jump to navigation

Trek XI Release Still (Probably) Winter 2008 January 17, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: STXI Status , trackback

On Monday we ran a story from iF Magazine seemingly quoting Trek XI producer Damon Lindelof revealing an ‘official’ release date of July 2, 2008 for Star Trek XI. This was surprising as our Paramount sources have been telling us (off the record) that the date had moved from the summer to a winter release. We have reconfirmed that it still appears to be winter, but that officially Paramount are still not being more specific than ‘2008’. We contacted iF Magazine and apparently the release date in their article was not actually from Lindelof; they have now removed the date. So it was a false alarm, not the first related to Trek XI (remember the Tom Cruise thing) and we do not expect it to be the last.    

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dustin
January 17, 2007 2:11 am

It was nice to have a date to work towards… ah weel, we will wait adn see now!

Jimtibkirk
January 17, 2007 3:05 am

If Paramount is releasing Indiana Jones 4 in summer 2008, I’m sure they’ll delay Star Trek XI until Christmas. BTW, heard the rumored title for the film will simply be Star Trek. That’s perfect and just what I thought it should be based on the teaser poster. Back to the basics.

Trevok
January 17, 2007 3:42 am

Would have liked the summer release date to be correct but what the heck, We’ll just have to wait a little longer.
LLAP

Adam Cohen
January 17, 2007 4:39 am

#2 Jimtibkirk

Calling it simply “Star Trek” is perfect! Where did you hear this rumor?

January 17, 2007 5:27 am

^^^ I agree.

BTW Adam, I just want to repeat what I posted yesterday in a thread from December 2nd–I was NOT the author of several asinine remarks posted under my name last month–**especially** the insulting remarks aimed towards you. I don’t even *know* you, but I just wanted you to know that I was not the one who wrote those messages.

Adam Cohen
January 17, 2007 5:35 am

Thanks Scott,

I appreciate your saying so. I took it in stride, I don’t take internet insults personally, but I thank you for clearing up the air- that’s a stand-up thing to do. See, I like you already.

Dom
January 17, 2007 6:55 am

Someone suggested just calling it Star Trek on another thread on this site a while back. It’s a very good idea, but I think the rumour’s generated by this site’s threads!

Adam Cohen
January 17, 2007 10:21 am

Rejected titles for Star Trek XI:

Star Trek: Kirk Begins
Star Trek: Kirk Rising (too provocative)
Star Trek- Episode I: The Phantom Vulcan
Star Trek Returns
Star Trek: Rick Berman Is Not Involved In This Picture (my personal fave!)

Admiral Deem
January 17, 2007 10:55 am
Depending on the plot, how about: If Sulu is outed: Star Trek – Turnabout Sulu If Kirk is still dead: Star Trek – You’re Dead, Jim If Brent Spiner helps write the script: Star Trek – For My Head is Hollow and I have Lost My Mind If Oprah guests stars: Star Trek -The Squire of Pathos If Tom Cruise guest stars: Star Trek -May as well Bring Back Berman If Eddie Murphy guest stars: Star Trek – Now also known as Lost in Space If Rosie OI’Donnell guest stars: Star Trek – Where No Man Has Gone Before If… Read more »
Dr. Image
January 17, 2007 11:16 am

Or,
Sulu’s academy days………….

Star Trek: Enterguys.

(Don’t ask, don’t tell.)

Paul
January 17, 2007 11:34 am

#9 dig those, i agree whole heartedly with your personal fav. anyone open to burning Berman in effigy on the day XI opens?

Don Corleone
January 17, 2007 11:58 am

Star Trek XI: Legends Never Die: (The Return of James T. Kirk)

Trekweb Forever!!!
January 17, 2007 12:18 pm

13 – I hope that’s not another reference to wanting to start the movie with a long-winded, convoluted explanation of how Kirk appeared to die in his era but really was transported via the Nexus to Picard’s era, and also appeared to die in that era, but in reality that was just the echo and he is actually still alive in the Nexus and now Spock has to go save him–all before we start the real movie. Terrible.

Canonista the Cultist
January 17, 2007 12:21 pm
Depending on the content of the movie… The simple title “Star Trek” is a double edged sword. When a music artist releases an album under just their name (with no other title), it is almost always (1) their first major-published album or (2) an album released once they’ve already become highly successful and are looking to get back to basics. # 2 might be the case here. But having said that, the film better be good – in the opinion of people that actually see the movie – if you are going to affix “Star Trek” singularly to the label.… Read more »
Dom
January 17, 2007 2:02 pm
The Treks a bunch of people seem to want: Star Trek: Canonballs! Tagline: ‘It’s a blast!’ Reality: it’s a damp squid! A controversial, but effective movie title: Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before would be catchy (if a bit ‘Sulu!’ ;)) The ‘Kirk Rising’ title could lead to an amusing trilogy of films: Kirk Rising Kirk Conquers Kirk Comes followed by: Son of Kirk And, to be blunt, anyone who thinks this film is going to be: “Battlestar Enterprise” “Star Trek: First Blood” or “Star Trek Troopers” should, respectfully, pull their heads out of their big, fat buttocks,… Read more »
Canonista the Cultist
January 17, 2007 2:06 pm

Dom you say the same thing every post too. ;)

The difference is, I don’t personally insult you. I just state my opinion…oh, and I do so less often than you do too.

Canonista the Cultist
January 17, 2007 2:10 pm

BTW…I didn’t say that was the “OFFICIAL” path for the next movie.

Please re-read…”I fear many people want XI to be” rather than “JJ Abrams wants it to be.”

Dom
January 17, 2007 5:01 pm
Canonista, I didn’t personally insult you. I thought I was agreeing with you, by saying that ‘people with that view blah blah!’ You use the word ‘canon’ in your chosen identity – I really am called Dom – which means every time the word ‘canon’ is used it could potentially be addressed directly at you, even when it isn’t. A rather unpleasant way of trapping a lot of us, no? I said “fundamentalists'” plural, the apostrophe being ***after*** the “s” making it a generalisation. If you choose to take offence, that’s your problem, but if it was aimed directly at… Read more »

[…] Nachtrag vom 17.01.2007: Kommando zurück: Der Release ist nun doch für Winter 2008 angesetzt – also bleibt wahrscheinlich alles wie gehabt. Das IFMagazine hatte lediglich falschen Alarm gegeben. Solche Enten muss man halt in Kauf nehmen… […]

Canonista
January 17, 2007 5:58 pm
First Dom…let’s say “truce”, okay (not meant sarcastically)…I’d expect I’m far closer to “being banned” than you are…and I probably wouldn’t request that anyone get banned. People of your viewpoint are in abundance on this site. I chose Canonista as a name because commenters are taking some extreme viewpoints on either side of the debate. I’d say that your opinion is a ‘majority’ viewpoint around here. So be it. We disagree on what we’d like to see in the next Trek. Fine. What I ask of you is what I ask of all posters that disagree with my viewpoint (or… Read more »
Kevin
January 17, 2007 6:35 pm

hmmm… these make little sence but here goes….

Star Trek: Shats on a Plane (sponsored by Priceline)
Star Trek: The Moving Picture Show Talkie in Technicolor
Star Trek: The Wrath of the Tribbles
Star Trek: The Search for Shatner’s Hairpiece

Xai
January 17, 2007 10:31 pm

As long as it’s NOT …
Star Trek: The Final Film.
Let me modify the subject so we don’t draw blood.

IMO… I’d like to see a three movie project…. arc the stories and contractually tie the actors to the flicks for the duration. Film concurrently over a year or so and release the films all one year apart. It would speed the process, reduce the aging and wear on the cast and crew. It also saves money on the technical side. Pirates of the Carribean is doing this with great success.

Kevin
January 17, 2007 11:09 pm

Yes, but I believe they only shot the last 2 movies together, not the first one. I don’t think anyone’s gonna spend the money to make 3 movies at once until they know how well the first one does.

Dom
January 18, 2007 5:09 am
Hi Canonista. I have massive expectations of this new film. Thing is, I’m not bringing a fixed list of requirements to this film. I’ve said before that this film has to be the ‘The Cage’ or the ‘Where No Man . . .’ of this day and age. This film has to lay the groundwork for Trek’s future and can’t include non-stop references to five TV shows, ten films and a cartoon series. The film is being made by a respected team with some solid work behind them and massive enthusiasm for Star Trek itself. They’ve never shown any intention… Read more »
SithMenace
January 18, 2007 7:54 am

24. Kevin, Peter Jackson and New Line did, but it was a huge risk that luckily paid off. Not many studios are willing to do that.

Kevin
January 18, 2007 10:28 pm

I would think Thanksgiving weekend would be a better time for this. Four day weekends are usually a good time for premiers. I can’t think of any in earlier fall which is too bad b/c warmer weather actually gets people out of thier houses.

Chance
January 19, 2007 5:18 am

I have to say I will be very disappointed if there is no McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu… I mean I dislike how Star Trek (books etc..) seem to ignore the secondary characters. I love the Three Amigos just as much as anyone, but I really would like to see Uhura take a larger role in this movie.

I’m already dubious about this whole ‘get back to basics’ thing (the basics are all in their 70s), don’t leave out characters cause its easier to write.

Just my two cents (also…I like the idea of ‘STAR TREK’)

Dom
January 19, 2007 7:17 am

Scotty’s in this film, apparently. If McCoy doesn’t appear as an Enterprise crew member, it’s not to say he won’t be in it at all. Vulcan’s Glory, for example, had Scotty as a youngster on the Enterprise, even though it isn’t canon!

I suspect the majority of the secondary characters will be intended to emerge in a sequel.

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