Paramount Already Thinking About Sequel To Abrams Star Trek

With the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie still eleven months away, is it too early to be talking about a sequel? Apparently to Paramount Pictures the answer is ‘no.’ Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci has revealed exclusively to TrekMovie.com that the studio is already perusing the new Trek team to nail them down for a follow-up.

In yesterday’s article about JJ Abrams views on Spoilers, Orci dropped by the talkback section and interacted with the fans. Although Bob expressed his backing of the Abrams ‘no spoilers’ policy, when pressed for some spoilers (including showing him the Queen of Diamonds from The Manchurian Candidate), Orci let the following out of the bag:

Alright, since I saw the queen I can give you a spoiler about the Studio’s state of mind (not about the movie itself). The spoiler is that they already want to lock us down to write the sequel. Take that as you will.

After reading that TrekMovie.com contacted Mr. Orci to get some more details. Orci first wanted to clarify that Paramount wants ALL of the Trek team back, or as he has dubbed them: ‘The Supreme Court.’ This would mean the return of co-writers/exec producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, producer Damon Lindelof, executive producer Bryan Burk and director/producer JJ Abrams. There are no detailed discussions yet, but Orci tells TrekMovie “they would like to lock us down” for the sequel, but he points out:

Unless the studio had a horrible experience with us, they would be trying to lock us down as standard operating procedure. They haven’t even seen the movie yet, so this news should not be taken as evidence that we are anything special. It’s a quite normal practice.

It has previously been reported that Paramount has signed all the major actors with options for two additional films, which is also standard practice. It should also be remembered that the first talks between the Abrams team and Paramount about the 2009 Star Trek feature were in early 2006. That being said, all indications from TrekMovie sources are that Paramount is very enthusiastic about the new Star Trek and the team behind it. The move of the film from Christmas 2008 to the Summer 2009 season was a big indication that they think Trek can join Tranformers (and now Iron Man) as one of their stable of tent-pole franchises.

If one were to guess, then the likeliest timing for any sequel would be 2011. Paramount seem to be spreading their franchises out with two year gaps now like with the 2009 Transformers 2 and the talk of a 2010 Iron Man 2. Of course finding time on the busy schedules for the Abrams team is always an issue. Abrams has multiple TV and film projects in the works as a producer and there has been some talk of him directing an adaptation of the Steven King’s Dark Tower following Star Trek (he will at least be producing it). For their part Orci and Kurtzman have a number of projects going, most notably now the aforementioned Transformers 2, but also nine other films as either writer or producer. Lindelof keeps pretty busy as the showrunner for a little thing called Lost and Abrams, Burk, Orci and Kurtzman are also spending a lot of time on their new Fox TV series Fringe, premiering in the Fall of 2008. Regarding schedules, Orci notes:

As far as our schedules, I’m not sure what the hurry is since Star Trek doesn’t come out for a year. Some of our development is up in the air right now, so I don’t know exactly when we could get started.

Of course since we still don’t know where Star Trek ends, it is difficult to talk about what the sequel would be like (except we know it would retain much of the same cast). When asked if he and Alex have put much thought into the sequel, Orci states:

It depends on what you classify as “much.” We’ve certainly thought about it some.

But what to call it?
One of the issues Paramount and the Abrams team will have to deal with is what to call a sequel. Star Trek II is already taken. TrekMovie.com suggests finding a name like The Dark Knight, the sequel to the Batman reboot Batman Begins. There is no reason that ‘Star Trek’ needs to be in the title. This year we will see the 22nd film in the James Bond franchise and not a single one has had the name ‘Bond’ in it.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
boJac
June 4, 2008 6:00 pm

Cool! How about : “Where no man has gone before”

JARED WYNN
June 4, 2008 6:00 pm

sounds like abrams and gang has caught lightening in a bottle and are keeping it there.

June 4, 2008 6:01 pm

interesting

That Guy
June 4, 2008 6:12 pm

How about: The Heavens Beyond….

Aaron
June 4, 2008 6:21 pm

How about “syndicated franchise” for the name? I think that sums up Trek in a nutshell. I say that with tongue in cheek and with a tad bit of sarcasm.

Prologic9
June 4, 2008 6:22 pm

“There is no reason that ‘Star trek’ needs to be in the title.”

Tell that the “Enterprise” season 3.

BTW, Dugg for obscure Ghostbusters Reference. :)

Driver
June 4, 2008 6:23 pm

The sequel to STAR TREK need not have STAR TREK in the title. Just the insignia somewhere on the poster.

Stanky McFibberich
June 4, 2008 6:24 pm

I hope in the sequel, the fake actors are replaced with more fake actors.

Quatlo
June 4, 2008 6:26 pm

Whatever the 2009 film or any sequel(s) to the re-imagining are called, movie theaters will simply put “Star Trek” on the exterior signage. Same as with # 1 – 10. And that’ll work if the 2009 film is not a huge flop.

john doe
June 4, 2008 6:27 pm

that would be an intersting film to say the least

June 4, 2008 6:28 pm

Music to my ears, except I will turn 50 in 2011, as many times said on another 60’s TV show “oh the pain, you bubble headed bubbie” How about another movie stab at LIS? Season one of course

Jason
June 4, 2008 6:30 pm

While it would be great, I don’t think they should dabble too much in the original series crew. The problem is that it might start treading on the series. To do that, they’d have to do a damn near-impossibly good job on it.

There’s nothing stopping them from doing a film about Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, and Spock reuniting after the films. I wonder if that would go down well. Unlikely though.

Another Next Gen movie is what I wanna see. A final film that’s a bit more appropriate, and of course better.

Still, they’ve got such a good cast for this film, it’d be a shame to not use them again. Ahh so many thoughts…

Daoud
June 4, 2008 6:36 pm

Wow, a twelvequel… a dodecaquel… As I said in the other thread… thanks Boborci for this nugget of news, for what it’s worth.

Titling Star Trek XII could be a contest at trekmovie.com! I’ll contribute my favorites, since the otherwise perfect “These Are The Voyages” has been RUINED for FOREVER:

“Starship Enterprise”
“Strange New Worlds”
“Star Trek, Chapter 2” (Doing a “A New Hope” to Star Trek [2009] and considering it “Star Trek, Chapter 1”
and
“Star Trek, Part Deux” Just kidding on that one.

MORN SPEAKS
June 4, 2008 6:38 pm

Get crackin’! Write that story, so we can start the spoilers on that movie!

MORN SPEAKS
June 4, 2008 6:41 pm

And would it hurt to have Morn in the sequel, he could be over a 100

SirMartman
June 4, 2008 6:44 pm

I recon just stick to the common “Trek” name,,and then start adding the longer Film name when they start filming the other “Trek” movies, it will be in tune with all the other “Trek” films then.

for example,

Star Trek XI

followed by,,

Star Trek XII
The Contuning Mission

Star Trek XIII
Return Of the Enterprise C

etc,,,

:o )

D
June 4, 2008 6:51 pm

Well, they want to get new fans…

How about a title that has absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek or the movie itself? They might trick people into thinking they’re going into a chick flick or something.

Attack of the Clones did that to me…

ZtoA
June 4, 2008 6:55 pm

DOOMSDAY MACHINE!

Mike T.
June 4, 2008 6:56 pm

They could always copy the Bond movies and use book titles like “Final Frontier” or “Vendetta”. They could always adapt the books. Look at Jurassic Park, the movies are way different than the books.

It would still be cool if they used Star Trek in the title, like “Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back”.

Spocko
June 4, 2008 6:59 pm

How about:

Star Trek XII:
“The Shat Comes Back”

That Guy
June 4, 2008 6:59 pm

Thats a new way to spell it.
Try it this way instead Boobie.
Its spelled as stupid as it is.

caz316
June 4, 2008 7:01 pm

STAR TREK XI THE NEW BEGINNING
STAR TREK XII THE 2 YEAR MISSING OF THE 5 YEARS MISSION
STAR TREK XIII THE FIST CRACH OF THE ENTREPRISE,Spock going to vulcun and Kirk being promoted.
But first,we still have to wait 337 days,stil nothing,no real photo,no preview and no Shatner.

Newman
June 4, 2008 7:01 pm

possible titles for a sequel?

My favourite is “Where No One Has Gone Before.”

June 4, 2008 7:06 pm

Please come out with a sequel.

scootypuffjr
June 4, 2008 7:07 pm

Sequel title? “To All Things An End”
Plot? End of the five year mission.

CmdrR
June 4, 2008 7:09 pm

Bob, again my congratulations.
Can you give us any insights on a two-year plan for a movie franchise? Do you feel cold on a project after so many months, or are the characters easy to step back into? Is two years too short a time (Patrick Stewart said that and sadly, he may have right when it came to TNG’s final couple of films.)

Oh, and what color underwear will the main villain wear in XII? (Just starting the forbidden questions early.)

Captain Otter
June 4, 2008 7:11 pm

The Quest for More Money.

Sean
June 4, 2008 7:11 pm

The title of a sequel of a prequel would be very tricky. I think it might end up being the first Star Trek movie with “Star Trek” not in the name.

June 4, 2008 7:12 pm

“Star Trek: You Can’t Kill It With A Stick.”

Negotiator
June 4, 2008 7:17 pm

I guess JJ won’t want us to see Star Trek 11 before 12 comes out because it might spoil any surprises. So, get ready for another 24 month postponement. ; )

Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar
June 4, 2008 7:18 pm

Star Trek II Electric Bugalu

Kevin
June 4, 2008 7:18 pm

I also like Where No Man (or One) Has Gone Before.

I’ll throw a few out there

Star Trek: The Technicolor Talkie
Star Trek: The Wrath of Mudd
Star Trek: The Search for Shatner’s Hairpiece
Star Trek: The Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea… in a Yellow Submarine
Star Trek: The Final Movie
Star Trek: Alas Poor Yorick
Star Trek: Generation Y
Star Trek: First Date’s Can Be Awkward
Star Trek: Rebellion
Star Trek: Mortal Enemy That Kind of Looks Like You But Doesn’t

SPB
June 4, 2008 7:20 pm

TAKE A PAGE FROM “IRON MAN”…

Call the sequel STAR TREK: MARK II

Redjac
June 4, 2008 7:21 pm

Why does it have to have a number? A colon and a secondary title of some relevance to the plot should be sufficient — but preferably not one those wretched one or two word secondary titles they’ve had that have been the bane of some of the worst ones. You know what I’m talking about — “Generations”…”Insurrection”…”Nemesis”…

This seems to be the new “odd number curse”…and I am surprised no one has noticed before me…lol!

Tom
June 4, 2008 7:22 pm

some sequel title suggestions

Star Trek: rim of the star-light
Star Trek: wand’ring in star-flight
Star Trek: find in star-clustered reaches
Star Trek: Strange love a star woman teaches.
Star Trek: His journey ends never
Star Trek: Will go on forever.
Star Trek: While he wanders his starry sea

CmdrR
June 4, 2008 7:26 pm

Star Trek: Prime Directive
Star Trek: To Boldly Go
Star Trek: Risk Is Our Business

OK, I’m stretching, but there’s a wealth of untapped potential in titles and stories. Just keep it human, even when it’s alien.

SPB
June 4, 2008 7:28 pm

OR (THIS MIGHT BE TOO GEEKY)…

Since we already had STAR TREK II (with the standalone Roman numerals), how about adding a “Part” and a standard “2?”

STAR TREK, PART 2

Yeah… way too geeky. Never mind, it looks terrible!

SPB
June 4, 2008 7:30 pm

We really need a TREK film called…

STAR TREK: GET OFF MY BRIDGE, MISTER!

June 4, 2008 7:31 pm

Nice!

Too bad they can’t use “The Final Frontier” for the sequel. That’s already been taken… and the movie that ended up with that title wasn’t exactly great.

Why not just name the sequels as though they were regular episodes? Somewhat like the Bond series, as Anthony suggested.

Or they could put “Warp” into the title, like “Star Trek: Warp 2”, “Star Trek: Warp 3,” etc. Ok, that may not work well…

Can’t use “Phase II”… the crew of the former New Voyages may not like that. ;)

How about “For the Box Office is Hollow and I Have Touched the Cash?” That has a nice ring to it. :-P

I still like my suggestion from last year — “Star Trek II 2: Enterprise Boogaloo!” Think about it, Bob — I smell a hit! ;)

June 4, 2008 7:32 pm

I personally can’t wait for Star Trek 27! ITS GOING TO BE AWESOME!

Garovorkin
June 4, 2008 7:34 pm

The movie hasn’t premiered yet and they are already talking sequel? Wow, they must be really confident in what they have.

Irishtrekkie
June 4, 2008 7:37 pm

hmm how about “Wagon Train to the stars” lol ?

June 4, 2008 7:38 pm

For sequel title, how about simply : “The Final Frontier”?

Steve
June 4, 2008 7:45 pm

Historical note: Star Trek II was originally called Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan when first released, no numerals included (I think they were added when it was released on video). I think “Star Trek” has to be included in the title somewhere.

The Rusted Robot
June 4, 2008 7:45 pm

Star Trek: Renaissance

The Rusted Robot
June 4, 2008 7:47 pm

Star Trek: Frontier

The Rusted Robot
June 4, 2008 7:48 pm

Star Trek: Deep Space Mine

The Rusted Robot
June 4, 2008 7:49 pm

Star Trek: Foundations

The Rusted Robot
June 4, 2008 7:49 pm

Star Trek: Legacy

Jeffrey S. Nelson
June 4, 2008 7:50 pm

8. Stanky’s back… yay!!! And not a fake Stanky.

wpDiscuz