More Star Trek Oscar Buzz (w/ Abrams Response) + Weekend Box Office + more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

More Star Trek Oscar Buzz (w/ Abrams Response) + Weekend Box Office + more July 13, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Great Links,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The talk these days seems to be moving on to the Blu-ray release and the sequel, but JJ Abrams Star Trek movie is still in theaters, and still making news. Today’s ST09 Tidbits brings you Entertainment Weekly’s prediction that Trek will be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (and a comment from Abrams). Plus we have the latest box office data and more.

  

Star Trek on EW’s Oscar list – Abrams & former EW editor respond
The the Motion Picture Academy announced the expansion for the Best Picture nominees from five to ten many in mainstream media immediately suggested that Star Trek now a chance to get on the list. In their July 12th issue, Entertainment Weekly predicted the 10 films, including Star Trek:

AVATAR (Dec 18)
HURT LOCKER (in theaters)
THE INFORMANT (Sept 18)
INVICTUS (Dec 11)
THE LOVELY BONES (Dec 11)
NINE (Nov 25)
PUBLIC ENEMIES (in theaters)
SHUTTER ISLAND (Oct 2)
STAR TREK (in theater)
UP (in theater)

In an accompanying article, EW discusses the expansion, as well as the controversy behind it. It also has a quote from Star Trek producer/director JJ Abrams, who doesn’t seem to be taking the Oscar buzz too seriously, saying:

Why stop at 10? There should be 100 Best Picture nominees, and the show could last all week. Could you imagine being the 101st? Paul Blart!

However, the current issue of EW (July 17th), has an editorial titled "Is Oscar Dumbing Down?" from former EW editor Mark Harris, who decries the expansion to 10, and notes:

Star Trek and The Hangover, fun though they may be, will never deserve Best Picture nominations. To pretend otherwise in the name of "democratizing" the process is to assent to the belligerent populist-yahoo fallacy that if a lot of people see a movie, it must be good–and prizeworthy.

Box Office Update: 12th in 10th weekend
The final numbers are in, and Star Trek has racked up $2,132,656 in the last week at the domestic box office. In its 10th weekend Star Trek came in 12th place, with a total of $1,163,416, and . Even though two new films opened on Friday, Star Trek only dropped one place (by passing Year One). For comparison, Star Trek’s two biggest expected May competitors aren’t even in the top 20. Wolverine was 21st and Terminator 4 was 25th, with both in less than 300 theaters (while Trek remains in 763). Star Trek’s domestic total now stands at $251,970,795. This is probably Star Trek’s last 7-digit weekend, but it will remain in some theaters for a few more weeks, and it has a shot to top out at around $255M.

Star Trek’s international sales is slowing down to a trickle, with the film only open in a few screens around the world. It brought in less than $400k in the last week. The total overseas sales is now $125,580,479. Combined with the domestic sales, Star Trek’s global total gross is $377,551,274. The final tally should top $380M.

Star Trek’s spot on the various charts continues to change as it and other films bring in more money. It has dropped down both the domestic and global sales charts for the year, and moved up the the ‘all time’ charts. Its place in the Trek franchise remains (and will remain) unchanged. Here are the latest chart positions for Trek.

‘Star Trek’ Ranks Domestic Global
2009 films 3 5
All time 47 124
All time (adjusted) 183 NA
Trek franchise 1 1
Trek franchise (adjusted) 1 2

NOTE: Chart positions based on Box Office Mojo data plus latest weekend international sales from THR (which pushes Ice Age 3 ahead of Trek on the global charts).

Finally, Star Trek fireworks
A "Feuerwerk zur Filmmusik" show from Cologne, Germany over the weekend featured music from Michael Giacchino’s Star Trek score. You can see and hear it in the video below (thanks to KoelscheToen11, via tipster Ulrich). The Trek part is around 5:20 in. The video starts with music from Giacchino’s Mission: Impossible III score.


 

  

Comments

1. noel - July 13, 2009

bring on the sequel!

2. TNC1701 - July 13, 2009

Just for the sake of observing a work well done, I would really love to see Nimoy get “Best Supporting Actor” or whatever role would qualify him for an award. I think he deserves an Oscar.

3. XMind - July 13, 2009

The sequel should have Kirk meet Carol Marcus with a love story equal to “City on the Edge of Forever” set in the backdrop of a major conflict. David Marcus would be conceived…

4. captain_neill - July 13, 2009

It would be great for Star Trek to get a Best Pic nomination

but I would be thinking, why did TWOK or FC get this honour.

I loved the new film but so much of Trek’s past is better than this new movie.

5. captain_neill - July 13, 2009

I like the new movie and looking forward to next movie, hoping they don’t rehash Khan) but why do I get the feeling some people think the past 40 years was wrong and that this is best ever Trek?

JJ Abrams Trek is a great film but it is far from the Best Trek

6. Maurício - July 13, 2009

Have you forgotten today is Patrick Stewart’s BIRTHDAY ????

7. captain_neill - July 13, 2009

Still be cool if it got nominated. Trek is the best film this summer.

Abrams did things in Trek that I was not hapy with but it was still great fun

8. captain_neill - July 13, 2009

6

I was going to post that as well.

This site has done items for Shatner and Nimoy’s birthdays and for the new cast so far who have had birthdays.

Why is Patrick Stewart being overlooked this honour?

9. Ran - July 13, 2009

Nimoy should win the award for “best milking the Hollywood cash cow” for serving no purpose in the new movie.

10. pravaslavet - July 13, 2009

#9, “Ran”, bad form, old mate. Bad form.

11. jastrek_montreal - July 13, 2009

Is it just me, but the foreign money numbers for Star Trek are HORRIBLE compared to other big tent-pole movies. Coman….. paramount.. u should have done a better job outside of the US !

BTW… HAPPY BIRTHDAY JEAN LUC !

12. ensign joe - July 13, 2009

Et tu, Academy?

If ST09 is nominated I will eat my shoes… Uhh I mean words..

13. Hat Rick - July 13, 2009

Why is the current movie only 2nd and not 1st in adjusted global grosses for the Trek franchise? By “global” does TrekMovie mean “international” or total (domestic plus international)?

Also, TMP is No. 1 on the adjusted global gross list for the franchise, I presume?

14. Hat Rick - July 13, 2009

Just did the math. Using the adjust-a-matic figures given in BOM, TMP made about $400 million worldwide (global), so I guess that answers my questions. :)

15. Hat Rick - July 13, 2009

^^Adjusted to 2009 dollars from 1979 dollars, that is.

16. mdbchud - July 13, 2009

#9 If you don’t like Nimoy’s work….don’t bother coming to this site. ABSOLUTELY no need to talk him down….even if you didn’t like him being IN the movie he was excellent in the part…as always. The man and the character is a legend.

17. Marvin the Martian - July 13, 2009

ST09 may be nominated, but it will never win. And I saw it in the theatre twice and loved it both times. But at it’s core, ST09 is a popcorn movie.

The best film I’ve seen this year is Away We Go, and it surprises me–given the positive review EW gave the movie–that it didn’t make their list. Let me predict now an Oscar nom for Maya Rudolph and an Oscar win for Original Screenplay. I think the film will be also nominated for Best Picture, but lose.

I haven’t seen The Hurt Locker yet, but I’ve heard nothing but raves. My guess is that the time is right for an Iraq-based film to win Best Picture, and the film is supposedly non-political, which may be just enough to push it over the top.

Up was sweet and touching, and deserves the win for Animated Feature and nom for Original Screenplay… but that’s it.

18. Marvin the Martian - July 13, 2009

it’s = its. Grr.

19. RD - July 13, 2009

Lets enjoy it while it lasts. But, I bet The Hangover overtakes Trek soon as its domestic box office continues to climb by well over 10 million a week in 3,000+ theaters and its popularity only continues to increase. Either way, Harry Potter opens this weekend and already is the third highest advanced ticket sales behind The Dark Knight. It will definitely knock Trek down to 4th if not 5th by August.

Domestic
1 $339,221,800 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2 $273,834,761 Up
3 $251,970,795 Star Trek
4 $222,444,906 The Hangover

Internationally, Trek is about to get knocked down to 6th, then 7th by “UP” and by “Harry Potter” of course, by the end of the month. Considering what’s coming this Winter, it looks like Trek may finish in the top 10 domestically but likely lower internationally.

Paramount is starting to run GI:Joe trailers on TV and it’s starting to look a lot more respectable. If audiences are still seeking a thrill ride in a month, it might end up doing very well.

20. Andy Patterson - July 13, 2009

I agree with former EW editor Mark Harris.

21. Robert H. - July 13, 2009

And how does one define dumbed down? Hm? What is the standard of qualifying of something being dumbed down?

22. ensign joe - July 13, 2009

Anybody else seeing message board problems?

23. ensign joe - July 13, 2009

Oops.. Just me :)

24. Harry Flashman - July 13, 2009

No movie that used a frakking brewery for a STARSHIP ENGINE ROOM should be nominated for anything.

25. AJ - July 13, 2009

Anthony:

The Mission Impossible theme as portrayed here was written by Lalo Schifrin for the original TV series. It may be Giacchino’s arrangement for MI3, but it’s Schifrin’s iconic theme all the way.

26. Sunfell - July 13, 2009

I hope that Star Trek gets some Oscar nods- Nimoy, especially. Of course, it probably won’t win any major categories, but that’s normal. I do expect that it’ll walk away with a armload of technical awards- the sound design was absolutely awesome.

Now, we need to start nagging REAL Imax theaters to screen it this fall with the release of the DVD.

Nagging crew: Start your engines! I want to see it at the Aerospace Education Center!

27. rohrerbot - July 13, 2009

I really agree that the sequel should have Carol Marcus with the backstory of their son being born with some major story that moves them along….but the focus of why he chose his career vs the woman that would have his son be the central part of the story. While Khan would be a fun rewrite, I think it isn’t original and there needs to be original in this sequel. And what if Carol Marcus doesn’t live like in the other universe but instead is killed? So many possibilities and the potential for some raw human emotion that keeps Kirk tied to Starfleet…or not. It could be a cool story.

28. Brett Campbell - July 13, 2009

21 – Maybe someone will publish a book on “Dumbing Down for Dummies.” ;-)

29. JimJ - July 13, 2009

That was one kick-ass fireworks show!

30. Third Remata'Klan - July 13, 2009

I like ST09, but I don’t think it’s Oscar-worthy, unless there’s a lot of really crappy movies later in the year.

And I am in favor of the Best Picture expansion. (It’s one year too late, as far as I’m concerned; both The Dark Knight and WALL·E deserved to be on the short list last year, never mind being snubbed.)

31. Dunsel Report - July 13, 2009

Trek ’09 was a much better piece of filmmaking than Crash or Shakespeare In Love.

32. Mhmm - July 13, 2009

at 5:55 it looks like the enterprise in the smoke….”there she is,ahhhh there shi is”

33. Spockish - July 13, 2009

The Fireworks is good, but personal bias with friends Colorado fireworks productions seem a little better. Maybe because in ways I helped. My help may have just been validating the electrical wiring or helping in the vote for production play order. But in some way I helped so I might be able to say I helped make those shows. To bad I could not get a laser light show mixed in, but permit wise you’d need a gum or canon to hold the city counsels hostage to get a yes. And a moving hologram would have been news breaking. but even in the lab I had better luck at the lottery.

34. Hat Rick - July 13, 2009

Yeah, I may be in the minority here, but I hope Trek does in fact get nominated for Best Picture.

Come on. Why the heck not?

Are we fans, or what?

35. Mr. Delicious - July 13, 2009

The Oscars are nothing more than an over-politicized fest of Hollywood self-aggrandizement. Nobody cares. Just keep making good movies JJ. That’s what will be remembered.

36. Jimtibkirk - July 14, 2009

Trek Oscar noms that would’ve been fun to see:

Best Actor – Patrick Stewart, First Contact (“Line must be drawn” clip)

Best Supporting Actor – Ricardo Montalban, Wrath of Khan (“He tasks me” clip)

Best Supporting Actor – James Cromwell, First Contact (telescope clip)

Best Supporting Actress – Alice Krige, First Contact (grand entrance clip)

Others?

37. Clinton - July 14, 2009

Not sure why some people get upset about the Academy upping the nominees to 10. Best Picture originally had more than 5 nominees. The Oscars are obviously trying to bring in a bigger audience by nominating more films.

Always remember that these are just arbitrary awards (like virtually all other awards). Why not have Trek play along and get some more exposure? It can only help.

And the fireworks were great!

38. toddk - July 14, 2009

I think ST09′s FX in all departments will get nominations and ST09 will win some of those.

39. raypecoskie - July 14, 2009

Wow, Disney tunes in german …. and who the hey though of the segway from the Emperors Theme to when u wish upon a star … would have NEVER come up with that one :P .. cool link thanks!!

40. Ran - July 14, 2009

@ 16 – You missed the point.

I was looking forward for for Nimoy’s Spock. I was happy to know that Nimoy thought the script was “delicious”. What came out was nowhere near “delicious” with Nimoy’s on screen performance limited to a flashback scene and some.

I hope you got it.

41. Tiberius Kirk - July 14, 2009

Amen!

42. Closettrekker - July 14, 2009

#37—”The Oscars are obviously trying to bring in a bigger audience by nominating more films.”

And it needs to bring in a bigger audience, it seems. The Oscars is a television program just like any other, in that it needs ratings.

As good as “The Hurt Locker” is in the eyes of critics everywhere, it has only appeared in 60 theaters and done a meager $1.1mil in global gross over its first 17 days, and isn’t likely to catch a break since the industry is convinced that people will not flock to see any film right now set during the Iraq War.

There is probably a substantial portion of the potential viewing audience for the Oscars which has no interest in watching a competition between a handful of films they are not likely to have even seen. At least that seems to be the thinking behind expanding the list of nominees.

With that said, as much as I enjoyed Star Trek (2009), I don’t see it (or any past Star Trek movie) as deserving of an Oscar in that category. It may be more likely this year than last, but I would be extremely surprised to see it even get nominated. However, the fact that EW and other sources are even talking about it is something I never would have considered possible.

43. Closettrekker - July 14, 2009

#24—”No movie that used a frakking brewery for a STARSHIP ENGINE ROOM should be nominated for anything.”

I’m sure the Academy voters are downright outraged over that….:)Lol

44. VOODOO - July 14, 2009

10 films being nominated for best film is truly dumbing down the Oscars.

The problem is that when films that aren’t box office hits are nominated nobody watches the Oscars. In turn the networks don’t get as much money for their advertising space.

Money is the one and only reason why we are getting ten films nominated for best film… I think it cheapens the entire process.

I hope the Academy does not turn the Oscars into the MTV movie awards going forwad.

45. Closettrekker - July 14, 2009

#20—”I agree with former EW editor Mark Harris.”

While I don’t see it as Oscar material either, I also don’t agree with lumping ST09 in the same category as “The Hangover”.

I don’t think Mark Harris even saw the movie.

46. AJ - July 14, 2009

The EW article makes it clear: ABC is pressuring the Academy to include films which are relevant to the mass market so that people will watch the show.

Also, the relevance of smaller films to Hollywood’s bottom line must be decreasing relative to smashes like “Dark Knight” or “Transformers 2.” For example, “Milk” grossed $54m on a budget of $15m. After all is said and done, it’s pocket change.

47. Closettrekker - July 14, 2009

#44—”I hope the Academy does not turn the Oscars into the MTV movie awards going forwad.”

I think it would have a long way to fall before getting to that point.

I’m not so sure that expanding the list equates to ‘dumbing down’ the Oscars. It isn’t as if these films would simply be included in the list of five. The same kinds of films are still going to win.

Even if a film like “Star Trek” or “Avatar” was to receive a nomination, I have no doubt that the Academy voters would still lean toward something like “The Hurt Locker” in the end—-unless the voters themselves are going to be replaced.

If “The Dark Knight” had been nominated last year in an expanded list of ten, do you think for a second that the voters would not have still given the award to “Slumdog Millionaire”?… I don’t.

48. Mel - July 14, 2009

The Hangover, The Proposal and Up haven’t yet started in Germany and probably in many other European countries, too. I guess they will all perform better in Europe than Star Trek. So Star Trek will have an even worse box office rank outside the USA. Some other movies not yet in the cinemas will also surpass it like for example Harry Potter. Star Trek is in comparison to other big movies not very successful outside the USA.

The fireworks are great! At 5:24 you can hear the German dubbing voice of Captain Kirk from TOS by the way.

@ 27

I personally didn’t like Carol Marcus and David in the old movies. The whole idea of Captain Kirk having a child was stupid. Captain Kirk was all the time portrait like a man whose ship is his home and his crew is his family. I don’t believe he really wanted a child. So obviously David wasn’t planed, he was an “accident” and I just can’t believe that in the far future two responsible adults will still have such unplanned children. Even today there are quite secure contraceptives, in the future I believe there will be much better ones. Kirk having a child will just be another unnecessary side story, like the relationship between Spock and Uhura, which would take time away in the movie for more interesting scenes.

49. Kurt - July 14, 2009

@48

I couldn’t agree more with your statement about Carol Marcus and David. I find that subplot a weak story element in Wrath of Kahn and Search for Spock. Kirk was only so old (30 or so) and one just doesn’t have that many true loves by that age. It was already established in the original series that he had a number of past flames.

Having Ruth, for example, as the scientist in Kahn – sans David – would have been just as good story-wise and kept a tighter back story for Kirk.

50. Hawaiian Trekker - July 14, 2009

48:
There will always be accidents, even in the future with better contraceptives. You can have the best contraceptive in the world but unless both parties use it properly (and lets face it, in the heat of the moment, acting responsilbe and proper isn”t first and foremost on your mind), then it isn’t going to work. Even the best ones have a slim margain of error – I know because my wife was on one and she still ended up conceiving. I like the idea of Kirk having a child. The stories of father and son have always been a treasure to tell if they’re told right. Indiana Jones with Sean Connery comes to mind of a great father/son story. Course, we’re a long way away from that right now with Kirk being so young. But it would be great to see some of the seeds planted for that sort of stroy arc.

51. Kurt - July 14, 2009

Point of clarification – Kirk was 30 or so after heading out as captain, not his age during the Warth of Kahn, obviously.

52. DarthLowBudget - July 14, 2009

Yeah….this was a fun, awesome, movie, that I saw multiple times in theaters no less, but it is no way Best Picture caliber material.

It will probably be nominated, and rightfully so, for most of the technical categories, and it deserves to win in those areas.

53. frederick von fronkensteen - July 14, 2009

“…process is to assent to the belligerent populist-yahoo fallacy that if a lot of people see a movie, it must be good–and prizeworthy. ”

The person making that statement is also saying by implication that if a lot of people see a move, it cannot be good– and prizeworthy.

Snooty snots.

54. RD - July 14, 2009

# 50. Hawaiian Trekker wrote: “There will always be accidents, even in the future with better contraceptives.”

LOL, do you know what people used for contraception 250 years ago? LOL, NOT MUCH! Considering how far contraception has come in the last 50 years, from the first latex condom to the promise of a male “pill”, I expect contraception to be bullet-proof 250 years from now.

While accidents will always happen, considering the low probability in the 2250s, it is far more likely Carol Marcus WANTED to get pregnant by Kirk (I mean who wouldn’t?) and raise a son without a man complicating her life.

55. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - July 14, 2009

While I personally would agree that ST09 is not a “Best Picture” kind of movie, I think its equally myopic to state absolutely that a Trek or other popular movie could categorically “never” be Best Picture material. Yeah, ok, that may well be true in practical terms, but not *pre-emptively* so.

Take a look at the production values, scope, and scale of TMP, and you’ll see a movie that certainly aspired to those lofty goals. It was Trek von Kubrick, trying to tell an epic story of humanity in the irony of emotionalism versus non-emotionalism.

From a broader perspective, however, I really don’t particularly care about the Oscars. They were a big event when I was a kid, and I generally knew most of the players, but these days, it engenders a response of “ehhh…”

56. Closettrekker - July 14, 2009

#54—”… it is far more likely Carol Marcus WANTED to get pregnant by Kirk (I mean who wouldn’t?) and raise a son without a man complicating her life.”

That may be the case, and it certainly could make sense within the dialogue.

“I did what you wanted…I stayed away.”

What I took from that dialogue is that Kirk made a conscious choice between a life with Carol and a life in Starfleet, his choice being of course the latter (Vonda McIntyre did a good job of fleshing that out in her TWOK-TSFS-TVH trilogy of books).

“My life that could have been…but wasn’t.”

And when he says, “I did what you wanted. I stayed away”, I took that to mean Carol’s wish was that if he wasn’t going to be around full-time, she didn’t want him around at all.

57. MW - July 14, 2009

Quick question for anyone: I was wondering how long Star Trek would likely still be in theaters?

Cineplex, Canada’s largest threatre owner has already taken it out of most locations in Ontario outside of Toronto. Looking online, it isnt showing anywhere south or west of Toronto other than Windsor and Burlington. Being closer to Burlington, I would like to see it there before it leaves the theatre, rather than going to Toronto.

58. ksmsscu - July 14, 2009

It’s a sure bet for an Oscar in the Best Lens Flares category.

59. Closettrekker - July 14, 2009

#57—I know that only one theater in my town (Katy— a fairly large suburb of Houston, Tx) out of three is still showing it.

I think that people who do not live in or near a big city or large town with multiple theaters are the ones least likely to find a venue still showing Star Trek at this point.

It will continue to lose screens every week, so if you’re going to do it—you probably ought to do it this week, or at least call the theaters still showing it and ask how long they intend to keep it. Theoretically, that theater in Burlington could drop it on Friday.

60. Brian Kirsch - July 14, 2009

I think Trek will wind down to about $255M domestic and $380M worldwide. Very good numbers, and despite those that think this was not a risk for Paramount, it definitely was! And the risk payed off, Paramount is thrilled for good reason.

I do agree with most of you that the international numbers are disappointing and troubling. I think Paramount so much wanted this film to be a domestic hit that they dropped the ball internationally, possibly costing themselves 10′s of millions. Then again, maybe their market research showed that Trek will never be an international powerhouse, so why waste the money? Whether or not the “foreign” market “gets” or even wants Trek is a whole topic thread on it’s own……..

I think this new film will hold it’s own in the domestic numbers, down to #4 after Potter, and then down to #5 after Avatar. Honestly, I don’t see GI:Joe as a threat. I’ll be really suprised if it passes Terminator money by enough to surpass Trek. The Hangover has shot it’s wad, so to speak, lol, and Ice Age looks so-so. I don’t see either of them passing the Trek numbers.

61. Brian Kirsch - July 14, 2009

#57, #59 –

I know in my city (Cleveland, Ohio) the major chain theaters showing it are dropping like flies. But there are also second-run, discount, and independent theaters that then pick it up, at least here. It may even be the midnight show at some drive-ins. You have to search around. They won’t be listed online, and you may not find them in the local newspaper. But they’re out there, look in your local phonebook and call around. Be warned though, most of them are small and the quality is poor, but they are your last resort if you want to see it on a big screen.

62. Victoryrad Ashine Sentai Victoryranger!!!! - July 15, 2009

I think the next Star Trek movie should do something with an Oringal Enemy but also do something with Carol actually making them get mairred in this Timeline and have someone Like Khan or Khan himself takes her away leaving him only his son giving Kirk a lost and allowing his other family to help. This is an Alternet Reality as Spock Put it in the flim so in the squeal show how differint this Kirk and yet show how the same he is and how he can handle death like in Star Trek II as well

63. RD - July 15, 2009

The fact that Paul Dergarabedian of Hollywood.com ranked the new Harry Potter film with The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and called the film a “possible Oscar contender”, but is left off of EW’s list of contenders, tells me Star Trek doesn’t have a chance of being nominated. Potter is much more Oscar worthy material than Trek is.

Either way, Potter will drop Trek to 4th at the Domestic box office by the end of the month, and I expect the Hangover will definitely pass it, perhaps in the same time frame – earning well over $10 million a week, it will only take 3 more weekends to match Trek. It is performing far better than Trek was at 39 days out and in 1,000 more theaters. Also since, Ice Age 3 is performing better than Ice Age 2 and is only 13 days out, unless Harry Potter sucks the remaining audience away for the rest of the Summer, I’d say it has chance to get close.

Trek will almost certainly finish 6th or lower domestically. In 2007, coincidentally a year with both Transformers and a Potter film, an animated franchise film (Shrek) and a big Fall opener (“I Am Legend”), Trek would have finished 7th. And with GI:Joe, 2012 and Sherlock Holmes as complete unknowns at this point, anything is possible.

64. Closettrekker - July 15, 2009

#63—Who the heck is Paul Dergarabedian?

“Potter is much more Oscar worthy material than Trek is.”

I haven’t seen the new Harry Potter movie, but the first one never captured my interest enough to get me to sit through another one. My kids were mildly interested back then, but have since lost that interest and moved on.

As much as I like Star Trek (2009), it is still just a Star Trek movie. I don’t think it’s Oscar-worthy either, but I would be shocked if any HP movie was anymore so.

I didn’t think that LOTR was worthy either—at least in terms of “best picture”.

65. TBW - July 15, 2009

31, I agree, but I think that Crash beat a host of better films (everything else nominated with the possible exception of Capote, plus Hustle & Flow, Syriana, The Proposition just to start) that were very possibly better than Star Trek. I agree to an extent with the former EW editor’s determination, but not his method. I think Star Trek getting a nomination (as much as I loved it, and I really did) is much more of an indicator of the relative lack of depth of this year’s field. Even if TWOK and FC were better than Star Trek (a statement with which I don’t agree, by the way,) I think it’s fair to say they weren’t better relative to their competition. I can buy Star Trek as one of the ten best films of 2009. I’m not sure either TWOK or FC were among the five best films of ’82 and not ’96.

66. RD - July 15, 2009

“Harry Potter” grossed a record-breaking $22.2 million in midnight releases Wednesday. That more than beat the $18 million midnight record set by “The Dark Knight.”

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t put “The Dark Knight” in the best picture category either. But if any of these types of films go there, its these epic length films that have more talk than action. Trek seems to be little too narrowly focused to fill the same shoes. Of course by that definition, TMP should have won the Oscars … LOL

67. Pete Fernbaugh - July 16, 2009

Hmmmm… “Star Trek’s” biggest weakness had nothing to with the cast. It had everything to do with a poorly written script. I haven’t seen many of last year’s Best Picture nominees, but the one I did see, “Frost/Nixon,” was superb in all respects…acting, writing, production quality, direction. A Best Picture nominee (ideally) should have as few flaws as possible.

“Star Trek” was a tremendously flawed movie with most of my criticism aimed at a truly horrible script filled with leaps of logic that would make “24″ wince, dialogue culled from your average CW show, science fiction that emphasized the fiction above the science, and character development that made Anime look like Shakespeare.

The Academy’s decision to expand the list to 10 is ultimately pointless and further dilutes the meaning of the Awards. Only one picture can still win! And since there were nine others, who really cares that you were 1 of 9 losing “Best Pictures”??

68. Dr. Image - July 16, 2009

#61 Brian-
My city too- Lakewood actually.
Still like to catch it one more time on the “big” screen- unfortunately, the screens that are now showing it are far from anything like that.

Those fireworks were utterly AWESOME.

69. Closettrekker - July 16, 2009

#67—”The Academy’s decision to expand the list to 10 is ultimately pointless and further dilutes the meaning of the Awards. ”

If no one outside the film and fashion industry is left watching, hasn’t it been diluted already?

“Only one picture can still win! And since there were nine others, who really cares that you were 1 of 9 losing “Best Pictures”??”

Well, theoretically, it would make your film one of the top ten of the year.

Do you have any idea how many movies were released in 2008? Or how many have been released halfway through 2009? Let’s not lose perspective here…

70. RD - July 16, 2009

#69. Closettrekker wrote: #67— “who really cares that you were 1 of 9 losing “Best Pictures”??” … Well, theoretically, it would make your film one of the top ten of the year.

I hear it’s an honor just to be nominated. ;-)

71. MW - July 16, 2009

#s 57, 59, 61 re: time left in the theatre

Trek lost more theatres today in Southern Ontario (looks like the AMC24 in Oakville is the only theatre from a major chain showing Trek in the area between Toronto, Detroit and Buffalo), but it will be playing in IMAX at the Ontario Science Centre everyday at 7:30 until at least mid-August 15.

72. www.multiverseman.com - July 21, 2009

Gotta love defeatist, self-loathing Trek fans. “It was good, but after all it was just a Trek movie and shouldn’t get nominated.” Weirdos. Star Trek was the best movie I saw this year, and I saw many films, both big and small, big budget and indie. And critics saying it would never “deserve” nominations……self-important, moody, pretentious bullshit doesn’t make a movie more deserving than another.

73. RD - October 5, 2009

400
390 98
380 –– 84
370 –– ––
360 –– ––
350 –– ––
340 –– ––
330 –– ––
320 –– ––
310 –– ––
300 –– ––
290 –– ––
280 –– ––
270 –– ––
260 –– ––
250 –– 57 58
240 –– –– ––
230 35 –– ––
220 –– –– ––
210 –– –– 12 14
200 –– –– –– ––
190 –– –– –– 92 98
180 –– –– –– –– ––
170 –– –– –– –– –– 78 72
160 –– –– –– –– –– 63 ––
150 –– 50 –– –– –– –– –– 52 55
140 –– –– –– –– 49 –– –– –– ––
130 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
120 –– –– –– –– –– –– 29 27 ––
110 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
100 00 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 07 08
090 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 94
080 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 80
070 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 76 –– 71
060 –– –– –– –– 61 –– –– –– –– –– ––
050 –– –– 52 –– –– –– 00 –– –– –– 53
040 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 46 ––
030 –– –– –– –– –– 34 –– –– –– –– ––
020 –– –– –– 24 –– –– –– 27 –– –– ––
010 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– ––
000 01 11 04 02 08 03 07 06 09 05 10

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.