Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Atragon9

Star Trek Film (2009)

292 posts in this topic

Hi All,

 

I know there are a lot of places in this forum with a lot of movie talk already. I thought it might be nice to start a fresh topic for all to share thoughts *after* seeing the movie.

 

If this already exists and I missed it, Just direct me there and delete this one :P

 

I'll start.

 

First off, I think the actors all did a superb job.

Second off, I think that the sets were great! Outside and inside these ships had a modern looking, but *very* functional look, and struck a perfect balance between how far SF ship tech had come at that point and where it was going.

 

As for Starfleet itself, I thought that they depicted the military aspect terribly, and it was really distracting throughout the whole movie. The lack of definition of cadets vs. ncos vs. the officer ranks, and the off the cuff "you're captain now, recent graduate" was just really irritating, I miss undiscovered country era military Starfleet.

 

At first I was really uncomfortable with all of the canonic misses, destroying Vulcan, Killing Mrs. Sarek, etc. In the light of them reseting for plots to come, I'm alright with it.

 

 

But time travel? This was a pretty awful representation of time travel theory. Lightning wormholes that pop you out the other side in a different time? Really disturbingly bad sci fi going on here. I hate to say it, but becoming a hardcore Stargate fan has dimmed my enjoyment of Star Trek as good Sci Fi. That's not to say I don't still adhere to trekian ideals.

 

Did I think it was a good movie? Yes, definitely. Great acting, ok script, great effects.

 

Were there things that really irritated me about it? Yes!

 

 

Glad to have some time to be on the forum again!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi All,

 

I know there are a lot of places in this forum with a lot of movie talk already. I thought it might be nice to start a fresh topic for all to share thoughts *after* seeing the movie.

 

If this already exists and I missed it, Just direct me there and delete this one :P

 

I'll start.

 

First off, I think the actors all did a superb job.

Second off, I think that the sets were great! Outside and inside these ships had a modern looking, but *very* functional look, and struck a perfect balance between how far SF ship tech had come at that point and where it was going.

 

As for Starfleet itself, I thought that they depicted the military aspect terribly, and it was really distracting throughout the whole movie. The lack of definition of cadets vs. ncos vs. the officer ranks, and the off the cuff "you're captain now, recent graduate" was just really irritating, I miss undiscovered country era military Starfleet.

 

At first I was really uncomfortable with all of the canonic misses, destroying Vulcan, Killing Mrs. Sarek, etc. In the light of them reseting for plots to come, I'm alright with it.

 

 

But time travel? This was a pretty awful representation of time travel theory. Lightning wormholes that pop you out the other side in a different time? Really disturbingly bad sci fi going on here. I hate to say it, but becoming a hardcore Stargate fan has dimmed my enjoyment of Star Trek as good Sci Fi. That's not to say I don't still adhere to trekian ideals.

 

Did I think it was a good movie? Yes, definitely. Great acting, ok script, great effects.

 

Were there things that really irritated me about it? Yes!

 

 

Glad to have some time to be on the forum again!!!

 

 

I agree with the "You're a cadet, now you're first officer, now we're giving you your own ship" thing being a little crazy. For my own sanity I assume that in their version you gain ranks as you progress in the academy. Or, holding to a super idealistic future rank could not be based more on your raw abilities and shown abilities over what might be termed "archaic" merit systems. Not that I agree with that idea but that could be how they see it in the future. It was annoying but not enough to ruin the entire movie for me.

 

The time travel aspect actually was more realistic then most times it's come up in Trek. One of the more logical theories on time travel says if you travel back your very presence creates a new timeline. And, there's no way to get back to the future you know because now you're stuck on a whole different road. If you travel forward in time you're going down the road created by your presence. The less you do in the past the more the road will be like the future you know but those you left behind will never see you again. The one area this movie kinda broke those rules is when Spock traveled back in time 25 years after the Narada. In the above theory the Narada would have gone back and started a new timeline. Spock would have travel back along the original timeline and come up before the Narada had created the NewLine. So, spock would have shown up in the history he knew without the Narada ever showing up, destroying the Kelvin and all that. Of course the second Spock did show up he would have created yet another timeline. I try to rectify that in my mind by saying they both traveled down the same timetunnel therefor they would be deposited into the same timeline no matter when or what the other did. Something like that could also explain why in Yesterday's Enterprise the timeline changes then changes back. The temporal vortex was always open therefor maintaining the original timeline in some fashion until it was closed. Now, when it did close a new timeline was created with Tasha now in the past and effecting events. We simply followed along the story that now ran in that new timeline.

 

Anyone's head explode during that explanation? No, good. One of the best scenes in scifi time travel is Lister on Red Dwarf explaining a time paradox to a camera which keeps exploding because it can't handle the paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my big problem with the time travel...even if the means or explanation were corny sci fi deus ex machina....ok. So future Nero goes back in time to seek revenge for his preset's romulus being destroyed by destroying vulcan in the past. Here's all starfleet has to do...and this would even put this movie back on track with canon because it would deleate all of the non-canon stuff that happened.

 

1. Secret Op. go execute Nero's parents. Not very federationy...but this keeps that person from being around to seek revenge in the future, all but eliminating the possibility of him having come back. Does this magically pop vulcan back into existence? I'm not sure because the time travel setup in this movie is already really messy.

 

2. Immediate plan to save romulus in the future, not involving red matter and black holes. This keeps the vortex from ever being formed.

 

I don't know...I just really found the whole thing unsatisfying from a sci-fi point of view. Like I said in my original post...on the whole it was a good movie experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well technically, if they did execute his parents, maybe it would drastically change the -original- timeline. Isn't that standard Federation logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my big problem with the time travel...even if the means or explanation were corny sci fi deus ex machina....ok. So future Nero goes back in time to seek revenge for his preset's romulus being destroyed by destroying vulcan in the past. Here's all starfleet has to do...and this would even put this movie back on track with canon because it would deleate all of the non-canon stuff that happened.

 

1. Secret Op. go execute Nero's parents. Not very federationy...but this keeps that person from being around to seek revenge in the future, all but eliminating the possibility of him having come back. Does this magically pop vulcan back into existence? I'm not sure because the time travel setup in this movie is already really messy.

 

2. Immediate plan to save romulus in the future, not involving red matter and black holes. This keeps the vortex from ever being formed.

 

I don't know...I just really found the whole thing unsatisfying from a sci-fi point of view. Like I said in my original post...on the whole it was a good movie experience.

 

 

But that's not how timetravel works in this theory. They could kill Nero's parents but that only stops the Nero that might eventually be born in that timeline. But the Nero from the other timeline still has already come back. It's more of a mess to kill the parents because then if Nero was never born and never came back to destroy Vulcan then there would be no reason to kill Nero's parents thus he is born and does all the things to want him dead. That's a solid time paradox.

 

The time travel really does make sense in this movie. Did we ever wonder why Spock didn't try and travel back to his future? Even if he felt he needed to help rebuild Vulcan society you'd think his knowledge of events would threaten the Temporal Prime Directive too much. BUT, in the time theories used in this movie he can't get back to his future. They are now in a different timeline. Him traveling to the future would put him in a future he wouldn't recognize. He's on the wrong road to get back to where he started from... and there is no way to get on the right road.

 

In all the other movies and episodes they would have solved this by time traveling forward to help Spock stop the super-supernova before it did destroy Romulas and all would be back to normal. That is actually not based very well in realistic temporal theory. That would create paradoxes all over the place.

 

But then that worked for Voyage Home. So, it does kinda come down to simple enjoyment. I've heard this compared before. The Mad Max movies were enjoyable even though the idea of a post-nuclear war society centered around fuels for cars and not food or water is silly. But the movie The Postman was a flop even though it showed the post-apocalypse society coming down to a manageable level in a realistic way with real priorities.

 

So time travel is just a plot element for telling a story. If it's not believable to some then it's failed. But personally it makes more sense than any other time travel seen in Trek so far. I think perhaps all the bad time travel we've seen before has left us not knowing good time travel when we see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we have to remember that there are also different theories involving Time Travel.

 

This film follows the theory that traveling back in time, and causing a new event to occur (ala the Kelvin being destroyed) would indeed create a new timeline, but that this new timeline would essentially be an alternate Earth. This also leads into the whole Multiverse concept that people believe stem from this. That theory believes there are multiple Earths in multiple dimensions that exist, but one Major event (ala the Nazi's winning WWII, or Nuclear Annihilation back in the 60's) occurred that created a divergent timeline, creating a whole new dimension.

 

So, we can infer that Old Spock knew it was pointless to travel back into the future, because the timeline would already be different anyways from his timeline. So he knows that he is trapped in this new alternate timeline. We can also figure that he knew that there would be no threat to the new timeline to reveal himself to his younger counterpart, so we get a face to face between young and old Spock. I'm sure Doc Brown would be happy to know that a paradox didn’t occur that would wipe out the known Universe.

 

There's also the theory of course that no matter what anyone’s does, even if they are capable of traveling backwards through time, events are still destined to occur the same way no matter what. Sure, you could maybe change a factor or 2, but the same Major event is always meant to happen. Obviously this camp of theorists isn't as big as the other camp, but it does warrant a look at...

 

Wow, Time Travel really does make my head hurt sometimes. :P

 

EDIT: Edited for some typo's

Edited by John_Anderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there,

 

With people talking about explaining the time travel items, thought it might be best to get it from the horse's mouth. :P

 

TrekMovie.com has a section where the two writers of the film are answering questions fans post. Here is one dealing with this very subject (click here for the full article):

 

Robogeek: Why doesn’t Spock Prime try (or even want) to fix/restore the timeline, and save Vulcan?”

 

BobOrci: Two reasons: The RED MATTER Device is destroyed, so even if he wanted to go back in time, he can’t.

 

Secondly, our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s General Theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like say, BACK TO THE FUTURE, or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler. This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time

traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing). Or something.

 

To summarize above on the time travel issue, going back in time is the equivalent of stepping into a parallel universe, according to current speculations based on Quantum Mechanics.

 

Starfleet and Spock, basing their decisions on this theory, would see that their is NO SUCH THING as “rectifying” the situation in a MULTIVERSE.

 

… and finally, my ace in the hole, a TEMPORAL PRIME DIRECTIVE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look, Orci just explained everything I said... His just sounded much better then mine though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Temporal Prime Directive seems like a strange thing to cite given that it was already broken by Spock having traveled in the first place. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought, the NewLine timeline which the movie and future movies will be running in might be one of the alternate realities Worf jumped in and out of in the episode Parallels.

 

Adding to the head spinning theories: the idea that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed would to me make it hard to believe a new reality would be "created" by time travel. So, that would lean me to believing that ALL possible events are played out in one reality or another. The problem though with that in the Trek universe is traveling between these realities has happened. So there should be a reality where such travel happens all the time...and with all possible events playing out there would be a reality in which it's people have traveled to ALL the other realities. The problem is then that with all possible events playing out there has to be a reality that is never visited by another. So you kinda have the irresistible force smacking into the unmovable object on that one.

 

Then again some quantum type folks say the Big Bang was another dimension "smacking" into ours which, at the impact point is where all the universes energy and matter came from. Thus is a way I guess "creating" another universe... namely our own.

 

Or you can just believe Genesis 1:1 but that's even more off topic than we've already gotten.

 

BACK TO GENERALLY THE ORIGINAL TOPIC.... how long are we keeping the "spoiler's" to this thread? I'm thinking this alt reality/timeline conversation has gone a little off topic but is still in "spoiler" land so might not be best to split the topic. And I'm sure there's other details and such that will need to be talked about eventually. Was there a set time planned to say "If you haven't see it yet, too bad"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BACK TO GENERALLY THE ORIGINAL TOPIC.... how long are we keeping the "spoiler's" to this thread? I'm thinking this alt reality/timeline conversation has gone a little off topic but is still in "spoiler" land so might not be best to split the topic. And I'm sure there's other details and such that will need to be talked about eventually. Was there a set time planned to say "If you haven't see it yet, too bad"?

Probably, but it hasn't even been two weeks yet (you can still see it in IMAX, after all.) So, no, we aren't letting the new movie discussion have its freedom just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Temporal Prime Directive seems like a strange thing to cite given that it was already broken by Spock having traveled in the first place. :P

 

Following the explanation of time travel that Fred threw out pretty much eliminates the need for a temporal prime directive. In our (the cannon) universe, Romulus' star would explode, destroy the planets and Spock and the Narada would dissapear into the black hole, and things would continue as we always knew them. Well, figuratively speaking.

 

I like the quantum mechanics explanation for time travel, simply because traveling back in time, would change the time line. The previous way of handling things would have looked like that halloween episode of the Simpsons where Homer has to keep traveling back in time with the toaster, cause he sneezed on the dinosaur and removed donuts from existance.

 

The point is, that any action in the past would irreparably change the future, such as the season 8 finale of SG-1. Even though they technically fixed the time line, subtle changes remained, such as fish in O'Neil's famously fish less lake.

 

I never really liked that way of handling things, because Starfleet in the 29th century would have to be able to monitor all of space and time, otherwise anyone at any point in time could jump back and mess things up, then we have another Storm Front season premiere.

 

With a parallel universe, we can enjoy our old cannon (well, until 2387) and this new universe of awesomeness.

 

Oh, and since I haven't put my two cents in on the new movie I will now.

 

Penny number one: Movie rocked, if you accept it as a re imagined, parallel universe that cannon cant touch.

Penny number two: Vulcan's should not make out with their students/girlfriends on the transporter pad. Un-Vulcan like no matter the universe. :)

Edited by Travis Kroells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Temporal Prime Directive seems like a strange thing to cite given that it was already broken by Spock having traveled in the first place. :P

 

 

I'd hate to get off topic again, but it seems to me that, though explanitory, creating a new universe/reality EVERY time someone time travels is a bit- well- harsh. That means the time (even in the original series) is so vastly altered from its original course, that it's impossible to even conceive of what the original timeline might have been. I mean, (I probably sound like muddle right now), that anyone, the original crew, the next gen crew, the time-traveler from H.G. Wells's "The Time-Machine", any of those people created a whole new timelines every time they traveled, and just didn't notice it. Even in TAS: Yesteryear, they discover their "original" timeline is in reality a muddle of alternates. That's just food for thought.

 

EDIT: Whoops, saw Travis's post above. Yeah, why the directive? It makes no difference. Or maybe only Spock Prime really knows that. Or at least not Starfleet.

Edited by Leila Kalomi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the confusion over the alternate timelines is that we're using time progression to explain it, saying things like 'this then that'. All the alternate timelines are happening at once, way I see it. It just so happens that certain elements originated in another timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we're getting into the subject of parallel universes and realities, I wanted to touch base with a theory, as a sci-fi enthusiast. I've seen talk of the difficulty of creating an alternate reality every time someone time travels. While the energy to "create" a universe would be mind boggling, and difficult to understand (given that energy can't be created or destroyed, is the universe simply spreading out and "thinning" or is it litteraly creating something out of nothing?) keep in mind that there is a difference between a "universe" and a "reality".

 

Another universe, of plane of existence (or dimension, or...you get the point) is completely separate from our own universe. In these different universes, things could be completely unlike our own universe, in regards to the laws of physics and such. Species 8472's Fluidic Space, and the Q Continuum, and that micro universe that the crew of DS9 discovered on that episode I cant name (i was going to mention something here, but it got to large...so go to the bottom) can be counted as different universes, hence a Mulitverse. A different reality would play like the episode Parallels that Jorahl mentioned. A duplicate "what if" of our own reality, but a seperate entity. The energy required to create this reality would be a non-issue if you take in consideration that while seperate, the past up until the realities diverged would be the same, including the creation of the universe. An omnipotent"make it so", the big bang, a giant sneeze...whatever floats your boat.

 

My big question would be, given the idea of a parallel reality for every possible outcome to an event...would it be considered a parallel reality or another universe if creation itself went differently and altered the entire development of the universe?

 

From the parenthesis: I actually don't know about the DS9 episode, as that was a universe within our universe. Or, with a multiverse are things layered and tiered, so that our universe is "above" the micro universe? It would make sense that the universes are somehow connected, as the Borg and Species 8472 were able to switch back and forth, along with Q.

 

I don't know if any of this is right, as we understand the universe, but it's the thinking I've developed from the headaches of trying to understanding Trek science.

Edited by Travis Kroells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good. I remember reading a quantum mechanics article. According to something or another, matter is able to switch in between universes. Or... at least that's how I remember it. Quantums are deep stuffs. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, it could be just an incredibly weak plot device meant simply to let this movie series diverge from prior ST lore.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I like to talk about simpler things...like the ship! As always...

 

Uh when Scotty Ejected the Enterprise's power supply..I thought it looked like a six cylinder engine of a car having its pistons flushed out into space? Engineering on the ship was so crude..I thought..maybe these producers want to cast "engineering" like the engineering of a car?

 

Also of note...whatever was ejected was not one item but several. I could not tell (I've seen the movie only twice) if was simply the antimatter....or more logically several mintiure Matter-Antimatter cores (a.k.a. simpleton's speak The Enterprise's cylinders) from the ship. Note they were traveling ..in the horizontal away from the ship. That's something different than I am used to seeing.

 

Now away from technobabble to more real world stuff..

 

This movie scored with it's primary target audience....Those who were not necessarily Trek fans. The gross for the second weekend was in the 40 million range ....something the Wolverine movie could not do. Word of mouth is its a fun movie for all and not just US geeks who are going to see it anyways. That's what they had to have happen. 200 million domestic gross seems likely, which should green light a sequel. Which will make me happy. For I made the wrong call on this one..it's no Lost in Space remake. There's a future for this new cast.

 

Precip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum Stuff: Someone mentioned matter passing between universes. I've heard before that gravity may also spread out the same way, which is why overall it's such a weak force.

 

Weak Plot Device: I think what we've been talking about shows it was a factual (as scifi gets) plot device, not a weak one. It may not have been presented in a way everyone could understand. But I think it's more a matter of we've always seen the hero's save the day and return the universe to it's proper order. That only happens though because producers don't want to totally retool their series everytime they do a timetravel plot. So, they've almost always taken the "weaker" plot road of "everything is back to normal" and "they lived happily ever after".

 

Ejecting the core: This got me too as well as the whole look of all the engineering sections. But, then I started to think of how the original Enterprise engineering section looked. There was no massive warp core chamber in the center. There was a row of coils or electrodes or sparkplugs or whatever behind a metal mesh screen. That seemed to be more in line with ejecting the core and seeing several containers flying off.

 

What the movie did: I know my non-Trek friends had a millions questions for me about whether this was an in joke or that meant something. They all liked it and some may be going back to see it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This movie scored with it's primary target audience....Those who were not necessarily Trek fans. The gross for the second weekend was in the 40 million range ....something the Wolverine movie could not do. Word of mouth is its a fun movie for all and not just US geeks who are going to see it anyways. That's what they had to have happen. 200 million domestic gross seems likely, which should green light a sequel. Which will make me happy. For I made the wrong call on this one..it's no Lost in Space remake. There's a future for this new cast.

 

Precip

 

 

And that's the whole point! The powers that be in control of this movie made a decision up front to reboot a franchise that had grown old and stale....a franchise that was no longer appealing to new generations of fans.

 

By heaven, they did it!!

 

It's quite possible Trek will be around another forty plus years. Even though it tossed aside some of our beloved cannon, I think that is a small price to pay for the rebirth and continued success of Trek. If they hadn't played to "new" fans, this movie would not have been the hit that is and we'd probably never see another movie, much less a TV show.

 

Again, the movie has it's flaws but we, the long time Trek fan, are the only ones who noticed. We are a small minority of those who have seen and will see this move. The rest of the audience loved it. For the most part, so did I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Penny number one: Movie rocked, if you accept it as a re imagined, parallel universe that cannon cant touch.

Penny number two: Vulcan's should not make out with their students/girlfriends on the transporter pad. Un-Vulcan like no matter the universe. :P

 

I have to share this with you all because my reaction to Spock's relationship with Uhura was not what I expected. I was very comfortable with it and that really surprised me.

 

I've been a fan since the original series first premiered on NBC in September 1966. I fondly remember spending hours on the phone and at school with friends dissecting each and every episode. I can tell you, we all had a hard time with the Spock character. We weren't accustomed to his logical choices and unemotional behavior. The episodes This Side of Paradise, where Spock fell in love, and Amock Time were big deals for us because it showed there were emotions hiding inside that stoic Vulcan.

 

As the TOS movies were released, I came to like the Spock character more and more because, as he matured, he was less inclined to deny his human half. He seemed far more relaxed and comfortable with himself. Now, in this movie, Spock Prime has certainly come to terms with who and what he is. He is at peace with his Vulcan and human halves. But it sure took a long time.

 

The new Spock seems to be coming to terms with his dual heritage a lot faster than his older self. He turned down the position at the Vulcan Science Academy because they considered his "human mother" a handicap. Instead of gasping in horror as Spock bid farewell to Uhura on the transporter padd, I found myself nodding in approval. He knew he might never see her again and he allowed himself to express those feelings. I was happy about it.

 

Another irony was the fact that this time around, it was Spock who got the girl....actually had the girl all along....not the handsome and dashing James T. Kirk. Personally, I can't wait to see how this develops. And I'm still surprised by my reaction to the whole thing.

Edited by DrDMatthews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm responding to Doc Matthews posts here. Doctor, you and I need to TOS bond one day over coffee or something!

 

Franchise Reboot:

 

I'd say that the franchise already had a sort of resurgence back with TNG, so would this be the second phase with New TOS?

 

TNG was the first TV series (the Golden Child) and brought in new fans as well. And let's not forget the initial reactions/complaints: Riker was a Kirk wannabe. Data was a plastic Spock. A kid genius on the bridge. The series did pretty well didn't it? That was over twenty years ago. TNG was the one series popular enough to get the film treatment.

 

I'm sure we won't be seeing VOY, DS9, ENT on the big screen. In a way I'm thankful about this, and I think TOS has a better chance of making a "second career" on the big screen since it has always been the first and the pioneer series.

 

I tell you one thing, I do not want to see Next Gen on the big screen finding yet another body part of Datas brothers ever again, or see a re-hash of the Dominion War on the big screen, or see the Voyager guys take out the Borg again, etc.

 

I'd say the franchise has gone full circle again with this New TOS entry film bringing in some new fans, or at least people who enjoy the movie. I want new adventures with this new TOS cast.

 

Spock/Uhuru:

 

And with Spock/Uhuru becoming an item: sure, why not! Kirk didn't get the girl for a change. About time. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American Box Office totals for Trek film line taken from Wikipedia source:

 

Motion Picture (1979): $82, 258, 456

The Wrath of Khan (1982): $78, 912, 963

The Search For Spock (1984): $76, 771, 046

The Voyage Home (1986): $ 109, 713, 132

The Final Frontier (1989): $52, 210, 049

The Undiscovered Country (1991): $74, 888, 996

Generations (1994): $75, 671, 125

First Contact (1996): $92, 027, 888

Insurrection (1998): $70, 187, 658

Nemesis (2002): $43, 254, 409

Star Trek (2009): $158, 653, 970 as of May 20, 2009, Worldwide Gross is $231,034,778

 

And, while I wasn't a fan at the time, I do remember Voyage when it was released, and articles that I've read on the film since then - it also brought in new fans/viewers by word of mouth, like this current film is doing.

 

Great film: Admiral, there be whales here! Nu-cle-ar Wes-sel. Wait one damn minute Admiral. I have a tire iron right where I can get at it. I think he did a little too much LDS.

 

Trek '09 blew the previous highest grossing film The Voyage Home out of the water, completely, totally, and with no mercy. Boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
American Box Office totals for Trek film line taken from Wikipedia source:

 

Motion Picture (1979): $82, 258, 456

The Wrath of Khan (1982): $78, 912, 963

The Search For Spock (1984): $76, 771, 046

The Voyage Home (1986): $ 109, 713, 132

The Final Frontier (1989): $52, 210, 049

The Undiscovered Country (1991): $74, 888, 996

Generations (1994): $75, 671, 125

First Contact (1996): $92, 027, 888

Insurrection (1998): $70, 187, 658

Nemesis (2002): $43, 254, 409

Star Trek (2009): $158, 653, 970 as of May 20, 2009, Worldwide Gross is $231,034,778

 

And, while I wasn't a fan at the time, I do remember Voyage when it was released, and articles that I've read on the film since then - it also brought in new fans/viewers by word of mouth, like this current film is doing.

 

Great film: Admiral, there be whales here! Nu-cle-ar Wes-sel. Wait one damn minute Admiral. I have a tire iron right where I can get at it. I think he did a little too much LDS.

 

Trek '09 blew the previous highest grossing film The Voyage Home out of the water, completely, totally, and with no mercy. Boom.

 

 

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0