J.J. Abrams' Star Trek


Recommended Posts

Let's NOT forget 96% of critics Approve Star Trek!

This movie is rated even Higher than The Dark Knight!!!

I don't see how you can say this movie was not good, unless you don't know what a good movie is.

It's number 82 atm on IMDB...I am sure it could go up further.

Yes, but Angels & Demons opens this coming weekend, and the week after that is T:S; so I don't see it being in first all that long. Don't you just love summer blockbusters?

No, I am talking about critics ratings, not the box office #s

It's number 82 atm on IMDB...I am sure it could go up further.

Rotten Tomatoes is my #1 movie review site!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

Look at it this way, Star Trek opening weekend is $72 Million, compared to the other 10 Star Trek films this is massive.

12/7/1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $11,926,421

6/4/1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $14,347,221

6/1/1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $16,673,229

11/26/1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $16,881,888

6/9/1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $17,375,64

12/6/1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $18,162,837

11/18/1994 Star Trek: Generations $23,116,394

11/22/1996 Star Trek: First Contact $30,716,131

12/11/1998 Star Trek: Insurrection $22,052,836

12/13/2002 Star Trek: Nemesis $18,513,305

Star Trek box office figures

Look at it this way, Star Trek opening weekend is $72 Million...

If you noticed my earlier post, which I'll quote below...you'll see that I already said what the weekend total is:

Well, it's number 1 at the box office, however it fell short of Wolverine's $87,000,000 opening weekend. Star Trek's opening weekend total is $72,500,000.
Look at it this way, Star Trek opening weekend is $72 Million, compared to the other 10 Star Trek films this is massive.

12/7/1979 Star Trek: The Motion Picture $11,926,421

6/4/1982 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $14,347,221

6/1/1984 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $16,673,229

11/26/1986 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $16,881,888

6/9/1989 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $17,375,64

12/6/1991 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $18,162,837

11/18/1994 Star Trek: Generations $23,116,394

11/22/1996 Star Trek: First Contact $30,716,131

12/11/1998 Star Trek: Insurrection $22,052,836

12/13/2002 Star Trek: Nemesis $18,513,305

Star Trek box office figures

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? I heard adjusted for inflation First Contact made about 52 mil. It's still lower than Star Trek.

Let's look at it this way...

Star Trek 96%

Wolverine 37%

Wolverine is an Overhyped movie (The character himself is an OVERRATED X-man) that I rather see X-men 4 instead of Wolverine spinoff! Like I thought, it was bad, not much about it was that good for a Highly anticipated movie.

While this Star Trek was way WAY past the expectations, IMO.

i think you're describing star wars there actually.

JJ Abrams direct Actors much better than George Lucas, but George Lucas is great at action and storytelling.

This Star Trek's plot really ain't all that, but when you have a director that CAN direct actors BETTER, it makes a whole a LOT of difference!

After Nemesis, they have prequel comics that explain some of the plot points to tie this movie with the original series and TNG. Things like how did Nero know about Kirk and what not is given in the comics, too.

can you tell me what prequel comics ? so i can check them out ?

Let's look at it this way...

Star Trek 96%

Wolverine 37%

Wolverine is an Overhyped movie (The character himself is an OVERRATED X-man) that I rather see X-men 4 instead of Wolverine spinoff! Like I thought, it was bad, not much about it was that good for a Highly anticipated movie.

While this Star Trek was way WAY past the expectations, IMO.

Who the hell cares about Wolverine? Discuss that trash in that thread.

it was a great action film; a nice alternate reality reboot of trek; I enjoyed it as long as I can overlook the many plot holes and "lazy" writing.

Agreed, i saw it yesterday and while it is a nice movie the only thing it has in common with the other movies/series is the name.

SPOILER:

I'm not a star trek guru, but throughout the 4 series i saw, the Federation was always extremely strict about messing with time. It seems like the federation of the 30th century is always occupied fixing damage to the timeline. But then they just sit there and watch one of their founding planets get sucked into a blackhole by a rouge romulan ex-miner?

Another one was how they escape the blackhole gravity well at the ending...i mean, to me it looked like they used a SINGLE DROP of red matter to create a blackhole big enough to suck away a supernova in a few seconds...then they ignite the whole red matter on that ship, even take their time to chat with the bad guys and only then escape the resulting blackhole with a melting warp drive explosion?! Come on, doesn't that sound at least a bit odd?

I might be wrong, but to me it sure doesn't look like the star trek based on actual science i used to like...

Agreed, i saw it yesterday and while it is a nice movie the only thing it has in common with the other movies/series is the name.

SPOILER:

I'm not a star trek guru, but throughout the 4 series i saw, the Federation was always extremely strict about messing with time. It seems like the federation of the 30th century is always occupied fixing damage to the timeline. But then they just sit there and watch one of their founding planets get sucked into a blackhole by a rouge romulan ex-miner?

Another one was how they escape the blackhole gravity well at the ending...i mean, to me it looked like they used a SINGLE DROP of red matter to create a blackhole big enough to suck away a supernova in a few seconds...then they ignite the whole red matter on that ship, even take their time to chat with the bad guys and only then escape the resulting blackhole with a melting warp drive explosion?! Come on, doesn't that sound at least a bit odd?

I might be wrong, but to me it sure doesn't look like the star trek based on actual science i used to like...

Because this movie isnt based on Star Trek canon timeline, its a complete reboot in every sense of the word.

Best movie ever (or, at least, this year). I go to the cinemas to evade and watch something entertaining, not some artsy bullcrap. This movie had it all: simple plot, entertaining, likable characters and time travel. They had me at time travel, obviously :D I guess diehard trekkies have every right to not like this movie, anyway. I liked it, and judging by the good reviews all over the place, I guess a lot of people also did. And while I respect other peoples right to not like it, the hardcore fanboyism I sense in some posts it's insane. It's like apple fanboys not liking the fact that everybody can have a mac, lol

Saw it on the weekend, epic win (Y)

Went to the cinema yesterday and I loved it, never been much of a Star Trek fan but I got into the story right away. When I went home afterwards I got the sudden urge to pick up Mass Effect again, the movie reminded me so much of that game (which is a good thing) :D

Funny you should say that, that was exactly what was going through my head too! :D

I am indeed in the minority. The same minority that always loved Star Trek because it didn't cater to the mob, thanks for reinforcing my point ;)

It is not Star Trek as Gene roddenberry saw it, anything else is irrelevant, cash grabbing nonsense. Rejoice in the knowledge you are a sheep of the devolution.

Baaa! ;)

stop being a clown. you aren't even funny.

so anything roddenberry didn't write or work on is irrelevent cash grabbing nonsense?

well have fun watching TOS on dvd then. or maybe the DVDs are just a cash grab. the rest of us will get on with enjoying stuff a bit more recent too.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!