Star Trek Sequel Writers Planning For 2012 Release |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Sequel Writers Planning For 2012 Release October 17, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Earlier this week TrekMovie reported that, based on the Paramount’s release slate and the schedules of the filmmakers, the chances of a Star Trek sequel in 2011 were shrinking. Now comes the first (sort of) confirmation of this, with comments from screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman made at the Screenwriting Expo held in Los Angeles this week. More details below


Star Trek 12 in 2012?
The comments come from a brief interview with, where Roberto Orci noted they are still in research mode, but regarding the timing he stated:

Orci: We think it’s going to be a 2012 release, but I’m not sure.

His writing partner went further noting:

Kurtzman: Originally we thought we were going to have to have the script in by Christmas, but the release changed so certainly within the next eight months I’d say

This comes as no surprise, as noted in articles recently at TrekMovie, Paramount already have four ‘tentpole’ releases lined up for the Summer of 2011 (Thor, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Transformers 3). That summer only has a couple of open weekends, with the rest full of major films, including films from the Spider-man, Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter franchises. Plus both the film makers, and the film stars have very busy schedules, with their 2010 plans filling up quickly (especially Chris Pine and JJ Abrams).

A two year gap, while not uncommon, is still a short time frame between franchise films. Three out of ten of the Star Trek sequels had a two year gap(Star Trek III , Star Trek First Contact, and Star Trek Insurrection). Most of the rest had 2 1/2 year gaps or longer, with the longest being 6 1/2 years (between Nemesis and Star Trek 2009). 

Increases chances of Abrams directed sequel
In addition to giving the team more time to prepare the film, 2012 also increases the likelihood that JJ Abrams would return to direct. In his interview with TrekMovie in May, Abrams made it clear that he would not want to direct two Star Trek movies back to back, preferring to do something in between. In his Q&A last week, Abrams stated that he hopes to direct another movie in 2010 which he is writing now. That film can be his ‘in between’ film, allowing him to return to Star Trek in 2011.

TrekMovie will have more on the Star Trek sequel as news becomes available.


1. That One Guy - October 17, 2009


I’m not happy about having to wait longer, but hopefully it’ll be better this way.

2. an old codger myself - October 17, 2009

It WAS looking more and more obvious that either they were being very secretive or the film would not be ready in 2011. Oh well, as long as it is good!

3. NL-NaeZ - October 17, 2009

“Paramount already have four ‘tentpole’ releases lined up for the Summer of 2011 (Thor, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Transformers 2).”

I suppose it is Transformers 3???

On-topic: I don’t have a problem with a release in 2012… Just let Star Trek 12 be a good movie as Star Trek 11, if not… even better!! Write a nice script.. And I will be waiting for 2012 !!!

4. antodav - October 17, 2009

So they ARE making a Pirates of the Caribbean 4. Well, unless Keira Knightly, Johnny Depp, and Orlando Bloom are in it, it’s probably not worth it. Also, Captain America? I can’t see that movie working in the Age of Obama. 5 years ago sure, but not today, unless Captain America is declared an outlaw and a renegade, Dark Knight style.

As far as STXII goes, let them wait until 2013 if they have to. Releasing a new Trek movie every 2 years was part of what contributed to Trek fatigue in the late ’90s/early 2000s. Let’s not make the same mistake again. Besides, waiting another year gives them more time to perfect the special effects, like it did with the first movie. Once I have the Blu-Ray in my hands, I should be able to survive.

5. stephen whelan - October 17, 2009

I think we all want another film ASAP but this way they can take their time and come up with a much better film. I for one am thankful for the 2012 release…just make it a good one guys.

6. NL-NaeZ - October 17, 2009

@ 4 antodav:

Captain America is a prequel to the Avengers-movie that will come out somewhere in 2013 (I could be wrong, maybe later or earlier).. Iron-Man 2 also is a prequel to that movie… You could be right about Captain America.. Then again, the question remains: who will play the Cap?

7. Captain Jack Bauer - October 17, 2009

Sounds okay to me. I’d prefer if they’d leave TF3 ’til 2012 as well, but I guess that’s not too likely.

Taking your time to get it right is better than rushing it out.

However, it would be nice if the DVD release was bumped up a little.

8. sean - October 17, 2009

As with the delay from Christmas to May, I think this will simply give them more time to fine tune their ideas. I say it’s a good thing, even if it means a longer wait.

9. Van Ness Gate - October 17, 2009

If true, this site is going to have a lot less to report on. During the last movie, Trekmovie also had the TOS remastering project to report on. Now, there’s absolutely nothing major going on in the Trek universe beside the movie to fill the next three years.

10. ttuthill - October 17, 2009

It’s good to know Star Trek is in good hands.

Pete Jackson can release an Epic like Lord of the Rings, with Directors cuts with an additional forty minutes per film and we can’t get a regular Star Trek film out of these gents till 2012.

Not only that CBS does not want to leverage the new success and would rather launch Hawaii Five-O rather than moving on Star Trek.

They also have a Star Trek MMO coming out that they do not want to take any direct control over and would rather Syfy beat them to the Tv-Show MMO concept.

I just have no faith in the people who control Star Trek anymore. They have one of the greatest properties in history and they have no idea how to leverage any of it.


11. Kirk's Kid - October 17, 2009

As long as it comes out before December 21, 2012. I want to see it before the world ends.

12. ety3 - October 17, 2009

Like most, I’d love to have the next film tomorrow, if possible, but another year for them to work on it means another year for them to do it up right.

13. Smilin Bob - October 17, 2009

Hope this 3 yr period works better for them than it did from 1986-1989…going from save the whales to…God.

14. Adam E - October 17, 2009

So if the actors signed on for 3 films. How long does the studio have to film the next 2 movies before the 3 film deal is void?

15. NFXstudios - October 17, 2009

Look at it this way… the “ADD-addled, pre-pubescent, angst-ridden, ridlin poster child teenbopping 90210″ cast will be another year older.

16. OneBuckFilms - October 17, 2009

Lets get it right. They made a superb first movie, now they have the time to relax, get some healthy distance, engage the fans for longer, and get things more polished right from the start.

Get it right, not fast.

17. Vulcan Fury - October 17, 2009

They say probably 2012, but normally things get pushed back it seems, for marketing reasons, writers strikes, unforeseen delays… whatever. I wish they’d shoot for 2011 and settle for 2012. In the meantime, how about a new Star Trek t.v. series???

18. sean - October 17, 2009

With 3 years to make a sequel that should give them enough time to build an engineering set:)

19. 'Goddamnit' - October 17, 2009

2012?? Well I suppose we will have to wait whether or not we want to!!! I loved the last one!! And i will wait as patiently as i can!

20. Jason - October 17, 2009

The article forgot the two year gap between Generations and First Contact. Don’t mind a three year gap, especially if the rumours of the next two films are being filmed back to back are true, then we might have the third film in 2013. Plus, I hate the feeling I had watching the latest Bond or Transformers films, where it felt like I was just at the theatre watching the last film when I was watching the new one.

21. cd - October 17, 2009

13 – Hopefully they can do better than the bad mashup/ripoff of Star Wars that this one was.

22. RD - October 17, 2009

#4. antodav wrote: “Releasing a new Trek movie every 2 years was part of what contributed to Trek fatigue in the late ’90s/early 2000s.”

Considering that there were only two films released in that time frame, and they were 4 years apart, your theory doesn’t quite hold water. In fact, looking at the actual history of Trek releases, it suggests a gap of more than 2.5 years will cause the movie to fail.

As for many of the comments that suggest taking their time will result in a much better film, well I respectfully disagree. The amount of time between a film has little to do with the quality or performance of a film. There were exactly 2.5 years between TSFS and TVH and 2.5 years between TVH and TFF – both drastically different results. WIth the 3 full years between TFF and Generations, the result was marginally better. However, with only 2 years between GEN & First Contact the result was an overwhelming success.

On the other hand, the longer it takes to get a film to screen, the more likely the new audience will have forgotten about it and lost interest. Also less-likely is getting the original cast back together as they commit to more and more projects in the interim. There is also the looming possibility that Paramount may merge with another studio who does not have the same priority for Ster Trek. The budget could be affected by financial difficulties for the studio during the additional time. The current writer’s contract is due to expire again in May 2011 along with the actors and directors this time, and their issues are far from resolved. And, the longer the creative team has to work on the script and the film, the more likely they could be sidetracked by other projects and lose focus, or come up with new ideas and attempt to shoe-horn them into the film in a less effective way because the project is not as immediate for them.

All things considered, it is always best to strike while the iron is hot.

23. Anthony Pascale - October 17, 2009

sorry, yes there were three previous trek movies with two year gaps, FC also had one.

here is full list

Movie – Year gap
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – 2.5
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock – 2.0
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home – 2.5
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier – 2.5
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country – 2.5
Star Trek: Generations – 3.0
Star Trek: First Contact – 2.0
Star Trek: Insurrection – 2.1
Star Trek: Nemesis – 4.0
Star Trek – 6.4

24. I am not Herbert - October 17, 2009

10. ttuthill: “…the people who control Star Trek … have one of the greatest properties in history and they have no idea how to leverage any of it.”

Well, from a (true) FAN perspective, no. From a business perspective, yes. $$$

They are going for the quantity audience (dollars), rather than quality (intelligence). …reality bites… =(

It will indeed be a tragedy if they don’t make the Star Trek: Kelvin TV series…

25. somethoughts - October 17, 2009

but the world is ending in 2012, darn Mayans, are those underground cities ready yet?

26. David J - October 17, 2009

I’m okay with it, but I’m also a bit surprised. The movie was such a huge success you’d think Paramount would jump at getting a sequel out faster.

27. VorpalK - October 17, 2009

We need a new Trek TV series before then.

28. I am not Herbert - October 17, 2009

…here’s something they could do right now, that would be pretty cool IMHO:

Star Trek: The Animated Series REMASTERED

…use the original voice work, but do all-new TOS style Dreamworks 3D animation / direction / cinematics / sound effects and other cool stuff that the medium makes possible!

…maybe even make some new episodes…?

29. Will_H - October 17, 2009

I wouldnt imagine Transformers 3 will take long to write. Script: robots fighting, things blow up, dork kid manages to keep Megan Fox as a girl friend, more explosions, etc. I dont see how Kung Fu Panda 2 is considered important at all. But I guess its not the end of the world, still sucks, though. I think it would make more sense to push MI:IV back a year because that would make a lot less people angry than pushing Star Trek XII back.

30. Bill - October 17, 2009

Well personally, ST XI was supposed to be in 2008. People bitched. We waited and the result. Legen… wait for it…. dary! Assumptions were 2010 now 2011. I can wait. But please don’t make me wait too long, my son loved ST XI, I don’t want him to be 17 when the next one comes out. Just for the record he is 4 now.

Please no Khan. If you worried about fanboys before, oh my god, could imagine?

31. MDSHiPMN - October 17, 2009


I have a feeling the next movie will blow away the first one, no matter the wait. With the characters established I think we will get to see some classic stuff.

Pine and Quinto are gold.

32. Disappointed - October 17, 2009

2012 is too long.

Orci, Kurtman and Abrams knew long ago they were wanted for Trek XII and yet they took on a ton of work, and now find themselves all booked up.

Paramount should find other writers and/or another director if these guys are not going to take the job seriously and get the movie out by 2011.

33. toddk - October 17, 2009

Looking at it from a bottom line standpoint..Retelling and re-imagining space seed will insure hefty profits….Star trek “2” 1982 will be the second half of star trek 12. we could see khan’s criminal acts and trial in the 1990’s through flashback as khan tells his story to chekov..who’s face will never be forgotten again…

Chekov, who is this man? A criminal captain, a product of late 20th century genetic engineering…Sir! I demand that…you are in no position to demand anything..I on the other hand am in a position to grant nothing……..

I want khan, because khan can keep the franchise alive and profitable..and it has amazing tie-in potential.

I’d like to see janice rand and kevin riley added for at least one movie

34. BOOZBA - October 17, 2009

#31-Well said my friend!

35. BOOZBA - October 17, 2009

#33-Please no Khaaaaaaaaan! Let’s be original!!!

36. siphunclekaiju54 - October 17, 2009

I’m glad they won’t be rushed. Having more time to make a quality film is better than just cranking out another one.

37. Disappointed - October 17, 2009

Movies planned for 2011: Thor, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, Transformers 3, Spider-man, Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter


On second thought, after looking at the lineup of mega hit movies already scheduled for 2011, perhaps it is best ST come out in 2012.

38. Janson Tycho - October 17, 2009

i dont mind waiting for the release, i say take another year and get it perfect. i agree with the no Khan idea, but i think Christine Chapel and Janice Rand should show up and have like, small roles, but notable ones…and no whales, and no God…but yes Leonard Nimoy, and Bruce Greenwood (now Admiral Pike)

39. 30 days left until ST out on Blu ray! - October 17, 2009

Bruce Greenwood was excellent.

40. I am not Herbert - October 17, 2009

I have to agree w/ #33… it seems a no-brainer… How ’bout this:

a Bad Robot Production

directed by Guillermo del Toro

staring Javier Bardem as Khan Noonien Singh

co-staring Brent Spiner as Dr. Arik Soong

co-staring Rosario Dawson as Lt. Marla McGivers

STAR TREK II: Khan’s Genesis

41. I am not Herbert - October 17, 2009

I know… too crazy…

I hear Guillermo del Toro will be doing “Dr. Strange”!

…should be pretty sweet!! =D

42. I am not Herbert - October 17, 2009

…this reminds me… any updates on:

Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey movie?


43. Harry Ballz - October 17, 2009



Paramount should release a new Trek film every two years like clockwork!

As usual they are wasting the potential of a reinvigorated franchise!

I’m sick of morons running Hollywood!

Why can’t someone with talent be allowed to lead the way for once???

44. Syn4Ever - October 17, 2009

Damn you Paramount! I want my movie!
Some believe the whole 2012 date is just meant to be an awakening and or a realization of some sort for mankind… maybe this movie will help usher that in! :) wishful thinking

45. Mel - October 17, 2009

I only hope that the movie won’t be in the summer, regardless of the year. There is so much good competition at that time. Why not in the first quarter of 2012? With worse competition, it will get a lot of the film-goers then. That will be probably more than a smaller part in the summer.

I also think that the summer is not necessarily the best cinema time for the whole world. In Germany it is for example often the case, that people don’t go to the cinema, if the weather is good. They do then more outside activities. Perhaps that is somewhere else so, too. And even if not, it is outside of the USA, where Star Trek is not so popular, even more important, that there aren’t so many other good films at the same time in the cinemas. I really don’t understand why film studios show all their blockbusters in the summer.

46. SChaos1701 - October 18, 2009

No TV series!

47. Spockish - October 18, 2009

The important part of STM:12 is the quality of the script. If only this second edition of the New Version of Star Trek would give 4 more movies engery to be created, it does not matter to me the time span. As for those who say it needs to be done faster an sooner, all I can say is those addicts most likely bitch the same way to their drug suppliers.

I desire quality not time endued limitations in the product. The only time limits I’d access is before we forget about the dreams of Star Trek and they become reality. The only other thing that coulf place time limits is if we find life out there, and when we do the whole personna of humanity will change, and may be even head hunters may then start watching Star Trek.

48. Moonwatcher - October 18, 2009

By that time they should have ponyed up enough money to build an actual “Starfleet- looking” engineering room. : )

49. locutus - October 18, 2009

2012 is gonna be an awsome summer, Thor, Cap, ST 2! and then hobbit at xmas!

50. Enc - October 18, 2009

i think it was a BIG misunderstang if im not worng.
that just cause some people have a multi picture deal dosent mean they are ALL trek films. it dependes on the individual contracts. usualy they come back for the sequel or do other projects if this movie sucks. or they could buy out the contract. dont know of any time limits.

??? what happened to the Sulu tv show with the Excelsior :)..

i say dont touch anything from the other trekls. do something original.

part of what made khan, Khan was the actor. So for the sake of argument , just who would we find today to play such a role ? WHO I ask you.


so who plays gary seven ?

51. shadow - October 18, 2009

I think Captain America will be good, or I hope it will be good… They need to just do a movie about the Marvel Civil War, that was some epic content with Cap and Spidey.

Really? Kung Fu Panda 2 is one of the 4 tentpoles in 2011? REALLY?

I can’t wait for more Trek, another year is going to be torture! Ever since Trek went off the air, I’ve been watching other sci-fi franchises like Stargate and Doctor Who, and quite honestly I think BattleStargate UniverseGalatica isn’t living up to what I wanted it to be, i.e. another Stargate show and not Battlestar Galactica without any of the action. And with Doctor Who not releasing a new season until next year, I’m dying. I need a certain amount of good sci-fi with an in-depth mythos on my tv or else I get bored.

52. Hat Rick - October 18, 2009

How come there’s no tab at the top of this page for “Star Trek (2012 film)”?

53. Lope de Aguirre - October 18, 2009

I wish the next Trek movie would incorparate Q.
The “Supreme Court” is Trek fandom-wise mostly focused on TOS + TNG so why not bring those together?

It doesn’t matter if the new Trek line is an alternate reality or not.
Q could like Kirk be the alternate Q or better Q Prime.
I guess Q should have the ability to switch in all quantum realities as he wishes.

And I think John de Lancie would be awailable for a big Trek movie.

Bringing in Q Prime would be one way of making another appearance of Leonard Nimoy reasonable.
I also enjoyes the two Alien Voices episodes with Q and Spock.
I wished they had made the third TNG movie a Dominion War flic and the last one a Q movie but till this never happened I still want a movie appearance of de Lancie as Q.

54. Holger - October 18, 2009

I wouldn’t even mind if they delayed this sequel until infinity.

55. ChristopherPike - October 18, 2009

Make an Romulan War TV mini-series to tide fans over… celebrating ENT’s 10th Anniversary in 2011.

Then ‘Star Trek: Something Something’ in 2012 can take its cue from TOS episode 9…

‘Balance of Terror’ writ large…

War weary Romulan Commander – tactical strategist not glorified space rig worker, racist element within Starfleet, battle of wits between an inexperienced crew and an invisible enemy who knows every trick in the book, a major casualty among the main characters, Vulcan refugees caught in the crossfire, some sympathisers keen to reunite with the Romulans.

Spock giving a history lesson to the crew, now taking into account some juicy ENT era flashback… NX & Daedalus ships fighting off Warbirds, Drones among Vulcan ringships and Andorian cruisers… Bakula in an Archer cameo, at the Federation founding ceremony.

Romulans have been cheated by each and every film to date. Both Nemesis and the last one both disappointed in that regard. Mostly portraying them two dimensionally, playing second fiddle to their Reman cousins or as yet another bunch of nutter’s henchmen, unable to even grasp the magnitude of their actions. It would be refreshing to see Romulans more than villains out for personal gain… Try the traditional interpretation, expanding their empire or dying in the attempt. A major enemy with a serious, century old grievance against Earth and Starfleet. A chip on their shoulder half a quadrant wide, for allowing their Federation to set up shop next door. Worse still with blood relatives providing them a thousand years of knowledge, after only being a presence in the neighbourhood for less than a century.

56. Buzz Cagney - October 18, 2009

Its going to be a long wait, for sure, but if the pay-off is a better movie Directed by JJ then I’m happy to wait.

57. screaming satellite - October 18, 2009

Just as well Trek is avoiding summer 2011 – that’s one crowded summer! (Might even be MI 4 as well) and unlike previous summers, 2011 has FOUR potential billion $ blockbusters – Spiderman 4, the last Potter, Pirates 4 and TF3 – I don’t recall such potential huge hits on that level all in one summer before (usually its just two, e.g 2007 – Spidey3/Pirates 3, 2008 – Indy/Dark Knight, 2009 – Potter, TF2)

Even Xmas 2011 looks like it will be bigger than usual what with The Hobbit and maybe Bond 23 and MI 4 (if not out in the summer)

don’t forget summer 2012 is TWOKs 30th Anniversary…I know TMP had its 30th anniversary in 2009 without any fanfare but we’re talking Khan here and Star Trek ‘2‘ coming out on the 30th anniversary of Star Trek II shouldnt go unnoticed…- esp if Trek 2 features Khan (at the end;)

Know its early days but anyone know whats out summer 2012? – only one I can think that’s a lock is The Avengers…

maybe Batman 3, Indy 5 and Ghostbusters 3? also what about Wolverine 2 and a new Superman? (if they figure out what to do)…maybe even Bond if it isn’t out at xmas 2011.

Hey it could be like summers 1989/2008 all over again (Batman, Indy, Trek, Bond, GB etc)

58. captain_neill - October 18, 2009

the next movie is the 12th movie not the second movie. And Trek XII better not feature Khan, I want new Trek, not a remake of Classic Trek.

I dont want Trek remade.

Well with a longer wait I guess that means more time to iron out the flaws with the new movie, ie get engineering looking right and I am hoping the next movie will have a stronger plot than the latest.

I do love the new movie but come on, TWOK, FC, TUC and TVH are still better films.

i am glad the new movie is getting great recognition in the public domain by the way, its were I want Star Trek to be, guess I feel some past Treks are better than the new movie.

59. Daoud - October 18, 2009

Since Trek ’09 was actually shot for a Christmas 2008 release, this is “technically” going to be a 3.5 year gap.

And since Paramount greenlighted sequels around the same time… this means…. what exactly? That the writers are pulling this out of a hat.

As much as we love the guys…. this is really, really a let down.

The excuse of other movies is silly.

60. fansince66 - October 18, 2009

Good point,number 11!

Not so much that “the world’s going to end”,as that the “global”(ie.imperial)financial system is still in a process of disintigrating;and all of the “keep-smiling-keep-lying”polices won’t make that reality go away.There may not even BE a paramount corp.We may be facing a future of tent cities & “infrastructure work camps”,with old black&white reruns on the work camp’s patched-up movie screen for saturday night entertainment.

Ahhh…but we can still dreammm…

61. screaming satellite - October 18, 2009

actually isnt Singer doing Battlestar Galactica? – maybe thatd be summer 2012 too

62. screaming satellite - October 18, 2009

40 “co-staring Brent Spiner as Dr. Arik Soong”

heh – i guess along with the De Launcie and Whoopi Goldberg, Spiner is the only TNG cast member who could appear in the new movies (without the aid of timetravel)

63. jonboc - October 18, 2009

A huge amount of time can be just as detrimental as having too little. Often pressure forces the best hand, ceatively, while too much time promotes indecision and second -guessing. I’m hoping for 2011.

64. screaming satellite - October 18, 2009

Just remembered another potential Billion $ blockbuster due summer 2011 that Trek 2 best avoid being anywhere near:

TJ Hooker – The Motion Picture

65. G - October 18, 2009

2012.. seems like a long way out, especially after establishing a successful movie. 2011 would make more sense (assuming they could go into production sometime in 2010)

But, like they said, it’s more important to “get it right” and not rush a new script. I was just more optimistic. I was hoping it wouldn’t take that long.

66. screaming satellite - October 18, 2009

65 – ” 2012.. seems like a long way out, especially after establishing a successful movie. 2011 would make more sense”

didnt do The Dark Knight any harm…or X2

or even stuff considered vastly disappointing like Pirates 2, Matrix 2, X3 etc

67. The Invader (In Color!) - October 18, 2009

Maybe by 2012 Shatner will have seen JJ’s Star Trek movie?

Then the world comes to an end.

68. greenappleman7 - October 18, 2009

Hopefully this time will be enough to help them think of good ideas to make the second as greater (could it be even greater?) than the first. I like the idea of having a Vulcan as the villain in the next movie.

69. Sci-Fi Bri - October 18, 2009


70. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 18, 2009

#22. RD

I agree.

About the only thing I can think to add is the history of Trek is rife with corporate types uncovering the potential to become “rich beyond the dreams of avarice” and while not avoiding rent-paying revenue altogether, somehow not managing to realize in full the promised riches either.

71. RD - October 18, 2009

#59. Daoud wrote: “Since Trek ‘09 was actually shot for a Christmas 2008 release”

Don’t forget too that the film was completely finished by Christmas. So it’s not like they had that much extra time to finish the film from it’s original scheduled release.

Giving them extra time now does not mean they will use it to improve anything about the film that we did not already see on screen in the last one. If anything the time from completion to release will be shorter as it costs the studio a lot of money to keep a film on the books that long after it finishes principle photography.

I have to assume people are joking about engineering, because extra time to write the script does not mean more time to build a set. The film will still be constrained by budget and produced during a normal filming and post production schedule.

That said, with a Summer 2012 release date and another 9 month post window the actual filming will take place sometime between April and September 2011.

However, the current WGA, DGA & SAG contracts are all set to expire between March and June 2011. Exactly when Trek XII MUST start filming.

The writers, directors and actors all are anticipating a strike then because many of the major issues which caused the 2007 strike were addressed. No studio will go into production in early 2011. So Star Trek XII must be ready to go into production by at least November 2010 if it is to be unaffected by the strike.

What all that means is in order to deliver a film in time for Summer 2012, and to avoid any possible strike interference, the writers will most likely have no more time than they did to write the first film and Abrams no more time to produce it. But it also means, the film could get derailed by the strike too and get pushed to 2013.

72. Hat Rick - October 18, 2009

Whatever. I’m just happy there’s a sequel. (Don’t anyone try to tell me there won’t be…. please.)

73. dmduncan - October 18, 2009

The time between movies is not some singular factor deciding whether the sequel will be good. Time is a factor when you don’t have an idea you like enough to write or haven’t settled on the direction you want to go yet. Time is definitely a factor when you don’t know the best direction to go and are pushed into going somewhere anyway. That’s a certain way to produce an uninspired bomb.

Bob already spoke of “knowing” when they had the last story, of having that moment of inspiration and realizing they were on the right track. And if you want a good movie you will have to wait for them to have that same feeling again, until something they are thinking of grabs them and they suddenly get how to do it.

Every swing of your pick does not result in striking gold. If it did, every movie that came out of Hollywood would be a hit. And we know how true that is not.

74. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 18, 2009

#.22. RD

BTW I think you should take a bow for correctly divining the importance of G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF THE COBRA’s performance to Paramount,

75. Gornorrhea - October 18, 2009

How bout a new tv series in the meantime. I’d like to see “Star Trek: Turboshaft 8″

76. Shadowcat - October 18, 2009

I am glad they are waiting until 2012 to release the next ST film. I think waiting will allow a quality ST sequel to be produced .instead of rushing it into theatres in two years.

77. RD - October 18, 2009

Orci & Kurtzman claim to have taken 4 months to write the original film.

It took 14 months to complete the original film – A combined total of 1.5 years to write and produce the film (with post production extension).

In total it took just over 2 years cumulatively from the reported start of Orci/Kurtzman’s first draft to the completion of post on the film (with extension).

The film was completed approximately 2.5 years from the date the film was first announced, including the extended leisurely post production time given to Abrams after the release date was pushed by 5 months.

Orci & Kurtzman were hired in March 2009 to start writing a sequel. The new film is not expected to be released until at least May 2012. With over 3.5 years since Orci & Kurtzman were told they had a job, the sequel will have over a year more development time than rebooting the entire franchise from scratch.

Given the head start Orci & Kurtzman have been given, there was never any chance the sequel was going to rushed out the door. Now the schedule is downright luxurious, since most of the work for the next film has already been done for the first.

With so much time to get it right, this film is now carrying a huge burden. The only other Trek films to have so much time to get it right was Nemesis, followed by Genesis.

78. RD - October 18, 2009

#77 – “Genesis” should be “Generations”

79. Third Remata'Klan - October 18, 2009

At least they don’t have to rush it.

Could be a good thing, really.

80. Thorny - October 18, 2009

Why is everyone so sure Thor and Captain America are going to be megahits? Generally, only one out of about every 4 comic-book-hero adaptations is successful. I mean, Fantastic Four anyone? Hulk? Two attempts at both, two failures.

81. Third Remata'Klan - October 18, 2009


Actually, Generations was pretty rushed. They were starting to work on the film as they were finishing the series.

Not much time at all, in a sense.

82. Admiral Shatner - October 18, 2009

My answer is.
After seeing Star Trek 11, I could wait years and years and years before seeing something called a new Star Trek movie would be better than waiting for a good one.
I waited, with bated breath, 3 years for ST11, and honestly I would rather have waited another 3. Or, for that matter, as long as it takes to see something that wants to be Star Trek.

83. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 18, 2009

#77. RD,

According to the NEW YORK TIMES reporting

”That year, the corporate behemoth Viacom, which owned “Star Trek,” was splitting itself in two, divorcing its CBS studio (which made the “Trek” shows) from its Paramount studio (which made the films). “Trek” was likely to go to CBS, where another television show might eventually be developed. Gail Berman, then the president of Paramount, convinced Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, to allow her one more chance at a “Trek” film; he gave her 18 months to get the cameras rolling or lose the property. (Under the arrangement CBS retained the “Star Trek” merchandising rights.)

Mr. Kurtzman and Mr. Orci were among the first to learn that “Star Trek” was seeking new management. Then, they were former “Alias” producers writing the screenplay for “Mission: Impossible III” (which Mr. Abrams directed). Paramount executives began quizzing them about “Trek.”

The studio wanted “a very specific kind of thinking,” Mr. Kurtzman said.

“You had to love genre at your core in every possible way,” he said. “And yet you had to separate it from what ‘Trek’ had been, to make it feel fresh.”” – Dave Itzkoff, April 23, 2009 NEW YORK TIMES

Now Itzkoff’s prose would lead us to believe the clock started ticking in 2005 but the actual corporate split giving Moonves STAR TREK control didn’t occur till the beginning of 2006 even though those wheels were indeed set in motion back in 2005. We also know from TrekMovie’s own reporting that principle photography didn’t start until November of 2007. That would seem to date the Berman/Moonves negotiation to the latter half of May of 2006. So that’s 3 years from license to general release or approximately 2.5 years from license to completed work excluding extended post production.

The real question is “Has the clock already started for the next 18mo camera roll deadline?”

84. I, Mugsy - October 18, 2009

2012??!? So the actors age 3 years since the first film, and yet the original mission of the Enterprise is 5-years… wonder how they’ll deal with that. They’ll just get us used to the new crew, then wil suddenly have to address ageing, and (possibly) actors replaced over time due to scheduling etc. They should now just kick-start a new TV series to make the most of the 5-year mission…..

85. G - October 18, 2009

84. “2012??!? So the actors age 3 years since the first film, and yet the original mission of the Enterprise is 5-years… wonder how they’ll deal with that. They’ll just get us used to the new crew, then wil suddenly have to address ageing..”
Yes, the original mission was 5 years, BUT if memory serves, Captain Pike (or, at least Spock) was on the Enterprise for 12 years (I think) before Captain Kirk and crew. As we saw in the new timeline, Captain Pike had the Enterprise only for a couple of days after he maiden launch! LOL Kirk and company took command of the Enterprise far earlier (and younger) than the original 5 year mission. This whole thing precedes even the original show.

Makes for some unique and strange possibilities. I don’t envy Orci and Kurtzman’s task at all. This is going to be challenging, deciding where to take things.

86. Joseph Coatar - October 18, 2009

well, while we’re waiting cbs can remaster tng

87. CarlG - October 18, 2009

I’m glad it’s coming out later rather than sooner. There’s no fail quite as frustrating as rush job fail, so take your time

Of course, as a fanboy I want it yesterday :D

@50: How do you feel about Sam Neill as Gary Seven? Or possibly Hugo Weaving?

88. Thorny - October 18, 2009

81. Third Remata’Klan… “Actually, Generations was pretty rushed. They were starting to work on the film as they were finishing the series.”

And if a movie ever needed to be delayed for re-writes, that was it. Once Mr. Nimoy and Mr. Kelley declined to participate, the Enterprise-B sequence should have been completely overhauled.

89. capnjake - October 18, 2009

I still think that he should talk Nicholas Myer into direct star trek xii

90. Hat Rick - October 18, 2009

Hey, as far as I’m concerned, waiting one more year isn’t going to matter. It’s just one more year to wait in glorious anticipation of what will shall be.

(Why do I suddenly sound like a character from The Venture Bros.?)

91. Hat Rick - October 18, 2009

“glorious anticipation of what shall be,” that is. Ruined my own joke.

92. VZX - October 18, 2009

A three year gap is the best. Two years is too short and can lead to over-saturation which makes less demand of the product and a drop in quality.
Three years is just short enough so it’s still on the public radar and long enough to wet their appetite. In thinking of other franchise films, the better ones usually have the three year gaps (Star Wars comes to mind.)

93. devon - October 18, 2009

I can wait another year begrudgingly if it proves to be a better movie, but I hope the strike doesn’t push it back further! In the meantime, how about a new Trek tv series to keep fan interest at a high? I’m afraid the newly gained Trek audience will lose interest if the next movie is overly delayed and it will defeat the whole purpose of appealing to a much bigger demographic!!! After all diehards will wait one way or another, but the new core general audience will falter & fade with their short attention spans! Too bad, this could be the rebirth of Trek followed by its ultimate demise! A blockbuster mega opportunity wasted through bad planning!!!! What is Viacom thinking? This is absurd! And replacing iconic roles was difficult enough and everyone was fantastic in said roles but these young actors are going to move on if allowed to sit and stew for too long or if approached by better offers & snatched away to mainstream Hollywood! What a loss! I now fear for Trek again!!!!!

94. dmduncan - October 18, 2009

@87: Hugo Weaving as Gary Seven. Cool.

95. Dr. Image - October 18, 2009

I wonder if they have considered a tv series in the meantime?
It would really keep the momentum rolling.
Given cast commitments though, I guess it would be to much to wish for.

96. ilkers - October 18, 2009

You are an idiot to kill the hype that was created so hard.
I am at a loss for words! You could at least prioritize ST over MI4, as nobody wants to see that stupid freak Cruise anymore… You’ll be sorry for this…

97. Samuel James - October 18, 2009

Can’t you guys see the poetic justics that is present?
Star Trek 12 in 2012!

I’m happy to wait an extra year just so that this will be the case. Let’s just hope that the Mayan Ttheory of Eternal Time happens AFTER the release date. A few weeks after.

98. toddk - October 18, 2009

My hope is that the theater owners will show star trek 12 and star trek 2 back to back for the the latter’s anniversary. and maybe shartner will be in it somehow. can’t belive i just said that….

99. screaming satellite - October 19, 2009

24, 27, 75, 84, 93,95,96 (and some others ive probably missed)

regarding a new tv show, wanting more trek asap,

didnt you guys learn anything from what happened before? its important to leave any new Trek OFF the tv for the next few years….concentrate on THE MOVIES ONLY so Trek will feel more of an event every 2/3 years – like 1979-86…those films were all BIG deals and major events – much more so than any of ones following…until now…even the impact of a great movie like FC was lessened somewhat by the oversaturation of Trek on tv (TWO tv shows running, plus TNG barely having been off air 2 years).

i believe that was Harve Bennetts view on the matter too – he said something along the lines of the tv shows were like fans having their turkey every week (tv) instead of just thanksgiving (movies) and as a result the anticipation and appeal of the movies was damaged

I would like to see a new tv show eventually….but not until after at least the third movie…

100. P Technobabble - October 19, 2009

I don’t believe the amount of time will have any bearing on whether the next film is any “better,” but it is another reminder that Trek is part of a business. In business, people do not typically drop everything to focus on one project when other projects have already been scheduled, and so forth. We’ll just have to be patient, hm? I am sure the Supreme Court won’t feel any less pressure whether they have one year or ten years to produce the next film. Of course, ten years would be rather unacceptable…

And I don’t buy into any of the 2012-end of the world stuff either…

101. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - October 19, 2009

I personally don’t think the delay bodes well for Trek. There’s an old saying that suggests you “strike while the iron is hot,” and I can’t remember a time when Trek has ever been any hotter. As rumors of story and script production for the sequel began to fade, it became clearer to me that a quick follow-up sequel wasn’t in the cards. Its a shame to lose the great momentum that had been built, but I guess it is what it is.

Many times, when a delay in a high-profile sequel arises, it indicates a shift in studio prorities. I can’t help but wonder if something like this may be happening – in that vein, I wonder if a Trek sequel will happen at all.

This will be a *three* year interval between entries in the series, not two, if the 2012 release holds up.

102. Horatio - October 19, 2009

2012? Gawd, don’t they realize that some of us Trekkers are getting a little old now????

103. Paulaner - October 19, 2009

My mission for the new Trek movie: I will not read anything about it. I don’t want to be spoiled anymore. I knew everything about Trek 09, months before it was out in theaters. That was bad.

104. Thomas Jensen - October 19, 2009

I’m wondering if the next adventure will take place two years later in ‘real time’. This group of actors is just fine, very young and all that, but three adventures in six years or so will probably result in a new set of actors at the end of the deal.

No group of actors with these roles (in movies) will ever have the body of work that the orignal actors was able to participate in. This may not be the only Kirk, Spock, et all. we’ll see in future movies.

I really enjoy the large canvas a movie can provide, but it would be great to see the original characters in another 5-year mission once again.

105. Nata - October 19, 2009

Arrghh, it’s SO long to wait, but what can we do?

Well, we the new fans can rewatch TOS and other movies and then other shows and then read some books and comics – that’ll keep us busy for a while. :)

106. Harry Ballz - October 19, 2009

Harry Potter and the LOTR movies seemed to come out every 2 years. Why not Star Trek? I don’t feel like having these actors age 3 years a pop every time we get to see them!

107. falcon - October 19, 2009

Oddly enough, and this is no BS, I just met Ryan Church who was on a tour of our department and our facility. (Can’t tell you where, else I’d have to shoot you. :-) ) We talked a bit about the Enterprise, some nits about its size (“that was all J. J. Abrams fault,” he told me) and as he was leaving he mumbled something about getting to work on the next movie “soon.” Couldn’t quite decipher what “soon” meant. Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman – if you’re lurking, can you throw us a bone? Is pre-production going to begin “soon?”

Should have asked Church about Engineering, but I’m almost certain he had little if anything to do with that.

108. AJ - October 19, 2009


They shot all three LOTR films simultaneously, and Harry Potter would have risked having 30-year olds in High School (they filmed those last 2 simultaneously as well)

With Trek we’ve been used to shenanigans between films for years. Next, we’ll get the rumors of actors not returning, another delay, and more of the blah blah that’s already started.

109. boomer13 - October 19, 2009

I don’t know why CBS/Paramount do any direct-to-DVD movies featuring casts from various past Star Trek tv series or even a new adventure. I am sure it will sell. Star Trek sells now…get it while it’s hot again.

110. CJS - October 19, 2009

Time between “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” = 3 years.
“The Dark Knight” is the second highest grossing film (unadjusted for inflation, of course) in the history of motion pictures. Just find an appropriately self-destructive actor to play your villain and history could easily repeat itself.

111. Felkin - October 19, 2009

Too many films are rushed nowadays, with studios busy booking famous actors and arranging big action sequences… with the actual STORY coming a distant last, and the whole product suffers as a result. Far better that they be allowed to develop ST:XII at their own pace, to find the story and allow the script to grow from there, rather than throw together a script at the last minute just to explain how the characters get from one explosion to the next one (Mi:2, anyone?).

112. Canon Schmanon - October 19, 2009

In the meantime, I think we need a new series, so I’d like to propose Star Trek: Harry Mudd. It could be the first Star Trek situation comedy. Mudd could be sharing an apartment with a fastidious Borg roommate (BorgNine) and they’ll constantly be clashing due to their divergent lifestyles. BorgNine is a bit of a bungler, so he’s always making botched attempts to assimilate Harry. In retaliation, Harry fills BorgNine’s room with tribbles.

It can be a lot of fun and fill the time until a new movie, don’t you think?

113. Dan - October 19, 2009

I wish they’d wait till 2020 but that’s just me.

114. VeratheGun - October 19, 2009

2012 is just too long, period.

Audiences expect sequels more quickly than that, these days. Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams have known for the better part of a year that they have the green light to get a sequel off the ground.

Why the delay? Surely over the last 6+ months SOMEONE has come up with an plausible idea to base another film on. Meanwhile, the writers, and Abrams keep filling up their plate with other projects.

The actors are going to be almost FOUR years older with that schedule. The audience has a lot of other entertainment competing for limited time and attention. IRON MAN 2 is coming out next summer, a mere two years after the first film (please, god, let it be good).

Something smells funny. I’m wondering if Paramount doesn’t have the bucks to finance another film right now.

115. PunkSpocker - October 19, 2009

This 2012 release stinks like zienite and I’m getting increasingly pissed! Who’s the bigger GOOBER? Paramount or this Supreme Court (JJ & writers)?

116. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 19, 2009

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

“Paramount officials are planning at least one STAR TREK every 18 months…” – Edward Jones, “Kirk vs. Kahn: Enterprise treks again”, on page 21 of the Jun 5, 1982 edition of the FREE-LANCE STAR,702752

117. Brian Kirsch - October 19, 2009

#43- Hilarious!! ;-)

RD – You never fail me, thanks for your pessimism, as usual! And as usual your assumptions and math are suspect, at best.

We have 3 different camps here. The fans that want the next film ASAP. The producers and writers that want to make a good film without feeling rushed. And a studio that wants to maximize gross receipts. Summer ’12 was already crowded before the success of ST09. Holiday ’12 had some space, but with lower gross potential. Much like the decision to move Trek to Summer ’09 from Holiday ’08. It seems to me like a compromise.

118. RD - October 19, 2009

#116. – I love the endless supply of obscure articles and sources you continue to produce.

Not sure exactly the message here though … the films released every 2 years were some of the most successful in the Trek franchise. While the ones that took the most time were the worst.

Certainly based on that article Paramount was capitalizing on what they felt was a huge phenomenon. TMP had been the 3rd highest grossing film in the US in 1979, and though neither of Star Wars proportions, TWOK had just opened to huge numbers, just like ST09 in June of this year. Also of note, Raiders of the Lost Ark which they also mention in the article had come out the year before and had achieved Star Wars-like success, so much so that they re-released it in 1982 and 1983. For Paramount in 2009 with Transformers 2 and Trek, this seems like an eerie reprise of events.

119. Hat Rick - October 19, 2009

Actually, if you think about it, releasing the next Trek in 2012 is a great plan, since if the world does end as suspected, they’ll save on distributor fees.


120. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 20, 2009

#118. RD

Well the Santayana was just a call to look at the past and do exactly what you did, see the parallels.

The 18mos quote I found relevant because the closest thing to the Paramount of then is the CBS of now, i.e. a reminder that now’s Paramount and CBS probably have different agendas with regards to frequency of Trek productions.

Now, I would expect you to quickly point out that they’d likely come to terms in the name of profits. But isn’t it eerie that that same 18mos target was set?

Maybe I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Moonves put the license on the auction block if things get stretched beyond a certain point? Or maybe your predicted re-consolidation will happen before that?

I guess as it stands now, it just isn’t solely about how happy Viacom/Paramount is about everything? Is it?

121. John - October 20, 2009

Awesome! Can’t wait

Hope they do another world premiere in Sydney!

122. Simon - October 20, 2009

I’m just worried in this ADD society that gives the public a lot of time to forget about STAR TREK, especially since there’s no TV series out there currently in production.

They should have stuck to a 2 year schedule.

123. SirBroiler - October 20, 2009

I remember when ST got the move from Xmas to Summer and everyone was worried that it meant problems for the production. For the most part, we were all pleased with the results.

I think taking the necessary time between films is only good for the story and the characters. I think the delay will make for a better movie when all is said and done.

Would be nice to see some sort of Trek on TV – a new animated series, perhaps? Other than the fact that it’s set during the Clone Wars, Clone Wars is a pretty good show. Maybe Trek can take a few lessons from GL?

124. ernestborgof9 - October 21, 2009

2012….hmmmm…..better be early in 2012……tee, hee

125. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 21, 2009

“I love the endless supply of obscure articles and sources you continue to produce.” – RD

It’s a skill I acquired in my college years flipping through microfilm and microfiche doing research. It also didn’t hurt that for a small portion of my years I had a perfectly functioning eidetic memory.

Anyway, I find those digging skills readily transferred to the interweb. It has its high and lows which, for me, makes it never boring.

For example, I thought I struck gold when I found the industry trade magazine appropriately titled BOXOFFICE for the years 1979-1982, but, oddly enough, it seems to only publish numbers for a film’s opening weeks and then it breaks it up into major regional markets of the U.S.

However it did provide evidence that the industry of “then” did regard TMP as a “success”:

“Production has begun on STAR TREK II, Paramount’s sequel to its successful STAR TREK – THE MOTION PICTURE.” – BOXOFFICE, December 1981 issue, page 8, in the column HOLLYWOOD REPORT under the subsection PRODUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, 4th paragraph

and a period industry source for the budgets of the first two Trek films:

“Though the first film cost an astronomical $40 million, this summer’s adventure on the Enterprise was completed for a mere $10 million, according to producer Robert Sallin.” – Associate Editor, BOXOFFICE, May 1982 issue, page 17, in the article ACTION ON SCREEN AND AT THE BOX OFFICES, last complete paragraph on the page.

Given the metric of that era was 3 times the production cost to break even and that the sequel was financed from the profits of TMP that would seem to set the minimum for TMP’s worlwide take, i.e. it could not possibly have been less than $130 million?

But I digress…It is a ponder as to whether the current movie’s organization could pull off their sequel with one fourth the budget of 2009?

126. Jack - October 21, 2009

Weren’t the original Star Wars films released in 77, 80 and 83 (I’m not googling this)? That’s threeish years each. Those were worth the wait. Personaly, I’d love to see some of the visual imagination from those show up in the next Trek. Show us strange new worlds, new life and new civilization, baby.

And the 2 plus year thing goes for the bulk of the Trek movies – they were worth the wait — especially the original cast ones. It was only with V and all the TNG movies except First Contact where I asked “you guys kept us waiting for this??”

But, really. Isn’t around (or at least) 3 years the norm for sequels? And the Harry Potter and LOTR movies, on top of simultaneous filming, had original source material to draw from — they knew, generally, what stories they would be filming…

Don’t get me wrong, it would be great if this thing was out next Tuesday. But it doesn’t seem really unusual in the world of big budget movies.

And I kind of like that this is taking time. Before seeing Anthony’s list, I’d actually thought that the TNG movies came out much closer to each other, because to me it really seemed like this franchise machine was just kind of turning them out between work on the TV shows.

Any votes for biggest letdown after a long wait? I say the Matrix sequels…

127. CarlG - October 21, 2009

@126: Matrix has my vote. More Revolutions than Reloaded, though. If they had just ended the movie before that antiquated bore the Architect opened his mouth, it would have been glorious…

Nemesis comes a close second, though. The cast of TNG deserved a far, far better sendoff than that.

128. Charla - October 21, 2009

I am so disturbed that it wont be out till 2012!! I think we should petition for more Star Trek!!! Who cares about Transformers 3 and Pirates 4 when we need a Star Trek 2!!! The actors would do it I would think, and that is 3 yrs away!!!

Who’s with me?

129. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 22, 2009

One thing to consider is the supporting cast. STAR WARS of 1977 didn’t have a large supporting cast of recognizable characters that had to appear to work on screen as a cohesive unit to carry over to its sequel. While they don’t number anywhere near the fictional 400, STAR TREK literally has a crew to carry forward.

TMP’s supporting cast had the benefit of two series (one animated) to get a lock on their characters that survived the chasm to that first feature. The 2009 crew had mere blips of screen time and yet established their characterizations admirably. If too much time passes it may be at best a bit of a chore for the next production to reclaim what those actors created in the first – especially if they’ve had fruitful careers in the intervening years. I’m not saying they aren’t talented enough to establish something equally artistic to replace anything they are unable to recapture, but it can strike a dissonant chord with an audience that Paramount is anticipating will buy home videos that will be watched over, and over, and over again in the intervening years.

FWIW, TESB started filming less than 2 years after SW’s initial release and well within 18mos of SW’s end of theatrical run.

130. Son of a Maui Portagee - October 22, 2009

126. Jack

The trouble I see with attempting to draw a SW analogy is that Lucas was able to use the fortune from the first feature to become independent and create his own movie studio which he could devote largely to churning out the sequels as was his wont. As successful as any fan might want to champion any of the Trek feature films, none of them were THAT successful. Abrams, et al, have to work for a living in the mean time which means that extra time between Trek film releases is not equivalent to more time being spent working on that to be released film.

In the spirit of the season, I’d say the scariest looming possibility is that the next film completes filming in early 2011 and isn’t released till 2012 because Paramount executives decide to test screen it to death to eliminate any and all possibility of anything less than a STAR WARS box office run.

131. Harry Ballz - October 23, 2009

May the box office be with you!

132. korax - January 9, 2010

For those of you who agree with the oppinion that there are dumb people behind trek (and that jackson was able to bring one lotr per yer), let me point out the fact, that jackson had the story written down already becouse of tolkien and most importantly, he shot all of the three movies at one time and he only had to work with the shot materials during the gap between the movies. The story of Star Trek, on the other hand, had to be written down, the actors now have to be available and only then it will be a good time for finalizing the movie. So no, i dont think its such a long time. By the way, except nemesis and JJ Trek, ST movies were always introduced after 2 – 3 yrs of nothing.

133. GenericNero77 - March 13, 2010

Oh, yeah…..if Khan is to be for the second Trek movie (the sequel), of the alternative universe, then it is obvious to include here that there was indeed a “genetic world war”; aka: World War III in this alternative reality. It is something I can’t wait to see for the new Trek. This new movie might just blow the pants off other movies (who knows, maybe even James Cameron’s movie of this year). It will be, at least to the speculations (an early, but yet possible), conclution that this movie might just be the most violent, most fire-burning, gun shooting, blood squirting, hand-to-hand combat fighting, and the likes, of a Trek movie yet! I also wounder if there will be more swearing, and if so if this movie might be the first rated R Trek ever.
Nevertheless, all Trek die-hard fans are just eager to get into their “captain’s chairs”, load-up on energy drinks (so not to miss any Trek action), stuff-up with popcorn, and other great snacks, and “boldly go where no Trek movie has taking us yet!”

134. Disinvited - August 1, 2010


Actually there never a bona fide actual 3 years in length gap between Trek film releases until INSURRECTION-NEMESIS and that was part of a bona fide 4 year gap which had 3 Trek TV series to bridge it. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.