Star Trek Sequel Shooting Next March? July 27, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: ST09 Cast, Star Trek (2009 film), Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
In another brief Comic Con interview, Zoe Saldana talked to MTV about the next Star Trek movie. She was non-committal on the subject of Khan, but noted that she is already being asked about her availability next year.
March?
The latest “Star Trek: Something Something” news comes from a brief intreview by MTV at San Diego Comic Con (where Saldana was promoting the upcoming Avatar movie). The video is below, where she says she has been asked (by the producers) "What are you doing?" in March, June and September. Saldana says she is free “whenever” they “come callin’”.
As we have reported before, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman have said that they and Damon Lindelof are expected to have the script finished by Christmas. Although the pre-production for the fist new Star Trek movie lasted around nine months, the second one should go much faster as there will be much less casting and much of the production design, construction, costumes, etc is already completed. According to TrekMovie sources, Paramount is hoping to have the next Star Trek film out May 2011. But no official announcements have been made, and as we saw with the first film, things can always get changed in Hollywood.
Loading ...
Comments»
My bet is May 25th, 2011.
Locate the writers, camera handlers, and any lighting technician holding a flashlight. Set phasers on maximum stun. Good luck. Jeyl out.
Cool! 2nd?
#1. I don’t know about that. Paramount already has “Thor” locked for May 20th. I’m not sure they want to put two of their bigger movies against each other.
May 2011?
So, every two years we get a new Trek movie? That would be acceptable!
Better not stick to the may 2011 release date; early reports estimate that the sequel to the dark knight will likely enter theaters then…
Script by Christmas…shooting in march!!..that’s what I’m talkin’bout…lets get it on!!!
MvRojo they are talking about begining filming next year not releasing it next year, there would be no conflict with thor becouse a new trek will not be out untill at least 2011
MvRojo,
Hmm… very true. They’ll probably put it on the 6th, then. Either that or they’ll just wait till June. The last Harry Potter comes out in July, so I don’t think they want too much competition. Iron Man II will also be coming out then. Possibly the next Batman, too, if they do a 3 year break.
We shall see.
Maybe this time May will be pushed to December like they did this time (only the other way around). Although I’d rather it come out in May 2011 than December 2011. Every 2 years though would be nice compared the usual 3-4 we had for the first 10.
#8 – Thor is releasing on May 20, 2011.
#9 – Spider-man 4 releases on May 6, 2011, so that’s definitely not going to work.
Why not a July 2011 release date ? That proved to be the hot hot month for movies.
I’d bet on May 13, 2011 (yes, Friday the 13th!). I suspect Batman Begins 3 will be aiming for June 29, 2011.
These are the release dates so far for 2011:
May
• Spider-Man 4 (Sony) – 5/6
• Thor (Par.) – 5/20
June
• Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom (P/DW) – 6/3
• Green Lantern (WB) – 6/17
• Cars 2 (BV) – 6/24
July
• Transformers 3 (P/DW) – 7/1
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part Two) (WB) – 7/15
• The First Avenger: Captain America (Par.) – 7/22
Batman probably wouldn’t be till the November/ December timeframe, if they go for 2011 on that one. My predicted date for the next Star Trek will be the July longweek that year, so June 29, 30, or July 1 (Depending on which day they open on).
It’ll definitely be June, then. They won’t touch May because of SM and Thor. And you’d have to be suicidal if you wanted to touch July…..
I think that ST2011 will work nicely along with other big movies of summer 2011.
Remember it wasnt that nemesis was released at the wrong time, it was that word of mouth buried it.
ST09 fought and got its fair share in 2009 and will do the same in 2011.
If the next two films are indeed shot back to back, It would make sense for the third to have a christmas 2011 release, just as zemekes did with the back to the future movies.
15,
I doubt they’ll go for late June, simply because of Transformers 3. Unfortunately, that’s been a money-sucking franchise, as where Trek is still coming back. My guess is Trek (1)2 will make around $500 million as where Transformers is able to grab $700+.
My guess is early June. Thus far, it’s only competition is Kung Fu Panda, which frankly, isn’t competition.
17,
Sorry if I’m on a roll today.
They probably won’t shoot back-to-back, simply because they’ve already said they want to wait to see if it’s successful to start the next. Bob/Alex said something along the lines of wanting it to be a standalone movie that COULD go into a sequel.
That really, REALLY annoys me. I can sit through the advertisement at the beginning of the video just fine, and THEN it comes on and says the video is not available in my region. I wouldn’t be as annoyed if it said that BEFORE I sat through the Coca-Cola ad.
All these dates…too confusing to keep track of!! As far as I can remember off-hand – Iron Man II in May of 2010, the final 2 installments of HP in July and December of 2010. Not sure about Batman, is it even in the works? The possible competition for summer 2011 includes Trans 3 (?) , X-Men Origins 2 (?) , and maybe more. We’ll see. I think Paramount should choose the date carefully though. As we saw with The Hangover, a film can benefit by scheduling.
But to change the subject for a minute: Have you noticed that Amazon has REDUCED their pre-order prices? The 3-disc BR is now $27.99! The 2-disc DVD is now $22.99! And the single disc DVD is now $16.99! According to Amazon, once you pre-order at a price, it will never go up, and may go even lower…….. so order multiple copies now! ;-)
Also, I think trekmovie.com may get some kind of credit or kick-back for orders referred from this site. Not sure about that, maybe Anthony can clarify this. It might be a nice way to support this site. You can place your order from the following link:
http://trekmovie.com/2009/07/24/star-trek-movie-blu-ray-dvd-packaging-bst-buy-gift-set-announced/
Sounds good to me. Maybe we all can flash forward and see the previews to the movie. Lol. Ok how about good ole fashen time travel to see the Movie. Ok. we can wait. Can’t wait to get the bits and pieces of the production and of corse hear all the whiners and complainers complain about the 2nd movie just like they did the 1st movie. Should be some more great times on TrekMovie.com
Hey hey, we’ve got a timeline. This is pretty far away, but my calendar will be marked. Very cool.
NO KHAN!!!
2011 kinda crowded.
#25 – “2011 kinda crowded.”
So was May ‘09. And Star Trek owned.
Here’s hoping….
#14 -
Thanks for the info. I got the HP dates/years mixed up. It seems to me that Memorial Day weekend, or the weekend before or after, look to be the best bets. Or it could be pushed back to Nov/Dec 2011, something we as fans don’t want, and apparently Paramount doesn’t want either…..
We need a date so we can dedicate every waking moment to the countdown.
A good price for a Blu ray freshly seems to be around $20. A good price on something in the market for a while is more like $15. I would be surprised if you can’t find the Blu ray for $23-27 the day of release with a little looking and maybe find it for around $20 one or two places that are trying to use the Blu Ray to lure customers into their store.
Think it’s probably going to be Nov ‘11
All I can say is. . .take a well-deserved vacation now, Anthony, ’cause if’n this is true, you are gonna get busy pdq! The site’s a little slower right now, after the flick’s been out and before the DVD kicks in, so head to the beach and recharge.
Transformers is a 2012 movie, Bay himself said that he didn’t want to rush it and he wanted to do something else before jumping back. Based on that, I’d say that’s the date they’d pick for 2 now that it’s a tentpole.
I hope the new movie jumps ahead so Kirk is Captain for a few years and hopefully comes up with a original adversary for Kirk. How about a battle with the Gorn? Or maybe a rock creature? Sorry, wrong movie…
See the Media yet again on the Khan thing! The Media hype is giving this life until opening day.
July 1st 2011.
Transformers 3 is Paramount, but we know that it’s not coming out until 2012 as Bay and co. are “taking a break”. I’m guessing Paramount is gonna do a little switcheroo with the titles as soon as ST is officially greenlighted.
Anyone else get the i’ve-got-a-bad-feeling-about-this vibe whenever Zoe talks about ST:SS and the production/writing team is not?
Boy, Zoe has gone to diplomacy classes.
Hey. When Zoe Talks. I Listen. No matter what she says.
she’s really cute. i like dat.
#6 the Dark Knight sequel is coming in summer 2012, 100% certain. Chris Nolan’s too busy with Inception right now.
Well let’s hope ST:SS can beat TMP worldwide take the next time around. I wonder if Paramount had delayed Trek overseas if the good word of mouth in the US might have helped foreign anticipation in the absence of Paramount’s weak marketing efforts.
The Hangover will pass Trek next weekend, dropping Trek to number 5 behind it and Harry Potter. We all knew HP, T2 and UP would likely beat Trek for the year, but seeing an R-rated adult comedy blow past Trek is really surprising and really puts Trek’s “legs” into perspective.
At day 52 with only one major holiday under its belt, The Hangover is almost a million dollars ahead of where Trek was and is still earning over twice as much as Trek was then in twice as many theatres. Hangover might earn $280M before it leaves the box office as it is generally performing better than Trek too. With a $35M budget, The Hangover is already paying for Terminator 4! With Trek’s $150M budget, and horrible foreign sales, Trek is relying on those DVDs to turn a profit.
What’s even more disappointing is that Transformers 2 has made over 1/3 more than Trek and is still outperforming it during the same period. The worst reviewed movie of the year may well hit a billion worldwide, well after the audiences have had enough time to figure out it sucks.
Trek got pulled out of too many theatres for dreck like Transformers and G-Force (shudder) to have multiple screens, so of course it stalled at the box office. Currently I’d have to drive nearly 4 1/2 hours to see it…and I’d LOVE to, but it’s just not practical. It would be extremely interesting to see how far Trek’s “legs” would have taken it IF seeing it was an option for more people right now.
#42 – Actually, no. Trek was already showing at half the theatres The Hangover currently is at the same point during its distribution (52 days), well before Transformers 2 and G-Force. Trek had no serious competition during the month of June, unlike The Hangover which has faced almost all the major films. But that’s all theoretical anyway. If you want to ask hypothetical questions, I would ask if Trek was doing so well in June, why did they start limiting its theatres when there was no need for additional screens for competing blockbuster films? Likewise, when so many other films are making so much more money, why has The Hangover kept its screens? Simply put, The Hangover appears to be making more money per screen than Trek did, outside of its opening weekend. And The Hangover won two consecutive weekends compared to Trek. There are so many other factors at play here, but like I said it is all theoretical. Simply looking at comparative box office earnings, it seems obvious Trek had a nice long run, but not nearly as good a performance to keep it in theatres as long as other films. Obviously you cannot blame Transformers 2 alone.
please!!!!!!!!!!!! no khan
I like this zoe girl
I would feel such pride for Star Trek if it went from left for dead to THE big Independence Day weekend blockbuster in less than a decade.
This may be the year where the movie critics finally get their pink slips from newspapers with declining revenues. Each critic is but one voice on a printed page. And because a film like Transformers 2 can gross $800m with universally bad reviews, it means that the reviewers are irrelevant. Because millions upon millions of viewers disagree with them, it makes them irrelevant as journalists. They are the one sad sack in a cinema filled with revelers.
Their criticisms hit home with an increasingly non-existent demographic. Fire ‘em.
Also, outside of technical awards, the Oscars tend to favor films outside of the mainstream. Now we’ll have 10 films up for nomination for “Best Film,” and we won’t have the guilt-ridden turn we had with ROTK a few years ago.
Instead, we’ll have all the big grossers read out loud with some fine small films..what’s that one about Iraq? That one will win, and the big guys will go, heads in hands, back to the studios, to count C-notes while the Iraq guys hope for a theatrical re-release and more independent funding for something new.
Ahh May 25th, thats my birthday, hopefully I’ll get to see this one on my birthday. Unlike the movie that came out on my 17th birthday. For those memory and math impaired, thats 1977 with that ugly movie Star Wars.
Who wants to help erase that 1977 records in ticket volume and total sales. I hope the opening will be as great as that Empire Destroyer flying over our heads.
Kahn would be a big big mistake, stay away from him to be the villian of the next movie. if they want a classic trek villian, do one of the ones who never got a big screen battle against kirk. Iam telling you Kor would be a great cinematic advesary for kirk and crew.
heck i would even prefer Trelane(but only if played by john de lanci) to kahn, but in all hoesty it should either be an original villian or one ot the classic klingons.
Bring on the Gorn!
Wow, yeah, if the next Batman comes out in may of 11 then you either have to go a month or so before or after, but sorry, as awesome as Star Trek is, if the next Batman is as epic as DK was, the next Star Trek wont stand a chance.
Star Trek really is pulling up to the top again. With the release of the 2011 sequel, it could be better.
Star Trek: Snirkle Snirkle out May 2011 sounds about right
what about Indy 5? isnt that due out 2011 too? ive a feeling we’re gonna hear news pretty soon about that
im guessing WBros would want Batman 3 for a summer release and i cant see it coming out amougst FOUR comic book films in 2011 so it’ll prob be summer 2012
and what of another Superman? guess thatd be either summer 2012 or xmas 2012 or summer 2013
NO KHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I would say April or 1st week of May..though T4 and A/D did poorly at the BOX, they certainly cut into sales those 2 to 4 weeks when they came out…
Potter and Transformers in July would certainly be hard to compete against…
and it would “appear” that it will be “Khan” though they have said all the right things to say he will not be in the next feature…
Joker worked for DK….a dark brooding Khan could certainly work for TREK 2 or 12 or whatever?….
35. siphunclekaiju54 – July 27, 2009
July 1st 2011.
Transformers 3 is Paramount, but we know that it’s not coming out until 2012 as Bay and co. are “taking a break”. I’m guessing Paramount is gonna do a little switcheroo with the titles as soon as ST is officially greenlighted.
————————————————————-
So, 1701 on 07/01/11? Sounds good to me!
=A=
kahn sucked as a villain…
id rather have baku them kahn.
I’d rather have *KHAN* in the film just for people to remember to spell his name K-H-A-N!
PS: It’s Khan not “Kahn”
In any case if I were the producers I’d take the advice of some here with a huge pinch of salt because if they had listened to a lot of the feedback while the current film was in production it would have been nowhere near the success it is now. I have faith JJ & Co. will make the right choices again.
Anyone else been noticing how much Orci uses the word “organic” in every interview they give when it comes to their writing and how they approach their movies??? I’ve lost count. Quinto even used it in an interview. Every time I hear Orci say “organic”, it’s almost like a child hearing a new big “adult” word, and they can’t stop using it themselves to impress people. Like it’s some creative or “artsy” word that makes them good writers.
I hope that their overuse of the word isn’t a sign that they’ve run out of original and thoughtful material (i.e. Transformers 2.. what an “organic” mess)
Buy a Thesaurus.
Nah, 2011 should feature the crossover film “Indiana Jones and the Quest for Kirk’s Girdle” to give the Shat some more big-screen time…
I just hope that in this movie we’ll see the return of the woefully overlooked Doctor M’Benga.
59. Simon wrote: “I have faith JJ & Co. will make the right choices again.”
Are there truly any “right” choices when it comes to Star Trek?
I think it’s clear that many Trek fans who enjoyed this film felt there were a lot of wrong choices. Yet the sum total was a “good” film. Some think this is the best film ever made, some hate it, but the vast majority are right down the middle, albeit one side or the other. Now that they’re talking sequel the vast majority of Trek fans are saying: O.K. you pulled it off, but this was wrong and that was wrong, you need to fix it for the next movie or we will be disappointed and won’t be back.
I don’t believe there is a single Trek fan who won’t be back for the sequel, just like I don’t believe there was not a single Trek fan who won’t see ST09. So who will Abrams be making choices for? Will most of the decisions be geared toward pleasing a general audience? And if so, are those right choices for Trek fans? My guess is, the film will be made for people who don’t particularly care about Trek and are just looking for an action-packed space flick. As long as they don’t make too many wrong choices for Trek fans, the film should be good and do well.
Afterall, did Trek fans really want to see Spock die? Did they want to see a story about whales? Did they want to see Vulcan destroyed? If put to a vote, I bet the result would have been no. Yet those are among the most successful in the franchise.
I don’t have as much faith in JJ as you do though. He does not have a good track record with franchises. He usually wows the audience with a successful pilot episode then the series go into a long slow death spiral. Whether he makes the “right” choices for Trek is ultimately going to be a matter of opinion.
Trek is back doing as well as it was in the early 80s. Nevertheless, over the last 20 years, Trek earned a steady profit for Paramount based on ROI, until Nemisis, the only film where the domestic gross didn’t earn as much as its budget. This is because Trek made movies based on what most fans consider the heart of the series to be: the exploration of the human spirit and philosophical ideas, which in the end is best left for TV. But these movies took the place of television, at least until Generations, when they mostly became redundant. Now there is no television and fans are clamoring for that same exploratory exposition as the series which is at the heart of Trek. But chances are they won’t get it anytime soon. So, is that the right choice? It may make more money for Paramount, but it may also backfire with general audiences who grow tired of redundant space battles and explosions with the same old characters. The original fans were enough to support slower expositional films like TSFS, TFF, TUC, Generations, and Insurrection. The difference is, it cost $150 million to make ST09, but around only a third the cost to make the others. The gross box office was less, but the ROI was probably the same or better and Paramount got all the profit, not needing investment partners to make the film. In the end it sustained Trek at the box office for 20 years. It was only when Paramount accepted the status quo and made too many wrong choices that the franchise began to die.
Are we better off now? That’s the real question. Either way, Trek will never go away. It will never be dead and buried, just crucified and resurrected from time-to-time.
@60
I hear you! I was thinking the same thing about the overuse of the word “organic” by the cast. I have heard LM and ZQ using it so many times I am beginning to wonder what it really means.
I wonder at which point the comments or responses of the cast about the new movie will become consistent. ZS is reported to have said the script is “half done”, ZQ is reported to have said it is not even started…..LOL
Oh well, I think we are all too excited wating for the next ST movie, I just hope it delivers. I would rather the writers take the time to make sure the script is great and cohesive rather than just put together any old thing just to get the next movie into the theatre.
I am of the opinion that they should delve into new territory and move away from past storylines, and let’s see Lt. Uhura kick some major ass this time, she is worth more to the ST story than just to be Spock’s lover.
Anthony wrote “Although the pre-production for the fist new Star Trek movie lasted around nine months, the second one should go much faster as there will be much less casting and much of the production design, construction, costumes, etc is already completed.”
But Anthony – they still have to design and build an Engineering section!
Correction to 63
I meant “LN” as is Leonard Nimoy not LM.
#62 – For today’s ADD theatrical audience you will need some action component. Orci/Kurtzman have shown they can write action pretty well.
To a lot of people, this is a new franchise, their first exposure to TREK. I don’t think they’ll get tired of space battles, especially since the first film you really had the Kelvin getting pounded, the Enterprise clearing a path for the Jellyfish and then finishing off the Narada and that’s about it.
As for a more cerebral exploratory theme I think that’s best left to a TV series setting where you can have the kind of development and patience it can require.
As far as ROI goes, the other films may have had more, but they lacked scope and production value. TNP came close but 1/3 of the way through it became a bottle show with great space/V’Ger backgrounds. These days most people don’t want to pay $12.50 to see something with less production value than many TV shows.
#63 “Are there truly any ‘right’ choices when it comes to Star Trek?”
Well, I can tell you there sure are wrong ones, and this movie made far fewer of those than any Trek I’ve seen in ages! I think bringing in fresh creative blood, not playing it safe and making something that looked like a tv movie, and most importantly, going back to the original series characters, were all very much “right choices.”
“Are we better off now? That’s the real question.”
I can say with certainty that I am! Star Trek, for me and a lot of other people, became less interesting after TUC and Generations; the exit of my favorite characters. Then 10 years after that the whole damn franchise flatlined! Now Trek is back, bigger than I ever thought possible, and with Kirk and Spock and Spock Prime at the center of it all. Yes, I am better off!
#68 – all good points, but my question about being better off was not about TNG vs. TOS. It was about, all things being equal, making movies on a smaller scope that allowed for more exploratory stories rather than ones with a lot of action and explosions. Trek satisfied many fans up until First Contact, even with its box-office flops (TFF & GEN). Trek was thriving and mostly pleasing its fan base, albeit on a smaller scale. Now the budgets have tripled, requiring it to draw larger audiences outside the fan base and changing the nature of the stories it might tell to entertain them and keep them. You can say those films had a limited TV scope, but I never noticed it. Most of those films was at their heart a good and entertaining Trek story. In the end that isn’t what killed it, but rather a complete disconnect between making a good movie or series and pandering to the fans –– stagnating the formula for making Trek in the mire of the 90s rather than coming up with something new to tantalize the imagination. While I am thrilled to have stories told about Kirk, Spock & McCoy again, I will mourn the loss of “boring” pseudo-intellectual dialogue which defines Trek for me. Some of the writing in TUC & First Contact is among the best in the franchise. It’s simply too bad that the audience isn’t allowed, or even wants to think for even 5 minutes in a film anymore without several explosions.
RD, I agree with you 100%. Star Trek was never meant to be an action series, and the more they put in the recent movies, the more it soils it. First Contact and TUC were not simply action, they were very compelling aside from that. Plus the action was not over the top. The scifi movie that of course got the balance perfectly was the first Star Wars. I gave J.J.’s movie a pass this time on the lack of substance, but another action bonanza without a story and, like Transformers 2, the criticisms will mount.
#41, 43 –
I think you need to take into account timing of release, size of release, and genre.
Trek opened a week after Wolverine’s big opening. It sucked, but continued to eat up theater counts weeks after it should have. Then the following week A+D opened at large theater counts. The following week T:S and NATM opened, both with large theater counts. The next week UP opened….etc. Of the four, I would say Wolverine, A+D, and T:S were direct competion for Trek.
“Trek had no serious competition during the month of June, unlike The Hangover which has faced almost all the major films.”
This quote implies that Trek had no competition in MAY, when it opened, and that Hangover had fierce competion in June, when it opened. Land of the Lost, Imagine That, and The Proposal were hardly competing for the same audience. The other “big” films were already on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th weeks.
Again, the success of Hangover is due to timing, size of release, and genre. It was released after the big May rush and before the July rush, thus more theaters available. And it had NO competition in it’s genre. Had Will Farrell done “Talledega Nights 2″ instead of LOTL we wouldn’t even be talking about Hangover……..
69 When and if Trek returns to the small screen, you will get your wish for talky intimate shows. The cinema audience wants spectacle and I believe they are right to expect it. Roddenberry was never Tarkovsky or Jodorowsky.
That said, I think that ST09 was replete with “big idea” themes about destiny, justice, and nature vs. nurture, but told in a kinetic fashion. Intellectualism is not obscurantism.
No ChakaKHAN! ChakaKHAN!!!
NO KHAN!!
71. Brian Kirsch wrote: “This quote implies that Trek had no competition in MAY, when it opened, and that Hangover had fierce competion in June, when it opened.
No, you inferred that. If I was not clear I apologize but what was intended was this … a comparison between Trek’s second month to Hangover’s second month. May to June and June to July respectively. There were no major films for Trek to run up against in June yet, it lost more theatres than The Hangover has lost in the same time frame, in July, going up against Transformers and Harry Potter. I was addressing specifically #42. mdbchud’s contention that “Trek got pulled out of too many theatres for dreck like Transformers and G-Force”. Yet if that’s the case, why did Hangover not get pulled from theaters to make room for more screens? Because it is performing better. That was my point. As for competition and genre, I saw way too many pre-teens in my Sunday afternoon screening of Hangover (mostly girls at that), which made me more than a little uncomfortable and also explains some of the box office.
Nevertheless it does say something that this “genere” film is doing so much better, opening weekend notwithstanding, when you consider Hangover is not a multiple screening kinda movie. People typically see it once, whereas, every Trek fan has seen Trek twice and a large percentage upwards of 4-8 times, or more. Meaning, Hangover has a much larger audience seeing it.
I personally didn’t think it was a more entertaining movie and I certainly didn’t get the $250M+ hype.
72. Never thought I’d see Jodorowsky or Tarkovsky mentioned on this site. Good job.
Also…agreed.
It seems more and more likely there will be a new TV series in development within the next 12 months. I just hope if they must do another gimmicky timeframe, they decide to go way back and do something involving the eugenic wars. That would be mostly STINO (Star Trek in name only) but it would still be better than most other crap on television.
The new series would probably not be the Kirk Enterprise crew since they seem to be set up for 3 or 4 more movies.
What are some other possibilities? Gary Seven? Mirror Universe? USS Titan? DS9 ver 2.0?
.
Why not a sequel? They already wiped out everything that came before. TOS through Nemesis is nothing but a big lie now, as none of those episodes or movies will never have happened now that JJ altered the timeline and eradicated 40 years of continuity that takes place after it (Following the laws of time travel set by Star Trek itself. Spock only survives because he was there when the change hit)
#72. Yammer wrote: The cinema audience wants spectacle and I believe they are right to expect it. Roddenberry was never Tarkovsky or Jodorowsky.
Your statement implies that audiences and/or Trek fans only go to the theatre to witness a spectacle. I do not think you speak for either all theatre going audiences or the majority of Trek fans. The fact that films like “(500) Days of Summer” which is making over half a million dollars a day at only 85 theatres, refutes that. While it is true that spectacles tend to make the most money, my question was merely whether we as fans want a bigger blockbuster success with more spectacle, or a modest box office with more of the traditional aspects of Trek. Many posts on this forum alone have indicated that while this film was well liked, the overall directive has been: let’s get back to Trek’s “cerebral” roots.
Also, I NEVER said Rodenberry was anything of the kind. In fact I used the term psuedo-intellectualism on purpose to describe what goes on in Trek. Just like the psuedo-science which parades for technology. To even suggest I was comparing Roddenberry to a Krzysztof Kieślowski or even Ingmar Bergman, is ridiculous.
#72. Yammer wrote: That said, I think that ST09 was replete with “big idea” themes about destiny, justice, and nature vs. nurture, but told in a kinetic fashion.
No one is denying these things were not present in the film. In fact the exact same argument can be made for Transformer’s 2. And I’m tired of this argument because it misses the point entirely, which is, the ratio in which these topics were given importance on screen was much lower than in “traditional” Trek. The emphasis was given to explosions and “car chases”. When ST09’s intellectual virtues are highlighted, it is often with the admonishment “if you look closely”, to which I say if I have to look closely then those aspects of Trek are not given nearly enough screen time.
All one has to do is look to The Cage to see what Star Trek is all about. Like NBC, the general public would tend to dismiss the story as too cerebral. I think Roddenberry got the mix just about right when he produced WNMHGB and subsequently got his pick-up. While TMP was too much The Cage, TWOK and the best of the rest drew on WNMHGB. While I’m not advocating a return to Roddenberry’s “pure” vision, I am questioning whether the Transformer’s approach serves the franchise best, even at the box office.
78
But (500) Days of Summer is spectacular, or at least gimmicky; it is sprightly and even has a special fx sequence! Also, while it purports not to be a love story, it is a feel-good movie celebrating love (albeit by comically excoriating its deluded protagonist), with a whimsical tone throughout.
My point is that Trek is expected to be fun, big and bold. While I believe that you can do interior drama successfully in Trek (”there…are…FOUR lights!”), these expectations are reasonable. And do not negate the need for intelligent writing.
As for having to look closely at themes, what of it? As a movie critic, I despise movies that cast their themes into bold relief, for the edification of the chillins. It is actually sign of maturity and sophistication that Trek09 avoided the stock wise exposition character, a Dumbledore, overtly telling us the moral of the story. The Big Ideas were instead written directly into the action — we see the destruction of Romulus and therefore implicitly understand why he went insane and needs revenge, which, tragically, he can only take out on the innocent. This is far more motivation than villains normally get, and yet one reads in reviews of the underwritten role. If the FX were less mesmerizing, then the Big Ideas would have stood out more. I’ll take that trade ten times out of ten.
That should have been to 77
Anyway, what is so cerebral about the Cage? It is only cerebral in comparison to what NBC wanted at the time, which was another Lost In Space.
I think The Cage would be an excellent movie, suitably upgraded with FX.
(Not a plea for a Cage remake, just making a point.)
#79. I don’t disagree with you about The Cage at all. But it is an entirely different movie than ST09. The problem here is with the semantics by which you define “spectacle”. Since I have no way to calibrate your definitions I’ll leave it at that.
I certainly am not advocating spoon feeding the morals to people. Certainly The Omega Glory is all we need mention to quash that kind of thinking. But to my mind, The Cage is more of what Star Trek is about. As for cerebral, there was a LOT more talking in that episode than there was action. The plot literally involved the mind, which the giant heads of the aliens only emphasized. Had Abrams made The Cage instead of Mission-Impossible-III-in-space, I guarantee it would have grossed nowhere near its current box office.
However, to my original point, it would have most likely earned as well as previous installments in the franchise and pleased as many fans and certainly cost a lot less to make. Paramount could have still made a profit and then a sequel, and kept going like that for at least a decade.
But that is not what Paramount wants, nor was that what they wanted in 1979 – they wanted Star Wars! But it’s what they got and by and large they learned to live with Roddenberry’s legacy until the steady, if not huge, money flow ran out. With a chance to reboot it, they can turn Trek into Transformers and GI:Joe – audiences seem to embrace it.
That’s all well and good for Paramount, but I’m not sure it serves Trek the best for the fans who have sustained it for 40 years. I’m not saying Enterprise or TNG movies were the way to go either, but surely there’s some middle ground?
80
I’m totally in agreement with you that The Cage is definitive Trek. Where we are quibbling is in whether Trek09 has the qualities of pleasing mental stimulation that you attribute to The Cage.
We’re only in disagreement about the popcorn movie aspects, or what I called spectacle. By spectacle, I mean quantities of screen time in which visually impressive, usually very expensive things are happening. Surely, Trek is expected to be spectacular.
I don’t think spectacle — car chases, things blowing up — negates what you deem to be the traditional aspects of Trek, which in your view (post 69) amounts to talkiness.
Talkiness is not the hallmark of intelligent filmmaking: Sex and the City or Mamma Mia! are all talk, and are dopey populism at its dopiest.
What we need and expect from Trek, being the adventures of a group of extremely well-educated people, is good dialogue, not just the purely functional “oh my god look at that!” or “no no no no!” chatter of movies like Transformers.
On that basis, Trek09 is plenty smart enough, with pithy quotable dialogue, true moral dilemnas, and a plot that required the captain(s) to make hard smart choices, e.g. to rendevous with the fleet or to turn and face Nero.
The Cage was an enjoyable show, because of its mind-f-ing aspects (what, hallucinations are realistic?) but ultimately Pike makes no particularly interesting choices. He is in a cage, he breaks out.
The Menagerie is more interesting because he goes back to the cage!!!
#81 – you may well like the film more than I do. For my money, they mere fact there was no briefing room set (a staple of the series from the beginning) demonstrates how little interest the filmmakers had in dialogue. Without going into a bullet-point list, there are numerous objections to some minor as well glaring plotholes in this film … holes which would have been filled better in the style of Trek 1-6. Where were the scenes where the characters simply sat and talked about philosophy? Where Dr. Boyce consoles his Captain in his quarters? Where Bones and Kirk drink Romulan Ale together? I certainly don’t equate conversation with intelligent filmmaking. I think the level to which they took it in TNG era, especially with the technobabble and ultimately in Enterprise, where few of the actors could even speak a coherent sentence regardless of its content. There is a balance to be had, and I will contend that ST09 is out of balance. The dialogue you deem pithy and smart enough struck me as merely veneer. There were no exchanges of ideas or exploration of morals, much less the motives behind the ideals, but merely the barest minimums to convey the general ideas and propel the plot. I perceived very little internal struggle with these characters who all seemed absolutely certain about what they must do, until they weren’t. I will be curious to see if the trend continues in the next film, or improves.
They better get it going soon!!!! I can’t wait to see what they come out with next…I am getting them all!!!! GO STAR TREK!!!!!!