Yay! I'm really thrilled to see the Trek franchise dishing out a mainstream movie hit! I hope the inevitable sequels prove to be just as popular.

So... where's all the fanboys who were saying this movie would fail?? I agree with Nick.. great to see my favorite movie franchise with new legs. I can't wait for this to come out on DVD!!

Live Long and Prosper!

I'm so happy the movie has done well.
It follows Trek lore, though...It's an even numbered film...

It's not an even numbered film, it's number 11. Nemesis destroyed that old superstition a few years back...

If they make a sequel it better be to restore the timeline, otherwise don't bother. I was never interested in a re-invention of Star Trek.

I have an idea to make even more money of Star Trek....CHRISTIAN BALE!!!

A TV series can't be far behind.

Still doesn't make it a good movie. I'm glad I used a gift card when I went to see it, or else I would have thought the money was wasted. My time certainly was.

The movie was entertaining and satisfied me more than Wolverine did. But it left me wanting more of the original universe. So I ended up reading the Star Trek Destiny books. By the time I was finished, it left me aghast. Why didn't Paramount make this into a movie instead!

For people like me, who were way-too-young Star Trek fans (TNG for me), this movie was just fantastic and one of the more deserving reboots Hollywood's been churning out. It deserves its place at #1 and I will keep dishing out the money for tickets because it is just worth it. This movie is EXACTLY the kind of movie I've been craving for years.

Live long, and kick ass!

Ooh ooh oohh. I get to chime in with something I have had on my mind for a few weeks now.

All of these uber-strict Trek "fans" who won't even give the film a chance, have NO problem with "alternate" realities when it suits them.

Take the TOS episode "Mirror Mirror." Empire instead of Federation. That universe existed in concert with the "regular" universe. And the rabid trekkys (spelled that way on purpose) have no problem with that episode.

This film is just another "version" of the Trek universe, but existing in a parallel dimension.

I saw my first Trek episode in 1966, have seen every film opening day, first show, and I think this new film is great.

So now Kirk is not dead and Spock doesn't die on Trek 2 and Maybe Kirk's son can end up being in Starfleet. I'm a little disappointed that now a lot of things have been erased but the movie was entertaining. Spock and Uhura?????? It is kinda cool though

Just a shitty popcorn movie that won't stand the test of time. JJ Abrams is one of those directors who can only make a movie that isn't very memorable, so full of flash without substance. After watching Felicity, I couldn't believe how bad this director is.

Sure, he got lucky with Star Trek but Abrams hasn't produced a single movie that will be as remembered as the the Star Trek Movie Trilogy. Even the TNG Movies were better than this travesty.

It's nice to see that Paramount has allowed a director and granted them wide birth. Paramount should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to go the way of a popcorn movie rather than trying to keep the fans of the series satisfied.

nevertheless, it's considered a success and sequels will ensue. deal with it.

I agree that Trek will be easily bested at the box office by Potter and others. However, the 7th highest grossing film on the international market for 2009 so far hardly qualifies as an ALL CAPS flop. No matter how you slice it, it's a bona fide hit.

"Paramount should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to go the way of a popcorn movie rather than trying to keep the fans of the series satisfied."

Really? You found the majority of previous Trek films satifying? Nemesis, Insurrection, Final Frontier? Just checking...

I can't believe that the fanboys are still claiming this is a dreadful, horrible failure of a movie. It was a lot of fun, which is, btw, what movies are for. The cast was great, evoking just enough of the original actors to connect with TOS. It had Leonard Nimoy! It's made nearly 200 million in the US alone, pushing 300 worldwide, and that's just so far. It's grossed more than any other Trek movie. It's garnered terrific reviews, with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of over 90%. Whether you personally liked it or not, whether you approve of it or not, whether you believe it or not, this movie is a success by any measure. You naysayers are certainly entitled to your opinions, but continuing to tout this movie as a failure just makes you look ridiculously over-involved emotionally and somewhat out of touch with reality. Will the movie have to make blind men see and lame men walk before you admit that maybe you were wrong about how it would be received?

Stevie-babes, Joey was WAY out of line with his comment no doubt, but you're not doing much better with the "homophobic brainless turd" bit, yourself. I enjoyed the movie, I've been a trek fan since the original and I'm really most sincerely gay. So I guess that makes me a heterophobic brainless turd?

Morgan, being in 7th place at the international box office means nothing. We're not even halfway through the year yet. The Final Frontier finished in the domestic top 10 for 1989...it doesn't stop it from being a piece of crap. Chart placings mean nothing. So far, Trek 2009 has underperformed internationally and hasn't even cleared $100m outside of the US, which would be considered a flop considering its budget. It opens in Japan this week so the tally will go over £100m then, but it is still far from being the giant hit that demented fanboys want to believe.

As for sequels....well, we all heard that there was to be a Bryan Singer sequel to Superman Returns whilst that film was still out. Oh how quickly Warners changed their minds afterwards.

Trek 2009 is just moronic crud that may have satisfied American high school kids, but will be forgotten fairly quickly. It might have done better than most of the Trek films so far, but it also had a MUCH bigger budget and far more hype.

By far the best Trek ever, and I've been watching Trek since the '70's. Best part was that Abrams didn't "restore the timeline," which I was feared from the moment Vulcan was destroyed. "Restoring the timeline" is one of the most moronic plot devices ever put forth by moviemakers, as it advocates the idea of linear time, a conception of time which can be debunked by the average 10-year-old.

Star Trek has been the greatest American phenomena in history. During the Vietnam War, Star Trek gave us hope for the future. Space is our destiny, & Star Trek gives us the key to our future...

Leaving Vulcan destroyed is completely unacceptable! As I stated before, I did NOT want a reboot of Trek. Basically by not resetting the timeline they have said, "Ignore everything that you have seen before, it never happened."

With no Vulcan, where will they take Spock after he sacrifices himself in Star Trek II. Will that even happen? Why do they all know who the Romulans are and what they look like when it was clearly established in Balance of Terror that no one had seen a Romulan in many years.

I want the Star Trek I remember back. I want the timeline I remember back. Again, I do not want a "re-imaged" or "re-invented" Star Trek.

It does not do Gene Roddenberry justice.

I love how if you say the movie is crap or a failure, you're a demented fanboy. But conversely, if you say the movie was good or a success, you're a dememted fanboy :-)

Personally, I enjoyed the film. It was a little too "Bourne in Space" in it's pacing and light character development, and it had some real plot wonders (you have an insubordinate crew member, so you A/ put them in the brig, or B/ toss them off the ship. And Mr Logical chooses B??), but it set the stage admirably. I am hoping that in three years time we are all saying Trek'09 was good but a bit shallow, but the sequel? Now that was phenomenal...

Remember the Iraqi PR guy that was talking about how the Iraqi's were beating back the Americans at the border on day 1 of the war, all the while our magnificent soldiers were rolling into Bagdad behind him as he spoke of the great victory for Saddam? Yeah, that's like you morons claiming this movie is a failure as it's closing in on $200M domestic - and should easily hit $400M worldwide by year's end. Yeah, what a failure. Our public education system must really suck to be turning out such idiots as you all. God bless the new Trek franchise and all the future entertainment it will bring us.

'I can't believe that the fanboys are still claiming this is a dreadful, horrible failure of a movie"

I love how if you say the movie is crap or a failure, you're a demented fanboy. But conversely...

"it is still far from being the giant hit that demented fanboys want to believe"

...when you say the movie was good or a success, you're a dememted fanboy :-)

Personally, I enjoyed the film. It was a little too "Bourne in Space" in it's pacing and light character development, and it had some real plot wonders (you have an insubordinate crew member, so you A/ put them in the brig, or B/ toss them off the ship. And Mr Logical chooses B??), but it set the stage admirably. I am hoping that in three years time we are all saying Trek'09 was good but a bit shallow, but the sequel? Now that was phenomenal...

"As I stated before, I did NOT want a reboot of Trek"

But Trek has spent most of it's history rebooting itself. As an animated series, a novel series, then a motion picture that may have been a good science fiction film, but bore no relationship to the heart and feel of the original series. Add to that three sequel TV series, and then a rebooted prequel series.

The fact that Trek'09 spins an alternate timeline doesn't mean that events we all lived through didn't happen -- as evidenced by old Spock not zapping himself out of existence by travelling back in time. It's less linear then that. Mind you, I wouldn't mind zapping Generations out of existence. But that might just be me...

My apologies for the re-written double message. I got an error the first time saying the post had failed. But clearly not!

Where do I start?

WOW, I am in awe by all the back-and-forth.
People hated it and condemn it, people liked/loved it and see the box office receipts and praise its success.

What many who condemn it are forgetting, that MorganPlus8 touch on was that canon in TOS was fluid and almost nonexistant, and only came into view with movies and TNG for Gene's cohesive Star Trek universe, and even then it was fluid.

Star Trek is a great vehicle to tell great and compelling and entertaining stories, and this one was no exception.

JJA is a talented director, most, if not all, the previous actors from TOS praised the film, it is a hit with critics and people alike, and deserves the accolades.

This new movie does not erase TOS or that universe. I just say enjoy this interpretation if you want (I love the old Doctor Who and the new Doctor Who as well as the old Star Trek and the new Star Trek).

I hope Paramount makes more from this crew, whether to retell old stories or new ones. And, where the hell in the canon does it ever say Vulcan was never destroyed? For all we know, it was and the new colony is the Vulcan we have seen in every other show (except Enterprise of course).

I actually don' t mind the destruction of Vulcan because the people can always relocate and call the new planet Vulcan again and then the future will still be what it is supposed to be. What bothered me a lot more was how it affected Kirk. The new timeline makes him a product of a single mother and must somehow alter his personality. There is no way he could still be the same person after that upbringing. Still though... I really enjoyed the movie and hope there are many more.

It was an excellent movie! I can't wait for the next one to come out and a tv series would be great as well!

Harry Potter will blow this away

What no Cap'n Zachary Wildstar flaming! Maybe he is too busy eating crow to be here but I think we fans and open minded individuals that gave the movie a chance told him so, so good on Paramount, Abrams and the cast and crew of Trek.

Kevin says:
~~Take the TOS episode "Mirror Mirror." Empire instead of Federation. That universe existed in concert with the "regular" universe. And the rabid trekkys (spelled that way on purpose) have no problem with that episode.~~

AND

~~This film is just another "version" of the Trek universe, but existing in a parallel dimension.~~

The difference here is that this universe is now the "Official" Trek universe. The mirror universe isn't and was never meant to be.

Other posters were right when they say a movie being a success does not nessaccarily make it a good movie.

This movie had a lot of problems the main ones being the distruction of Vulcan and turning Kirk into an arrogent eghotistical fratboy delinquent.

The movie is fun as an Science Fiction/action flick but as Trek, it misses the mark seriously.

The tageline was right, This is not your fathers Star Trek. It isn't star Trek at all.

I read in one of these articles that Abrams told paramount that if they wanted him he wanted Star Trek. Well he must have really liked trek alot to want to make it that bad. So what's the first thing he does? Changes EVERYTHING! Yea, that makes sense.

You dont make sense Spaceman Spiff. I've been a Trekkie for years, and I loved this movie. I can see where he was going with the movie, and am very excited to see where he is going to go with these movies and maybe tv series. I don't think it missed any mark at all, oh sorry maybe the big bullseye that people labled as fail. Get over yourselves, it was a MOVIE, it was ENTERTAINMENT. it was FUN. I enjoyed the ride 3 times, and no, I'm not a young kid, I'm 32.

Trying to keep "Trekkers" satsfied with the old worn out script is what got Star Trek in trouble in the first place. This film wasn't about Trekkers. It was about introducing new life and new fans to Star Trek. U can kiss going back to that original timeline goodbye and either jump on board with the new ST or get left behind and just bitch on the sidelines.

I loved the new Trek, I am a major trek fanboy, so while I don't care for the reboot idea, I set it aside, and considered it the beginning of something else. Take it as a singular film, and there is no longer any Trek/TOS baggage.

I believe it cost like 150 million to make, so it already doubled it money, overall, and should hit 250 million domestically pretty easily, probably more. That would put it in the Top 40 grossing movies in US history. The reviews were good too, so there is no way, anyone can claim this to be anything other than a smashing success. T4, on the other hand was a major disappointment.

Of course Up, and Transformers, and Harry Potter will blow it away, but that does not mean, Trek is a failure. I see Up and Transformers each going for 400 million plus in the US.

Ticket sales trump disgruntled fan-boys.

The originals are availabe on DVD, watch them and stop complaining about something over which you have not control.

Still another $98mil to go if it wants to catch ST:TMP (adjusted for inflation).

After seeing the movie i went out and bought season 3 of TOS- and come on- it relied on over indulgent and ridiculous plots (spocks brain!?) to the nth degree... so what fanboys are saying is that they loved the overindulgent plots of old but not this brand spanking new one? okayyyyy
I loved the movie, enough to admit that yes it hung on a story framework that would put the leaning towers wonkyness to shame at times...
but then spocks brain?!
if i want to see "thought provoking" tripe that i'd sooner sleep through i'd watch dan brown the sequel
and i really really don't

Too many comments on here remind me of the story on The Onion: Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

"Even the TNG Movies were better than this travesty."

in your eyes. in my opinion, they were nothing more than extended television episodes with larger budgets. i enjoyed the new star trek movie nearly as much as the wrath of khan.

I think it will go over 300 million domestically. Oh, fellow Trek fans need to check this out. You've got to read the article in Star Trek Magazine that was written by Chris Doohan. It's fantastic!!!

KerrAvon....what would you say to a reboot of Blakes 7!?

My problem with this whole thing is the idea of a re-boot. Why did Abrams feel the need to do this?

And don't give all that crap about Trek getting old and stale and burned out on itself. I've heard that ad-nauseam and I disagree with it.

If Trek needed something new and different why not simply make an ordinary prequil that tells the story of how Kirk came to join Starfleet and eventually became captain of the Enterprise.

I've said this before and I still believe it. The idea of an alternate timeline was simply Abrams rationalization for gutting the Trek universe and making it his own. Well he certainly succeeded in that regard mores the pity. It's also lazy story telling. Was it too hard for them to create a story that stayed within the established timeline?

Orci and Kurtzman claim to be BIG Trek fans. Well you certainly can't tell it from this movie.

Destroying one of the primary planets in the Trek universe and almost decimating the people who inhabit it, people who have played an integral part of Trek history is asinine and unforgivable. It also shows a marked disregard for the Trek franchise.

Many people seem to be stuck on the fact that this movie is raking in millions of dollars so let me say this,
success does not equal quality.
It doesn't preclude it either but quite often quality does seem to preclude success.

It's not just Trek that is suffering from this.
A story, or book or TV show or whatever. Whether it has been previously filmed or not is noted for it's popularity. Well says the big boss. This might make a profitable movie or TV show let's get the rights and make it. But first we have to change everything!

The John Carter movie seems to be suffering this fate as well. The Day the Earth stood Still was subjected to this indignity and now Buffy the Vampire Slayer looks like it's going to be next.

All you JJ Abrams brown nosers can keep your Trek wanna be movie, I'll stick with the originals.

Enough already, Star Trek is a hit and let's leave it at that. I'm an old Star Trek fan. Watched the original show when I was a kid when it first aired repeats in syndication. I'd watch it after school, after The Flintstones. Star Trek was fun and interesting. That's what this movie captured. Star Trek is back! That is a good thing. Period.
People are entitled to their opinions. You don't like the movie - you don't like it. But the idea that this movie doesn't respect the Trek universe, is inferior to the other films, boils down to closemindedness. I like Star Trek. I guess that makes me a fan but the Trek franchise as a whole was rusting. Great a success as The Next Generation was as a television series, except on rare occasions, the two part Borg episode, The First Contact film, the material lacked the 'snap' of the original show. And the actors of the original and first series of films were getting older. Shoot, Kirk died in Generations. This film brought the magic back. I sat in the theater smiling and not simply because the film was entertaining but but as an 'older' guy, I got to see a show from my childhood look better than ever. Kirk is alive fiesty as ever. We now have two Spocks! Uhura was smoking hot! Chekov and Sulu were great. Simon Pegg as Scotty knocked it out the park. And The Enterprise looked magnificent. What more do you want? For the die hard Trek fans this is a time to celebrate, for one simple reason, due to this movie alone, STAR TREK is here to say. Think about it, like John Wayne films and James Bond movies Star Trek is now a mainstay in our lives, despite how many film critics and just plain meanspirited killjoys tried to kill it over the years. You - we all got the last laugh. Look at it that way. Now relax.

Great movie! Saw it 3 times! (in IMAX). The IMAX shots alone make it worthwhile.

They put alot of effort and work into making sure it didn't violate any previously set forth story arc. While also allowing them to move forward with additional stories, without being hindered by previous movies.

If you follow the time line of 'old spock' you can see this is a continuation of his story, it fits after all the events of the previous movies. The jump to an alternate timeline allows them the creative license to create life threatening situations, where the main characters may not survive!

I job well done by the writers/director/producters.

Star Trek was already a mainstay we did not need Abrams to re-make i.e. butcher it.

And you are right, poeple certainly are entitled to their own opinion and in my own opinion the new Enterprise is ugly.

This sort of reboot was needed if Star Trek was to live outside of books. You can’t deny that the last several films as well as Enterprise were failures financially. And yes, money is the key to this whole argument as studios are not in the business of throwing money away just to satisfy the hardcore fans.

This was a good film. Period. It was fun. It was visually stunning. It had a great cast. And thinks to its FINANCIAL SUCCESS it just may pave the way to a new TV series that takes place in the original universe (remember Star Fleet Academy being thrown around for a few years now?).

And to all the hardcore fans of the original universe: it’s still there. It will continue to be there in books, comics, and games. But it has become far too large to be a mainstream success. Do you have any idea how many people I was able to convince to see this movie simply on the fact that I was able to tell them that you don’t need to know anything about anything previously Star Trek?

I love Star Trek. And this film was a great way to give the entire Star Trek franchise a strong shot in the arm!

lorek said:
~~The jump to an alternate timeline allows them the creative license to create life threatening situations, where the main characters may not survive!~~

I read an article in which Abrams said the reason for the re-boot was that he felt we were all too familiar with these characters. We know what happens to them. Now it's all new kirk really could die!

Right, tell me another one!
I have a challenge for Abrams.
Kill James Kirk in the next movie.
Kill him permanently and do not bring him back. Let's see how far this new version goes after that.

Well, whether you liked it or not, it has certainly been successful and we will probably be seeing sequels and, as others have mentioned, possible TV spin-offs. All those who simply relentlessly hate it and refuse to see it, well, okay then. Star Trek outside of books and such is over for you; that's a shame, but it is, after all, entirely your choice.

I'm looking forward to what's coming next.

Somebody, I won't name the foolish to protect his foolishness, said above "Star Trek has been the greatest American phenomena in history. During the Vietnam War, Star Trek gave us hope for the future. Space is our destiny, & Star Trek gives us the key to our future..."

Excuse the f**k out of me? Were you even alive then? I was, and it wasn't Trek that was the "greatest American phenomena in history" giving us hope for the future, or giving us the keys to the future, it was NASA and the Apollo Manned Lunar Landing Program. My HEROES in the late 60's early 70's weren't named Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, they were named Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin, Shepard, Conrad, Bean, Lovell, Haise, Swigert, Scott, Young, Duke, Mattingly, Cernan, and Schmitt, among others. Oh, and my ship of dreams wasn't called "Enterprise" either. My ships of dreams were called "Columbia" and "Eagle" and "America" and "Challenger." My dreams died however when a certain Tricky Nixon decided what America needed more than going to the Moon was a good 'ol space truck to drive around the Earth in and all you Trekkies convinced Jerry Ford to name that first truck in the fleet "Enterprise." How sweet. I'd rather be on the moon looking back at the Earthrise than knowing you got your truck named after a plastic model spaceship from a TV show.

Oh, and btw, your new movie isn't a success just yet, they spent $150 mil on marketing on top of the $150 mil to make it, so until it hits the $300 mil mark, they haven't broke even yet... and really not even then, since the studio only gets 55% of box office gross, they'll actually have to gross $546 mil at the box office just to break even and get $300 mil back for what they paid to make it and market it so success? Sorry guys, not even close yet.

Ok, fine Cap'n Jack (I was totally with you in your first two paragraphs), Trek, which has only been out a couple of weeks, and has garnered nearly universal positive reviews, and is the top grossing film of 2009 (SO FAR, admittedly) is not a success. I'm sure it never will be according to some.

WOW!!
That’s all I got, I mean when I read through these posts; I realized one thing, which I will get to in one moment. First let me say this I see both sides to this. Now to the realization, and that is this. If JJ Abrams had not made this film where would the trek franchise be? In the toilet where it has been for quite a long time, this is just my opinion, but fell free to tell me that I am wrong and that I have no idea what the hell I am talking about, because lets face it, maybe I am maybe I’m not. All this film did was give this old-tired series a new shot of life. If you like it then good, go watch it again, if you didn't well then okay, that is your opinion. It gave the series a much need face-lift if you get my drift. I mean I loved the original, hell I will go on a limb and tell you that I loved all the series, the movies not so much, I would almost rather watch paint dry. But this movie gave us something, a spectacular light show; you have to admit at the very least.
One last thing before I go away. Someone posted that JJ Abrams butchered Star Trek when in fact all he did was give it life. For someone who was a fan of Star Trek, I think that he did a pretty damn good job. Also 191 Million in the US alone, well to tell you the truth, that’s not bad considering how horrible the economy is at the moment. I am not a finical expert, but to me that seem pretty good.
Alright now rip me to shreds that what you people seem to do the best.

I'm so sick of all these pro-Abrams people making personal attacks on those of us who hate this film and calling us "fanboys" in some derogatory fashion.

Fine, it's a financial success. I knew it would be because that all Abrams and his crappy Transformers writers can do.

It IS a creative failure, however -- employing the most cheesy Hollywood cliches and completely failing to live up to the even meager political commentary of past films and fully falling short of the political insight, dramatic realism, and inventiveness and humor of DS9 under the guidance of the brilliant Ira Steven Behr.

This is a terrible film and it made a lot of money. So did Wolverine (for which I had such high hopes and completely failed), so did Terminator: Salvation (which is such a pile of crap compared to T2, which was incredible. Big deal crappy blockbuster makes money.

So does Britney Spears. So does American Idol.

Star Trek could be about so much more, and now these jarheads will control the franchise for the next 15 years. Why is art increasingly losing out to pure commercialism?

Thank God for DS9, BSG, Seasons 3 and 4 of The 4400, and hopefully Season 2 of Crash, which Ira Behr will head write.

Enjoy your predictable commercial crap, Abrams fans!

What's interesting to me, Mudfield, is that those of you who are so ardently against the movie, are actually SERIOUSLY anti-Abrams. You assume that those of us who enjoyed the movie (once again, it's only a movie) belong to some sort of Abramite cult, when in actuality, it's the other way around. I could care less about Abrams.

I agree with you about Woverine, though; very disappointing.

The morons who are clinging to the ridiculous hope that this film will make over $300m domestically and over $400 worldwide are living in a dreamworld. And all this idiotic bragging about how much it has made so far therefore means it is a hit is ludicrous. A film is a hit when it goes into profit. The film has done unexpectedly well in the US, but it has failed to take off overseas and it is still a long way from going into profit.

Making a big din about breaking a few records built on inflated dollars and ticket prices is a bit premature at best. The bottom line is profit as Harkness pointed out. And this movie has a way to go before it can turn Paramount around.

Paramount started the first quarter of 2009 $124 million in the red and there were layoffs as a result. It didn't help that Abrams' STAR TREK went over its $140 million budget.

Now, I'll give Paramount credit for a gutsy move at the end of 2008. For once, they finally decided to bet and bet big on a STAR TREK. They decided to delay the December release and position and promote this ST as a summer blockbuster. Then in 2009 they decided to go literally for broke and invest another $150 million in advertising over that which was originally in the budget to ensure that end - thus raising the cost of this ST to them to around at least $300 million and very likely more. But it didn't just do that, it made them $274 million dollars more broke for 2009.

According to:

www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2590&p=.htm

The new TREK is still only 4th in actual attendance for the franchise's movies.

Whatever you think of the merits of the movies that came before, those fans were able to keep ST:TMP number one at the box office for 3 weeks and ST:IV for 2 weeks. You, the new, that Paramount sought did nothing to challenge those records as this STAR TREK was only one week at the top spot. And most Trek films were profitable at the box office BEFORE factoring-in merchandising, etc. Also remember, DVDs were non-existent at the time. This should impress the new breed as I am certain they consider those films vastly inferior to the current product. And yet, the fact that those records didn't fall is very telling.

And Paramount must have them in mind, for usually when a studio regards their product as a blockbuster with legs they pull the saturation TV and radio ads, and let it coast on word of mouth. The ads since release have been incessant.

I could have worded that "...it made them $274 million dollars more broke for 2009." better.

It made Paramount $150 million dollars more broke for 2009 for a grand total of $274 million in the red.

People who are all caught up in the technical aspect of whether or not this movie made enough money and was a success need to remember first that it hasn't even been released everywhere in the world yet (Japan gonna make this movie a lot of money), and you have to factor in the profits and sales of DVDs/Blue-Rays, which this movie will sell millions of copies.

Face it Trekkies, they'll make their money back, this movie IS a success. And Vulcan got blowed up, that's what happens now and forever.

I will make this as simple as I possibly can for all the people who think this movie is
'AW-SOME!'

I do not like this movie because it butchers
"In my opinion" the Trek universe.

They destroyed Vulcan,
They turned Kirk into an arrogant, egotistical
Bully,
And they turned a beautiful ship into an ugly piece of junk.

Now let this sink in please. I have nothing against JJ Abrams personally. I don't even know the guy.
Although everything I have seen that he has been a part of I have not liked. ESPECIALLY this newest Trek movie.

I am not a nerdy pimply 'fanbaoy' who lives in my moms basement,
I am perfectly capable of excepting the fact that this movie seems to be on it's way to being a hit. I am also capable of excepting that JJ will most likely make the next batch of two or three or whatever Trek movies.

I also know that if they stick with the same formula as they did for this one that I won't like those either.

To put it succinctly
This movie sucks, once again just my opinion.

Now as to why I think it sucks well I gave you the basic reasons above but if you want me to go into detail I can do the too but none of you would want to read it because it would be "too long"

lindyxmjh,

Not to mention the delayed Mexican premier.

But I don't think anyone's getting rich in this economy counting their profits before they've hatched. And disc sales have tanked. Maybe rentals will soar.

Paramount seems to be aiming for a long term strategy with this product. The only trouble is they risk Viacom dumping them if they try to carry their $124 million red ink. And that could seriously impede their financing strategy for their next picture.

And they do need $546 million to break even on this flick.

Make that:

And they do need $546 million at the box office to break even on this flick.

As someone who is not a fanboy, but has watched the series since the '60s when I was in college, and as some one who reads science fiction by preference, I can say that alternitive time lines are an acceptable plot device. The original time line had been pushed as far as it could go. This opens up a chance for new plots that will not conflict with the established storyline.

It seems to me that, ever since this movie was announced and people began commenting on it here on SciFiWire, that those who were pre- (and, to be fair, post-) disposed to hate the film continually raise the bar higher and higher on what is needed for the film to be considered successful.

That's fine; everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. I just think it's interesting. At first, it was "Nobody is ever going to like this movie, it sucks." Now it's along the lines of, "It has to make eleventy billion dollars, inspire dancing in the streets, achieve world peace, lead to a cure for cancer, and it still sucks."

Just sayin'.

I fully adnit that it's a success.

But that doesn't mean it's any good.

Alternate timelines or not, the main problem with Abrams' vision of Trek is that it's nowhere near as subtle or dramatically realistic as it used to be -- especially on DS9. That's simply a fact, if you look at this film with all its exaggerated archetypes, or any of Abrams' past work. It's just not genuine drama, but based on Hollywood cliche.

For all of the failings of the past Trek films, they at least were written by intelligent people who had some sense of wonder and interest in the human condition beyond kicking butt and a childish sense of shock and awe. Even Nemesis was better than this, but it failed in trying to simplify the villain and not following through on the idea of a Picard with different environmental factors; redoing the Troi mental rape so Riker could have a cheesy heroic moment was unforgivable. Still, whatever you say about Shinzon, he's obviously more interesting to watch and much more textured than Nero.

So, as long as these guys are in charge, we'll never get stories that are as meaningful as the best of Trek. I'm not really a fan of the original series even though I saw it before TNG premiered, but you have to admit that Spock on the TV show was much more interesting and wonderful to watch in his deliberative approach to investigations and reasoning things out than Sylar. Abrams' version of Spock -- young or old -- is merely a sketch, a shadow, of his former self. Even Kirk is just a fratboy now who wins not by facing any doubt about himself or his actions, as he did in the Trek films, but by following his cheap impulses. These are not intelligent characters because the writers aren't intelligent or particularly caring about the world to use their fiction for thoughtful exploration of politics and the human condition. They can only think in commercial terms of what's "cool". That's what Paramount wanted and that's what makes money, but Star Trek was best when it didn't care so much about this bottom line approach that characterizes reality TV or Britney Spears-type musicians.

Even the fun stuff is mangled and over the top here. The humor is ridiculous with its broad strokes. Although not always as subtle as it could have been, DS9 easily had the best humor and often hilarious moments, especially between Bashir and O'Brien and Odo and Quark.

Abrams' battle sequences show no sense of restraint with phasers firing like mad, and a ship being able to go to turn around and go to warp on a dime; it's all too easy. The battle in Nemesis was much better, and DS9 had the best battles of all because there was some interesting strategy, especially in "Sacrifice of Angels" between Dukat and Sisko.

This new Trek might have given Uhura more to do as "Kate" from "Lost", but it's pretty lame in every other way.

And, for the hundredth time, please fix this encoded thing. I'm sick and tired of hitting refresh to get one that works and then waiting 5 minutes for the comment to even register.

im just astounded ASTOUNDED! by all of you arguing so intently over fiction. Look around you while you are at your comp, that is the world you live in. Look at your tv and movie screens, that is the magic box of entertainment. Trek IS NOT REAL! it is entertainment. Stop looking at all the old fictional trek and look at this new movie from a new set of shoes. It was fun, it re-establishes loving and great characters for a new generation. Enjoy the entertainment and stop acting like the universe is falling apart. Its not like they are retelling factual histroy to make it seem as the world war 2 didnt happen. OMG, The Stupidity.

Captain Jack Harkness, Spaceman Spiff, Son of a Maui Portagees, and other real star trek fans not star track fans. you guys rock! you know what star trek is and what it's supposed to be. You know that it's not the ship it's the crew that win in the end. And this new wet behingd the ears crew couldnt shoot down an astroid from a field let alone save the federation, THey couldn't even save Vulcan! And All the new Whoo Star Trek is great fans, havent reallty thought. Dang what if I happened o be on Vulcan When it went Boom. Let's face it thier are just not that many hitchhikers in the Galaxy to get off before Vulcan went Boom. I might trust hte new mcCoy to lance a boil but to do openheart surgert on a Vulcan No Frelling Way. (Excuse the Cross Refence) Face it it made money because people were curious. (Kinda like when you see an acciden on the Hiway) All have seen the uninformed and unknowlegeable went and enjoyed. Had you made this same movie in 1984 it never would have made this much. I still say It's not Trek. It's not from here. I care as much about it as the Mirrior Universe. Same diffrence. I think it would be better if the started it out with the words: A Long Time from now In an alternative Galaxy Not Far Enought away.... written in nice blur friendly letters.

By the way I heard that the L.A. Fire Dept keeps having to go to Gen Rodenbreey's grave to put out the fire. It seem him spinning in his coffin is getting to be a problem. But you know if you really want new star Trek try watching the Animated series for the first time, The background music is annoying, but at least it is Star Trek. And JJ Abrams Please come to my house for dinner. I wanna show you a Sci show I heard of from the 60's 70's 80's and 90's until May 23, 2001 that a whole lot of people like.

Hey Everyone that says "trek is just entertaiment" I get you man I get yo But if it's just entertaiment Isn't worth getting right. Are you the type that think that Watching Fonzi, Megmun P.I. Kermit he Hog, Ed Borton, Marchal Natt Dillion, Micheal night, Bill Grission, Chandler Bong, Rachel Greek, Jodi Tribioni, Monicia and Chris Beller. Phebe Falangi. THe Point and the enjoyment is IN the Detailes. Or perhaps you like watching Mickey Moose A Fisneyland? Get back with the program Even the REmake Of Get Smart Got the names right.

IsoTek This is the most accurate newsitem on this movie It is the top Grossing Movie. I wanna hurl just typing about it. I'm sorry my taste so far out reach yours. Enjoy this movie at the multi plex Se it 10 or 100 times. Enjoy the soda and Popcorn. I'll just be at home watch my high def remastered copey of city on the edge of forever on my 52 inchplasma set eating Steamed Crablegs Drinking a 55 Rothchildes.

IsoTek: One Question In the Movie Any Any new Life, Strange new Worlds, Any New civilization? THat's what star Trek is. Not Hitting on your conn officer, No letting your second most populated planet go boom. I'm sorry but if this is your Ideal of a good Captain I sir wouldno want to be on you Crew.

rkf,

Your recall is faulty. It was a predisposed Pro ST poster who brought it up first on 4:09 PM ON 05/11/09:

"I know, I know, you're going to sputter, "but that's only a $60 million profit!"" - Marty B. in the comments of "Star Trek takes No. 1 with $79.2M, exceeding expectations"

Those you are seeking to disparage are only guilty of collecting better references, refining the hypothesis and citing sources.

It's the pro side that's abandoning their unnamed "Analysts who know a lot more about these box office matters..." and trying to repaint this.

IsoTek Finally It's Zacary! No H. It's an Alpha Centarian Name, You know Like Zephram Cockran. Gods, it no wonder the you don't mind all the details being wrong, You can't even cut and paste right.

Oh and by the way THis Star Trek Movie is Why there are Timelords And Sam Beckett are never endly traveling throught time. It's True I Looked it up under Common Sence. and also why none of the rest of you are.

Wow, Son, way to remember and research! I stand corrected.

I didn't mean to disparage anyone though. At least not recently. ;^)

So Trek 2009 is a top movie. Big Deal. This is the most inane piece of tripe that they have ever made. One of the things that made Star Trek so appealing, was the backstory and the way that the characters interacted. JJ Abrams has damaged Gene Roddenberry's legacy. Parallel worlds are a part of sci-fi. Changing the background to broaden the appeal is wrong. If there are any more movies or (heaven forbid) a tv series, they had better restore the original "timeline", or the franchise will be dead. Pay attention.

OK, finally saw the movie. Said all along that I didn't support the idea. Still don't.
It was an OK movie. A good sci-fi blow-em up. But it wasn't Star Trek. I really wish they would have just changed the characters/ships names and called it something else. Would have supported it then.
Things I didn't like that make me say it's not Star Trek: 1. OK, alternate timeline, I get it. Can understand that would change people, but technology? Why did the engineering decks of the Enterprise look like an old unused brewery. Plastic curtains? Man I hope were still not using those things in the 23rd century.
2. The characters, honestly, tell me you recognize any of them from the old series (not the actors, the characters). The only one I felt was somewhat close was Sulu, and he only said about 20 words in the whole movie. The rest were too busy running through the halls and looking chic and sullen to even think about.
3. The Direction. Please, please, PLEASE! If your going to make another movie JJ, stop it with the shaky camera, light burst every 10 seconds thing. It's annoying. And if your going to be known as a Director, concentrate on the story. All the good ones do it.
I know, long post, but had to get it out of my system. Despite it's success, which I predicted. It's still a dumbed down version if you want to call it Trek. All about fluff and being pretty, than any real substance. Of course, If Trek is a reflection of our society, and I think it is, this probably should not surprise me.

There is something that is really starting to burn my butt,

Lucky13 said:
~~Look around you while you are at your comp, that is the world you live in. Look at your tv and movie screens, that is the magic box of entertainment. Trek IS NOT REAL! it is entertainment.~~

Let me make sure all you people who love this movie understand something.

Just because we DON”T like this movie, just because we don’t think it lives up to what we think real Star Trek is, Just because we like the original series and that JJ Abrams has butchered Trek legacy that does not mean we have no life. It does not mean we think Star Trek is real. It does not mean we can’t tell fiction from reality. Chances are our lives and opinions more solidly based in reality than all the youngsters who grew up with computers and I-pods and whiz bang special effects. The same ones who are making this movie a hit.

But entertainment is important. If it wasn’t would there be multi-billion dollar a year industry based on it? Would there be books published hundreds of years ago that are still in print? The best entertainment does more than entertain, It leaves us with something, not necessarily any kind of big message but at least something worth thinking about. Science Fiction more than other genres in my opinion.

What does this movie leave us with? It tells us that it’s ok to take something that is important to many, many people and completely F**K it up for the sake of money.

So don’t give me all that crap that just because we don’t like this movie we don’t have a life. For the most part it isn’t the little details that upsets us, although details are important, It’s the fact that Abram couldn’t work within the established universe. I consider it creative laziness and the fact that I believe that Abrams wanted Trek to be known from now on not as Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek but Abrams Star Trek.

First of all, I would like to "second" everything Spaceman Spiff said above me -- that was well said. Further, I would like to add to it.

To step away from Trek-world for a moment for an example, let's look at the brilliant adaptation of "Hamlet" by Kenneth Brannagh. Now, what if, instead of an adaptation, Mr. Brannagh had decided to do a "reboot" of "Hamlet" and somewhere in the middle of the 3rd act, had Hamlet and Ophelia run off together to move into an apartment in Paris and ended the play there. People would have gone bats**t crazy, that's what would have happened, and rightly so.

Which brings me back to Trek. "Star Trek" in its entirety has become a modern epic tale of the space age, "living" in a sense in the hearts and minds of millions around the globe, equal in its own way to other epic tales such as "The Lord of the Rings," the plays of Shakespeare, or even Homer’s "The Illyiad" and "The Odyssey." You simply can't screw around with epic tales like that -- or reboot them -- or you WILL upset people, and rightly so.

"What does this movie leave us with? It tells us that it’s ok to take something that is important to many, many people and completely F**K it up for the sake of money."

Yes. Because Trek was never about making money for Roddenberry, Paramount or NBC. Hell, The IDIC symbol only made its way into Trek lore at all because GR was looking to make a quick buck before the ax fell on the show's 3rd season.

"It’s the fact that Abram couldn’t work within the established universe. I consider it creative laziness"

Then Ron Moore and every writer since DS9 was "lazy" since they ALL cited established canon as a roadblock to creativity.

It was certainly a roadblock to success in any venue because the more canon obsessed and insular Trek became, the more pervasive the perception the Trek was for basement dwellers. That you had to have grown up with it to understand it or like it.

"they had better restore the original "timeline", or the franchise will be dead."

It was already dead by the time Abrams got there. Enterprise ended with a two share on the UPN netlet and the last two films were total failures at the box office.

Insurrection was nothing more than a lost 6th season two-parter that somebody found lying around and Nemesis was such bland nonsense it couldn't beat a JLo Cinderella story and didn't even make back its production budget domestically.

NEM couldn't even manage to be a GOOD TWOK rip.

Face it, the only people who were there for the End of Enterprise and for the last two films were the hardcores like us. The people that had been watching it most if not all our lives.

WE haven't done squat to keep Trek on the air since 1968. It has always been the general public that has the general audience that resurrected Trek the first time. Only the rabid fanbase kept TOS going for three seasons and it was only after TOS hit syndication that the general public started really looking at it, and the number of those liking what they saw swelled until Para looked into resurrecting it in some form..

(That and they were wanting their own Star Wars)

TNG was beating network fare in some markets. Do you really think there were THAT many Trekkies out there to do that? The diminishing ratings of each subsequent show tells us no.

No. Trek owes its continuation to the working mom in '75 who told her kids it was a 'safe' show and the soccer mom in '09 who wants to take her kids to a fun summer movie with great characters and a little bit of (gasp) flash and style.

Not the 50 year old fat guy who dresses up at a con and proposed to his wife in Klingonese. Many of we fans have spent years overestimating our own importance.

As Trek became more insular and cultish and more and more canon obsessed it drove the general public away until we hardcores were again all that was left.

Now Abrams has captured the characters and spirit of TOS and presented it wonderfully and, low and behold, the general audiences are back in droves.

The final notion to be debunked is the notion that this film needs $500 million to break even? Hah.

How many of you count the marketing budget in when you tout the box office success of a movie you like? No one does.

It's a nice tool when you want to make a film look like a failure though.

Marketing isn't factored into profit/loss for a studio in the way that you think because it's part of the cost of doing business in a way that it isn't for anyone else except the music business.

Making films or Springsteern albums that no one knows about doesn't work out well in the end.

The Hollywood rule of thumb (That I can cite if asked) is marketing budget = production budget. That gives us $300M It is very near that point now globally and the film is still selling.

It's likely to top out at $240M domestic, which will make it the highest grossing Trek film (Yes, adjusted for inflation) and 130 to 150 international since it only opened Japan and Hong Kong 5.30 and opens India 6.12.

A nice profit.

-Not counting merchandise tie-ins

- Not coiunting the $24M FX will pay for domestic rights.

- Not counting DVD and BD sales ($100 million is common for a blockbuster such as this)

Even today it's more profitable than, say, Superman Returns.

Para is thilled right now. Hate to disappoint. the haters.

Dilithium Chambers says:
~~Now Abrams has captured the characters and spirit of TOS and presented it wonderfully and, low and behold, the general audiences are back in droves.~~

He blows away the planet Vulcan, the second most important plenet in the Trek universe and you think he has captured the Trek spirit? Give me a break.

~~Not the 50 year old fat guy who dresses up at a con and proposed to his wife in Klingonese.~~

This is exactly he type of stereotyped nonsense I was talking about. any time anyone wants to criticize Trek fans they drag out that tired old asinine image.

And Dilithium Chambers, It appears you are another one who is obsessed with this films financial success and equates that with quakity. well bully for Abrams and Paramount
they made a piece of crap that's a hit. And pity us, cause we'll just get more of the same.

Dilithium Chambers,

Unfortunately that's not the rule Paramount followed when they conducted their previous Trek movie businesses.

www.the-numbers.com/movies/2002/STRKX.php

"Production Budget $60,000,000
Prints and Advertising Budget $33,000,000" - Nash Information Services

And Paramount's always contended that they've lost money on NEMESIS.

and yet, using your suggested method of not including the advertising budget and using the whole gross totals to figure profits they made $7,312,826.

I'm sorry but clearly your data and calculations are faulty. Or at least, NOT the way Paramount conducts their Trek movie business.

"He blows away the planet Vulcan, the second most important plenet in the Trek universe and you think he has captured the Trek spirit?"

Yes. Heaven forbid something major in the Trekverse happen that the people have to live with for more than 9 minutes before somebody slams their fist down on the reset button.

"This is exactly he type of stereotyped nonsense I was talking about. any time anyone wants to criticize Trek fans they drag out that tired old asinine image."

I can show you pictures. It's not something someone just made up.

Further, that's UNDENIABLY the public perception that any Trek movie has to overcome. That you have to have grown up with it. That you have to accept as gospel from on high that the E was built in San Francisco and not Iowa.

That you have to know the combination to Kirk's safe. That all of this ENTERTAINMENT is some sort of quasi-religion. You know it's true and so do I.

"It appears you are another one who is obsessed with this films financial success and equates that with quakity."

It's got plot holes you can drive a truck through, but so do most movies. But, as much as you hate it, the characterization is solid and the cast has chemistry together and THAT has struck a chord.

Like it or not, this film has done something right.

"And Paramount's always contended that they've lost money on NEMESIS.

and yet, using your suggested method of not including the advertising budget and using the whole gross totals to figure profits they made $7,312,826."

As an MBA in a similar industry you work a lot based on projections. You work years ahead based on them as you line up capital for future projects. You can make 7M on a film and have lost money at the same time because you didn't meet projections and now have to rob Peter to Pay paul to keep your other projects capitolized.

So, yes. Para can make 7M and still call it a loss.

Dilithium Chambers William Randolph HearstDilithium Chambers. I have a few questions Was your mom Marilyn? And did you know that when Citizen Cane came out William Randolph Hearst tried to get all the copies destroyed because he thought the film was based on him? And that was Citizen Cane! St09 Isn’t. I personally don’t think that Star Track 2009 is Star Trek. But if it is, It kind of on the Spock’s brain side of things. I agree with you on cost and R&D, being for long hauls money wise. Then Shouldn’t Paramount Been a little more hands on. I’m sure the studio who made African Queen didn’t say Just go to Africa and shoot some stuff. As far as your MBA, I’ve know a lot of them. And before they got them they were just drunkin Frat guy passed out. I also have a Doctorate But I never Ever use it to make myself self important. Why not use that gigantic brain of yours to help people not trash talk them down. But wait that’s the way Rodenberry thought, Never mind.

Thanks to Art Buchwald in Buchwald v. Paramount, we know exactly how Paramount transforms gross receipts to net profits:

''The transformation of ‘‘gross receipts’’ to ‘‘net profits’’ requires subtracting a number of expense items. These fall into four categories. First, there are the distribution fees and expenses. These include (1) the distribution fee (30 percent United States and Canada, 35 percent the United Kingdom, and 40 percent elsewhere), (2) direct advertising and publicity expenses, (3) the cost of prints, and (4) overhead charges of 10 percent of direct ad and publicity costs. Next are the costs of getting the master print created.'' - Mark Weinstein, associate professor at both the Marshall School of Business and the Law School, University of Southern California

marshallinside.usc.edu/mweinstein/research/hollywood.pdf

"As far as your MBA, I’ve know a lot of them. And before they got them they were just drunkin Frat guy passed out. I also have a Doctorate But I never Ever use it to make myself self important."

You just did. Oops.

Anyway I only state it to note that I have some actual real life idea of what I'm talking about unlike the foaming at the mouth fanboys at the other end who think this film has to make $500M to break even.

If anyone feels like I 'struck a nerve' stating some qualification It certainly wasn't intended and if they have their panties in a bunch over it it's more their issue than mine.

And on that note: untwist yours.

Dilithium Chambers, said "So, yes. Para can make 7M and still call it a loss."

And is it not also possible, as was testified before Congress, that Paramount can gross $350 million at the box office and not realize a profit?

"And is it not also possible, as was testified before Congress, that Paramount can gross $350 million at the box office and not realize a profit?"

It's possible, sure, assuming you actually spend enough money in making and pushing the film that $350M actually isn't profit.

Bear in mind however that in court Paramount had a vested interest (i.e. NOT paying Buchwald in Buchwald v. Paramount) in fudging their accounting processes for the court so that their position (That the film netted no profit ) was correct.

A paragraph from the Buchwald wiki entry on the case:

The accounting formulas used by the studios have allegedly been designed specifically to ensure that it is almost mathematically impossible for any movie to show a net profit. Specifically, the net profit formula in authors' contracts does not correspond to the net profit formula of generally accepted accounting principles that the movie studios use when creating their financial statements that are reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and to the investing public. The "unconscionable" formula in the authors' contracts effectively double-counts many costs borne by the movie studio.

So when he claimed that a $350M gross film made no profit, was he using their formula or the formula they'd have to show shareholders or the SEC?

I think we have every reason to suspect it's the former.

Using their formulation, almost no film ever made has profited.

First of all, it warms my heart to see so many posts from so many different people, all of them talking about Star Trek, and all of them (in one way or another) fans.

Most of what needs to be said (on both sides of the argument) is already posted here, and some of it is even legible. So I'll keep this short.

The movie is not titled "Star Trek XI". It is titled "Star Trek". This is very important; new timeline, new series of characters...yes, they're genetically identical to those other folks we all know and love, and have had many of the same experiences (though by the time we actually meet adult Kirk and his cronies, the timeline's been pretty radically changed thanks to the loss of the Kelvin), but at the end of the day, they are, leave us face it, a new set of characters.

I can understand why some people are having a hard time accepting this - really I can. But, as one or two or twenty reviewers above me have pointed out, where else could Star Trek have gone? I'll tell you something, I was very skeptical about this film BECAUSE I thought it was going to be a rehash of the original series. Or worse, some kind of quirky, ill-formed prequel. Thank God J.J. Abrams (not to mention everyone else involved in the production) didn't shoot for the Star Wars route: did anyone out there really want to go through that heartbreak again?

Also, let's talk - extremely briefly - about the money issue. F*** it. So long as it makes enough to charm the armchair quarterbacks-that-be in the network's high places into making another film (or a new series), who cares? Does it need to be in the top-ten highest grossing films EVER MADE, or sweep the Oscars with Jackson-esque force, for us to appreciate it? Has Star Trek ever had to do those things for those of us who love it?

As I said before, I really feared for the longest time that this movie would prove to be the final nail in the coffin for Star Trek. As far as I can tell, however, Abrams has, whether wittingly or unwittingly (we could argue about that), managed to do more than limp along with another freak-of-the-week-turned-movie and by-God resurrected Star Trek's nearly lifeless form. And to those of you who are already spitting with rage about that last sentence, yes, I too thought Nero was stereotypical and boring...but who cares? I didn't go to see him anyway! Maybe I'll care a bit more about the character development of the bad guy when the next movie comes out, but not this time, friends and neighbors.

The performances in this movie (on which only one or two people above have commented) were absolutely top-notch. The cinematography (minus some of the shaky-cam...I'll give you that) was ominous and epic. The score was phenomenal.

Star Trek is back, baby!

SciFiWire please note that according to Box Office Mojo world-wide grosses show STAR TREK is NOT 2009's top-grossing film:

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=angelsanddemons.htm

ANGELS & DEMONS $356,969,726

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=monstersvsaliens.htm

MONSTERS VS. ALIENS $346,442,547

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wolverine.htm

X-MEN ORIGINS:WOLVERINE $341,131,793

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fastandthefurious4.htm

FAST AND FURIOUS $336,289,568

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm

STAR TREK $310,664,277

To The Writer,
Bravo baby, bravo. You and I are pretty much on the same page. All this ugly back and forth bickering, people sounding like a bunch of angry married couples, crazy.
Simply put: The film continues to make money. Once it went over 100 million that was it, the Paramount execs. were good.
As for the film itself - again, relax. It's just the first movie, a reintroduction to the characters. Let's wait see what happens next.
Again, like a lot of people, I'm an old Trek fan. I too liked DS9, the most underrated Trek series. But Star Trek needed an overhaul and it got one. Whether you agree with the overhaul or not, isn't having a new Trek film out there better than nothing?
As I said before, I for one, am glad Trek is still around, has become relevant again. Can't we all agree on that?
Understand, the intent here is not to make peace. It is very apparent, many here are dug in on their opinion. But - this isn't a bad movie. And us Sci-fi fans know this. We've all seen a lot worse.
In an interesting way, this heated debate reminds me of The Undiscovered Country, where Kirk says near the end, "People can be afraid of change."
That is a lot of what is going on here. The Trek we've known and love is still intact, it's changed is all. It hasn't left us original fans behind, as many feel abandoned. That is not the case, unless you let it be.

Dilithium Chambers at your college did they teach you example vs theory? I guess we will just disagree. For example Real univers Vs Altrnative. What is an altrntive universe. Where REM music is normal and other groups are altrnative? It would explain the casting, story and stupid looking ship. BTW Dilithium Chambers you never answered the question about Marilyn

~~Yes. Because Trek was never about making money for Roddenberry, Paramount or NBC. Hell, The IDIC symbol only made its way into Trek lore at all because GR was looking to make a quick buck before the ax fell on the show's 3rd season.~~

Yea yea I’ve been down this road before too. Of course Roddenberry wanted to make money. What artist doesn’t? The difference her at least the way I perceive it is that Abrams and Paramount were ONLY interested in money. If Roddenberry had only been interested in money there were far easier ways than producing a science fiction show in the sixties. Westerns for instance were I believe the most popular type of show then.

I really don’t care how much money this movie makes. I don’t care how much the critics rave about it, I have never put much stock in critics anyway. And I don’t care how popular it becomes. It may be called Star Trek but it’s not. To paraphrase another poster here on Sci-Fi wire who’s name I can’t remember, I can mount a Mercedes hood ornament on my beat up old Chevy but that won’t make it a Mercedes.

~~Then Ron Moore and every writer since DS9 was "lazy" since they ALL cited established canon as a roadblock to creativity.~~

Is this the same Ron Moore that gave us that ridiculous travesty of a remake he dared call Battlestar Galactica. Oh yea that’s a good example!

~~Yes. Heaven forbid something major in the Trekverse happen that the people have to live with for more than 9 minutes before somebody slams their fist down on the reset button.~~

Oh, well lets just blow up the Earth in the next movie. While we’re at it have the Klingons come in and conquer the federation. What’s that? You can’t have Star Trek without the Federation? Well for crying out loud why not? It will make for some great dramatic tension. All those strict rules and regulations are really just a roadblock to creativity. Let’s have Kirk and company just fly around the galaxy doing whatever the hell they want. That’ll really free our creative juices.

Does that sound like a ridiculous exaggeration of your point? I don’t think so.
If you can except the destruction of Vulcan, which you can not truthfully deny was an integral part of the Trek universe then you can except any change at all.

When someone chooses to work within the frame work of another artists creation, they take on, in my opinion a certain responsibility to try and work within that established framework. Just because it gets difficult does not mean you just scrap the frame work and change it to your own liking. That pretty much eliminates the work you originally wanted to work within doesn’t it? It’s easier to take out all of the various things you don’t like so then you can just write whatever you want than it is to try and create a story that fits what has come before. Like I said, creative laziness.

~~I can show you pictures. It's not something someone just made up.~~

I have been Trek fan for as long as I can remember. I have been to several conventions and met a lot of Trek fans. I have never met or even seen anyone outside of Saturday Night Live who fits that description. Any time any one wants to criticize Trek fans and it used to be only non fans who were guilty of this, They lump ALL fans in this category. Now it seems it only applies to those fans who think that this movie is a travesty.

~~(though by the time we actually meet adult Kirk and his cronies, the timeline's been pretty radically changed thanks to the loss of the Kelvin), but at the end of the day, they are, leave us face it, a new set of characters.~~

Yes, That is exactly what’s wrong.

~~where else could Star Trek have gone?
some kind of quirky, ill-formed prequel.~~

If it were directed by the right person, with the right story it would quirky or ill formed. A prequel that tells the story of Kirk’s early life with NO time travel and NO alternate timeline would have been perfect.

~~I really feared for the longest time that this movie would prove to be the final nail in the coffin for Star Trek.~~

As far as I’m concerned, it is.

~~Star Trek is back, baby!~~

Opinion baby, opinion!

~~Whether you agree with the overhaul or not, isn't having a new Trek film out there better than nothing?~~

I would have preferred no movie at all over this one.

~~The Trek we've known and love is still intact,~~

Again, OPINION!

I have a question, and I've known and loved Star Trek since 1966. If the USS Kelvin is so bloody important to the timeline and to the development of the crew and ship that we've all come to love so much ... how come I've never HEARD of it before? Explain that with your alternate timeline theories if you please. The bottom line remains - poor story telling, plot holes as big as a black hole.

Captain's Log: Additional: Seems to me in the Original Series the "Kelvins" were those folks from the Andromeda Galaxy that turned people into cubes and hijacked the Enterprise. I guess Abrams just thru the name in there to screw with the fans.

Dilithium Chambers,

Generally speaking, I find Wikipedia an excellent compass to point me in the direction with which to find resources to cite. However, as a reference to cite I find it somewhat lacking; due to the fact that it is largely in a perpetual state of rough draft.

However, as long as we both acknowledge that, I will continue our discourse on the points you've raised so that I and others might possibly continue to learn.

I note that the part you quoted ''The "unconscionable" formula in the authors' contracts effectively double-counts many costs borne by the movie studio.'' Does NOT say subtracting direct advertising and publicity expenses as part of determining net profits is unconscionable or outside the realm of standard accounting practices.

I think clearly we both have demonstrated that it is not beyond Paramount to manipulate "gross receipts" to appear to represent whatever they need it to so do. That is one of the reasons I have contended that it is premature to suggest that we "know" this picture is a huge financial success. According to Box Office Mojo there is no hard data from Paramount on the budget for this picture. We don't "know" anything.

What we do know is after Paramount decided to bump ST from its original Dec 2008 release to position it as a summer blockbuster, it started this year off $123 million in the red, laying people off, and cutting costs by $50 million:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004220.html

Now, I'm not saying we "know" anything at this point but haven't you just acknowledged that Paramount is quite capable of manipulating B.O. grosses to reflect whatever they need? Especially something as nebulous as media buzz. And they appeared to be quite "needy" going into this picture's launch?

www.variety.com/article/VR1118004220.html

Oh, and that in terms of actual attendance this picture is still a hairs breadth away from matching the second most attended ST picture.

I am a 42 year old wife and mother and perhaps the die-hardest Star Trek fan ever! I have ALL the movies on DVD. I have ALL the series on DVD. ALL of them. I have numerous costumes that I have custom made for myself. I have phasers, tricorders, a bat'leth, models, dolls, communicators and some sound activated tribbles! I could quite possibly be considered one of the geekiest hard core Trekkies out there!

I absolutely loved the new movie!!!!! Any true Trekkie holds their breath until they can experience any new Trek!

Anyone who just accepts any thing that just happens to have Star Trek in the title without
taking a good hard critical look at the contents is in My opinion not a true Trek fan.