Trek XI Update: Abrams Already Auditioning Actors – On Track To Start Shooting In Spring

With so much reporting on other things, thought we should update you all on that other little Trek project 

Although Trek XI is still just in ‘development‘ there already is quite a lot of activity going on. According to studio insiders the assumption is that Trek XI will get a greenlight and will be one of Paramount’s tentpoles for Summer 2008. Apparently the first draft of the script is due shortly and the Abrams team are already seeing actors for the major parts. Although no names are available, TrekMovie is told that "many A and B listers have been in and out of Abrams offices" (which are actually still on the Disney lot). One Paramount source tells TrekMovie that it is possible there will be a casting announcement even before the script gets final approval and the film gets the greenlight (which should be sometime in December/January). "Although it hasn’t been greenlit yet, it is as close as you get around here," said the source. Still unclear how many TOS roles are being recast, but another source indicates that the treatment included the characters of McCoy and Scotty in addition to Kirk and Spock. The ‘Kirk’s first Mission’ plotline (which TrekMovie first reported in August) still seems to be the prevailing assumption amongst those TrekMovie has spoken to, but still nothing firm so it is still in the realm of ‘rumor’.

Trek XI could start shooting in 6 months
The last we heard the team were aiming to start shooting in the Summer, but now it seems that has been moved up a bit to the late Spring. A Paramount insider tells TrekMovie that the Abrams team is currently lining up various behind-the-scenes production people and telling them to be ready for an April start. Apparently the plan is to start pre-production in January and have production run from April/May through to September. This is roughly the same time frame as Abrams’ previous movie MI:3, except two years later. So far Abrams seems to be looking at his MI:3 crew for Trek XI, which is typical in Hollywood to stick with the people you know. One reason for starting in the spring is it allows Abrams to put the bulk of Trek XI’s production during the the TV production ‘hiatus’; as we have reported Abrams 3 TV projects are keeping him quite busy. This schedule also indicates an early Summer 2008 release. Although Paramount has yet to firm up their 2008 release calendar, we are told that Trek XI and ‘Iron Man’ (produced by Marvel Studios but distributed by Paramount) look like the ‘big’ summer 2008 movies.

Remember…things can change
It is important to bear in mind that things change in Hollywood every day. Films far further along than Trek XI have been shelved, gone through major delays, had  total changes in direction and plot, etc. Nothing is written into stone until the film is complete, but TrekMovie.com will keep track of Star Trek XI every step of the way.

 

UPDATE: Abrams Says Framework In Place, Story is ‘Cool’ 

UPDATE 2: Abrams Talks To TrekMovie.com, confirms Spring Start Date… and More 

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest
October 19, 2006 12:35 pm

Well, things are moving on.Good news!

Adam Cohen
October 19, 2006 12:51 pm

I am surprised that TREK XI is being set up as an early-summer release.

The last Trek film to be released in the summer was 1989’s Star Trek V. Certainly, we’re all more optimistic about this project, but my feeling is that maybe a fall/winter release would give this movie some needed breathing room. What does Paramount expect this new movie to do at the box-office? Over $100 million? $150 million? That’s asking a lot for a franchise that has been used and abused for the last several years.

And that leads me to my next concern– casting. Are they going to insist on “name” actors to sell tickets? I fear that Star Trek is being hijacked here by a marketing campaign.

I’m not passing judgment on the movie yet, I’m just voicing concerns.

October 19, 2006 1:08 pm

Names like Matt Damon and all the other listed actors show us that Star Trek is going to be a block buster. It will be an interpretation of our well known “non-commercial” and “little-world”-Star Trek, although the days of “non-commercial” Trek-productions are over for a long time now. Even the TOS-movies seem to be quite independent or “non-commercial” productions in relation to the TNG-movies.

October 19, 2006 1:21 pm

BIG DAWG A.P. scoops the TrekWeb again!!!

Don’t even look for this story at Trekweb. It’s not there yet. And when it will be, it will be a re-hash of what they read here.

AS for the new movie, I think they should totally re-cast and re-boot like they did on Galactica. Get a black captain kirk. A female spock. Get the Metron guy from Arena to be Dr. McCoy.

Wouldnt that be totally awesome?

Nah… let’s go with Shatner Nimoy handing off the torch to Matt Damon, what the heck.

In any event you WILL READ IT HERE FIRST. Trekmovie.com

Can a nigga get a hollaback????

best!!

=h=

Crambam
October 19, 2006 1:38 pm

I want to see a movie where Spock saves Kirk in the 24th century, in some sort of storyline that involves a flashback to their first meeting. Two plotlines at the same time, involving Shatner and Nimoy in a nice role, a happy ending for Kirk, and a recast that can be used for the sequels.

October 19, 2006 2:03 pm

yo Crabman,

You want happy ending for James T. Kirk???

James T. Kirk want happy ending!!!!

My massage therapist tells me happy endings are the way to go. However, it costs a little more that way. I don’t consider it cheating, however.

Ba Doom Boom.

best!!

=h=

Magic_Al
October 19, 2006 2:10 pm

McCoy? What about Mark Piper?
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Mark_Piper

If they’re going to try to do a canonical prequel then do it right. Otherwise forget canon and do a total reboot like Battlestar Galactica — that might be a better idea, anyway.

Crambam
October 19, 2006 2:23 pm

Hitch–not THAT kind of happy ending….Then again, in the 24th century, Kirk could meet up with 7 of 9, and yeah, that would kick ass!

October 19, 2006 2:37 pm

Interesting…but not fascinating.

Can Abrams’ team write as well as Gene Coon’s did? Notice no use of established SF writers.

And Lost doesn’t equal the best X-Files, I think.

jon
October 19, 2006 3:04 pm

I’d love to know what the budget of this film is.That would tell us alot about what our expectations should be.

jon
October 19, 2006 3:11 pm

Also .Now that things are moving along,do the powers that be plan on doing a “making of” kind of book etc.with pre-production illustrations from the art director costume dept and set building depts so on similar to what was done for Star Wars.Loved that stuff when I was a kid.Used to collect Ralph Mc Quarrie,Joe Johnson,and ILM’s conceptual drawings.

Viking
October 19, 2006 3:24 pm

Magic_Al: it’ll have to be rebooted in one form or another. If Abrams is going to do a TOS prequel, all that garish primary color, pajama uniforms, and dysfunctional-looking control panels are begging for some serious upgrades. Given that the budget is rumored at around $100 mil, I’d expect to see a re-interpretation of a lot of things during the original series.

Yo, Hitch! How’s thing over at the Army?

MichaelT
October 19, 2006 3:50 pm

This is a good news story… not a signal to fret and worry.
Celebrate!

jon
October 19, 2006 3:51 pm

Wow 100 mil? Can this be confirmed? If it’s TOS era the’ll have to re-conceptualize everything.I mean,obviously you can’t have a big movie with a cheezey 60’s TV era bridge.And the ship…can they finally make it look like a massive starship and not just some weenie plastic model inspired thing with white lights for windows?

Jonboc
October 19, 2006 4:37 pm

“If it’s TOS era the’ll have to re-conceptualize everything.I mean,obviously you can’t have a big movie with a cheezey 60’s TV era bridge”

You think so? Ha, just wait and see. JJ is too much a fan to re-invent the wheel. It’s gonna be there in all it’s TOS glory,,,and that’s exacly why it will kick some major retro ass. Sure it will be fiberglass and LEDs instead of lamps and plywood…but don’t expect great changes in Matt Jeffries legendary design. Now if only JJ would really get crazy and shoot the film and the wonders and the awe of 23rd century space exploration in old school 3 strip technicolor. Man, wouldn’t that be beautiful? Modern audiences wouldn’t know what hit them with that much color and clarity!

Skippy 2k
October 19, 2006 4:45 pm

I remember reading before that they had put the bridge from the Defiant (the enterprise version) in storage. An awesome recreation of the original bridge but also with a little updating, moving screens at the top of the bridge and such. If they did then why not just pull it out of storage? Wondered about it again because I thought I saw that it had been auctioned at Christies?

Even if they did though, if it is pre-TOS (kirk and spock academy) then it may have needed modification if they showed the ship in that era.

Borat
October 19, 2006 4:57 pm

Will William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy be in this film?

I don’t think I’d care to see it if they don’t at least have cameo’s in it.

acb
October 19, 2006 5:06 pm
I dont know why by having names like Matt Damon attached means that the film “is going to be a blockbuster.” Since when in hollywood does haviing a big name or set of big name attached guarantee at the most a blockbuster and at the least quality. I am not saying that no names should fill everyrole, but i think it should be something along the lines of Batman Begins or how Episode I was cast (and in casting only will i make the comparison to Episode I). There they took into account having names mixed with fresher faces to fill the roles. I think the best way for Paramount to expect a really strong return on the film (and that is what they will look to first) is if they attempt to respect the audience of fans and non-fans by capturing the characters of Kirk and Spock in fresh faces. Not only would it contribute to the story itself (since Kirk and Spock could possibly be starting out carry that since of beginning to the audience as well with unknowns) but it will also so that Paramount may actually be attempting to respect the franchise instead of trying to milk it til the taste is so bad that no one wants to come back to it for a long time. And the only reason the TNG films seem different is that the focus was put more on the gimmick they were going to have occur in the film rather… Read more »
Crambam
October 19, 2006 6:52 pm

Matt Damon is all wrong for Kirk. He’d be a good Gary Mitchell though.

LavianoTS386
October 19, 2006 7:27 pm

“I remember reading before that they had put the bridge from the Defiant (the enterprise version) in storage.”

It got auctioned off.

Darth Ballz
October 19, 2006 8:24 pm

Umm! Matt Damon won’t be cast as Kirk because he already has a franchise and a career in Hollywood. What would this do for him at this point? Names are thrown around to keep intrest in Trek. If they do a re-cast of the old crew how many people are going to be pissed if they do more movies and change the history of trek like Enterprise did?

As much bitching as the TNG stars have done because they are out future jobs I think it’s a mistake to jump back again. New crew, new era, new Enterprise and one hell of a group of real actors. As much as the secondary actors were good people, most of them are crappy actors…..

Darth Ballz are bigger!!!!!

MichaelT
October 19, 2006 8:50 pm

Hi darth,
Look at the poster….old style emblem.. science blue, command gold…. what era do you think this will likely take place in?

Darth Ballz
October 19, 2006 9:00 pm

Michael,

I didn’t say it wasen’t going to take place in the past, just that it has a very good chance of not working.

Darth “mucho” Ballz

EBAR
October 19, 2006 10:44 pm

I think re-casting the orignal characters is a big mistake. I can’t see anybody else playing Spock. In addition, although whoever they get to play Kirk would probably be a much better actor it still won’t be the same.

I don’t see any point in this movie idea. Why don’t they just create new characters and set them in the TOS universe?

I’d be happy if they just left well enough alone. forget another movie, and focus on fixing the poor effects for State Trek Remastered. How many nails can they drive into Star Trek’s coffin?

Dom
October 20, 2006 3:50 am

Star Trek’s already dead, so any new film will either resurrect it or confirm it’s dead. Although it’s not technically a reboot, the sheer fact of having recast TOS crewmembers, on the USS Enterprise, seen in the cinema means it’s a form of reboot.

I remember the remark the one of the designers on Generations made about the Enterprise for that film: movie sets require more detail and texture, hence the new bridge stations, the raised command area, bigger ceiling struts and different lighting scheme.

I suspect we might see a faithful reconstruction of the TOS sets, but with more texture and more complex lighting. Elements of sets will be exaggerated to an extent. Rails will have rivets in them; doors might have embossed logos; computer screens more detailed readouts. The same will go for the fabric and design of the uniforms, even the exterior of the ship. Think of the difference between TV show Spider-Man’s costume and movie Spider-Man’s or Christopher Reeve’s costume and Brandon Routh’s!

Nothing in the new movie has to contradict the core designs: it merely needs to enhance them.

October 20, 2006 6:37 am

Duane Boda
October 20, 2006 7:18 am

# 26 Photo: Hmm…looks nice – more detail and such but it looks way too bright and artificial. Has a builders block look to it as if very little thought was put into truly defining it and making it better – making it shine!
Sort of looks like a rush job despite some noticeable additions and such.
Now…if they somehow could incorporate the lightening that was seen in key scenes in Balance Of Terror and perhaps the beginning of ST-TMP on
the Klingon Battleship THEN you’d have a real winner IF you ask me.
The darkness fit the mood for the Klingon ship and everything just perfectly while both the darkness and color schemes were equally enhancing in certain scenes on Balance Of Terror….exp. When Kirk was sitting in his chair and ordering the ship to fire upon the Romulean Cruiser. Also…the lighting combo seen at the beginning in the background
where the one crew member was getting married….wasn’t it purple and green?

Anonymous
October 20, 2006 7:33 am

This is a stupid idea, I tell you. Plain stupid. Why a prequel? TOS retire with TUC. It should remain that way.It’s true that I do want to see new Trek movies but make it focus in TNG era where we can explore the final frontier together with new characters, new ships and new directions.

TOS is dead. It is part of history. Let it rest in peace

anonymous jr.
October 20, 2006 8:12 am

The only thing that has died is Trek’s 24th century. Clearly, with the buzz about the new movie and remastered Trek by CBS, TOS is alive and well. Long live the king!!

Dom
October 20, 2006 8:47 am

#28 Anonymous.

There are already 4 movies set in the TNG era and they put a bullet in the head of the series. You can’t think like a Trek fan where the new film is concerned. The general public still thinks of Star Trek as starring Kirk, Spock and McCoy and lines like ‘I’m a surgeon, not a . . .’ and the never-used ‘Beam me up, Scotty!’

24th Century Trek has become the realm of nerds. The public wants cool, iconic characters and classic stories. TOS fits the bill.

By the way, strictly Trek XI isn’t a prequel: the technical term is ‘continuity plug-in.’ We’ve seen lots of stuff set before and after the period in which Trek XI is set!

Darth Ballz
October 20, 2006 11:02 am

Yo!

They need to let Trek sleep for a longer time, most si-fi is dark, realistic and gloomy right now. At some point people will want to see it again. It went from us begging for it to having it shoved down our throats. What it boils down to is $$$ and Paramount keeps sticking itself in the ass and people won’t give a rats ass about Trek anymore if it’s the same crap over and over again………

Darth “pimp’in ” Ballz

martin
October 20, 2006 11:59 am

I hope by “Kirk’s First Mission” it is Kirk’s first mission as Captain of the Enterprise. That makes the most sense if you are going to put McCoy, Scotty and Spock in the movie.

And I do think that Damon works great as Kirk… and he is the right age/appearance to be Kirk as captain of the Enterprise (actually he is about 3-4 years older than Shatner was in “Where No Man….”

October 20, 2006 12:23 pm

Viking, you crazy sombitch. How you been, man? Now we’re trekking together here. That’s just crazy.

Word up to all da haterz on the Matt Damon prequel continuity plugin as we kick it. Trek XI is going to kick some serious ass. Stick around, because trekmovie.com is going to be giving you the high def play by play in Dubly™ 5.1. You can take that shit to the bank. Tell em hitch1969© sent ya.

best!!

=h=

October 20, 2006 12:30 pm

And by the way, let me get a little gay here and say on the record that Matt Damon is quite a handsome Shatner. I think he’s a manly stud, a sassy sailor. He looks just hetero enough for the part. It’s kind of like Shatner himself. I once knew this chick who swore that she knew a dude that knew a dude that said that shatner was a pooftah. Yet I see no evidence of this. But still she insisted that Shatner would come to her town and visit a wealthy man on the hill for weekends at a time and get his gay on. I never BILLieved her though. I think she was just trying to ruin the Trek experience for me. She always wanted too much attention that way. She was kind of a whore. I still liked her and spent time with her though. I wonder what the hell she is doing these days?

best!!

=h=

Ralph
October 20, 2006 12:48 pm

Too much info hitch. Who cares.
Anthony Pascale can you strike comment #34?

October 20, 2006 2:02 pm

Ralph, what’s happened to us, man? They were picking on you, hitch1969© came to your defense when the personal attacks got personal and attacking. We were grate mates with the popgear hate. Then what happens? Old Ralphie goes JUDAS™ on hitch.

Striking comments from the record is an inappropriate request. The record shall reflect accuracy; free of censorship and politicization. Obviously you did not agree with my comment. That is your right. However, jesus dude I just cannot BILLieve® that you went Judas on me like that. It hurts me. It’s a deep pain inside me. Like a swollen cancerous prostate.

Dude you gave me cancer. Thanks alot, pal.

best!!

=h=

Ralph
October 20, 2006 2:17 pm

Sorry dude. When you put that trash on this site about Shatner, and after you talk highly of him, it was a shock to me as you desribe above.

October 20, 2006 2:25 pm

On Kirks first mission McCoy wasn’t aboard the Enterprise…

Ralph
October 20, 2006 2:29 pm

William Shatner turns down ride into space.
Read why.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006410413,00.html

Lex
October 20, 2006 2:31 pm

Who is this hitch1969© guy anyway ? Is he a webmaster here on Trek Movie.com ?

October 20, 2006 2:45 pm

Lex Luthor™, no, I am not, but I should be. I am very trekmovie.com in the pants. Actually the webmaster is BIG DAWG A.P. who is also very trekmovie.com in the pants. actually, he is larger in the pants that way than me, obv.

But Lex Luthor™, that’s officer thinking and you are my bestest new e-friend. You’re hitchWORLD 4 life now.

Ralph by NO MEANS would I ever speak ill of Shatner. You totally read that wrong. I’m the biggest shatner fan around. trust me.

best!!

=h=

Ralph
October 20, 2006 3:21 pm

If they could redo the Enterprise in the ship battles like at the 1:34 mark of this video, that would be great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFH8YqZBo0Y&mode=related&search=

Scorned
October 20, 2006 3:46 pm

Let us hope this “Kiddie Kirk” movie gets scrapped! What a STUPID idea for a movie. Talk about going ass backwards.

Abrams is nothing more the Hollywood flavour of the month whos time is almost up.

Recasting…what an f’ing joke!. Too many pseudo fans out there will swallow just about anything.

JON
October 20, 2006 4:18 pm

If the upcoming Trek xi is a hit and then there’s a sequel(Trek xii).I think a Trek xii would be more appropriate to expand on the new cast with cameos from the original stars.Nimoy in a cameo as Sarek perhaps.there’s precedent for that since spock’s father was a narrative on the Spock character in TOS.But I think a new Trek should start out fresh with no cameos.Save it for xii

October 20, 2006 4:55 pm

“Abrams is nothing more the Hollywood flavour of the month whos time is almost up.

Recasting…what an f’ing joke!. Too many pseudo fans out there will swallow just about anything.”

Nope, I’ve been a fan for forty years and the TOS recasting thing is the only idea worth doing now as far as I’m concerned.

And the attitude isn’t going to go over any better here than it did at Trekweb. ;)

Duane Boda
October 20, 2006 7:08 pm

Ok…this is for those who have the Dish-Network West coast package.
IF you missed last weeks episode of I-Mudd (whatever?) it will be reshown at 6:00 A.M. – Saturday mornings – on KWGN – Channel 235.
I just noticed this myself the other day otherwise I would have mentioned it much sooner. Not a bad deal for those who miss the previous weeks episode and so on.

Darth Ballz
October 20, 2006 7:57 pm

And it goes alittle something like this………

Shatner and Nimoy were asked to give imput on re-casting of there roles, something that was a request of Abrams. Both were ok with it but didn’t like that they wouldn’t be more involved. Don’t rule a TNG era movie out just yet. It’s all about the dolla bills yo!!!

Darth “The Shocker” Ballz

Scorned
October 20, 2006 9:06 pm
DB The very idea of “recasting” that is going to “save” something is a complete joke. This recasting is a dire attempt at trying to get one last drop of blood (ie coin) from a stone. Using the flavour of the money is the way they hope to do it. Chasing the Star Wars parade is not going to do it. New cast, new century, new everything. Having some “two bit joe blow” playing any of the TOS cast is going to solve nothing. Are we going to hear some silliness about “Shatner”playing his grandfather?? hahah MI3 was a horrible movie that was way too long and in dire need of a ummm what you call a “story” and “good editing”. Abrams calls himself a fan of Trek. Well he called himself a fan of Superman and the script he wrote was pure garbage. It was even close to resembling Superman. I still don’t know why Abarms won’t tell everyone it is a “kiddie kirk” movie. What is the big secret? The studio already said it when they hired him. The fact that he is “hiding” it should make any fan of Trek worried. I am expecting STXI to be yet another bomb in an increasing line of Trek movies. Go get Meyers back, Nimoy back and lets make a REAL Trek film. The return of both of them will generate incredible interest in Trek again. Go backwards seeing Matt Damon “act” like Shatner is going to be a 2… Read more »
October 20, 2006 9:20 pm

(I was running out of space..)

New cast in a new century.

You can change everything. The Federation is not as powerful. Allies are no more. Enemies are worse. In fighting is at an all time high. Trying to keep things together and yet “still move forward”. The change is to “over come”.

THAT is the answer. Going backwards doing a silly bsg revamp while chasing the vapours of the Star Wars prequel parade are not going to cut it.

October 20, 2006 9:35 pm

“New cast in a new century. ”

No.

Same old same old. All Trek eras are fundamentally the same.

“You can change everything. The Federation is not as powerful. Allies are no more. Enemies are worse. In fighting is at an all time high.”

That strikes you as “changing everything?” Generic suggestions concerning variations in the scenery? Not a character nor a story point in sight? Suggesting that making something “less powerful” is an interesting idea for innovation is the obverse and equal of saying that “the new ship is cooler because it has megaphasers.”

Pass.

Abrams makes entertaining films and television series — moreso than most of the stuff that Trek fans point to as “the best” of Trek post-TOS. And it’s about time that new actors had a go at the most iconic Trek roles.

wpDiscuz