I agree. I just saw the movie a couple of hours ago and I can't recall the music at all. And I'm a musician.

No worries. It appears its going to have a 70+ opening weekend.

Next week it will pass Star Trek 4 as the highest grossing Trek film of all time.

There was music in the movie? Hell I only remember the poor opening theme and then the ending theme that SHOULD have been at the beginning, though I understand why it wasn't.

As I mentioned earlier, the music sucked.

The opening (Star Trek) was SO less than Epic, it was a major drag.

I don't understand.

I kind of liked his opening cue. But yea, he didnt really have too much original music. He mostly took the themes from the other films and re worked them. Loved how he even reworked the original series theme at the end. That was a nice touch.

<embed width="448" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" src="http://i263.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid263.photobucket.com/albums/ii137/Alembic-/Videos/SNL-WilliamShatner-GetALife.flv">

Giggity giggity giggity.... green chicks are the shit....

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1852/startrek2v.jpg
Rachel Nichols (Rachel Gibson in Ailias and Scarlett O'Hara in G. I. Joe)

I liked that they got away from the sterile engine room look, but to me they just turned it into a factory. I mean I can totally understand a water reclamation/distribution system being required on a ship like that, but WTF was the giant food processor for (other than scaring Scotty)? Yes they would be using macerators, but those would be closer to the intakes to reduce pipe volume requirements.

I guess basically, it was nice to see them go "behind the scenes" on the working of the ship, but it just didn't seem to fit (and it didn't seem like an engine room).

I think you know too much about reactors.

That's excellent. But i was also hoping it may encourage Paramount to try another Star Trek TV series, and try letting someone other than Rick Berman do it. I'd kinda like to see what happens 20 years post-Nemesis.

True, I don't really know anything about space ship reactor rooms beyond what I see in scifi flicks, but I really hope they don't look like the brewery I took a tour at once, the sewage processing plant on Dirty Jobs, or the gas refinery plant I did some contract work at. It just kinda kills the ambiance of the film when something that's supposed to be so futuristic (spaceship), looks so mundane.

I really did love the movie though. If they release an extended version on BR, I'll by it in a heartbeat.

Well, the engine room certainly looks more like a real ship engine room than anything I've seen on Star Trek in the past. And I've seen a few real ship engine rooms.

That said, I didn't really care for it, either. I can't really think of a reason for a water line to (a) be transparent or (b) curve around like some sort of big log flume ride, other than to give Scotty some sort of perilous entrance.

And if he'd beamed into a space occupied by water or any other substance other than air, it seems like it should have killed him.

Perhaps these new transporters are different. :spock:

With current technology(CGI) if it's done right it, could be done a 1000 years after Next Generation.

I'd actually prefer another series set in the time of the current movie - perhaps focusing on a different ship. With the timeline irrevocably altered, they would be free to do anything they wanted. Perhaps they could have it set on the Decker-commanded Constellation.

Star Trek Boldly Resurrects Franchise
http://io9.com/5247236/star-trek-bol...ects-franchise

Box office estimates place Star Trek somewhere in the region of a $70 million domestic take for its opening weekend, roughly half of the JJ Abrams movie's estimated budget. But what does that actually mean?

To expand a little on that box office estimate, Hollywood Reporter is estimating "somewhere between $65 million to $75 million," while the always-editing Nikki Finke is currently pinning it down somewhere closer to $72 million. This is less than last weekend's X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which raked in $85.1 million), but way above the original tracking numbers for the revamped space opera, which had suggested an opening weekend of around $50 million (For math fans, Trek also played in 3,849 theaters versus Wolverine's 4,099, not that that 250 theater difference probably affected the outcome noticably).

Add to that, Abrams' reboot is the most successful opening for the director (Unsurprisingly, considering that it's only his second movie after Mission: Impossible III) and the most successful for the Trek franchise. Most importantly, perhaps, it's also the most successful franchise reboot movie of recent years, significantly besting Casino Royale and Batman Begins in terms of opening day takes. Not bad for a series that was, many thought, best left for dead after the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise in 2005.

(International box office estimates aren't officially in yet, but rumors are that Trek is close to Wolverine's $72 million, which would be unprecedented for the franchise, and a sign that this Trek is a bona fide hit for Paramount.)

With critical response for the movie so positive - currently at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes - this movie may end up being this year's Iron Man; a nerd movie that surprises critics and mainstream audiences alike, and ends up showing more staying power than anyone expected.

sucks that wolverine is going to make more then this opening weekend that movie is a POS.