I ran into Zachary Quinto up in San Francisco at WonderCon and he was all smiles.
"I just saw the movie for the first time last night," said the "Heroes" actor who wears the pointy ears of Mr. Spock in the new "Star Trek" film. "It’s pretty amazing. You have to see it…"
I want to. After interviewing "Trek" director J.J. Abrams and seeing several extended chunks of the movie over at the Paramount lot, I’ve ramped up my expectations pretty high. I fully expect this to join "Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan" as the very best of the "Trek" films. It may even surpass "Khan." Why? I love the humor and the action I’ve seen and I think Abrams has the right attitude going in. And I think the "Trek" films, as a whole, are a pretty flawed bunch.
I’m ready for a "Trek" film that is engaging, energized and stylish. I think this might be it. I’m not the only eager Enterprise watcher: The new trailer for the movie was downloaded 1.8 million times in its first 24 hours as an iTunes offering and 5 million times since it hit the merchant site on March 6. That’s quite a bit of pent-up interest. Check out the action in this thing:
Here’s a random prediction: "Trek" will finish as the fourth-highest grossing film of the 2009, behind the new "Harry Potter" film, Pixar’s "Up" and the "Night at the Museum" sequel.
– Geoff Boucher
RECENT AND RELATED
J.J. Abrams: "Trek" must escape the shadow of "Star Wars"
"Trek," "Star Wars" and "Battlestar" each search for their future
Exclusive: Shatner vents about new "Trek" snub
Rare photo: Leonard Nimoy (ready to prosper) at age 20
PHOTO GALLERY: The new "Trek" cast side-by-side with the originals
Effects king Ken Ralston’s favorite enterprise? It wasn’t "Trek"
Comments
Print
Read Later
What's that? An actor who's promoting a film says the film is "amazing"? Well, that kind of impartial opinion makes me want to rush out and see it!!!
I don't care how Abrams THINKS the characters came together, I cared about how they worked together. The word I keep thinking of for this flick is desultory.
And the idea that you build a starship on the ground is not only bad science wise, it is bad imagination-wise (unless you belong to the click-heels-together-to-go-home-again brigade.)
Furthermore, the sets look like Target's Revlon aisle.
AND you'll have the fangirls flocking to the theaters too. You've heard me here before…the crew is HOT!
I also have high hopes for this movie. It will either spell the death or re-invention of one of the worlds longest running stories. One of the messages of Star Trek is one of optimism, so, I am going to be positive and expect this to be the biggest movie of the year!
Wow!
I think most of you need to get your heads out of the past, five the movie a chance i've been a fan for 25 years, and i'm wating for this movie because it's differnt. There revamping the past for a new genaration of trek fans, and some of you hard liners make it almost imposibble for the new group to enjoy the new star trek.
i didn't know he was in sf, i live there. but anyways the movie sounds great, can't wait till this summer
I'd have to disagree with your prediction.
4th Highest Grossing Film of 2009?
More like 2nd.
No way will Night at the Museum make more money. That film is absolute RUBBISH.
Star Trek is easily gonna be the biggest film of 2009.
Wow, Quinto is perfect for that role. If he wasn't around, I wonder who else they would have considered?
At first, the only casting choice I questioned was Simon Pegg as Scotty. Now I think he'll do well. However, Chris Doohan would have been a better choice, but at least he's in the movie.
Does anyone have any info on the score being used for the newest trailer?
The latest trailer certainly looks impressive, but I worry that this series may have lost the bedrock appeal of the series, its plausibility. For example one of the scenes in the trailer shows a spacecraft being constructed on the ground. This goes against the premise of the TV show and every Star Trek movie. The design premise of the Enterprise assumes it will, like the International Space Station, be constructed in space. This isn't just a blooper; this shows a profound misunderstanding of the brilliant premise of Gene Roddenbury. There's a reason this genre is called SCIENCE fiction after all.
The latest ST trailer broke all records for most viewed/downloaded trailer off of Apple.com of ALL TIME, and your random prediction is that it will come in 4th? I'm sorry, but when a trailer has this much interest, you better be saying that it will come in #1 for 2009, and could quite possibly break all-time box office records in the history of film….even I can make this deduction from looking at the numbers…no random predictions necessary.
Also, if you think Trek is really in the same class as "Harry Potter", Pixar's "Up" and "Night at the Museum" sequel then you are simply out of touch with your film knowledge and shouldn't be writing about any box-office guesses:
- "Harry Potter" is yet another film in the (tired) franchise that has lost the "magic" from the first few films
- Pixar's "Up" is for a completely different audience (kiddies)
- "Night at the Museum" may be family-friendly and enjoyable to watch, but is not even close to a must-see "epic event film".
Thanks for the article, but next time use a bit more common sense in your deductions.
Aaron: Um, the "Potter" franchise is tired? You're kidding right? The last film grossed $938 million at theaters ($292 million in U.S.). I should be so tired.
"Up" is for kiddies? Right, and…? That's the point. There's a reason kiddie movies make so much money. Parents take their kids. (That said, "Up" may finish lower than second, I just think Pixar is hard to bet against)
"Night at Museum" is not must -see for YOU, but, again, box-office grosses are often drivien by that kiddie audience you dismiss. The first "Museum" film was the SECOND HIGHEST GROSSING film of 2006, ahead of "Casino Royale," "The DaVinci Code," "X-Men:The Last Stand," "Mission:Impossible 3."
Thanks for the advice about common sense. Very amusing.
I would think that the main competition for Star Trek would be the new X-Men movie and the new Terminator movie. That is probably what might keep Star Trek at the number 4 spot. I was a HUGE Harry Potter fan but I do think some of my passion for the series ended when the mystery ended with the last book.
I hope the Star Trek movie is good. I like all the actors involved and respect Abrams other works.
To my understanding, there is a graphics novel to the movie called countdown. To my knowledge this is to be a prequel to the movie. I found it at star trek gift shop. I don't know if there will be a mini series on this as the name implies. For those of all who wish to see this, here is the link to ware I found the book http://www.startrekgiftshop.com/books-1000-160010…
I have not read it yet. So I can't tell you if its any good.
I'm very much looking forward to JJ's new Star Trek feature film. My only concern is that I hope it retains the core of ST creator Gene Roddenberry's original vision – and present not only action and adventure, but a sense of wonder, amazement, whimsy, optimism; that the franchise ultimately goes back to "exploring new worlds"…as opposed to frequently fighting with them (as has been the case for far too long with not only all the Trek movies and shows, not Battlestar: Galactica and Stargate as well).
Aaron: "Harry Potter" is yet another film in the (tired) franchise that has lost the "magic" from the first few films." While I agree with this assessment, one might say the same about "Star Trek."
As for "Star Trek" being the fourth highest-grossing movie of the year, oh I would love that to be so. Night at the Museum 2 likely won't earn the $250 million the first movie made, but it should come close. The last Harry Potter flick, "Order of the Phoenix," was the 5th highest-grossing movie in 2007 with $292 million, so it's gonna have to really work to get to #1. Personally, I think the top spot will be taken by "Transformer 2." The remainder of the top ten should include (in no particular order) "Star Trek," "Wolverine," "Potter," "Up," "Terminator: Salvation," "Night at the Museum 2," "Angels & Demons," "Avatar," and the second "Twilight" movie. My dark horses for the top ten would be "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs," "Monsters vs. Aliens," and "G.I. Joe."
stman: Countdown is indeed an official prequel to the movie. It's set in the 24th century and basically explains how Nero and Spock end up in the 23rd century and what motivates Nero to do what he does in the film. It is currently being published as a four-issue comic book mini-series, and will be released together in one volume next month.
Now, what's all this complaining about building parts of a spaceship on the ground? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we build components of the space stations before we launch them into space, and then continue building it there? Also, how do you know that building a starship on the ground … in the 23rd century … is bad science? I would assume science has improved between now and then. But maybe that's just me. Then again, I don't quibble and complain about irrelevant details, so maybe it's just that I'm not seeing things clearly from the other side of the argument.
OK, you have full permission to call me a stupid fan girl for wanting to see this movie solely because Zachary Quinto has a role in it. I know a fair amount about Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, et cetera, but nothing of Star Trek. So, perhaps I should do some research before I go and see it, but hopefully the movie will be so great that I'll understand it without consulting Wikipedia before hand.
Jolene Blalock or T'Pol for the Trekies(ers) once accused Rick Berman of being more concerned with tits and ass than content. So the point about actors being all for the show they're in is not all together true. I just wish more where concerned.
The author makes a point about there being something wrong with most Trek films, namely EGO. I do not have this fear about this film. I believe that everyone involved truely cared about the story while at the same time making it more visually appealing to a younger audience.
I hope the predictions about it being the top grossing film of 2009 or even the forth are true. That means more Trek. But if it isn't, so be it. At least we have this and for that I am happy.
star trek looks great, i have never seen of the other movies and have never been remotely interested in anything to do with star trek, but this trailer gets me excited for it. i think many people like me who have no prior connection or affection with the series will be drawn in by what is a very good trailer. and i believe it will be top 5. potter will be number 1 worldwide, as it always makes phenomenal money away from america, and great money in america. transformers will be number 1 in america, and star trek will be close behind domestically. i think 250m should be easy for it unless its badly recieved, like watchmen was, by the general public, then around 200m might be more reasonable. it will put a massive dent in wolverines 2nd weekend thats for sure.