Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · May 27, 2009, 11:13 AM

Star Trek has now entered the Top 100 movies for domestic North American box office gross, at $191 million.

I suspect it should hit the $200 million mark soon, displacing Gone With the Wind in 90th place. To hit the top 50, it'll have to get about $245 million, to displace Cars.

BTW, Star Trek now also has 247 positive reviews at RT. The only movie I can find that has more is The Dark Knight (at 248). I can't find any movie that's hit 250 yet, but it's possible that Star Trek could hit that as I wouldn't be surprised to see five more reviews or more to be posted in the next few months.

Dakar V · May 27, 2009, 11:27 AM

Jesus.

Eug · May 27, 2009, 11:38 AM

Eug · May 31, 2009, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Star Trek has now entered the Top 100 movies for domestic North American box office gross, at $191 million.

I suspect it should hit the $200 million mark soon, displacing Gone With the Wind in 90th place. To hit the top 50, it'll have to get about $245 million, to displace Cars.

After this weekend, it's at about $210 million domestic, and over $301 million worldwide.

That puts it into 81st place for all time domestic and 197th place for all time worldwide. For reference, Batman Begins and Ratatouille are $205 and $206 million domestic. I'd like to see Star Trek hit 50th domestic ($244 million) and 100th worldwide ($415 million). It will be tough though.

andi*pandi · Jun 1, 2009, 09:36 AM

ok, saw it yesterday. It was pretty good. I retract any "Star Trek 90210" statements I may have made.

Eug · Jun 13, 2009, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

After this weekend, it's at about $210 million domestic, and over $301 million worldwide.

That puts it into 81st place for all time domestic and 197th place for all time worldwide. For reference, Batman Begins and Ratatouille are $205 and $206 million domestic. I'd like to see Star Trek hit 50th domestic ($244 million) and 100th worldwide ($415 million). It will be tough though.

Star Trek just hit $228 million. It has surpassed Bourne Ultimatum and WALL•E, and is now well on its way to hit that $244 million mark to kick Cars out of 50th place domestically. However, I don't think it's gonna break 100th worldwide. It's "only" made $112 million elsewhere, for a total of $340 million. That puts it 164th place overall.

As a comparison, X-Men Origins: Wolverine only made $175.5 million domestically, but has gotten slightly more than that elsewhere, for a toal of $352 million (149th place). Star Trek is gonna have a tough time catching it, even with its stellar domestic box office receipts.

Meanwhile, Terminator Salvation is lagging way behind at 344th place domestically with a paltry $110.5 million, and 360th worldwide with $210 million. That's gotta hurt, considering it cost $200 million to make the movie, plus lots extra to market it.

Andy8 · Jun 13, 2009, 08:45 PM

I saw it this week also and was suitably impressed.

I saw it with someone who knew nothing about Star Trek and they still enjoyed it also as a stand alone sci-fi movie.

The Godfather · Jun 14, 2009, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Star Trek screened in space

"Star Trek" has been beamed aboard the International Space Station.

Paramount Pictures said they transferred director J.J. Abrams' sci-fi franchise reboot to NASA's Mission Control in Houston. The movie was uplinked to the space station on Thursday.

NASA astronaut Michael Barratt watched the film on a laptop Friday inside the Unity module.

And they will uplink movies again, since their DVD player is kaput.
I wonder if Houston uplinked it as analog video, streamed it digitally, or uploaded the whole movie as an AVI/MOV/WMV/MKV

Eriamjh · Jun 15, 2009, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

And they will uplink movies again, since their DVD player is kaput.
I wonder if Houston uplinked it as analog video, streamed it digitally, or uploaded the whole movie as an AVI/MOV/WMV/MKV

I think it was just downloaded from bit torrent.

Salty · Jun 15, 2009, 01:01 PM

Houston couldn't have uploaded it, too many copyright issues... they got it from the Russians

ghporter · Jun 15, 2009, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

Houston couldn't have uploaded it, too many copyright issues... they got it from the Russians

I GUARANTEE that Paramount would have licensed the film for free for NASA to upload to the ISS. No doubt about it. Especially considering that Star Trek is why much of the middle and upper management and scientists there ARE there...

But if they got it from the Russians, which language would the subtitles be in?

Eug · Jun 15, 2009, 02:24 PM

It was redubbed with Anton Yelchin doing all the parts.

Eug · Jun 28, 2009, 10:27 PM

Holy Frack!

As expected, Star Trek is now in the top 50 movies of all time for domestic box office receipts, at $246 million. That puts it ahead of both Cars and Toy Story 2 (ignoring inflation for the time being). For worldwide receipts, Star Trek is now at $369 million for 125th place all time. That puts it just ahead of Monsters Vs. Aliens and within spitting distance of Batman Begins' $373 million.

So, what's the Holy Frack! about?

Well, Pixar's Up just jumped ahead of Star Trek for domestic receipts, at $250 million, for 48th place, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has surged ahead of both of them for worldwide receipts with $387 million in less than one week!

P.S. Star Trek now also has 251 positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. I believe that's a record, with Star Trek being the first ever (AFAIK) to hit 250. The Dark Knight has 249 positive reviews.

ghporter · Jun 28, 2009, 10:37 PM

"Up" is an incredibly good story with great acting (voice and character) and wonderful visuals. And it's a simple story, really, that's accessible for the whole family. I wouldn't take a kid younger than 11 or 12 to see "Star Trek" unless I knew he or she was really ready for the intensity of it (and the mature stuff, of course), but I'd take anyone to see "Up." And I'm going to see BOTH films again, soon.

I was perusing American Cinematographer over the weekend, and of course the current issue covers "Star Trek." The lens flare thing bothered the cinematographer and his crew at first, but it certainly did make the visual style of the film unique-JJ's whole point. In particular, lens flare is a feature of the Enterprise, the shiny new "latest and greatest" ship. All the other vessels and locales had more traditional lighting with only Enterprise interiors having the extremes of intentional lens flare. And some of the "hand held because it's cool and edgy" shots were actually done sort of hand held because they couldn't get a crane into the set. They didn't build sets with fly-away sections (the original series' bridge had something like four wall segments that could slide out on casters), so there were some really tight spots, like in the shuttle to the Academy...

I'm looking forward to the "Special Edition" (which I hope comes to big screens before disc) to see all the stuff they cut out to get "down to" 127 minutes. They filmed the Klingon prison sequence, for example, but couldn't fit it in the time allotted-that would answer some of the "why did they...?" questions all by itself.

Eug · Jun 28, 2009, 10:47 PM

One more interesting statistic: The Star Trek movie franchise has now topped $1 billion.

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'm looking forward to the "Special Edition" (which I hope comes to big screens before disc) to see all the stuff they cut out to get "down to" 127 minutes. They filmed the Klingon prison sequence, for example, but couldn't fit it in the time allotted-that would answer some of the "why did they...?" questions all by itself.

I'm not going to see Star Trek on the big screen yet again (as I've already seen it twice), but I'm definitely looking forward to the Blu-ray disc for the full home cinema lens flare glory. Here is the rumoured list of features, at least for the German release:

The deleted scenes and the audio commentary are what I'm most interested in.

Arty50 · Jun 29, 2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

P.S. Star Trek now also has 251 positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. I believe that's a record, with Star Trek being the first ever (AFAIK) to hit 250. The Dark Knight has 249 positive reviews.

I just lost a bit of respect for Rotten Tomatoes then. The Dark Knight was 100 times the movie Star Trek was. Star Trek was good, but the Dark Knight was an instant classic.

ghporter · Jun 29, 2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

I just lost a bit of respect for Rotten Tomatoes then. The Dark Knight was 100 times the movie Star Trek was. Star Trek was good, but the Dark Knight was an instant classic.

Perhaps in your opinion. But a lot of people are really stoked by Star Trek, particularly perhaps in a way that the very dark Dark Knight could not. Both end hopefully, but Star Trek has a "brighter" ending (no lens flare pun intended), which may influence a lot of the people who submit to Rotten Tomatoes. And remember, like Wikipedia, this is all volunteer submissions; buzz begets buzz, and that may just be the real deal behind Star Trek's higher ranking.

- - e r i k - - · Jun 29, 2009, 11:36 PM

Rotten Tomatoes is based on an average of (mostly) professional reviewers. IMDb is based on volunteer submissions.

ghporter · Jun 30, 2009, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Rotten Tomatoes is based on an average of (mostly) professional reviewers. IMDb is based on volunteer submissions.

RT's ratings are still influenced by volunteers, and even professional reviewers are influenced by buzz. Just sayin'...

Seriously, buzz is a strong influence. Rotten Tomatoes' ratings simply are not immune to it. Dark Knight had a lot of buzz, and that level of interest and excitement may have primed the public (and reviewers) to go farther in their enthusiasm for Star Trek.

Eug · Jun 30, 2009, 08:30 AM

I too preferred The Dark Knight to Star Trek, but then again, I though TDK's whole...

cell phone radar thing among other things

...was kinda stupid.

What made TDK great was specifically Heath Ledger.

Chuckit · Jun 30, 2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

I too preferred The Dark Knight to Star Trek, but then again, I though TDK's whole...

cell phone radar thing among other things

...was kinda stupid.

What made TDK great was specifically Heath Ledger.

That was nothing compared to the nonsense science in Star Trek IMO. It just stood out more in The Dark Knight because it was a better movie on the whole.

Buckaroo · Sep 28, 2009, 10:08 PM

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but with the new movie, do I need to burn all past episodes of Star Trek with the exception of the Enterprise series?

What I'm getting at is, everything has changed. They need to rewrite and reshoot the whole Star Trek series because of this movie.

analogue SPRINKLES · Sep 28, 2009, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but with the new movie, do I need to burn all past episodes of Star Trek with the exception of the Enterprise series?

What I'm getting at is, everything has changed. They need to rewrite and reshoot the whole Star Trek series because of this movie.

Yes.

Shaddim · Sep 29, 2009, 01:15 AM

Unless they fix the continuity in a future movie.

ghporter · Sep 29, 2009, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but with the new movie, do I need to burn all past episodes of Star Trek with the exception of the Enterprise series?

What I'm getting at is, everything has changed. They need to rewrite and reshoot the whole Star Trek series because of this movie.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Unless they fix the continuity in a future movie.

Except that they made it explicit that the new movie established an alternate time line, so there is no continuity problem. The new movie set up a new galaxy that new stories can occur in. And there are a BUNCH of indications that this was a different time line BEFORE Nero showed up, including having really BIG survey ships like the Kelvin, and having families aboard at a time when TOS was pointing out that Star Fleet was operating on the raggedy edge. The movie didn't just reboot the franchise, they upgraded the OS and the hardware, with a rockin' UI to boot.

Buckaroo · Sep 30, 2009, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Except that they made it explicit that the new movie established an alternate time line, so there is no continuity problem. The new movie set up a new galaxy that new stories can occur in. And there are a BUNCH of indications that this was a different time line BEFORE Nero showed up, including having really BIG survey ships like the Kelvin, and having families aboard at a time when TOS was pointing out that Star Fleet was operating on the raggedy edge. The movie didn't just reboot the franchise, they upgraded the OS and the hardware, with a rockin' UI to boot.

UUgggghhh!

Another timeline? WTF!

New Galaxy? You mean new Universe don't you? I don't think any two galaxies would classify as different timelines, parallel universes might. I think. . . aggghh.

I don't care, this sucks.

analogue SPRINKLES · Sep 30, 2009, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Unless they fix the continuity in a future movie.

The whole point of it was so they can have a clean slate to use the same characters but without knowing exactly when and all the important stuff happens in advance. Why would they fix it and make everything irrelevant AGAIN?

- - e r i k - - · Sep 30, 2009, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I don't care, this sucks.

Either you are 12 or the living embodiment of Comic Book Guy.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 12:18 PM

2.35:1 is not 1080p. Not even close.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 12:22 PM

I don't understand the point of the giant world destroying machine. Why do they need to drill?

starman · Oct 1, 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

2.35:1 is not 1080p. Not even close.

Huh? That's like saying "a mile isn't a minute".

starman · Oct 1, 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I don't understand the point of the giant world destroying machine. Why do they need to drill?

Asteroids.

The Final Dakar · Oct 1, 2009, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I don't understand the point of the giant world destroying machine. Why do they need to drill?

Because making the world implode is much cooler looking.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Because making the world implode is much cooler looking.

It implodes from the singularity, not the drilling. You could just as easily put the singularity next to the planet, and it'd still be destroyed.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Huh? That's like saying "a mile isn't a minute".

The technical aspects of the Star Trek movie read:

Picture: 2.35:1 (1080p)

1080p is not a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

The Final Dakar · Oct 1, 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It implodes from the singularity, not the drilling.

...and you have to drill to get the singularity inside the planet...

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You could just as easily put the singularity next to the planet, and it'd still be destroyed.

That's what I was referring to when I said "cooler looking"

starman · Oct 1, 2009, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The technical aspects of the Star Trek movie read:

Picture: 2.35:1 (1080p)

1080p is not a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

That's not what it's saying. It's just saying that it's keeping the 2.35:1 aspect ratio AND it's in 1080p. Two separate things.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by starman

That's not what it's saying. It's just saying that it's keeping the 2.35:1 aspect ratio AND it's in 1080p. Two separate things.

Oh, OK.

jokell82 · Oct 1, 2009, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by starman

That's not what it's saying. It's just saying that it's keeping the 2.35:1 aspect ratio AND it's in 1080p. Two separate things.

Isn't that impossible? 1080p is 1920x1080, and in no way can that be 2.35:1.

/confused

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

Isn't that impossible? 1080p is 1920x1080, and in no way can that be 2.35:1.

/confused

It's 2.35:1 with letter box. I was confused at first, too.

jokell82 · Oct 1, 2009, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's 2.35:1 with letter box. I was confused at first, too.

Right, but then it would *technically* not be 1080p, since it would have less than 1080 lines of vertical resolution (horizontal scan lines).

Unless it actually is rendering the black bars on the top and bottom, but I thought 99% of releases these days were anamorphic...

starman · Oct 1, 2009, 02:26 PM

It's anamorphic with SLIGHT black bars so yes, the black bars are in the picture.

EDIT: Wait, I'm thinking old conventional DVD. It might be different for Blu-Ray. I have to research this a bit.

The Final Dakar · Oct 1, 2009, 02:29 PM

Out of curiosity, would you guys like a new designation for 2.35:1 content that has the same horizontal resolution as 1080p? Because I imagine the reason its still (incorrectly) referred to as 1080p is so as not to further confuse the **** out of the average consumer.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

Right, but then it would *technically* not be 1080p, since it would have less than 1080 lines of vertical resolution (horizontal scan lines).

Unless it actually is rendering the black bars on the top and bottom, but I thought 99% of releases these days were anamorphic...

OH, good point. So I guess it's 817p. 1920x817.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Out of curiosity, would you guys like a new designation for 2.35:1 content that has the same horizontal resolution as 1080p? Because I imagine the reason its still (incorrectly) referred to as 1080p is so as not to further confuse the **** out of the average consumer.

Then why didn't they just make the HD resolution in the 2.35:1 ratio?

The Final Dakar · Oct 1, 2009, 02:33 PM

I'm not sure I follow.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I'm not sure I follow.

Most movies are 2.35:1, with a few exceptions. Makes sense that HD would be 2.35:1 instead of 16:9.

Edit: Nevermind. Moot point.

The Final Dakar · Oct 1, 2009, 03:10 PM

I think I see where you're going. I think my point would be, why do we measure HD by vertical lines of resolution rather than horizontal pixel count.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I think I see where you're going. I think my point would be, why do we measure HD by vertical lines of resolution rather than horizontal pixel count.

Beats me. I think that's part of the problem of moving from analog to digital.

chabig · Oct 1, 2009, 03:28 PM

I agree. I think the tradition of talking about vertical lines just carried over from the analog world, where you always had discrete vertical lines, but no horizontal pixels.