JJ Abrams: Not Considering 3D For Star Trek Sequel + Wont Rush To Meet Release Date | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Not Considering 3D For Star Trek Sequel + Wont Rush To Meet Release Date June 5, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

While promoting Super 8 this weekend, JJ Abrams has also been dropping some tidbits about his next project, the Star Trek sequel. The producer (and expected director) says his next Star Trek will not be rushed to meet it release date, and he has also confirmed he will buck the trend and not go 3D. Details below. Abrams also revealed a Star Trek easter egg in Super 8.

 

Abrams ‘not considering’ Star Trek ’12 in 3D + wont rush for release

At the Super 8 junket held this weekend, JJ Abrams spoke about the Star Trek which he will produce and is epected to direct. Abrams has already confirmed that he will be turning his focus to Trek after Super 8 comes out on June 10th. Here are some excerpts from this weekend’s interviews.

On the Star Trek sequel script status (via Dose.ca)

The writers are hard at work on it, and I am excited about getting back to it. We are taking our time, though, because I really do want make sure we do something that is worthy of the first one.

On Star Trek sequel in 3D (via CinemaBlend):

I’m not yet considering [3D], but you know, I haven’t gotten any phone call from people in suits. I know what’s good for me.

On the June 29, 2012 release date:

I care much more that it be good than it be ready. I’m, obviously doing everything I can to make sure that schedules don’t get screwed up. But I don’t think anyone wants a movie on time that’s not worth your time. We want to make sure it’s done right. The guys I’ve been working with are obviously brilliant so I’m really excited to get back into it.

More on release date (via Collider):

I really don’t know [if Star Trek will make its release date], we will see. We are working really hard to try and get that movie made as soon as possible, but we don’t want to rush anything. The worst thing we could possibly do would be to put something into production to make a release date instead of a great movie.

 

And a Star Trek-related spoiler for Super 8

[SPOILER ALERT]
There are a couple of [Easter eggs] here and  there. I will say that Leonard Nimoy is in the movie, if you can find him.
[/SPOILER ALERT]

More expected

Look for more updates from Abrams over the next few days as more interviews arrive online.
 

 

Comments

1. Blake Powers - June 5, 2011

Good! His head is in the game.

2. nobull-23 - June 5, 2011

Summer 2013

3. meee - June 5, 2011

Yeah please no 3D.. I hate paying 12 bucks to put a sticky nasty mess of someone elses used glasses on my face… What do people do to those things anyways?

4. MJ - June 5, 2011

December 2012.

5. Harry Ballz - June 5, 2011

“Genius can’t be rushed”

Even, I suppose, when said genius set the deadline for himself in the first place!

6. Richard C. - June 5, 2011

Put it up for December 21, 2012!

7. cpelc - June 5, 2011

I heard something about one of the kids in the movie being a Starlog reader. I would guess Nimoy is on the cover of an issue.

8. I'm Dead Jim! - June 5, 2011

@70 Perhaps it’s even the first issue of Starlog that had Kirk and Spock on the cover?

9. dmduncan - June 5, 2011

JJ: “The writers are hard at work on it,”

And the proof is on twitter.

10. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2011

First, his words about not rushing the movie indicate to me that we’re talking December 2012, where it goes against the new Twilight, James Bond and Hobbit movie. I hate to say this but May of 2013 looks better for Star Trek. Iron Man 3 seems to be the only big tentpole that month. Sorry, fellow Trekkers. Link below.

Second, I appreciate J.J. Abrams artistic demands. He loves film over digital video. Whether you loved, liked or hated Star Trek 2009, that movie was beautiful looking. But J.J, . expect a call from the suits about 3D as you put it. Take a look at Thor, according to Entertainment Weekly 5-20-11, pg. 57, “Sixty percent of the film’s (Thor) debut came from 3-D showings.” And I resented Thor 3D because it was a conversion and too dark. It was a good movie made worse by 3D; wished I saw it in 2D.

Which is why J.J. should demand if the Paramount suits want 3D, pay the extra to film it in 3D. NO CONVERSIONS FROM 2D. I cetainly see why the suits want 3D. If not released in 3D, Paramount will leave money in the pockets of the filmgoers rather in Paramount’s pockets. But the fans of Star Trek demand quality. That’s why we Trekkers should demand that if Paramount forces the movie to released in 3D that we ask it be filmed in 3D. If it’s good enough for Avatar it’s good enough for Star Trek.

By the way I just saw X-Men: First Class. It was not released in 3D. Excellent film. 3D would not have made it any better. But would 3D make X-Men more profitable? For Star Trek, I say the more money Star Trek makes, the more Star Trek for all of us. Just film the movie in 3D, no conversion.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies.php

11. MJ - June 5, 2011

@10. Just curious BB, why did you fall for it and pay for Thor in 3D? I have a personal rule that I won’t pay for a conversion in 3D, and also I wait for the review of the 3D movie before I pay extra for the 3D version. There is really no reason why anyone should be hoodwinked if they are willing to spend 5-10 minutes of internet research before-hand.

12. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

Summer 2013. The “Star Trek” sequel MUST NOT be released during the fall of 2012. Aside from the “Lord Of The Rings” the James Bond flicks, “Avatar” and “Titanic”, the majority of movies that do well during that time frame are Christmas-themed films and dramas with Oscar potential.

Even Summer 2013 looks to be competition-heavy for Trek:

“Fast and The Furious 6″

“Iron Man 3″

“X-MEN 4″

“X-MEN FC 2″

“Pirates Of The Carribbean 5″

“The Hangover 3″

“Thor 2″

another Pixar movie

“Transformers 4″

“Die Hard 5″

“Indiana Jones 5″

And there are going to be others as well, I’m sure. I suppose Paramount can push the Trek sequel to summer of 2014.

13. Bryan - June 5, 2011

Thank goodness for no 3D. Also if the movie will not come out in June 2012, at least we shall have the new video game which is scheduled to come out around that time…

14. Bryan - June 5, 2011

Unless that too is delayed…

15. jas_montreal - June 5, 2011

Yup. alright. Don’t expect Trek in Summer 2012 now.

16. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

13.
….

“Also if the movie will not come out in June 2012, at least we shall have the new video game which is scheduled to come out around that time…”

Except video games also have a reputation for being pushed back months and even cancelled altogether….

And maybe the Supreme Court should just finish their other projects first THEN work on the Trek sequel. We can wait an extra year or two.

17. CarlG - June 5, 2011

Good to know about the 3D. I don’t mind it per se (Toy Story 3… holy crap), but it seems you have to really plan ahead to the point of insanity to make it work. It limits the amount of spontaneity the director is allowed for his shots, I mean.

18. Basement Blogger - June 5, 2011

@ 11

MJ, I like to review movies and post them on my blog. So, if it comes out in 3D, I’ll pay the extra two bucks (Cinicnnati) to review it in 3D. That way if anybody wants to know if they should see a movie in 3D, they have an opinion. Conversions from 2D generally stink. Though a bad movie like “The Green Hornet” was not a bad conversion but 3D added nothing to it.

I don’t hate all 3D. I was watching “How to Train Your Dragon” on a HDTV in 2D. Looked wonderful. When I saw it at the theater in 3D, it was a great experience. Of course, CGI 3D uses a virtual camera and is not considered a conversion. Avatar and Tron in IMAX was the best way to see those films 3D. Still, a good HDTV in 2D is still great. There’s an ad for Direct TV where a firerman is saving a little kid. On a HDTV, it looks like 3D. So until the holodeck becomes a reality, a true immersive experience is in the future.

19. MvRojo - June 5, 2011

I sure hope he stands by that comment, and it’s not in 3-D.

#12. Wherever you got that list from, it’s more a fanboy’s wishlist than actually happening. The only things confirmed for Summer 2013 are Iron Man 3 and Monster University. And there will not be TWO X-Men movies.

20. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 5, 2011

The writers are working very hard… and “planking”… we already know that … great! … LOL!

:-) :-)

21. devonp - June 5, 2011

Glad it won’t be 3-D!!!!! Hate to wait any longer!!!!

22. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 5, 2011

“The next thing we’re working on, and hopefully we’ll be able to pass information out sooner or later, is the next Star Trek.” … JJ Abrams at
cinemablend.com

“sooner or later “?? … wow… Really? … What kind of statement is that? … “sooner” is acceptable… because “later”… when??? … LOL

:-) :-)

23. Cygnus-X1 - June 5, 2011

It is looking more and more like Summer 2013.

24. Hugh Hoyland - June 5, 2011

I appreciate that JJ and the SC dont want this movie rushed and wants to put out a great movie, thats his style as you can tell! And to a very certain extent I believe him and them.

But I also think that the teams other extensive projects have at least played SOME roll in a possible delay in the release schedule.

We cant sit back and think “Oh no, if they release it here its gonna go up against ***** and *****”. Cant play it safe, its gotta happen sometime. IMO the latest acceptable to me is late 2013. Anything beyond that and your starting to hit the back to the drawing board phase.

25. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

19.
….

A lot of those movies I mentioned are in the scripting phase. So it’s a good bet we will see most of those I mentioned in the summer of 2013.
FOX is considering releasing TWO “X-Men” movies during the summer. But they’d obviously release them about three or four months apart.

And there is also the sequel to “Amazing Spider-Man” as well. That will probably start filming in 2012.

26. Jason - June 5, 2011

i like how they do nothing for the first two years and the decide not to rush

27. Hugh Hoyland - June 5, 2011

Correction, late 2012* NOT 2013

28. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

Err, scratch the bit about “Spider-Man”. The sequel WILL not come out in 2013, since 2012 is when “Amazing” comes out, obviously.

29. VZX - June 5, 2011

I think that Abrams is holding out for me to direct it. I told him that I’ll get to it when I get to it!

30. Paul - June 5, 2011

Hopefully JJ and Co will be allowed to do Star Trek 2012/2013 in 2D – thanks for listening to a majority of fans.

I’d say at least 95%+ of all past/current 3D movies are not worth it, most are converted and thus look bad. You asko have to pay extra just for being fancy 3D, forced to wear horrendous glaces which result in red eyes after the movie…

31. sean - June 5, 2011

It would seem pretty asinine for Fox to release X-Men First Class 2 and then X-Men 4 in the same year. Talk about oversaturation. They’ve just barely resuscitated the franchise as it is, and First Class (while being excellent) did not put butts in the seats, unfortunately. I think it’s yet to be seen whether either of those films is greenlit (I’d put more money on FC2 than X-4).

32. Spatan555 - June 5, 2011

No 3d? Wise choice. Startrek isn’t ready for it yet.

33. dmduncan - June 5, 2011

End credits music for ST.09 playing in my house; I hope JJ comes back to direct for sure, and I hope he brings Michael Giacchino with him.

When are we going to get a teaser trailer?

When are we going to get plot clues?

34. Star Trek Sequel Fan Already - June 5, 2011

Gotta love JJ. His outlook and view of movie making is just what I agree with….which is why I love his stuff. THANKS JJ!!!!!!!!!!

35. Michael - June 5, 2011

@12-RDR – you’re being over-reactionary and highly-insulting: you’re implying that Abrams & Co’s STAR TREK doesn’t have the ability to be competitive, and therefore must be released in some “safe” theatrical period – which really doesn’t exist in the marketplace.

Playing safe in life never got anyone anywhere in life.

If the sequel is good, then butts will fill the seats.

36. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

Michael Giaccino, after only one movie, has established himself as one of Trek’s greatest composers, with “Enterprising Young Men” as an instant classic!

37. EM - June 5, 2011

I like JJ and his gang a lot. They are very likely to make very entertaining material. I would love this next Trek movie to be filmed in 3D (just in case you people in suits are reading). But I agree with others that a 2D to 3D conversion would probably just suck.

38. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

35.
….

Get over yourself! All I was saying was 2013 is getting crowded already and that the fall/winter seasons aren’t very kind to blockbusters, with the exceptions I have already mentioned. The truth is, “Star Trek” will NEVER acheive the level of financial success that most blockbusters achieve.

Unfortunately, good quality films don’t necessarily draw big crowds. Case in point: “Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World”.

39. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

And I hope they keep “Enterprising Young Men” as the theme for the sequel. As great as the TMP theme is, it’s already been used for TMP, TFF and TNG.

40. MJ - June 5, 2011

@35. Well I do think it is a fake worry that Trek can’t compete against other blockbusters. It needs to be a very good movie, and I can guarantee you (based on past performance of action/genre movies( that 50% of those movies that RDR mentioned will experience nosedives after their first big week, because they won’t be good movies. I am really not that concerned when it is going to be released — any summer or holiday season in the next two years should work. I am betting on Christmas 2012.

If we all don’t think that nuTrek can compete, then we should just cancel the whole series of movies. I, for one, do think that we can compete against the crap comic book movies and other action flicks, and I think a Trek film interest would complement fantasy films like the Hobbit, with both films doing well at the same time.

41. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

If the “Star Trek” sequel went head to head against a “Twilight” movie, which one would win? The “Twilight” movie, would, unfortunately. Quality doesn’t necessarily equal quantity.

42. pock speared - June 5, 2011

okay.
i’ll wait.
but hey, ya know what? if i don’t see some of uhura’s freaky-ass space-tits this time, then the whole deal is off.
btw, and i am the only one true trek fan, and i speak for everyone here.

oh and some more mccoy stuff. thanks.

43. Walt - June 5, 2011

What if the movie is in post-production now! JJ likes secrets and wants to surprise the audience! Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

44. MJ - June 5, 2011

Of course Twilight would win. But is Trek and Twilight were released two weeks apart, I would predict that Trek would make the same money versus if it was released months later than Twilight.

45. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

44.
….

No, I think you’re wrong. I think each of the “Twilight” films has earned at least (probably much more) money as “Star Trek” did. If someone can provide some comparisons between “Star Trek” and each of the “Twilight” films, that would be great.

46. Red Dead Ryan - June 5, 2011

Trek would most likely make a lot of money on it’s opening weekend, but not as much as a “Twilight” film.

47. MJ - June 5, 2011

I did not explain myself very well. I meant that whatever money Trek would make (say $400M), it would make that amount whether it was released near Twlight or months apart from Twilight. Twilight is going to get well above $500M again unless they blow it.

They key is to avoid by at least 1.5 weeks the Twilight and Hobbit openings. Based on the calendar, I say release Trek on Wed December 26th, 2012.

48. rvp - June 5, 2011

@26 “i like how they do nothing for the first two years and the decide not to rush”

My thoughts, exactly.

49. MJ - June 5, 2011

@48. Well they have been doing Star Wars planking.

50. MJ - June 5, 2011

@48. Seriously, why in the hell has this taken two damn years to get to this point???

51. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - June 5, 2011

Fall 2012.

Looking forward to seeing “Super 8″!

52. Phil - June 5, 2011

No 3D….good!!

53. TrekMadeMe Wonder - June 5, 2011

Who’s been holding up the damned elevator!?

54. Aurore - June 5, 2011

So…Mr. Abrams…you ARE going to direct the sequel, right?
That’s alright ; don’t answer now, I’ll wait for the “announcement”.

:))

55. Bill Peters - June 5, 2011

I figure summer 2012 maybe July or August :)

56. Bill Peters - June 5, 2011

JJ says it might not be on time but I figure it will still be in the Summer of 2012 maybe early July or August I don’t expect it any later then that, and I don’t think Parmount will let it come out any later then Septemeber of next year, they are all ready bililng it as a summer film. I only belive the 2013 talk if I see the date moved by Parmount or on the Billing:)

57. Daoud - June 5, 2011

@48 & 50: A-vulking-men. What the Ferengi have they been doing with their last two years? Paramount greenlighted a sequel *before* Trek 2009 hit the screens just on the strength of the film.
.
This reeks as badly as RDM not sure of how BSG would play out, and then OVERstretching and OVERscripting Caprica.
.
I’m not sure I can take any of them as serious writers and producers any longer, especially after the frivolity of their planking episode–the more that sinks in, the more that’s rubbing me the wrong way. What’s the old expression? ‘Script’, or get off the pot?

58. MJ - June 5, 2011

“I’m not sure I can take any of them as serious writers and producers any longer, especially after the frivolity of their planking episode–the more that sinks in, the more that’s rubbing me the wrong way. What’s the old expression? ‘Script’, or get off the pot?”

I do think the good will towards JJ, Ocri and company from those of us who loved Trek 2009 has limits. I have been willing to cut them a lot of slack with the never-ending extensions on the Trek 2012 script, but now seeing the Star Wars planking deal…yea, that really rubs me the wrong way. I like to see less clowning around and more progress here on the script.

59. Schultz - June 5, 2011

Working hard? Nice. Good boy. Not rushing it? Great. (What about Dec 2012?) No 3D crapola? Awesome. So relieved.

60. Ivory - June 5, 2011

While I am a little frustrated that the film is taking so long to come together, I think Abrams is right. You can’t rush a film and expect it to be the best it can be. I’d rather wait a few months and get a better film.

The competition in 2012 is going to be brutal in both the summer and the winter. My money says this film doesn’t see the light of day until May 2013. That is unfortunate because all the momentum build up from ST 09 will be long gone and the franchise will essentially be starting from scratch.

I also wouldn’t be shocked if it is announced that the next two films are being shot back to back or that the animated series Bob Orci was talking about is given the green light in between to keep awareness of the franchise up.

61. Andrew - June 5, 2011

If they can finish the script in the next month or even month and a half, I still don’t see why they couldn’t deliver the movie on time. Pre-production through the rest of the summer, shoot in the fall, and post-production next year leading up to the release. It’s not like they need to deliver this movie at the beginning of May like the last movie. The current release date is June 29th, or half a year into 2012. I still have faith they can deliver a good movie on time. Please don’t make us wait until 2013!

62. Sputnik - June 5, 2011

Yeah, no 3D. :-)

63. Battle-scarred Sciatica - June 5, 2011

RRD
I wood ewesually agreee with ewe butt az much as I luv Michael G’s tunes being up thair as wun of the gratest Starr Treck composters of all Thyme; eye hav two disagreee wit ye. Ye kannot touch the likes of the Goldsmith and Horner. Nevver two be matched agin I reckon!

Sory bout the spellin. Just finished reedin Feersum Endjinn.

Wel Dunn jJ. Storey furst, dedlyne seckund.

64. captain_neill - June 5, 2011

I think it will be Summer 2013 given the pace they are writing at. I hope the time will be worth it as I am hoping for a good script.

Thank God he is not considering 3D. I am getting fed up with 3D now

65. Tanner Waterbury - June 5, 2011

You know… this is actually GOOD news. I did a double header of 3d movies recently (Priest and Thor) and I had a blistering headache afterwards. Good move on JJ, it will look good as it is, even in Imax.

66. Battle-scarred Sciatica - June 5, 2011

Knot to menshun the Alex Courage!

67. Basement Blogger - June 6, 2011

In defense of 3D…

Fellow Trekkers, first, J.J. Abrams says he’s not considering 3D BUT he did not eliminate the possibility… Here’s the quote.

“I’m not yet considering [3D], but you know, I haven’t gotten any phone call from people in suits. I know what’s good for me.”

So, if the suits demand it, I don’t think J.J. Abrams is going to say for art’s sake that he won’t film in 3D. As I said before, I appreciate Abrams love of film over digital video. And 3D conversions from 2D usually stink. But the economic reality is that tentpole movies make more money if they’re released in 3D. That’s reality. Again, a whopping sixty percent of Thor’s debut came from 3D. (Entertainment Weekly, 5-20-11, pg. 57)

And while I agree that 3D movies are too dark, some have looked pretty good. Avatar. Tron: Legacy. How to Train Your Dragon. What those movies have in common is that they were filmed in 3D. Yeah in 3D, you lose whip pans and hand- held camera shots. So what? They gave me nausea anyway. I can’t watch the last two Bourne movies because Director Greengrass wants to move the camera all over the place.

I’m going to commit some heresy here. The greatest science fiction movie ever made was 2001: A Space Odyssey. Think about Kubrick’s visuals in 3D. The Monolith. The ox bone flying into the air. The spaceships against the black in space. Bowman jogging around the centrifuge. The Discovery. Look, I believe Kubrick’s painting like visuals would be enhanced in 3D IF THE WERE SHOT IN 3D.

I know I’m repeating myself. But I’ll say this in a different manner. There’s nothing wrong with Star Trek making more money by releasing a movie in 3D. The better Star Trek does at the boxoffice, the better are our chances for more movies and dare I say, TELEVSION which is where Star Trek belongs. Ask Anthony about whether Star Trek belongs on TV.. :-) But what Trekkers should demand is quality. That means if Paramount wants 3D, then expand the budget and film the movie in 3D. No conversions.

68. MJ - June 6, 2011

The either need to not do 3D at all or go full bore and film Trek 2012 in the new Peter Jackson/James Cameron 48FPS Super 3D. Anything half-ass, like post-conversion 3D, will be unacceptable to me.

69. chrisfawkes.com - June 6, 2011

3D is a passing fad. Even now many only see it because when they get to the cinema it best fits the time frame rather than a 3d preference.

By next year it may be close to dead.

70. MJ - June 6, 2011

I don’t think so. When 48FPS comes out on the Hobitt movies and Avatar sequels, it is going to blow away the current “wimpy 3D.”

There should be a law against post-processed 3D though. It is bringing down 3D and is creating a lot of disappointment.

71. Geekette - June 6, 2011

Is it just me, but I’m beginning to feel it’s turkey time …

odd or evens turkeys?

72. VulcanFilmCritic - June 6, 2011

With all due respect. I don’t think you have to worry too much about competition from other fan-boy films. Star Trek has a somewhat different audience demographic which includes a lot of older people and women. Also Star Trek fans are fanatically loyal and the only thing that would keep us away from this is a really, really bad movie. A disingenuous movie.
Multiple viewings are an important part of the box office, so the story has to be good. It has to be an emotional roller coaster ride, not just special effects. After all, this is a character-driven franchise, not a special-effects driven one.
So take your time, guys, we’ll still be here. And thank you for breaking the news gently to us that the release date is going to be pushed back.

73. Daniel - June 6, 2011

My bold predictions:

1. The script outline is virtually done.
2. JJ’s been too busy with Super 8 to approve/comment in detail.
3. JJ will now take a few weeks off to re-charge his batteries.
4. The script outline will be approved in 3 weeks.
5. The actual script will be finished in 7 weeks from today, or July 18.
6. The 2012 release date will be met, and we will all love the film.

74. CmdrR - June 6, 2011

2 D is fine with me. Or double D, whatever…

Just make a good film. No gimicks, just a good time at the movies.

75. Raymond - June 6, 2011

Daniel #73 – wow = one of the few optimists posting on this forum.

76. Horatio - June 6, 2011

Methinks that this is all a smokescreen. JJ is very secretive. I wager 20 quatloos that the script is complete, pre production is currently underway under extreme secrecy and that June 29, 2012 is still a go.

77. Daoud - June 6, 2011

In the time between the conclusion of filming for Star Trek 2009 (March 2008), and today….
.
Gene Roddenberry created and produced 78 episodes of The Original Series, the majority of which were creative and amazing for the day.
.
Just for comparison. Maybe out of that 78 hours, 2 or 3 stinkers. How hard is this? That’s why I’m tired of the tired excuses. It’s been over 3 years, and 2 more years would be simply ridiculous. Now I know GR did a bit of “planking” with Nichelle and Majel, etc. during that time too (his own Pretty Maids All in a Row), but he got the job done. What is so difficult to craft just 2 hours?

78. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - June 6, 2011

Horatio I see your 20 and raise you 50 that it will be Christmas.

79. Janice - June 6, 2011

Put out a great sequel maybe spring or summer 2013, no 3D and get Bruce Greenwood back as Pike and i’m a happy camper.

80. P Technobabble - June 6, 2011

73.

here are my bold speculations:

1) the script has been finished for months, and Orci and Lindelof have been toying with us.

2) production has secretly begun in a hangar at Area 51, after getting permission from Obama, himself. In return, the producers cast Obama as Surak, who appears to Spock every time he thinks about Uhura.

3) the film is being shot in 10d. Abrams will then issue a statement: “Chew on this!”

81. trek - June 6, 2011

Hate to say it but it sounds like JJ is trying to cover his butt on the 3D issue…..stay sweet with the fans not wanting it, AND have an out if he’s told it must be 3D (or changes his mind).

Please – NO 3D – it’s gimmicky and not very good!

82. Anthony - June 6, 2011

No way this film goes up against The Hobbit. It would be like Star Trek: Nemesis going up against The Two Towers all over again. I don’t think Star Trek has recovered the kind of loyalty required to compete against the LOTR franchise.

Summer 2013. Count on it.

83. AJ - June 6, 2011

3D has already dipped in the US, as it is too expensive to take the family, and frankly, people are getting sick of the accessories needed to watch the films. I read somewhere that investment in 3D cinemas is picking up overseas to compensate for what is a significant drop in the US. There is also high speculation that, by the time “Phantom Menace” is released in 3D, that the fad may have already passed.

JJ is right to stick with what works best. Though, Peter Jackson is said to be looking to push the envelope when “Hobbit” hits in 3D.

84. Thorny - June 6, 2011

“We are taking our time, though,”

Understatement of the year!

85. KHAN 2.0 - June 6, 2011

aside from Iron Man 3 what films will be released summer 2013?

possibles are Wolverine 2, Indy 5, GhostBusters 3, Terminator 5, Blade runner 2 and the Highlander remake

obviously some of those wont make it for then but 2013 is quite a way off and anything could happen…

86. JKP - June 6, 2011

No 3D!!!

No 3D!!!

No 3D!!!

Hold the line JJ and please keep that stupid, dark gimmick out of Trek.

87. Captain Brinn - June 6, 2011

Yeah, I hate 3D

88. Anthony Thompson - June 6, 2011

55. Bill Peters

It sounds like you are hedging, my man! ; ) You had assured me and the rest of us here that the film could be prepped, filmed and post-produced in less than 12 months. Like all those other summer tent-pole movies you named (none of which stood up to scrutiny, of course). LOL!

89. Trekboi - June 6, 2011

so arrogant.

Just take your time JJ, don’t worry about the fans, the intrest there was in the new film (now faded) don’t worry about the third dimemsion & being able to compete with the other 3D films & tent pole films or getting it done on time just do what you want- it’s all about you.

Sheesh!
Unbelievable- the man needs a (fan) reality check.

90. Trekboi - June 6, 2011

wow im bitter.
But I just cannot believe they have waisted the opportunity for a sequel building on the momentum of the first film.
It was too late to release it on may 2012- but they couldn’t even manage that even after pushing it back a year.

R.I.P. Star Trek.

91. trekker 5 - June 6, 2011

Ok,when I saw this,I said,’Oh My God!!’ Out loud,then I started laughing,not sure why,but I just did. Part of me understands not rushing,because they want it to be good,I want it to be good!! But part of me wants to pout like a kid because I want to see it so bad!! And,#54,Aurore,hey! And I’m with you,I guess we’ll keep on waiting! *Sigh*

92. trekker 5 - June 6, 2011

#90,Trekboi,Its ok to be a bit bitter,I am too. :)

93. cdp - June 6, 2011

I try to stay positive and think like this. Would I rather have no Star Trek at all or a Star Trek every four or five years and my vote would a a Star Trek every four or five years. You have to also remember they are busy guys JJ just finished Super 8 and O/K just finish Cowboys and Aliens and and then Kurtsman started work on Welcome to People and Damon just wrote Prometheus. They cant do everything at once but now with all there other projects behind them they can focus 100% on Star Trek so I am just happy that we are going to get another Star Trek movie I really don’t care when it happens as long as it happens.

94. Mikeypikey - June 6, 2011

Really disappointed it won’t be in 3D, would have liked the option to see it in both.

95. Aurore - June 6, 2011

91& 92. Olivia.

Good evening.

Olivia, I saw Star Trek 2009 for the first time, in November 2009 (DVD) ; I had not been aware of the fact that, a Star Trek movie had been in the works, before its release.

Thus,since my input has not been necessary for the scripting , directing of Star Trek 2009, I leave it to the professionals to deliver an excellent film in 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015?

Seriously, though, I can wait, I mean it.

P.S. : @73.Daniel. I love the way you think.

96. Bill Peters - June 6, 2011

#73 I agree with you :)

97. Kirk, James T. - June 6, 2011

I honestly don’t think it’ll be delayed a whole year. November 2012 looks like it could be met but even June/July looks promising. I doubt the studio will want it to be released the same weekend as The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit but I don’t see the reason for a massive gap between them.

The Dark Knight Rises is set for release on 20th July

That could mean we see Star Trek sometime in August? 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th or 31st

If they go for a Christmas release then you have The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey releasing on the 14th and plenty more fridays for them to release another big Christmas blockbuster however I think Summer 2012 is more realistic.

If I’m not too much mistaken it took a total of 13 months to get “Star Trek” made – thats about right yeah?

If so If they began pre-production in July this year and began filming in September/October they have plenty of time to get this movie out for August 2012 after TDKR

98. Kirk, James T. - June 6, 2011

I still think there will be a big announcement on the Star Trek sequel at this years SDCC

99. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 6, 2011

#41. Red Dead Ryan…

“If the “Star Trek” sequel went head to head against a “Twilight” movie, which one would win? The “Twilight” movie, would, unfortunately. Quality doesn’t necessarily equal quantity.”

Star Trek 2009 did well at the box office in the first 10 weeks of view if I’m not mistaken … Twilight has made ​​a big hit in the first week after the display is a big drop in ticket sales in the coming weeks… teens rush to see the movie in the first week… the audience of Star Trek is different… but I am no expert on this, I am speaking only as an observer…

I think a good film will appeal to fans of Star Trek… I surely will not go to see Twilight in the first week…

:-) :-)

100. KHAN 2.0 - June 6, 2011

i think we’ll get a teaser trailer by the years end:

-ominous Horner-esque music
-Paramount Logo
-Bad Robot Logo
-Fade to ultra realistic space field
-’From director JJ Abrams’
-camera pans around unless it focuses on a small derelict ship…we can see the name etched on in faded red lettering ‘BOTANY BAY’
-dramatic beat/very faint ‘khaaaan!!’ scream heard
-fade to black
-Starfleet Logo dripping in blood
-STARDATE: 6/29/12.
-Credits

101. Alientraveller - June 6, 2011

I hope JJ films it in 3D just so we don’t get a mediocre post-production conversion. I think if a film has good 3D, it shouldn’t require the glasses.

102. Aurore - June 6, 2011

Bill Peters.

Stop following me like that!!!

:))

103. trekker 5 - June 6, 2011

#95,Aurore,I saw Trek 09 3 times when it came out in May of 09,I frist heard about it in Jan. 09,right around my B-day,so I was excited then,and stayed excited,in fact,that same excitement is still with me right now!! I want the next Trek to be awesome,however long it takes,sorry for being a bit bitter eariler.

104. Aurore - June 6, 2011

103.Olivia.

I’m sorry if I gave you the wrong impression ; you are ENTITLED to your feelings.Please, don’t apologise. Come on! We are Trek fans ; agreeing on everything is out of the question!

You make me proud.

:)

105. captain_neill - June 6, 2011

100

I will go delali if they redo Khan.

106. DesiluTrek - June 6, 2011

Those of us old enough to remember know what happens when a release date is locked in. December 7, 1979, anyone?

I’d rather have a good movie later than a half-baked one on time. Although I don’t know if the next movie can undo the damage to my idea of Star Trek even if it comes out six months or a year later.

107. Symar - June 6, 2011

[sigh] I guess I’m going to have to go and shell out the big bucks to watch one of these new generation 3D movies to see if they are any better than what we had when it was a fad back in the ’70s. I just watched PotC4 in 2D and every time someone pointed a sword at the audience, I thought to myself, “Is THIS what everyone is all excited about seeing in 3D???”

If so, been there, done that, don’t want to do it again.

108. Daoud - June 6, 2011

@106: STARDATE 7912.07… it was doomed by opening on Pearl Harbor Day in and of itself. That movie was not great because of PARAMOUNT demanding all the bucks spent on effects was on the screen. Spock’s tears, left on the cutting room floor? Aye. The handshake, the smile…. we all know the DATE was not the source of problems for TMP.
.
JJK/O/L/Bad Rossum’s Universal Robots doesn’t have this excuse. They’ve already had 3 years to be working on this film’s story and script. In that time, GR went from a new Paramount Television Series “Star Trek” to a film to a PTN series “Star Trek: Phase II” to a film “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, and wrote the novelization to boot, and had 12 scripts ready for the new series. Don’t even try comparing these planking jokers to what GR managed to do from 1976 to 1979 in LESS time.

109. KHAN 2.0 - June 6, 2011

105 – is that good or bad?

110. trekker 5 - June 6, 2011

#104,Aurore, :) I’m telling you,you make me :) ! Your short post there,yeah,it just made my day!! Thank-you!! :)

111. Adolescent Nightmare - June 6, 2011

Too many trekkies are selfish pigs. And I’m not just talking about their bodies.

112. Shannon Nutt - June 6, 2011

I still say we’re going to get this for Christmas 2012.

113. Azrael - June 6, 2011

@108, Man the ST:TMP sucked so bad it is beyond description. It is easily the worst movie in the entire franchise. Far worse than even Nemesis was. Don’t try to tell me how good Gene was at this stuff. He was barely any better than George Lucas. Both are (or were in Gene’s case) good at ideas but total shite when directing. And remember the best Trek films (2, 6,) were hated by Gene and the cast. What does that tell you?

114. Harry Ballz - June 6, 2011

113.

Robert Wise directed ST:TMP, not Gene Roddenberry.

It would appear that you don’t know shite from shinola!

115. D D - June 6, 2011

Good. No 3D.:)

116. Azrael - June 6, 2011

That doesn’t change the fact that it sucked hard Harry nor does it change the fact that Gene was going to direct until the studio took it away from him.

117. Red Dead Ryan - June 6, 2011

105.
……

What the hell does “delali” mean anyway? And why do you always get paranoid when someone mentions “Khan”?

111.
……

OINK! What the……(SNORT!)…..hell are you…(GRUNT!)…talking about?

114.
……

HOLY CRAPOLA!

118. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - June 6, 2011

Glad to hear that Trek 12 will NOT be in 3D!!!

119. P Technobabble - June 6, 2011

116.

At no time was Gene Roddenberry going to direct TMP. There was a list of directors being considered.
As for the movie sucking, that’s YOUR opinion — which is fine. But there are quite a few of us who like it, in spite of whatever flaws it may have. Nothing in this world is perfect, hmm?

120. Anthony Thompson - June 6, 2011

55 and 88.

It appears that Bill Peters has gone silent. : D

121. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 6, 2011

Wow, people, lighten up about the planking! Have you not heard the saying, “All work and no play…”? Grief.

On the 3D issue, it will be Paramount (JJ Abrams’ bosses) who will make the final decision and JJ will have to do as he is told. This is why those opposed to the next Star Trek being filmed in 3D need to be vehement in our opposition so that the suits can’t afford not to take notice. At the end of the day, it is Paramount’s money, investment and risk.

I know I will be as disappointed as anybody else if they don’t make the June 2012 release date. An (early?) birthday/Christmas present is fine as well. Movies like Twilight will always get bigger audiences, but that does not mean that other movies of a different genre can’t do well. Of course, the industry is competitive (lots of money and risk riding on these productions), but it should and can provide for a variety of tastes, even sometimes if they may be a minority. It is as much up to the public to choose and demand a certain quality/quantity of their favourite types of cinema.

No matter what, for me and mine, there is no competition between the Star Trek sequel and the Hobbit. We will be seeing both, “even if I have to get out and push her (ie car, in this case) myself”…

122. Anthony Thompson - June 6, 2011

I like what JJ is saying here. It boils down to two things:

1. No 3D unless the “suits” intervene.
2. He is commited to quality rather than knocking a film out in 12 months time.

123. Canon Schmanon - June 6, 2011

I appreciate that they want to do it right and not rush it. However, why not commit to a 3rd film and do them both at the same time? Peter Jackson can tell them how to do that.

I know, I know, that isn’t going to happen. It’s just that I’m getting older, and would like to see another effing movie in my lifetime. Pardon my pseudo-swearing. Star Trek brings out the boy in me, though that boy is long gone physically.

124. Jonboc - June 6, 2011

the studio would be foolish to not convert the film to 3D, whether it was shot that way or not. The $12 a ticket revenue for 3D showings is one of the main factors inflating the box office numbers of so many new releases…it’s not bodies in the seats, but more expensive 3D tickets. Like recent successes, there will always be the choice to view the film in 2D or 3D. To eliminate that choice is to eliminate a lot of $$. I wouldn’t watch a 3D conversion of Trek either…I personally like the brighter image of a film that doesn’t require glasses. But if the 3D fans want to pay twice the price of a standard ticket to fatten up Treks box office take, why not??

125. Aurore - June 6, 2011

102

It appears that Bill Peters has gone silent because of me.

Bill, COME BACK, I DIDN’T MEAN IT ! FORGIVE ME.

BILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. FOLLOW ME. BILLLLL!

:)

126. Will_H - June 6, 2011

Glad its not in 3D but I think by him not rushing it he means that there’s gonna be a ton of delays because its not a priority. Then again, if they make a tighter story with less inconsistency than the last it might be worth it.

127. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 6, 2011

#121 – Keachick… I ‘m sure that Mr. Lindelof is able to handle a little joke I made ​​about “planking”, if you ‘re referring about it… he should not have paid attention … I think he was more interested in “X – Men First Class” lately… hmmm … LOL

just kidding … LOL

:-) :-)

128. Will - June 6, 2011

Misleading headline. He says he’ll film it in 3D if that is what the suits ask him to — that is what he means when he says he knows what is good for him.

129. N - June 6, 2011

3D gives me a headache, I only watch films in 2D (which I call it normal haha) I mean DVDs I buy aren’t gonna be 3D…

130. Generally Pleased - June 6, 2011

Well, considering the debates and the work that goes into making fans happy, I support that it takes time. For me, it’d be like rushing genius. It just isn’t right. Secondly, where 3D is concerned, I’d pay the extra money to see it in 3D, but I wouldn’t need to to love the movie. I’m neutral to 2D vs 3D.

[SPOILER ALERT]
There are a couple of [Easter eggs] here and  there. I will say that Leonard Nimoy is in the movie, if you can find him.
[/SPOILER ALERT

YESSSSS~! I love searching for stuff/people in movies, that’s why I enjoy watching Pixar movies, searching for the references of past films.

131. Generally Pleased - June 6, 2011

[SPOILER ALERT]
There are a couple of [Easter eggs] here and  there. I will say that Leonard Nimoy is in the movie, if you can find him.
[/SPOILER ALERT

I enjoy that.

Ugh. Twilight. It’s just new, and it doesn’t win critic awards. MTV movie awards, for me, doesn’t REALLY give a great list of movies to watch. Their fan base is so,ethnic to be concerned about, the same can be said for the 2013 movies. In all truth, 2012 is too soon, and 2013 will be a difficult hear, competition-wise. And if the movie’s cast creates enough anticipation, then I predict that it’ll do great in 2014. A year is long, but I what I want, a sooner date, won’t do the movie justice, so I can wait for two years.

In the mean time, I REALLY hope that the cast members amp it up. But there are A LOT of Trekkies, so I have no concerns about it making enough financially. Just my opinion.

But you can’t contest this–the Star Trek legacy of movies, serieses(?) is just amazing.

That is all.

132. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 6, 2011

I am disgusted at this point. With all these great fans wanting to spend money and all we get is one movie every five years?

Come on guys, PICK UP THE PACE! Every movie does no have to be an epic masterpiece, or made by only on production team or director. There is plenty of talent to go around Spend some money and make some product already!!!

133. Odkin - June 6, 2011

I hope everyone who is so invested in the Abrams version of Star Trek realizes that at MOST there will be a third movie before the cast members and producers break up with other commitments, career moves, disagreements, etc.

They’ll be an interesting couple of movies, but 6 hours of film is a drop in the ocean of almost 50 years of Trek.

134. Canon Schmanon - June 6, 2011

133 – I’m hoping for only three movies, then a new Trek series. I don’t want movies, I want a series.

135. matthias - June 6, 2011

I love movies, but want also a series.

136. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 6, 2011

No, Dee, I was referring to all the other comments about Orci and Lindelof not working hard enough, not caring, wasting time by doing trivial stuff like planking. I don’t know sometimes if people are quipping or what – it is hard to tell the intention/motivation behind what is written at times. It just does not read that nice.

137. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 7, 2011

#136 -

Yes… but unfortunately that’s the price they must pay, for maintaining the secrecy with all … the top secret thing! …LOL

:-) :-)

138. Battle-scarred Sciatica - June 7, 2011

WOW!

There is going to be a Star Trek movie?

I cannot wait.

I wonder who will be playing Han Solo?

139. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 7, 2011

Yes, I agree all this secrecy stuff is puerile. Please, JJ Abrams – you are not a little boy playing “Can you keep a secret?” stuff. Now it just seems very irritating, stupid and disrespectful. I think we deserve better.

Waiting with a nervous anticipation to that announcement where JJ Abrams, will actually DECIDE one way or the other, something I sense he should have done some time back.

140. Scott Gammans - June 7, 2011

No 3D (and can the flares while yer at it).

Take your time and get it right.

That is all.

141. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 7, 2011

I know someone who has seen almost every hour of Star Trek.
He says they killed Star Trek with the last movie.

I say it’s on life support.

142. Red Dead Ryan - June 7, 2011

141.
……

And I say you’re full of sh*t!

143. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 7, 2011

My friend says “Of course Star Trek is dead. They distroyed the whole Universe in the last movie!”

I tend to agree. How can I not agree?

144. Red Dead Ryan - June 7, 2011

143.
…….

Is your friend Rick Berman? :-D

145. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 7, 2011

Rick has’nt watched a third of Trek productions.

146. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 7, 2011

You can’t deny my friends pragmatic logic. Star Trek just is not relevant anymore. Where is it? It is gone. Gone for good.

147. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 8, 2011

So, why are you here, TrekMadeMeWonder, if Star Trek is dead and gone and no longer relevant anyway?

It is difficult for me not to agree with the succinct statement of post #142 (RDR).

148. N - June 8, 2011

let’s play spot the TOS fangirl

149. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

What? full of it for an opinion? Thou doth protest too much. It is a true story. FACE IT. Star Trek DID lose fans with the last (excuse for a) movie.

150. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 8, 2011

146. That arguement could have been made in ’69 and the years after, yet here we are.

151. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 8, 2011

-The decade after.

152. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

Like I said, Moarvian. Life Support.

Plus they DID destroy the Star Trek universe.

You (and everyone else here) have to fully realize that. Seems like ALOT of Trek fans have been in deep denial.

Star Trek’s only hope now is that they will steer the ship back to the Prime universe.

153. cdp - June 8, 2011

Sure Star Trek may have lost some fans with the last movie but you cant deny the fact that it also gained a large number of new fans witch probably makes up for any that it lost. I know people who where not a fan of Star Trek until seeing this new movie. I don’t think we have to worry about Star Trek going away any time soon as it seems to be alive and well and headed towards a bright future.

154. Red Dead Ryan - June 8, 2011

Maybe this “TrekMadeMeWonder” fellow IS Rick Berman trolling under a pseudonym?

155. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

Funny. Me Berman. HA! You just can’t face it, can you, Red Dead?
Any Trek Fan who says it should not be put back “on track” is illogical, and IS in denial of what Star Trek stood for. Period.

Just admit it Red Dead. THEY DISTROYED STAR TREK’S UNIVERSE!
AND YOU LIKED IT! Unbelievable. Sure it was good for a one-off adventure, but is that what we were expecting from the new production? For “them” to destroy and ignore all of Star Trek history?

I said it before, Red Dead. You are one of those in deep denial. IMO, you should seek out a sexy greek councelor at your nearest Starbase and have her look you over.

Oh, wait, She does’nt exist anymore either.

Hmmm. There is no hope for you.

156. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

Bob O. I hope you are taking notes.

157. Phil - June 8, 2011

@ 155. Bad day?

158. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

Bad Day?
No.

Just that this article has me concerned for Star Trek (a big part of my small world). And, I am happy that there is this forum for me to express that (Thanks TrekMovie!).

If anyone is listening. Please bring back Star Trek’s familiar Prime universe. It DOES make a difference to so many fans out there. Most of which would never take the time to post a message here, but have afforded thier time to pay attention to such details.

159. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

Oh. I (TrekMadeMenWonder) am on facebook if anyone is interested in my likeness.

Berman. That WAS funny.

I can’t stand Berman.

160. cdp - June 8, 2011

@158

You are right you are entitled to your opinion and are are most certainly free to express it on this site but you do not speak for all Star Trek fans. I became a fan of Star Trek back in the 80′s watching The Next Generation and that is my personnel favorite series. Rick Berman isn’t that bad he produced some great Star Trek. Sure there where some bad episodes here and there but there where some bad original series episodes as well (Spokes Brain for example). Though I am a Next Gen fan at heart I do love and appreciate every incarnation of Star Trek in its own way and JJ Star Trek is no exception. I am just happy to have Star Trek still around be in TV or Movie form. I don’t care if its a prim time-line, parallel time-line, or even a mirror universe time-line. As long as there is Star Trek around for me to enjoy I am happy. I must say I am very happy with JJ Abrams Star Trek. It was fun and exiting and very clever.It didn’t mess with the original prim time-line at all but created a parallel time-line so as to not effect the original canon. Lets all just be happy that we still at least have Star Trek around to talk about, maybe we have to agree to disagree on some of are opinions but at least it gives us something to talk about and debate.
and no I am not Rick Berman.

161. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

I was happy with the 1009 release as well. Very happy. My only caveat is that it is taking 5 years between each movie. If we were to project what is going to happen with Trek, at this pace it will take 15 years to get a trilogy.

UNACEPTABLE.

When you tack on that ST09 has us headed in an utterly new timeline, it just do not make sense to “forget” about the Prime verse.

Let me make a prediction here. By the time a new series is produced (hopefully), the producers will not REALLY be sure, or care to admit which universe we are now in. Because of Star Trek’s lack of continuity, and poor track record of consistency, and now because this latest movie decided to jump the tracks. Many will not care, or perhaps even notice when it does arrive.

Call me foolish, or full of Sh*t. But, I care about such things, because I am a big fan of STAR TREK.

162. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 8, 2011

Yeah. That supposed to say “2009″ in the first line.
Not my first typo, though. : )

163. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 8, 2011

TrekMadeMeWonder, I actually enjoy reading your opinion, I’m just not sure I agree. Certainly time will tell, but you’re no less a fan because of it. TOS is my Trek so I’m glad to see those characters given new life, even in a new light, but there certainly were things I would have done differently. I didn’t care for the changes TNG brought and still don’t so this was not too difficult to accept. I wouldn’t expect to see the prime universe anytime soon, at least not with this team. Maybe one day though.

164. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 9, 2011

TrekMadeMeWonder – Please stop telling porkies!

NO UNIVERSE HAS BEEN DESTROYED.

What happened is that the planet Romulus (along with one or two other minor planets/moons no doubt) was destroyed by a rogue supernova in the prime universe.

What happened is that the planet Vulcan was destroyed by Nero, a Romulan from the other prime universe who falsely believed that a guy called Spock never really intended to save his homeworld Romulus from destruction. His loss, grief and anger sent him mad and a vengeful mindset took hold of him.

What we do have now is: an intact prime universe minus the planet Romulus and an intact alternate universe minus the planet Vulcan.

Two important and well populated planets destroyed but universe(s) otherwise intact! Right now, we find ourselves in this alternate, parallel? universe with pretty much the same people as there were in the other one, with lives still to be lived.

I don’t have a problem with this. I guess this is life as we know (or come to know) it now. If you believe that Star Trek is now dead and irrelevant, because it jumped the tracks – well, that is your privilege. But please, do not presume to think you care more about Star Trek than anyone else here. While there are some who may not (their prerogative), some of us just might care very much and are doing all we can to help and encourage the present Bad Robot team to do their very best to make a great sequel to the first Star Trek 09 film.

165. TrekMadeMeWonder - June 10, 2011

Good words, Moauvian and Keachick.

I am also an old school TOS lover. That show always new when to place a little gauze over the lens. Come to think about it, It does remind me of JJ’s lens flares effects. TNG had me sppoked from the beginning, when they tried to present a Galaxy Class Starship on a television budget. That show rarley had any real scope.

I did not mean to insuate that I care more for Trek than others here, Keachik, however, I did want to “sound the alarm” that we may never see a TOS feature. And the whole loss of continuity thing still has me worried.

Yes, I agree! Go Bad Robot!

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