Original Opening Day for New Star Trek

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

Original Opening Day for New Star Trek

Postby kevinkirby » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:32 pm

If Star Trek had come out last month, as planned, it would have been in the following box office environment:


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/ch ... =52&p=.htm


My opinion is; it may have had some trouble reaching number one that weekend. Too much great stuff was out at that time.

Given the choice, I'd go see Benjamin Button or Valkyrie (even Day the Earth Stood Still) over the X-mas holiday. Probably Star Trek would have been skipped.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:22 pm

Which is pretty much what they blamed for the failure of NEMESIS. It came out right around the time of a Harry Potter or LoTR film (I forget which...).

Personally, I think it failed because it wasn't very good.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:49 pm

Neither were LOTR and Harry the Potter.

Eat that.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:54 am

I got curious, so I looked it up. According to the Wikipedia (this being the sort of nonsensical trivia I've comes to trust the Wiki for...)

The movie was released on December 13, 2002, in direct competition against Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (released November 15, 2002), the 20th James Bond movie Die Another Day (released November 22, 2002) and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (released December 18, 2002).


But, Nemesis was beaten in its opening weekend by Maid in Manhattan.

So, really, it wasn't just the release date...
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:40 am

Well it was the release date and the crappy poster.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:26 am

Whenever I see the android Data I have the overwhelming urge to go join the Taliban.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:01 pm

When it comes to the uncertain reliability of Wiki, it's saving grace is that bibliographies are included. When you want to make sure the info is correct, just follow up the referencing. As long as I'm not lazy about that, I find it a fairly workable tool.

Alan Coil
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Southeast Michigan

Postby Alan Coil » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:36 pm

What if the referencing was wrong? What if someone made up the reference, then later wrote the wiki article?

Wicked-pedia is not to be trusted. It is too easy to manipulate the site to say what you want it to say.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:09 am

"What if the referencing was wrong?"

If you actually look at the reference itself you'll KNOW whether it's right or wrong.

I mean how hard was THAT?

Oh, an example?

Alan submits to Wiki that Pygmies were led by Noble Johnson in the The Gallipoli Campaign.

Alan designates the source as a 2001 hardcover, 'Hangin' Bellies' by Alfred Dickstein, p. 475.

I Google that source first, as usually these sources are available online. If the data is indeed in there I'll find it. Then, I cross-check the data online with other sources. Low and behold, I find the information completely bogus or merely rumored.

USUALLY, the process is easier than THAT.

I didn't say that Wiki is totally reliable. I'm arguing that the only way to feel confident about the info is thru this measure.

Now, THAT isn't so tough to follow, huh?

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:11 am

Itend to use Wiki only for those things that as Rob notes are easy to verify. "What date did a certain movie come out, and who was in that movie?"

When so-and-so corporation merge? Who invented Lysol?

I don't rely upon it for "Why does Israel keep bombing the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank?" "Who is God?" and "Is George Bush a good person or a bad person?"
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

I don't rely upon it for "Why does Israel keep bombing the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank?" "Who is God?" and "Is George Bush a good person or a bad person?"

Right. For that we have Frank.

:D
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:48 pm

"I tend to use Wiki only for those things that as Rob notes are easy to verify"

That's EXACTLY what I was getting at. Good way of putting it.

I remember, last year, getting semi-obsessed with the history surrounding "Croatoan", inspired by Harlan's story, and using Wiki as the launch point.

Wiki provided a large outline. Later, that day, with more time to blow, I cross-referenced the sources in SEVERAL sites. Everything gibed. The stuff, in this case, checked out.

I'll tell you where I DO find errors now and then: it's on IMDB. PERHAPS that's because it uses Wiki as part of its source. Still - in my OWN experience, while I know this isn't true for everyone, thus far, the information in Wiki has always checked correctly every time. At least as far as I recall. 'Course that doesn't mean they shouldn't apply professional guidelines in editing.

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

Postby kevinkirby » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:29 pm

Wikipedia, is by definition, faulty. Always add to it when visiting. Even the barest fact can stand a rewrite, ad infinitum. The best entries are those on the edges of science, where nothing can yet be verified.

Although I still can't stand to see the Lunar Maria referred to as infilled craters, or the Martian moons as captured asteroids.

...wrong, I tell you, all wrong...

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:26 pm

Ah.

Anytime I'm inclined to use Wikipedia, I ALWAYS cross-check what I read.

I GENERALLY put the inquiry in the browser to find more reliable sites pertaining specifically to that topic. But if I'm short on tine I tend to look at Wiki. If I get some answers I'm looking for, THEN I do a little more research later. SOMETIMES I get obsessed with the topic, and I pour into LOTS of sources.

You're right. It's a good idea to improve the info entered on Wiki, but I've never put in the time.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:36 pm

Ezra Lb. wrote:Whenever I see the android Data I have the overwhelming urge to go join the Taliban.


Say what?


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests