The movie is available in three physical editions: one-disc standard definition, two-disc standard definition, and three-disc high-definition. With wise shopping (and the previous sentence's links), you can find these formats for $10, $20, and $20, respectively. The standard def one-disc format has just the movie and gag reel, whereas the two-disc edition includes nine deleted scenes (with Klingons!), several featurettes, and a digital copy of the film you can put on your computer or mobile device. Many more features are exclusive to Blu-ray — which, despite being a higher-capacity format, needs three discs to hold it all. (Apparently the higher resolution of Blu-ray requires the digital edition to have its own dedicated disc!)

You can also download the film from iTunes for $15 standard definition and $20 HD. iTunes' online rental option won't be available until December 16, though Amazon has it now for $4.

No matter what format you get, this film is sure to be the perfect stocking stuffer this holiday season — or, if you can't wait for Santa, then share it with the family next week on American Thanksgiving. Though if you don't think you'd like the film at any time of year, then RiffTrax's audio commentary will be available this Thursday.

I've been to the movies 389 times in the last 15 years. Of all those films, a few were worth seeing twice, but Star Trek is the only movie I've seen three times in theaters. I can't wait until home video lets me add even more repeat showings to my record!

Okay, so some artistic license was taken with those visuals, as astronomer Phil Plait (a self-professed Trekkie) describes — but it was still immensely cool. Now, Diamond Sky Productions, a "small company devoted … to the scientific, as well as artful, use of planetary imagery and computer graphics", has made available for download some extremely high-resolution images depicting that scene:

To boldly rise out of implausible starscapes ...

Why, you use the Benny Hillifier, of course!

Younger theatergoers may not know the name Benny Hill, but they'll recognize the tune and style of the show that ran on the BBC for twenty years. The Benny Hillifier applies that same theme to any YouTube video: just submit the URL, click "Go", and watch as it replaces the audio track of your chosen video with "Yakety Sax". The video can optionally be sped up to double-time, though the site states that "Speeding up is broken for now".

Fortunately, back when the site was fully functional, I slaved to find the best videos to Benny Hillify. Half the fun is seeing familiar media in a new context, so of course I turned to the vast library of Star Trek material. First, the new movie's trailer:

Notice the crashing car is a recurring theme between this video and the actual Benny Hill credits. Who knew the BBC had such a subtle but indeniable influence on Gene Roddenberry's universe?

What about Data? If any Star Trek character is inclined to unintentional humor, it's our white and nerdy android. Let's Benny Hillify a familiar clip:

This trick is applicable to other franchises, of course. The plot of The Matrix may be laughable, but the excellently choreographed fight scenes are not. So let's bring them down to a more consistent level:

What are your favorite clips to Benny Hillify? Or do you prefer the site's similar instant drama, instant tragedy, or all-purpose dubbing tools? Share your efforts here!

Hat tip to Bill Corbett!

… young Kirk and friends did blow the cover off the box office with an opening weekend take of $72.5 million, plus another $4 million from pre-midnight Thursday showings, which gives the movie a running total of $76.5 million so far. … The debut is huge for this franchise, as the opening frame is more than the combined total of the last three films' opening weekends (Nemesis — $18.5 million opening, Insurrection — $22.1 million opening, First Contact — $30.7 million opening). The debut throws out the trend of Star Trek films opening between $14 million and $23 million, when removing the top and bottom score. The average opening for Star Trek is about $19 million with all films included… The 2009 Star Trek outgrossed the last film (2002's Nemesis finished with only $43.3 million in domestic box office) in two days.

In its second week, Star Trek was second at the box office, where the "sci-fi staple earned an impressive $43 million, falling only 43% from its $75.2 million debut." It fell to third place over Memorial Day Weekend, ending with $183.5 million. Its fourth weekend will surely put it over $200 million. Previously, the Star Trek film with the highest domestic gross, and the only one to break $100 million, was The Voyage Home at $109.7 million; the film with the highest total gross (foreign and domestic) was First Contact, at $146 million.

Though it was agony a year ago to receive the announcement that this film was delayed from its original release date of Christmas 2008, it seems Paramount knew what they were doing. Star Trek is an excellent summer blockbuster, and I'm relieved the distributors showed faith in the franchise to position it to capitalize on the season. But it's not just my own hopes that were realized; earlier this month, my local newspaper reported:

While promoting an appearance at the Boston Super Megafest back in November, Jonathan Frakes (aka Commander William T. Riker in Star Trek: The Next Generation) said he was "cautiously optimistic" about the new take on Star Trek. So are many area Trekkers who have been faithful to the 40-year-plus phenomenon.

This is a good article, and author Craig S. Semon has done well in representing geek culture at the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. However, as you may recall, I too was at the Super Megafest and remember Mr. Semon being in the same audience I was for Mr. Frakes' session. My recollection of the occasion is a bit different, as I reported back in November:

[Jonathan Frakes] asked our opinion of the new Star Trek movie. I offered "cautiously optimistic", to which he replied, "I feel the same, except for the 'cautiously' part."

It was therefore not Commander William Riker, but Blogger Ken Gagne, that Mr. Semon was quoting. (It's possible the quotation was based on a separate but similar occasion for which I was not present — but unlikely.)

But I'll let this misquotation go. Not only do we share a common goal — the success of Star Trek — but if I'm going to put words in someone's mouth, it might as well be someone out of this world.

Summer is a popular season not just for blockbuster films, but also for highly technical ones. Last year featured Batman and Iron Man, and their associated gadgetry, while the previous summer marked the 25th anniversary of Tron. My employer's sister publication, PC World, recently capitalized on this seasonal trend with an article blandly titled "Five movies starring computers". Showbits contributor and former co-worker GeneD. and I felt we could could compile our intimate knowledge of the genre into something better than a brief and unthematic list of 20-year-old movies. Since our outlet would be Computerworld — "The voice of IT management" — we chose a correspondingly relevant thesis: how sci-fi movies predict the development of technology, and whether reality is approaching or diverging from that future. We further categorized our topic into six specific kinds of technology: artificial intelligence; genetic engineering; virtual reality; cybersecurity; surveillance; and military.

GeneD. and I each tackled three of the six sections (can you tell which are mine?). We collaborated on the introduction and conclusion, I arranged it all into a cohesive whole, and editors Val and Barbara applied some insightful packaging, including the "At the movies/In reality" contrast. GeneD. and I are both pretty pleased with the final article, "Do sci-fi films get advanced tech right?", feeling it hits upon a variety of significant sci-fi films without requiring a previous knowledge of the more esoteric ones.

Though the article and the new Star Trek movie came out the same day, our piece isn't really about the science of Star Trek. Unfortunately, the flood of such analyses timed to coincide with the film's release made it difficult for our story to stand out. But if those are your druthers, there are plenty of great articles that focus specifically on Gene Roddenberry's pseudoscience, including "4 Star Trek technologies that are almost here (and 3 that are really far off)", as well as Phil Plait's review of the scientific accuracy of the new film.

If you like science fiction and technology, I think you'll enjoy our Computerworld article. What other genres of films (such as James Bond and his gadgets) or science (like space exploration) do you think would make for a similarly interesting read? Point us in the direction of our next article, and we'll see what we can do!

My father with his oldest and youngest sons

I'll answer for me: The first ten minutes had me in tears. That isn't hyperbole or dramatic effect; it's literal truth. This action-packed opening sequence is so tragic, yet so heroic; and what it does to the Star Trek universe is terrible, yet also elegant and necessary. This film is both a prequel and a reboot, documenting the first voyage of Kirk, Spock, and company — but it's not the same ship and crew we remember from 1966. There are differences, both subtle and profound, which the opening sequence makes possible, thus giving the creative team the leeway they need to make something both fresh and familiar.

Fans will find much to like here, such as in nods to Trek lore that don't feel forced, be it the death of a character or Chekov's accent. But there's more going on here than in the details, such as the recasting of the iconic crew. I found it surprisingly easy to accept fresh faces in roles that we've long identified with particular actors, and these newcomers' performances are mostly true to the characters as originally written, without being mockeries. Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty each get notable scenes; Bones and Uhura, a bit more. But this adventure is really about the young, brash Spock and Kirk. These aren't the older, wiser Starfleet officers we're accustomed to, yet I can imagine Chris Pine's Kirk acting and reacting just as William Shatner's Kirk would've under these circumstances.

More difficult to swallow are the earth-shattering alterations to the Star Trek universe. This is not Roddenberry's sandbox: it is dark and disturbing, with protagonists defined not by heroism as much as tragedy, whose victories are pyrrhic at best. For someone as immersed as I am in the details of this timeline, I'm disturbed to think of the ramifications this film has for everything that has come before. I just have to remind myself there are those charged with preserving Trek's heritage, and that nothing can take away my memories of those voyages.

As a Trekkie, I loved this movie, despite my conflicted feelings. That perspective aside, Star Trek is still a fantastic film. It has humor, conflict, breathtaking action sequences, space and hand-to-hand combat, and more. There several coincidences and inconsistencies, but what Star Trek has been immune to those? Certain liberties need to be taken not only to be freed from 40 years of backstory, but to still acknowledge it and tie it together into one neat package. It's astounding that a plot this complex and nuanced could've come from the same writing team that gave us the detestable Transformers, or the entertaining yet predictable Mission:Impossible III.

Despite an almost empty theater at last night's premiere, Star Trek seems to be doing well with both hardcore fans and newcomers to the franchise, if we can believe Rotten Tomatoes' 96% rating — the highest of any Star Trek movie. I can only speak from my Trekkie status, as I cannot excise the passion or knowledge that precludes that perspective. But I saw the film with a teenager who'd never seen any Star Trek before and who'd been attracted to this movie by the previews — a leap of faith which I found encouraging. When the credits rolled, he was quick to praise the film though, when pressed, admitted he found it "a bit" confusing.

If, unlike this next generation of Star Trek fan, you've been around the galaxy a time or two, this film may cause you the same turmoil it did me. I've loved this series for decades and, never found it to be stale, even after 716 episodes. The show's declining ratings, culminating in Enterprise being the first Star Trek since the original to be cancelled after fewer than seven seasons, indicate I was in the minority. For the franchise to live, Star Trek as we've known it must die, or at least evolve. I can see its spirit in J.J. Abrams' creation, and not just as a shadow of its former self, but as something cherished and integrated into something new. May this direction give us another 40 years of Star Trek, whatever shape it may take.

(The review ends here. For those who have seen the film and wish to discuss plot particulars, there are spoilers on the next page.)

The franchise's 726 episodes and ten movies are condensed into this other 40th anniversary tribute, which for some reason was uploaded to YouTube just last week. The video — set to one of my favorite instrumental pieces, the orchestral suite from "The Inner Light" — is a brief visual tour of the entire history of Star Trek's two-hundred-year history. Considering how many characters there are to fit into the montage's seven-minute length, you'll forgive the editor if he transitions from one character to the next a bit too swiftly.

I was moved by how familiar I found each of these characters, and how glad I was to see them again. But then, I shouldn't be surprised: Star Trek was on the air consistently for 18 years, making it a constant companion for roughly two-thirds of my life. You could argue it was just a TV show (in which case I wonder what you're doing reading this blog), but every day without a Trek seems dark, as the program represents a hope for humanity.

With the cancellation of Enterprise, television has been without a Star Trek for four years. Now we stand on the cusp of a new Star Trek film — the first one in seven years, the longest span between any two Star Trek movies ever. This movie has the potential to reenergize the franchise and bring it back not only to the public consciousness, but to the television screen. It will be a long time before we can effectively measure the film's success and impact — but it will be only two months before we will have the full feature to judge, and not just this trailer:

(Hat tip to Dayton Ward)

First up is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Though I'm encouraged to see one of my favorite actors, Dennis Quaid, the team he's leading does not have much chance to shine in this particular trailer. We see too little of the colorful heroes and villains like Snake Eyes (played by Ray Park) or Destro that made the cartoon so memorable.

Next up is the return of G.I. Joe's Eighties contemporaries, those robots in disguise, in Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. Readers to Showbits will recall that I absolutely loathed the original film, and nothing in the sequel's trailer indicates a departure from that model — though the scope of the new robots piques my interest:

Finally, there's yet another adaptation of a television show, this one a live-action series from the mid-Seventies: The Land of the Lost. With few exceptions, almost anything Will Ferrell stars in is going to be a silly spoof, and this film looks to be true to that trend. Though the original series could definitely be described as campy, it was no Gilligan's Island, which this version appears to be:

The above movies are just three of the many upcoming films being adapted from television shows. Other trailers that debuted yesterday and are now available online include a mix of new and old:

• Star Trek XI, technically another television adaptation. (for the highest quality trailer, a 73.9 MB QuickTime version is available)
• Up, the latest Pixar film.
• Monsters vs. Aliens, also an animated film.
• Race to Witch Mountain, the classic Disney film remade with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
• Angels & Demons, the sequel to The Da Vinci Code (although in Dan Brown's original books, The Da Vinci Code is actually the sequel).
• Year One, a Jack Black comedy set in the time of Moses. Both Michael Cera and David Cross of Arrested Development appear.
• Fast and Furious 4

]]> http://www.showbits.net/2009/02/02/super-bowl-trailers/feed/ 2 http://www.showbits.net/2008/11/17/star-trek-trailer/ http://www.showbits.net/2008/11/17/star-trek-trailer/#comments Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:00:12 +0000 Ken Gagne http://www.showbits.net/?p=366 With still six months to go, Star Trek XI has already traveled a long road. The intention to develop the property was announced in April 2006, with the first poster coming out in June of that year. JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias, Mission Impossible III) signed on to direct in February 2007, and filming began in November 2007, with a wrap date of March 2008. The film-footage-free teaser trailer was released before Cloverfield in January 2008, back when we thought we'd be revisiting Roddenberry's future as early as this Christmas.

Now, with less than half a year until the May 8th release, the veil of secrecy under which the Star Trek reboot has until recently been conducted provides us with our first significant glimpse of what awaits in the form of this full-length trailer:

I was sorely tempted to not indulge in this trailer at all; if its purpose is to sell me on the film, then its very existence is superfluous. Why not leave that many more surprises until its silver screen debut?

But I'm glad I watched it, and gladder still that it is completely spoiler-free. Almost nothing of the plot or obstacles are revealed, leaving us instead with a more general look of the actors and their environment. I confess that even that little is not what I expected. The Enterprise has always faced the final frontier with a sense of wonderment, though here we find it in not the seasoned and mature crew of TOS, but a younger and less experienced crew. As a prequel, that only makes sense, but I worry that too much rebellious angst will fill the film, as suggested by the conflict between Kirk and Spock. Also, seeing Kirk on two classic means of locomotion lends an even lower-tech feeling than its temporal predecessor, Enterprise.

Other than these minor points, I have a surprisingly nondescript reaction. The fast-paced nature of the trailer left little opportunity to assess the characters in their roles, or even to get a good look at their ship, within or without. I find myself neither more eager nor more anxious about the fate of the franchise; only the final film will allow me that judgment.

As I'm already sold on this movie, a part of me regrets seeing these pictures. Nonetheless, I will share with you the source of my remorse:

[Show as slideshow]

What can we tell from these pictures? First, the bridge looks little like the Shatner's ship of the Sixties. Second, Spock seems indistinguishable from Sylar — at least to me, being recently off a weekend-long binge of the character. Finally, Nero sure knows how to brood, distinguishing him from every villain who has ever existed. (Not.)

Of course, it's almost impossible to judge a film from such context-free imagery, so I will reserve judgment. A full trailer is expected to be released in November, possibly prior to the new James Bond film, Quantum of Solace.