Abrams’ Star Trek Goes Where No Trek Has Gone Before: $33M in 29 Hours

[DainBramaged]

Rebooting Bond with Daniel Craig was Bold. Christopher Nolan’s Reinvention of Batman was genius. But some thought it was overly-ambitious, even audacious, to attempt to restart the Star Trek franchise. It has begun to pay off already for Paramount Pictures, and there will dividends for years to come.


J.J. Abrams is officially the Lazarus of movie directors as his all-new Star Trek has gone “Boldly Gone Where No Star Trek Movie has Gone Before.” With a cast of relative unknowns, the 42-year-old has resurrected a franchise that had been killed by insular “nerdyness” and timid imagination. The Gene Rodenberry creation didn’t so much bomb as it died slowly over a period of years. First, the 2002 movie Star Trek: Nemesis starring the Next Generation cast disappointed with a meager $43.3M domestic. Then, the final TV series Enterprise, which starred Scott Bakula, was not embraced by core fans or broader audiences and was canceled after four seasons, ending May 13, 2005.

Now riding a staggering 96% Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes – that’s 96% of America’s movie critics issuing positive reviews – The Enterprise is riding high again thanks to the creator of TV hits Alias and Lost. Try getting 96% of any group to agree on anything. It’s no small feat. Compare Star Trek’s RT score against the ratings for the last 5 Best Picture winners.

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORES FOR THE LAST 5 OSCAR WINNERS
2004 – Million Dollar Baby – 91% Fresh
2005 – Crash – 75% Fresh
2006 – The Departed – 92% Fresh
2007 – No Country For Old Men – 94% Fresh
2008 - Slumdog Millionaire – 94% Fresh

ALL-TIME TOP 5 OPENING DAYS FOR STAR TREK MOVIES
1. Star Trek (2009) - $26M <$33M in its first 29 hours>
2. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) - $13M
3. Star Trek: Generations (1994) - $9.7M
4. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) - $9.5M
5. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) - $7.7M



http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/08/box-office-abrams-star-trek-goes-where-no-trek-has-gone-before-33m-in-29-hours/

[Deja Q]

1. Since a lot of reviewers have said this isn't the same trek and isn't for its fans...

:evilgrin:

Then again, I didn't care much for "First Contact" or "Nemesis" either...

[DainBramaged]

2. This is for a whole new generation of fans who weren't around for the original

series or the movies in the 80's. And know what, I'm sorry the purists don't like this movie, but purists don't make for box office.

[Deja Q]

8. I disagree.

I wasn't around when the 60s show aired. I still got into it.

Half of 60s "Doctor Who" episodes were destroyed by the time I first got into the series in 1978. Many were recovered by the time my PBS station aired them in 1985. I got into those. "Doctor Who" can't count because it's the same series, which had started in the 1960s and whose concept incorporates radical changes by design, however.

The 2008 "Get Smart" movie retained enough charm of the original and in some ways I liked it more...

I do not understand the logic why old shows have to be remade to be perverted from the original intent. Even Berman, despite his faults, understood enough of Roddenberry's ideals to keep them going. JJ just wants to make pretty action films.

Most of today's audiences would laugh at the old effects. Of course, the older shows were built on storyline and not pretty effects.

I grew up in the MTV/Star Wars generation, and yet I don't exude those stereotypes of wanting pretty effects before plot. But I'm a geek.

That and, 20 years from now, when people look back, the 00 decade will be remembered as being very soulless indeed.

We used to make shows that required us to imagine they looked good. Now we make shows that have to make us imagine they're well written.



When it comes to being a 'purist', it's not about "Trek". It's about appreciating something that was made and the time it was made in. All these remakes just ring empty and hollow. No substance. No innovation. Just pretty effects. And self-mockery of what is being used to sell itself. Very shallow and hollow indeed.

Maybe there will be a backlash in 20 years; people tired of remade drivel and somebody will find a way to make people appreciate real art and not carbon copied cabbage fodder anymore.

[MedleyMisty]

3. I was introduced to Trek by TNG

then Fox replayed some of the original episodes for a while in the afternoon after school - I cried when they replaced it with Fresh Prince reruns.

I own all 6 original movies on VHS - they make a pretty picture of the Enterprise. I went to see all the TNG movies in the theater. For my 13th birthday, I bought myself a poster of Dr. McCoy. I watched some DS9 and Voyager when they were on.

I've read quite a few books based on the original series and TNG.

So yeah, my mother was in high school when the original series first aired, but I still consider myself a pretty big fan of old school Trek.

I loved the movie and may go see it again today in IMAX, since the IMAX showing was sold out last night. It didn't seem like it was dumbed down to appeal to non-Trek people at all to me. It has a lot of little in-jokes that appeal to old school fans - which I think made up most of the audience I saw it with, because they all seemed to get the references and plus there was a cheer the first time the Enterprise was shown.

I guess if you have a stick up your ass and judge everything harshly, like my in-laws who were never into Trek anyway but have ruined Discworld for me with their stuck up way of being fans, you might not like it.

[Coventina]

4. Saw it, was disappointed, but not sorry I saw it. (possible spoilers)

As I posted in another thread, I'm just sick & tired of the whole "alternate universe/time-line" thing. It's just basic laziness of not thinking through the world and its characters. With the time-travel aspect, you can just plop in whatever you want, regardless of what makes narrative sense. (This is also why I quit watching "Heroes")

It also feels like Abrams wants it to be a brain-dead "action movie" franchise.

I thought the casting was good, and there were some good moments. But I'm not going to be excited about the next movie.

I'm not a hard-core trekkie, either. I was open to a "reboot" as they were calling it, but I just don't think this one was particularly well done.

[Deja Q]

11. That bit I just about liked, actually.

It neatly allows real Trek to be Trek while this imposter series can do what it wants - which obviously is to be as vapid and pretty looking as possible with its "special" effects.

I agree with your review fully.

Oh, I am not a die-hard trekkie. I loved TOS and liked TNG... got too self-important afterward. Now it's just campy and pompous. Like every other revamp/reboot/remake. I wasn't surprised; the BBC Wales revival of "Doctor Who" (2005-????) was little different when it comes to pulling emotional strings, pretty f/x, and vapid plots.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Which just proves, make a movie dumb with lots of explosions and fast action, and it sells.

Make a movie that requires some thought, or might require one to consider the current world in a new way, and it's gonna tank.

Abrams knows the secret - most people are too fucking dumb to give a shit. all they want is skin, explosions, snappy lines, and a plot that's so transparent and one-dimensional that they can ignore it. Because, let's face, these people, when they gather to have a meal after the movie and talk about it, will only talk about the skin, explosions, and action. None of them will mention character development, plot, symbolism, and so on.

Nope. Just, "Oh my God, did you see that fucking thing blow up? That was awesome! That's the most awesome movie ever!!! And then that other thing blew up after the naked chick toweled off!! TOTALLY AWESOME!!!!!"

[MedleyMisty]

6. Have you seen it?

I didn't get that feeling at all.

The villain got there by a different way, but he was a pretty good example of what I've been reading lately about the psychology of fundamentalism.

I don't know - I think I'll stay out of threads about it. It's just like Dark Knight - "Oh, I'll slot it into my mental box for superhero movies and not go see it or judge it on its own merits or be open to it at all. Instead I'll just trash it and make myself feel superior to the unwashed idiotic masses."

I will admit that it doesn't have nearly as much symbolism and depth as Dark Knight and doesn't have as much to think about, but it's still not a stupid movie. It's tons better than the previews - go ahead and trash Transformers or G.I. Joe as explosions and naked women if you want.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Yep, saw it opening day.

If it weren't a Star Trek movie, I'd like it more - it's an enjoyable, though clearly pedantic and uninspired movie. Probably more thoughtful than what the GI Joe is going to be (saw a trailer for that at the ST show - holy shit, it looks awful), but nowhere near as thoughtful as Star Trek should be.

But as a Star Trek movie, it's deplorable. A real kick in the teeth, I think, to what Star Trek should be, and an insult to Roddenberry. In my opinion, of course.

I think Abrams went lowest-common denominator, as pretty much all art does nowadays.

[Deja Q]

10. Oh good. The one movie preview I tried to consciously forget. Thx for "GI Joe".

:rofl:

"Transformers II" was so appallingly bad it's etched into my frontal lobes for the rest of time...

[Deja Q]

9. Agreed, 1000%!!! I saw it earlier today and I want my life and money back.

A thousand million multiplied by infinity percent.

[InvisibleTouch]

13. Oddly enough, when my friend and I discussed the movie afterward...

...we talked about character development, plot, symbolism, and the many references to the original series and previous movies. I don't think we once mentioned skin, explosions, or action - except maybe for the realization that you still don't want to be a red-shirt on the Enterprise. Which is itself a tribute to the original series.

[Mike 03]

12. Does anyone know what the budget for "Star Trek" was? I'm assuming it was

over $100 mil, but I really don't know. I'm praying it was not over $200 mil.

[JTG of the PRB]

14. I believe I heard that it was $150 million.

Looks like they'll more than make back their money at the rate it's going right now.