

TVH is Star Trek at its most accessible, funny and endearing. The movie also has a message about the sanctity of all life and humanity's responsibility as caretakers of the planet. The movie works because it doesn't take itself or its message too seriously.

FC is a battle against the Borg, but it is also about what it means to be human in the most extreme circumstances, faced with a ruthless enemy (Picard) or a momentous moment in history (Cochrane).

The point being: a movie can be exciting and have deeper themes as well.
Abrams' Trek did have some deeper themes than simply "the crew coming together," but so much was crammed into two hours that nothing was really explored to the fullest.

I'm not really too concerned, though, because I have high hopes that the sequel will improve in this area. Simply put, the sequel won't have to tell the origin story, and it won't have to include a connection to the "Prime universe," leaving room for a more elegant plot and more time spent on compelling ideas.

 

[USS Gettysburg]

Yes because saving the planet from a giant soda can with whales, finding Spock, and stopping a rogue space satellite were huge themes. The movies have never had the big messages. If you claim the previous movies had heavy handed themes then Star Trek had big themes.

Eh, compelling themes don't have to bludgeon the audience or get in the way of the movie's entertainment value. TWOK is a scenery-chewing action flick on one level. On another level it is about confronting mortality. The fact that it works on both levels is what makes it a great movie.

TVH is Star Trek at its most accessible, funny and endearing. The movie also has a message about the sanctity of all life and humanity's responsibility as caretakers of the planet. The movie works because it doesn't take itself or its message too seriously.

FC is a battle against the Borg, but it is also about what it means to be human in the most extreme circumstances, faced with a ruthless enemy (Picard) or a momentous moment in history (Cochrane).

The point being: a movie can be exciting and have deeper themes as well.
Abrams' Trek did have some deeper themes than simply "the crew coming together," but so much was crammed into two hours that nothing was really explored to the fullest.

I'm not really too concerned, though, because I have high hopes that the sequel will improve in this area. Simply put, the sequel won't have to tell the origin story, and it won't have to include a connection to the "Prime universe," leaving room for a more elegant plot and more time spent on compelling ideas.

I agree there are motifs. But, IMO, I concur that the good stuff is in the TV. The movies are a vehicle to get people interested in Trek and maybe get them interested in TV. (See early movies to TNG) Trek had motifs as well. Torture, responsibility to your destiny, what are we if our history were to change?, vengeance and its consequences, the importance of friendship and teamwork. Those, like the other movies described are more motifs than the themes we get in the hour TV of TOS,TNG, etc.

It is also completely unfair to put this movie down because it is an intro film. It is a reboot, that is what is needed. We got the back story so that we get the good stuff later.

And if you guys are worried about themes I dare you to go to http://lostpedia.wikia.com/ and see all the amazing stuff JJ and his crew have done in the past six years.

 

[Borgminister]

Yes because saving the planet from a giant soda can with whales, finding Spock, and stopping a rogue space satellite were huge themes. The movies have never had the big messages. If you claim the previous movies had heavy handed themes then Star Trek had big themes.

Eh, compelling themes don't have to bludgeon the audience or get in the way of the movie's entertainment value. TWOK is a scenery-chewing action flick on one level. On another level it is about confronting mortality. The fact that it works on both levels is what makes it a great movie.

TVH is Star Trek at its most accessible, funny and endearing. The movie also has a message about the sanctity of all life and humanity's responsibility as caretakers of the planet. The movie works because it doesn't take itself or its message too seriously.

FC is a battle against the Borg, but it is also about what it means to be human in the most extreme circumstances, faced with a ruthless enemy (Picard) or a momentous moment in history (Cochrane).

The point being: a movie can be exciting and have deeper themes as well.
Abrams' Trek did have some deeper themes than simply "the crew coming together," but so much was crammed into two hours that nothing was really explored to the fullest.

I'm not really too concerned, though, because I have high hopes that the sequel will improve in this area. Simply put, the sequel won't have to tell the origin story, and it won't have to include a connection to the "Prime universe," leaving room for a more elegant plot and more time spent on compelling ideas.

Um... QFT? Nicely put.