SciFiWire,

Shouldn't your other now inaccurate article reporting a first day take of $31 million be updated to reflect the true $26.8 million figure?

Well now they better get cracking on a sequel! Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Trekkies

Let's ALL go see it again next weekend and give them another 70 million.

To all the naysayers...PBBBBTTTTTT!!!

Good movie! Another univerise seperated from the originial time line. That's what Star Trek is famous for. Showing a different univerise from the orginial.

I am posting this everywhere I can just to see if I missed something. Was there a reference to Sam? And would a mother of a child be pregnant and still on a ship in an era where the ships were not supposed to be set up for family's till the 24 century?

Well, despite the WTF moments, of which their were a few. I must say that as an old trekker, I enjoyed the film. I was little hesitant regarding the film based on the age of the cast. But I must say they came through. I will say that Zachary surprised me as "young Spock, a very good job. But the real surprise was Karl Urban's portrayl of :Bones" I would hope that the late Deforest Kelly would've enjoyed seeing his character really fleshed out.

I have to believe that a lot of the weekend take was from repeat business. I saw it on Sunday and ran into a couple of friends who were already back for their second viewing.

I have a feeling this is going to be a big repeater for a lot of people. I'm already dying to see it again..

Just a fantastic movie.. LOVED the "beagle" comment!

@ frank6671500 at 7:01 AM ON 05/11/09

RE: " I am posting this everywhere I can just to see if I missed something. Was there a reference to Sam? And would a mother of a child be pregnant and still on a ship in an era where the ships were not supposed to be set up for family's till the 24 century?"

I don't remember any verbal reference to Sam, but that may have been him on the side of the road during the Corvette joyride scene (I have seen at least one suggestion of this somewhere).

As for the family on the starship, that was one of my issues too. Maybe Kirk's mom was also a Starfleet officer. From other behavior we saw in the movie, fraternization clearly wasn't as strictly prohibited as it is in the modern military.

Fraternization doesn't seem to be a problem in Starfleet. Kirk certainly "fraternized," or it was art least implied. Riker and Troi never caused a stir. Geordi would have if he could have. Dax and Worf, Troi and Worf. Picard and his piano teacher...

The list goes on.

When movies are produced, the ones we like here on Sci-Fi, the budgets are huge, $140 million. It was a great show, good effects, good acting. They need to make money in order to motivate to produce these movies. They do not do it just for the sake of providing a good experence for the Sci-Fi crowd. So, for all you people that do download the movie, don't ruin it for yourself go to the threater and buy a ticket, especially if you liked it and want to see more.

Yes, I am a Star Trek fan, have been since 1967. The new movie was good but definintely left this loyal fan with questions. Since when did Star Fleet decide to build a constitution class star ship on a planet? I enjoy different time lines but I also assumed that birth control was ridgidly enforced to prevent having children on star ships. What happened to CPT Pike having a female number two and his mentoring of a LT. Spock? So Spock created the "No Win scenario" test? Did the time line get changed so drasticly that age didn't factor in concerning all the original crew members, on the five year mission coming together? The idea of Spock and Uhuru making a pair isn't to much of a leap, if Spock in deed follows his emotions. In the movie his father did he say that he loved Spock's mother. I believe in making rank but even after an heroic act such as Kirk's you still aren't going to make a cadet straight out of the academy a full Captain. I did like the new engine room, even in the 23rd century your going to have tubes running through an engine room. Yes, Leonard Nimoy was great as ever. To bad the original CPT Kirk was killed off in the first TNG's movie. I'm looking forward to see the Zendi in the next movie, God knows how screwed up this new time line is going to be.

son of a maui portagee, excellent post concerning copyright.

Percentage of Positive Reviews (as collected at Rotten Tomatoes):

Star Trek – 95% (Currently)
Star Trek: Nemesis – 36%
Star Trek: Insurrection – 55%
Star Trek: First Contact – 91%
Star Trek: Generations – 49%
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country – 82%
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier – 21%
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home – 84%
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock – 76%
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – 90%
Star Trek: The Motion Picture – 50%

I didnt think it was a great movie but i think it was the best or at least one of the top three trek movies. As a trek fan I enjoyed the characters more than the plot. As for violations of trek lore, the only one that carries any weight is why Mrs Kirk was on the Kelvin. I took it that she was a member of the crew but have no proof. As to everything else, it can be explained by the alternate time line that began with the destruction of the Kelvin. Once the new time line began all of trek lore went out the window.

As to the downloading = theft, well it's petty theft. Its no different than sneaking into the theater without paying. Is it wrong? Yep. Should u go to prison for sneaking in? U must be kidding.

Speaking as a long time fan of the 'franchise', It was a great movie.

Son of a Maui Portagee: With regard to the first day's gross estimate, our earlier story remains accurate: The $31 million reflects $4 million for Thursday night and about $27 million for Friday. Final box office figures will be announced today.

The movie was great! But what people are failing to realize is that it's an alternate reality. So anything could happen... HENCE SPOCK AND UHURA! Best couple of 2009!

At 76.5 million at an average ticket at $11 that works out to 6,954,545 tickes world wide. Out of 6.5 billion that 1%. most everyone who wanted to saw it you'll have some repeats but no more then 30%. Lets say it makes an even 100 Million It cost 140 to make So if this stays true with it being up for grabs on the internet . (And Lets face it Who Knows the internet Like Star Trek Fans.) It lost 40 mil. They dont keep franchies that don't make money.

Loved the movie, and i am a hard core TOS fan. Loved the apple eating scene, a little shot out to the scene in the Genesis moon :)

I just saw the movie, and I liked it a lot. I'm not a rabid fan, but I didn't understand all the issues with the change in cannon. Most of the changes are explainable through the time incursion. Kirk obviously had a much different childhood. The changes to Pike's role should be obvious since he was crippled by the end of the movie, resulting in him having a much shorter captaincy. (or perhaps it was his promotion to Admiral that was sooner).

I didn't see where they said that the Enterprise was built on earth. If they did I misssed it and it was only a minor part of the movie.

The one discrepancy I noticed that I haven't seen anyone comment on is that nobody was supposed to know what a Romulan looked like until well after Kirk was captain.

"The one discrepancy I noticed that I haven't seen anyone comment on is that nobody was supposed to know what a Romulan looked like until well after Kirk was captain."

since this story has created a new timeline, the federation found out sooner. this long danced-around issue no longer has any relevance...thank goodness! although, it was funny how no one seemed to be surprised. oh well...

Wildstar, very few movies justify their weekend from their opening numbers alone. I know you really want this movie to fail, but reality is against you here. Analysts who know a lot more about these box office matters than your armchair perspective predict the film's gross will be to the tune of $200 million by summer's end. That's an unqualified success for an ailing franchise by industry standards.

I know, I know, you're going to sputter, "but that's only a $60 million profit!" Thing is, with movies like this box office is only one stream of revenue (merch, long tail economics, etc.), and my money's on the analysts' prediction being right than an "old Trek" hanger on with a pretentious screen name. Seriously, man, when you first started divebombing these threads, you were at least writing coherently. Now, your posts are rife with the typos of apoplexy and flailing.

1st sentence should read Wildstar, very few movies justify themselves from their weekend opening number alone.

captcha sux.

Shawn How would the tme incursion change how the romulans appearance was discovered. I have just seen the movie once, but did the Romulans identify themselves as Romulans when Kirk was killed? Otherwise there shouldn't have been any change from the original timeline.

Marty B,

The problem is Paramount is reported to have spent an additional $150 mil to promote it worldwide. That means it has to best a $300 mil take.

Also, there's a distinct possibility that if we want the characterizations in XII to be at least as good as they are in this feature that it will take another $150 mil to get that made. So this might have to rake-in $450 mil which may be hard to do with disc sales tanking.

Also, Paramount is a partner and not full owner of IRON MAN. Their intent was that this Trek be their IRON MAN. Even with this movie's higher ticket prices the raw numbers are high for Trek but still trailing IRON MAN.

Things are good but they aren't exactly going as planned in the Paramount high offices.

What this portends for fans is that XII might done on the cheap - at least with respect to this movie's budget.

“Shawn How would the tme incursion change how the romulans appearance was discovered.”

in the original timeline, starfleet did not find out about the romulan’s shared ancestry with the vulcans until “balance of terror.” with the new film, they have found out much sooner. for stories in the new timeline, writers will no longer have to dance around the issue by having ships appear without actually ever showing romulans. the cats is now out of the bag.

Being true to its oft-spoken Vulcan credo, Star Trek's $76.5 million (U.S.) opening weekend shows that even the creakiest of franchises can indeed "live long and prosper."

But what's more interesting for long-time sci-fi fans is that, at this moment, Star Trek is absolutely, most definitely, cooler than Star Wars.

This has been the Coke vs. Pepsi debate amongst science-fiction aficionados since the franchises' inceptions decades ago. But while Star Trek has a hot new film from director J.J. Abrams, Star Wars has, well, ...The Clone Wars. (laughs)

Son of a Maui Portagee,

Ok' this is a forum for SCIENCE FICTION, don't inject it with stupid things like saying, "It isn't even a right with which you are endowed by your Creator."
You might have your own religious views, but don't shove them down the throats of everyone else.

Ahh, okay, ST was..... FUN. No, not the deaths in the beginning... and a planet getting whacked. But the movie was Fun. It was entertaining. Alternate history timeline... thus things can be different. Besides the other timeline can still be explored... in books and TV. Why not? Finally answer some questions that ST Enterprise was answering until B+B went whacky at the end. ST 2: the wrath of .... hmmm, haven't met Khan yet... oops, and with 47 warbirds wiped out... gee, the vultures come out.... and that is? Let the games begin.

Avid trek fan here saying this movie was better then expected. Had to see it twice to finally decide that, but im definetly hoping there is more to come, worth every bit of the hype, although they did give away a lot of the good scenes in the previews as ussual.
Ive been reading the posts on here for months about people saying " How could a starship be built on earth, and Why did they build the Enterprise on the planet?" let me let you all in on a little secret, although Enterprise being built in Iowa is wrong, it was in fact built on earth, in san francisco. At least in the books thats where it was refitted between the first 5 year mission and the TMP there is no reason to think that a starship couldnt be built on a planets surface. Aircraft carriers are built out of water, planes arent built in the air,,,it is possible to build an enormous vessel on a planets surface then launch it into space.

landshark1215,

That was more for historical accuracy and a legal precedent sense than an attempt to proselytize.

Anyway, when we have fans speculating that timelines heal themselves by actively creating coincidences, I think I can be excused.

Or maybe I should just stick with the theme and amend it to:

"It isn't even a right with which you are endowed by your timeline."?

Or maybe I could just point out that as much as science-fiction should try to get the science right: there are limitations. It will always be guided by an outside intellect, i.e. it doesn't write itself.

CaptainChaos66,

Any plausible argument for building one on the surface of the Earth of that era makes an even MORE compelling argument for building a starship on that era's settled moon.

Because:

1. Moon's resources will be less depleted than Earth's.

2. Lunar colonies already calibrated to ideal Earth norm plus you can adjust as needed to accommodate swift construction. Even if for some reason you were required to calibrate in the lunar "gravity well", it's just a math multiplier to get to Earth norm. Also, starships have to be able to operate at a wider range of gravities than mere Earth norm to accommodate visiting non-Earth dignitaries.

3. Lunar Colony will have cornfields as needed for construction. ;-)

4. Vacuum testing without need to orbit.

5. Easier for ship to achieve orbit under its own power plus it doesn't have to deal with pesky atmosphere on the way.

" Do any of You Remember when we were explorers?" how's that for forshadowing?

Wow. Much bitterness.

Marty B. what can i say sometthing i loved all my life has in my viewpoint been raped, pillaged and plundered and now people are telling me that it's great, better and it's going to make mega bucks. If you had that happened to a friend and people said that about the act how would you feel? Honestly in the Mid 80's for 5 Years Star Trek Was the only think that kept me sain. I was in a Very Bad Place and Pardon the Pun But it gave me someti cling on to mentaly. So I am very protective of it andthe way it was. Bty In the supermarket to day I saw Star Trek Ceral. Eat up. And enjoy the movie.

"So I am very protective of it..."

you can choose to be an optimist. you still have YOUR star trek. just pop in a dvd and enjoy...

We have removed all comments debating the propriety of downloading movies on the Internet, as they're not germane to this story.

if they are not germane are they at least Jackie, Tito, Marlon or Michael

Really, Zacary. That is a horrible analogy. My sister was r aped in her teens and I am offended by your analogy. There is no comparison between a real living person and some fantasy world a man created 40 years ago.

And if you really do feel this way, you have more serious issues than this movie.

Hey guys I need your help. The Blu-Ray release of Star Trek: the Origional Motion Picture Colection has ST 1 -6, this I know. But I read the info on the disk and its says they are in the origional theaterical release. So, if anyone owns this someone tell me.... IS this the actual release and not the Directors Edition, Speical Editions and so forth?

I still find it incredible that so many people like this movie. This movie SEVERELY SHREDS established canon, making everything done since the '70's untenable. I have no doubt that the fleshing out of the characters was welcome, but by changing the backstory so completely, JJ Abrams has changed the franchise for the worse.
Abrams should have done better. He had excellent material to work with. The franchise may have been showing its age before, but this movie has made it seriously ill. Maybe next time.
One can only hope.

Dreugan, dude i'll be he first to tell you i have soo many issues that i got a volume.