J.J. Abrams' Star Trek


Recommended Posts

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

Cuz if you noticed. Someone else is keeping talking about Wolverine here, too.

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.
Final numbers are in:

$76,500,000

It fell short of Wolverine's opening weekend by $10,500,000.

And, it's really a SHAME, Suck movies doing better than movies that are actually BETTER!

My girlfriend and I did not enjoy this movie. Overall I give it a 6/10. It was too much "mainstream" for my tastes. In my opinion in 2009, you could insert X character into this film and it wouldn't have made a difference. Quite generic, but I did enjoy the Scotty Throw-back at the very end.

the only reason it fell short of wolverine is because of the cliche that comes with star trek

i bet the next one will break records once people realize how good this was

Well, it's already broken one record, of course it's only a record for the series itself...as it was the highest grossing Star Trek movie.

You just can't grasp the simplicity of it can you?

Star Trek is Star Trek, this latest foray, is not ;)

To me, Star Trek IS the original series. TNG, DS9 ,VOY, and Enterprise were nothing more than "cash grabs", as you put it. This new movie is more Star Trek than the last 4 series, especially that crap show Enterprise.

As a Trekkie, I loved the movie. I want another one. It's a good thing Berman wasn't involved with this one.

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

Adjusted for inflation (very roughly) in millions:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture $32.5

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $35.5

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $38

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $36

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $34

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $32.5

Star Trek: Generations $37

Star Trek: First Contact $47

Star Trek: Insurrection $31

Star Trek: Nemesis $19

So yeah, the reboot pretty much blew the others entirely out of the water. I loved the movie... I just wonder when they are going to bring in the Borg? Afterall, we know that they have been developing in the Delta Quadrant unhampered by the Federation. Then again, if only the destruction of Vulcan would have changed the timeline, I assume the Borg would remain unaffected, coming the same Stardate as in TNG. But, as seen on Enterprise, it is possible that with a bit of imagination, Borg can appear anywhere at anytime. Even WW2, haha.

Adjusted for inflation (very roughly) in millions:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture $32.5

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan $35.5

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock $38

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home $36

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier $34

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country $32.5

Star Trek: Generations $37

Star Trek: First Contact $47

Star Trek: Insurrection $31

Star Trek: Nemesis $19

So yeah, the reboot pretty much blew the others entirely out of the water. I loved the movie... I just wonder when they are going to bring in the Borg? Afterall, we know that they have been developing in the Delta Quadrant unhampered by the Federation. Then again, if only the destruction of Vulcan would have changed the timeline, I assume the Borg would remain unaffected, coming the same Stardate as in TNG. But, as seen on Enterprise, it is possible that with a bit of imagination, Borg can appear anywhere at anytime. Even WW2, haha.

Those are all for the opening weekends, why not do it for the NA gross of each movie:

fu4zuq.png

The events in Star Trek change everything. The designs of some Federation ships might change. The stability of certain governments in the Alpha Quadrant may change. But major events will likely stay the same. For example, the Borg would appear at around the same times. Question is, will the Enterprise be at the right place at the right time? In any case, J.J. Abrams can take the story wherever he wants.

Maybe its just me but i miss the old crew of Piccard, Riker, Data, etc from the older Star Trek movies. I don't think anyone will ever be able to replace that crew. This new take on Star Trek really doesn't appeal to me. Neverless my girlfriend convinced me to go see it tonight and it wasn't all bad.. action packed at least.

i liked it. wasn't as intelligent as i hoped it would be, but i guess that was to be expected. maybe its hard to be action packed and intelligent at the same time and not be at least 2.5 hours long. i was surprised by the alternate time line plot, but at the same time it helps me sort of accept this film by thinking of it not as a prequel or reboot, but a totally different series from the original shows.

and was it just me or when spock was in fight scenes did anyone else want him to throw people against the walls and slice their heads open with his thoughts?

actually its occurred to me that it would be easier to think of it as a continuation of spock prime's timeline than a prequel.

Edited by doomgeneration
Maybe its just me but i miss the old crew of Piccard, Riker, Data, etc from the older Star Trek movies. I don't think anyone will ever be able to replace that crew. This new take on Star Trek really doesn't appeal to me. Neverless my girlfriend convinced me to go see it tonight and it wasn't all bad.. action packed at least.

Technically, this is an older crew than that, although I guess newer due to the time shift.

They can do the Borg for the next movie. The ship that Nero is on is partially made of Borg technology. If it became activate at some point, it could drive a much quicker appearance of the Borg than the previous timelines. They could also use the excuse of what happens in Generations as a reason for the Borg showing up earlier than usual. I haven't seen Enterprise, but I hear that's essentially what they did to allow the Borg to appear on the show. Not only that they threw around a bunch of blackholes, which would not only tear time, but also space allowing any signal to reach their destination much quicker.

It's pretty much up to the writers' discretion on where they want to take the sequel, which of course is already greenlit with the entire creative team pretty much already onboard.

It's pretty much up to the writers' discretion on where they want to take the sequel, which of course is already greenlit with the entire creative team pretty much already onboard.

While this was a fun movie to watch, I hope they tone back the action elements a bit for the next movie. The movie had a strange aftertaste, just as if I had watched Indiana Jones IV with a space theme. If these new actors want to take over these old roles then they have pretty big shoes to fill, the old series was not so much gun blazing but an analysis of the situation and a plan, and the character scenes were interjected with humor and Shatner pauses... Three seasons of the original series, a decade off, by the time the original cast started making movies they were on a first name basis and you could feel how they interacted in the movie scenes as you do see them cutting up in off screen commentaries together. Star Trek was character driven and a sequel should slow down just a bit and focus on them.

The movie had a strange aftertaste, just as if I had watched Indiana Jones IV with a space theme.

you have to admit it was better than indie 4. but i disagree about pulling back the action. i think they should just add another half hour of character and plot development to give plenty of time for some high-minded themes. because i wish this movie was longer.

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! ;)

Enough of the insults, ive never insulted you so please dont try and insult me because you wont win i can guarantee you.

I know its not Roddenberrys Trek but Roddenberry died in 1991 so are you telling me all the Star Trek movies since he died, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were not how Gene Roddenberry saw it?

Please stop talking down at me i am probably a much bigger Star Trek fan than you will ever be. Ive got all the Films on VHS, DVD and now Blu-Ray, i have every Episode of every TV Show on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, i have signed autographs from all of the TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise cast, i collect anything and everything Star Trek and i "get" the message Roddenberry was trying to convey with The Original Series that mirrored the struggles of the day like equality no matter what race, sex, sexuality, hope that the world ould be a better place, having episodes that parabled the worries and struggles of the world, etc.. etc..

Having said all that i loved the new film, while Roddenberrys vision is what made Star Trek the TV show it was you cant honestly tell me that every Star Trek film had this vision, most where just enterprise crew vs bad guy who was about to bring about the end of the world moreso with the TNG era films.

It was a stagnant franchise, it needed a kick up the arse and it got one, so stop acting all high and mighty because you think you are championing Roddenberrys cause.

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!