JJ Abrams: “Cool” Star Trek Sequel “Worth The Wait” + Is Paramount Already Planning Delay? | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: “Cool” Star Trek Sequel “Worth The Wait” + Is Paramount Already Planning Delay? June 6, 2011

by Rosario T. Calabria , Filed under: Abrams,CBS/Paramount,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

There is more from JJ Abrams about the Star Trek sequel, with the producer talking about a "cool" story as well as discussing decisions on the release date and his directing of the film, saying it will be "worth the wait." Plus another report adds to speculation that Paramount may already be planning for a delay on the Star Trek sequel. Details on all that below, plus analysis on a new possible release date.    

 

Abrams on ‘super cool’ sequel story + (if delayed) will be ‘worth the wait’

Another comment on the Star Trek sequel has emerged from JJ Abrams Super 8 publicity tour, this time coming from HitFix where Abrams talks up the story for the next Star Trek, and again keeps the questions of the release date and his directing open:

We are still working on story. Some super cool stuff — but I won’t be able to make a decision on directing until we have our script and I know what I’m being asked to direct. As for release date, that is not a concern of mine. Perhaps we could still make the date the studio wants. But we are focusing on making a great movie: the guys I’m collaborating with are the best and we all want the same thing

And in speaking to CNN, Abrams noted that if delayed the sequel will be worth the wait:

I’m not so sure, but I know that we’re trying. We’re working on the script and story and doing everything we can to make it well. I would just so much rather make a movie that’s worth people’s time than make a movie that’s on time…I’m not inclined to push it. I’m inclined to make a movie that’s good and if it works out in that timetable then we’ll all be thrilled. If it doesn’t, when the movie comes out it’ll be worth the wait.


JJ Abrams still can’t say if he will direct Star Trek sequel or when it will be released – but does say it has a "super cool" story

GI Joe 2 progress another hint that the Star Trek sequel will be delayed?

Today also has another tea leaf to read regarding the release date of the Star Trek sequel. In an article about casting for Paramount’s G.I. Joe: Cobra Strikes, Deadline has a throw-away line that casually implies that a decision may have already been made internally at Paramount that the sequel will be delayed:

"[G.I. Joe 2] has become an important one for Paramount, which will have to scratch the Star Trek sequel from its summer 2012 schedule and will likely put this film in its place." (Emphasis added)

The casual way in which this comment is presented certainly leads one to believe a decision has already been made. But it’s important to note that Paramount Pictures has not confirmed any change in plans for the Star Trek sequel, which is currently set to release on June 29, 2012. However, as TrekMovie.com has been reporting, rumors persist that the film could be delayed, possibly to a Holiday 2012 date.

Analysis: Is Holiday 2012 an option? If not, when?

While a move to a Holiday 2012 release is the prevailing rumor, that period is already crowded and leaves Paramount with few options. Here are the films already scheduled for the Holiday 2012 season:

Another option could be for the Star Trek sequel to swap spots with G.I. Joe 2 which is currently slated for release on August 10, 2012. With Abrams’ Super 8 soon in theaters, the director can turn his focus to Star Trek and do pre-production over the summer and start shooting (as scheduled) in September. In theory Abrams could make the original release date of June 29, 2012, as it is a few weeks less than Abrams had for Super 8. But if it proves not to be, then the extra six weeks could make a difference, and that way Paramount doesn’t lose a Summer 2012 film.

If neither of those options pan out, the next likeliest option would be summer 2013 which at the moment is mostly open. Here are the films currently scheduled:

POLL: When do you think Paramount will release the Star Trek sequel?

We polled on this over a month ago, but now with the latest hints and comments, when do you think the Star Trek sequel will be released.

Should Spock & Uhura Break Up For Star Trek 2016?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments

1. ensign joe - June 6, 2011

OY!

2. George - June 6, 2011

I really don’t care when it comes out, if people keep pushing to meet a release date then we’ll end up with a crappy movie. I think JJ and friends know better than to rush things, so let them be and let them give us another movie we’ll be proud of!!

3. Allen Williams - June 6, 2011

I don’t get why they waited nearly 2 years to even start on the script. As far as I’m concerned they should have started the second the other movie went opened in the theaters. I’m not saying it should be rushed, but it shouldn’t have been delayed without any progress at all either.

4. Cygnus-X1 - June 6, 2011

I’m ready to bet real money at this point on Summer 2013.

Any takers?

5. Allen Williams - June 6, 2011

PS: JJ I better not see any stupid lens flares in this movie.

6. YeahANewMovie!!! - June 6, 2011

early spring 2013. I never understood why there are never blockbusters in spring

7. Lousy Canadian - June 6, 2011

Take your time guys, I don’t care how soon or late it is, as long as it’s a great movie. The first one proved the wait was totally worth it, best of luck!

8. chris laroche - June 6, 2011

Come on!

9. ncc50446 - June 6, 2011

They already know it’s going to be delayed…That’s why there is so much talk of it. They should just hurry up and make it official..
Let’s face it, Star Trek isn’t a priority. Should have been worked on a while ago.

10. Jason - June 6, 2011

I think when abrams really means is he wont be able to make a decision until after he see’s how super 8 opens and he knows what kinda money to ask for

11. 12YearOldTrekker - June 6, 2011

Ok, so all this post tells us is, the movie is “cool”, and it will be delayed. Kinda pointless, but I’m thinking the company will swap times with g.i.joe.

I wish it would come in Summer 2013 though.

12. StalwartUK - June 6, 2011

They’ll probably end up delaying it to the summer of 2013 so that it can make the most money.

13. Phil - June 6, 2011

Five posts in for the first shot at JJ. It never ends… :-(

14. Bucky - June 6, 2011

Nov 9th is looking a bit crammed because of Bond and Twilight the next week, but I don’t think there’s much crossover in there (however it would take away casual viewers, probably). I say Nov 21st. Neither look to imposing (and one is even a Paramount release) and it’ll have a good long while to itself (relatively speaking) until Hobbit lands mid-Dec.

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

As long as it has a great story and a new and more real Engine Room then I am ok with waiting a bit longer.

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

I think the best thing for Trek is to switch with GI Joe. That is what they should do to give them more time to get everything perfect as Christmas will be simply to busy.

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

If JJ Abrams says that they are working hard to keep the date that the studio wants to… My vote is still June 29… after all, JJAbrams still not giving definitive information about anything… keeping the “Top secret thing”!

:-) :-)

18. Slick1KO - June 6, 2011

Glad to see that somehow this just sneaked up on everyone involved??? You would think they would have wanted to capitalize on the momentum the first movie created. Two years later they just getting around to working on the script. No decision on if you are or or not going to direct. Sound like a big mess… Hope this gets straigtened out and a good movie comes out of this. I am a die hard Star Trek fan but am getting tired of all this.

19. Rocket Scientist - June 6, 2011

I’ll definitely see it when it comes out, but oddly, I’m not on pins and needles. It’ll come out when it does. I’m sure it’ll be fine.

20. VZX - June 6, 2011

I don’t think August is a good idea. It won’t do as well.

To coin a phrase: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

21. Driver - June 6, 2011

So at some point the film will be ready to be released. Then, like before, they will delay release until a suitable date is agreed on. Brother! Here we go again.

22. Sunfell - June 6, 2011

I am willing to wait. Let’s just hope that the actors in the film are willing to wait, also. I would rather wait for quality storytelling and production than have a half-baked mess foisted upon me. I trust JJ.

Hollywood is a fickle place. I knew that setting a ‘solid’ date was setting things up for disappointment. But that’s the breaks.

23. spike - June 6, 2011

Do it right…but 2013, I hope not.

24. the Quickening - June 6, 2011

Any release date picked is going to depend on the degree of progress they have actually made on the script and production–which none of us really knows. Given the implication of Abrams’ statement that even the original June 29th is still possible, I’m thinking a long delay is not really necessary. I’m hoping, the release date chosen will be August 12th–swapping places with G.I. Joe 2. A Holiday, 2012 or Summer, 2013 is just a hugh mistake. TREK will get murdered with that degree of competition.

25. Joe - June 6, 2011

#9

I personally would hate to think that Star Trek would become less of a priority than G.I.Joe considering how much more money Star Trek made for Paramount than G.I.Joe at least domestically. I would think if anything that Paramount is just working around Abram’s schedule as well as Orci and Kurtzman because all three of them take on so much more upon themselves than they can possibly handle. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong but right now that is the way I am seeing it.

26. Jesustrek - June 6, 2011

Verano de 2012 No mas / Summer 2012 No more.

27. I'm Dead Jim! - June 6, 2011

I would hope that the story is far enough along now that he would KNOW what he’d be directing and be able to make his decision NOW for crying out loud! Jeez! I wonder what has to change before he decides!

28. Chain of Command - June 6, 2011

Is Nick Meyer available?? LOL

29. Canon Schmanon - June 6, 2011

Well, of course he’s going to say the story is “cool.” He’s trying to placate the fans who will be pissed about the delay. It’s a meaningless quote. What is cool to one person isn’t necessarily cool to another. To me, it’ll be “worth the wait” if they can get engineering out of that damned brewery and onto the Enterprise. The brewery was very recognizable as a 20th/21st century place, and really needs to go away. It wasn’t “steampunk” at all, it was just lazy and stupid. It looked like they’d run out of their budget and had to go down the street to Budweiser and finish the film. Pathetic. Otherwise, a pretty good movie, really. But I’m expecting a lot more this time. We’ll see if they deliver. WIth all this extra time they better really make it “cool” and “worth the wait.” We need more than platitudes.

30. Samuel - June 6, 2011

#25 – Joe – the biggest challenge is improving audience attendance in the international markets. GI: JOE performed better than STAR TREK in 2009 overseas, but both movies’ performance was medicore in that perspective – especially when you look at the amount of marketing that was set-out in the different countries. Paramount had to be disappointed in the returns of their investment, internationally.

I can see GI JOE 2 moving up because Paramount wants a summer blockbuster going into the holiday weekend but can they deliver a movie for a late June start I don’t know. But GI JOE script is completed, I understand, and has been since February,and filming supposedly starts in August.

31. Joel - June 6, 2011

Looking at the slate of movies for Holidays 2012, Trek would have an awful lot of competition. The Hobbit and Superman? Yikes.

If they can get the project off the ground soon enough, why not swap dates with GI Joe? August 10th gives an extra six weeks for them to finish the movie.

32. Anthony Thompson - June 6, 2011

I’ve noticed that Bob has been conspiculously absent from these boards since his “big f-ing mouth” comment. I wonder if perhaps he’s been muzzled by Paramount (or JJ)?

33. Red Dead Ryan - June 6, 2011

Summer 2013, please! Switching spots with “G.I Joe” would only doom the “Star Trek” film to summer crap purgatory. By the time August rolls around, everyone has spent their money already. And as Anthony mentioned, the fall of 2012 is too competitive.

Therefore, Summer 2013 is the only logical time for the sequel to be released. Afterall, these movies aren’t being made exclusively for us anymore. Its also for the mainstream audience, who aren’t necessarily starving for more Trek at the moment.

34. The Riddler - June 6, 2011

It would be nice if they stopped talking about writing the script and actually wrote the flipping thing.

35. Chadwick - June 6, 2011

Star Trek 12, Bond 23, and The Dark Knight Rises are the 2012 movies I am anticipating the most.

They must do what they have to make this movie great, I am all for it.

36. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - June 6, 2011

Since it’s not really an option available…I’d say November.

37. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 6, 2011

This isn’t the old Star Trek. This is a Star Trek that can compete with the big boys. Release it whenever. Against whoever. It will do fine.

38. T'Cal - June 6, 2011

I don’t need a crystal ball to figure out that they are lost. They don’t know what to do. This spells failure. I will go to see this movie only four times instead of five or six. Pathetic!

39. Tempus - June 6, 2011

I’m fine with whenever. Take your time! We’ve seen what happens when Trek movies are rushed and….uugggghhhh bad memories.

Though, an August 10th date would be really cool for me, best b-day EVER!

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

#33. Red Dead Ryan

“Therefore, Summer 2013 is the only logical time for the sequel to be released.”

Really? … only if you were Spock, I would buy this idea as a “logical time” … don’t be afraid … think more like Kirk … “I don’t believe in no-win scenarios” … LOL … sorry, but I do not understand your fixation about Summer 2013 …

:-) :-)

41. Eric - June 6, 2011

NO, ITS THE LEGEND OF ZORRO ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!! Stop the writers before Uhura and Spock have a smart ass, overly athletic, child that spews out lame one-liners and destroys the franchise!

42. Eric - June 6, 2011

Someone will have to reboot this reboot.

43. Red Dead Ryan - June 6, 2011

39.
….

I’d rather wait an extra year for a GREAT Trek film as opposed to seeing a crappy version in July 2012. Paramount is treating “Star Trek” as a summer tentpole franchise now. Fall 2012 is too crowded so therefore summer 2013 is the best bet.

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

Just release the movie when it is ready to be released! There is always competition, always will be.

Interesting to note – if Star Trek gets released around Holiday time 2012, it will be at the same time as The Rise of the Guardians does, an animated movie, another Paramount production and starring the voice of Chris Pine as Jack Frost. Then there is Welcome to People – who knows when that will be released, but the main character is played by Chris Pine. What if that gets released at about the same time as the other two Pine (ST and RotG) movies? Could be countless numbers of breathless Pinenuts about, come late next year…:)

My feeling is that any delay in release will be the result of Paramount deciding to do it in proper 3D. Another good reason why it is better to be done in 2D, the most likely director’s preferred medium and less post-production to do.

45. Michael - June 6, 2011

Dee@39 – RDR has this belief that STAR TREK cannot compete against other franchises and high-profile films and has made the argument often that it should be released in some type of safe harbor period, which doesn’t exist. But STAR TREK can compete because in the end people want to see a good film and will go and spend their money, obviously, if they know they are going to be entertained.

46. VOODOO - June 6, 2011

Hate to say it, but it’s going to be summer 2013. As I said in another post this may not be a bad thing in the long run.

2012 will be the biggest year for blockbuster films in many years. If Star Trek 12 comes out next year it may just be another blockbuster in a sea of blockbusters. If it comes out in 2013 it will absolutely crush the weak competition. It could put up Star Wars type numbers and bring the series to the next level.

Also, if there is another year gap Paramount may feel the need to give the animated series that Bob Orci was talking about the green light to keep the franchise on everyone’s mind.

I would be as disappointed as anyone if ST 12 were to miss it’s 2012 release date, but I would prefer they take their time and make a great film rather than rush and give us a half baked film like tptb did with Generations.

47. Red Dead Ryan - June 6, 2011

45.
….

Yes, but most people only have so much monney to spread around on different movies, that often they have to pick and choose which films to go to.

Which means they’re going to go with the safe bet, which is NOT “Star Trek”, but is “Superman” or “James Bond”.

Yes, “Star Trek 12″ will have to face some tough competition. But I’d rather see it during a summer with less heavyweights than 2012. “The Dark Knight Rises”, “The Avengers” are just two films that have a chance at breaking some box office records.

2013 will still have competition, but at least there is (so far) enough room for Trek to find its niche and make a ton of money.

48. the Quickening - June 6, 2011

#37
This isn’t the old Star Trek. This is a Star Trek that can compete with the big boys. Release it whenever. Against whoever. It will do fine.

I’m not sure of my facts, but did TREK ’09 really perform any better than the biggest grossing TREK films before it? If adjusted for inflation, TMP, TVH and FC did pretty well also. If so, I doubt TREK ’09 made all that much more. I still don’t see any evidence that TREK can perform and compete with the big boys… especially internationally, which is becoming the true measuring stick of how the “big boys” are judged.

49. dmduncan - June 6, 2011

Today I had the unusual opportunity to wander around a closed movie theater. It’s going to be torn down in a few weeks or months, and they left the door open, so I thought I’d go see how it felt to be inside of a “dead” theater. If anyone saw me I figured the worst they could do is yell at me.

The seats had all been removed, the projectors were all gone. There were some movie posters hanging in some of the projection booths. Samuel Jackson’s “Shaft” was one of the posters.

Even though it was a closed theater, I could sense the echoes of laughter, of screams, of cheers created by all the movies that had been shown there. And I had the sense that there — in the theater — is where the magic really happens. Hollywood is a factory. That’s where they do the work that makes the movie. But the magic, the real magic happens in the theaters when the lights go down and we in the audience settle into our chairs to enter a different world and live for a little while in someone else’s shoes. It’s in the theater where we tell our stories to each other, where we share our fears and dreams. That’s the magic of the movies.

And it’s a magic that is strongest for the movie that is best.

So I don’t care how long it takes. JJ is right. The experience makes the movies memorable and keeps us coming back to watch them over and over.

That’s WORTH waiting for.

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

Magic does not come from rushing something nor does it come from overthinking either. It has a transcendent, spontaneous quality – a hook on the heart. I guess it is about allowing everything to unfold as it can and should and the magic will work itself. It really doesn’t matter when the movie is released – all it needs is that magical “hook” and people will be drawn in by word of mouth.

51. the Quickening - June 6, 2011

#45.
Dee@39 – RDR has this belief that STAR TREK cannot compete against other franchises and high-profile films and has made the argument often that it should be released in some type of safe harbor period, which doesn’t exist. But STAR TREK can compete because in the end people want to see a good film and will go and spend their money, obviously, if they know they are going to be entertained.

I see TREK as a little different than the over-the-top, dumbed-down, effects-filled, cartoon-based fantasy genre films that pass as escapist movies today. In this regard, TREK comes up short. If released near these kinds of films, I feel people will elect to see the ultra-expensive, overly visceral, eye candy type of entertainment over it.

These films also require huge budgets to make. Spending that kind of money could be the kiss of death to the TREK film series and franchise.

If TREK could find a way to substantially increase it’s overseas sales, thereby justifying spending that kind of money, competing face-to-face with other similar films wouldn’t be a problem. I just don’t see that yet for TREK, and doubt Paramount would be foolish enough to spend that kind of money at this time.

Poor international performance has been a sore spot for TREK since forever, and Abrams’ film didn’t solve it either–though it did a better job than most TREK films in the past.

52. Basement Blogger - June 6, 2011

Sigh. It looks like Star Trek will not warp into theaters in 2012. The script is not done. Well, if they release it in 3D and give Abrams more money to film it in 3D, then the extra time will be worth it to develop 3D special effects. From a financial standpoint, 2013 looks better for Star Trek. But won’t the actors be too old for the teenage demographic. I keeed. I keeed.

What to do? New Star Trek television series? Nope. New Star Trek game? Maybe. Maybe this could be the first videogame-movie tie in that reaches classic levels. Okay, if the game comes out in 2012, that’s something to look forward.

53. Buzz Cagney - June 6, 2011

Good grief. How disappointing.

54. gingerly - June 6, 2011

Dont care when it comes out as long as its that much better.

55. Bill Peters - June 6, 2011

I think it will come out on time :)

56. Bill Peters - June 6, 2011

I think the Bold partt JJ thinks it will come out on time and he is saying Perhaps to tamp down Excitement on the part of fans! so if not it will swap dates with GI Joe Two and still be out in 2012!

57. Ivory - June 6, 2011

46

I agree with everything that you said. Abrams is already bracing us for a delay.

58. Will_H - June 6, 2011

GI Joe 2?! Are you seriously? Paramount needs to pull its head out of its ass. Star Trek’s one of the best franchises it has going now thanks to the last movie and the fact that its going to push Star Trek back for trash like GI Joe 2 just makes my brain hurt. At this point I don’t think its about quality. Seems like, given how fast they did the first one, they could of completed the scripts for a trilogy by now.

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

#51 – “If released near these kinds of films, I feel people will elect to see the ultra-expensive, overly visceral, eye candy type of entertainment over it.”

Maybe. I think these kinds of films could be a fad and it is possible that people are already tiring of them. Box office returns are not as good as hoped. I’m not sure why Star Trek box office takings internationally are not greater. Perhaps it is because people outside the US think that it is just about future Americans in space. Do any sci-fi TV or movies do as well as other genres, outside the English speaking countries with similar cultures, as well as they do within our type of society? It could be a difference of cultural interests and priorities.

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

#58 – Honestly, people, who says Paramount is going to do anything? All JJ hinted at is that he didn’t want to be rushed into doing an OK film on time if, given a little more time, he could do something brilliant (my paraphrasing). Paramount has not said anything about any change of release date for the Star Trek sequel or, as far as I know, about any other movie on its books.

All this stuff about changing GI Joe 2′s release date and other stuff are things you guys are pulling out of your arses! It is just amazing the number of crystal ball gazers there are on this board and everyone is reading a different ball.

Balls, balls and more balls…

61. Frank Fischer - June 6, 2011

A new Star Trek TV series is the solution. The audience is waiting forever! I am also starting to loose interest again… I would love a new Star Trek TV series. It will heat up interest in Star Trek again and JJs team can take all the time to turn out blockbuster Star Trek movies in parallel at their speed.

62. Chris M - June 7, 2011

Personally I’m happy to wait for a while if it means that we get a great Star Trek film! Summer 2013 however is just a tad too far away for me though.
I would prefer to see the film in cinemas by the Holiday 2012 and with that schedule pretty full, I think the best option is to swap with G.I. Joe 2 and fingers crossed Star Trek XII is ready in time!!

63. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

No way in he!! that paramount releases a star trek movie in the land of misfit summer movies that is a mid August release date where summer blockbusters go to die.

August is more inline for movies like the Final Destination and halloween, and spy kids or GI Joe franchises, that will turn a profit but no where as much as the may june july releases. No star Trek is a Nov/December or May/June/July release type movie. Not a August/Sept release.

I still dont think Paramounts going to budge on the date, and i suspect if things arent starting to ramp up once super 8 hits this weekend (and if super 8 doesnt open huge or atleast have legs) that paramount might just say lets bring some one else in who can hit the date and also give us a great movie.

Really not to sure how super 8 is going to be as the trailers really play like a rip off of a spielbergs films of the 1980s, which spielbergs films from the 80s are great but i sure as heck want something more than mushy spielberg love letter.

64. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

58 its not paramounts fault that JJ and the rest of them put other movies as a bigger priority to them than star trek.

And for all this “i have to wait and see the script” bs that jj continues to say, he better darn well direct the thing once a script is in, otherwise the last 2 years of waiting will have been for naught.

Though my first choice to direct is still Nicholas Meyer.

65. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

And for the record it doesnt take months and months and months to write a great script. Some of the best movies ever produced were written in less than a month some even in less than a week.

66. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

and dont forget Avatar 2 and 3 starts rolling before the cameras in the not to distant future, meaning Zoe’s availabity will be limited. and at the moment she (along with chris pine) is the biggest name and box office draw of the main 7 actors.

67. Anthony Thompson - June 7, 2011

48. The Quickening

Where have you been the past couple of years, homeboy? Trek09 out-grossed ALL the other Star Trek films, including on an inflation-adjusted basis! That fact was reported here numerous times!

68. Anthony Thompson - June 7, 2011

AP, thanks for bringing back the original logo. The other one is too dark and poorly designed. This one communicates much better that this is a sequel and is the 2nd Abrams ST film, not some ST12!

69. CmdrR - June 7, 2011

68 – Ditto. STBusters-2 is cool until we get the real thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Summer 2013. Grrr. But, it’s definitely vital that the movie be good. No more TrekTurkeys.

70. KHAN 2.0 - June 7, 2011

other possible movies for release in summer 2013

Wolverine 2, Indy 5, Ghostbusters3, Deadpool, Terminator 5, Blade runner 2, Highlander remake.

maybe only a couple of those might make it for summer 2013 (e.g. T5 – Arnie isnt going to mope around for too much longer, he’ll want to get making movies again)

71. Devon - June 7, 2011

#48 = I’m not sure of my facts, but did TREK ‘09 really perform any better than the biggest grossing TREK films before it?”

Yes.

72. Devon - June 7, 2011

“34. The Riddler – June 6, 2011

It would be nice if they stopped talking about writing the script and actually wrote the flipping thing.”

That’s what they’ve been doing.

73. Kirk, James T. - June 7, 2011

I think Paramount and CBS will want Star Trek out no matter what in 2012 because I’m sure CBS have deals in place with companies to promote the movie in 2012 and whilst moving it within 2012, moving it to summer 2013 won’t be an option for many of the license holders.

Whilst I do respect Abrams and his team on taking the time to do Star Trek properly, it’s clear they took on far too much between Star Trek 2009 and now. Its great they can do other things but there came a point when it just got silly with all these projects each of the supreme court was attached to and now it feels a bit like Star Trek is the after thought – I’m sure it isn’t but it does feel like it. I think if there is a Star Trek 3 then they really do need to plan their time more effectively and as harsh as this sounds to any creative person, take on less so that Star Trek is the primary responsibility to work on. After the 3rd movie, then great. The trillogy complete and they can either move on or take their time in bringing Trek back to the TV screens

August 10th 2012 for me sounds very likely, swapping GI-Joe 2 with Star Trek means little in the way of messing around as well as giving Abrams and Co. the extra time they may need to get the film THEY want to see onto film.

Another thing, Its irritating that Abrams wont make up his mind about directing. If he’s seen the script so far, surely there is enough of it to make a decision. Sometimes his mystery box approach doesn’t work.

74. P Technobabble - June 7, 2011

Impatience is not a virtue.

75. Horatio - June 7, 2011

Untill Paramount says otherwise, I still think this is a big misinformation campaign by Bad Robot et al. JJ is into secrecy – what better way to throw off the Trekkies than by saying the script isn’t done and a director hasn’t been chosen?

76. NX-UESPA Class Starship - June 7, 2011

Does anyone really, really cares about Star Trek 90210: The Search For More Money? I would rather have Star Trek:Enterprise back. Reason? The Earth-Romulan War and a return to the Mirror Universe to see how Empress Hoshi Sato is handling her empire.

77. Blake Powers - June 7, 2011

I’m ok with it.

78. Christopher Roberts - June 7, 2011

76. I’m cool with any delay that makes the movie universe better.

But *sigh* yes, I wish they had continued making ENTERPRISE. Cutting that show down in its prime I can’t forgive CBS, UPN, Paramount, Leslie Moonves or Mr. Generic Executive in a Suit for.

It could’ve gone seven seasons and still not ran into the build up for STAR TREK 2009. We’ve got the same lack of anything keeping the franchise alive on a regular basis since then. The film raises the profile but truthfully interest drops right off, once the Blu ray/DVD release has slipped into the SALE bins everywhere.

79. KHAN 2.0 - June 7, 2011

if they dont bring it out for 2012 why not re -release Wrath of Khan (with extra scenes and improved FX) summer 2012 for the 30th anniversary?

80. trekker 5 - June 7, 2011

#32,Anthony,thats a good Q,now you’ve got me wondering! I would think to see him on here with this story. Anyway,when I saw this I said,’Oh God!!’ The G.I Joe thing sounds good to me,I mean,whatever you can do J.J.,whatever you can do. (No,I’m not too happy about it,more saddend I should think,but theres nothing ‘I’ can do about it,..so I’ll wait!)

81. Jason - June 7, 2011

I think best bet looking at the schedule posted above, Paramount will move Guardians to November 2 (since DreamWorks has usually gone to have some luck in recent years on the first weekend of November) and Trek will take the November 21 date (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is a long weekend in the states).

82. Kokolo - June 7, 2011

August just doesn’t seem like a blockbuster month to me. I always saw it as a dumping ground for ‘lesser blockbusters’ and comedies. In the last five years only The Bourne Ultimatum was a true blockbuster. The 5 highest grosing August movies are (since 2006, US box office unajusted):
1. The Bourne Ultimatum – $227,471,070 (August 3, 2007)
2. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra – $150,201,498 (August 7, 2009)
3. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby – $148,213,377 (August 4, 2006)
4. Rush Hour 3 – $140,125,968 (August 10, 2007)
5. Superbad – $121,463,226 (August 17, 2007)

Star Trek should be aiming much higher than that.

83. gingerly - June 7, 2011

@ those who say August is the dumping ground, one word Titanic. December was a dumping ground until that movie made it possible to release what was the biggest movie of all time.

84. KHAN 2.0 - June 7, 2011

regarding the August sucks/dumping ground thing

if theres nothing much else on worth seeing wont people flock to Star Trek?

audiences aint going to be like ‘oh wow the new star trek is out!…oh wait..its august…i cant be going to the cinema in august man..’

people seem to be worried about competiton – and yet when theres a month there wouldnt be that much competition they worry about it being a slow month for movies?

85. No One Khan Hear You - June 7, 2011

I’m betting these people screaming about the possibility of pushing the release date are also the first people to complain about the lack of quality when a movie gets rushed to production.

It was an aggressive schedule for Summer 2012, and it will not be that surprising if it gets bumped months or even a year. In the long run, I think people would prefer to wait and get a quality product.

86. Buzz Cagney - June 7, 2011

#79 thats a cool idea.
I’d also love to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind on the big screen again. In fact so much so i’m going to get in touch with my local cinema to see if they’d show it. They sometimes show classic movies. To me Close Encounters well qualifies.

87. Darkowski - June 7, 2011

By “super cool”, I hope he’s mentioning a new Enterprise as well :-P

88. Wayne - June 7, 2011

I don’t get why the studio delays in getting out these movies. Every 2 years would be good. Let’s get real, if its 3 -4 years between the making of the Star Trek movies then you can give this crew 2 more before we start hearing chatter about them all being too old and you have a continuity issue to deal with in terms of them aging.

These stories are taking place at the beginning of the 5 year mission. By the time the next movie comes out, those actors will be 4 years older then when we first met them. If they do 3, they all would have aged 12 years in the 5 year mission.

When the next one comes out, I’m sure it will be a great flick, they just need to be realistic about how much time they can use the same acting crew. I think changing out the actors in a franchise like Star Trek will be much harder for the studio to keep it going. It would be like doing a reboot of the Harry Potter series starting in 2013. The physical attributes of the actor becomes one with the character. As a studio, you’d have to leave the franchise parked for 10 years ( anyways ). It took Paramount 18 years to bring Kirk and crew back and we still had all the comparisons flying around.

89. TJ Trek - June 7, 2011

I’m not sure why paramount is so big on GI 2 because the first one was pretty lame……and I’m coming from no love of the franchise, so I ain’t talking about how they screwed up continuity, and tone, and all that based on the original cartoon. I’m talking pure movie experience, which was lacking….The diologue sucked, the plot was formulaic, and lacked any sense of………”hey I should care”

anyways, with that said, I say that Star Trek should take it’s time and e a good film, however if it gets pushed to 2013, I think that will be a little ridiculouse. I’m willing to wait, I just think it shouldnt HAVE to be pushed back that far.

90. Janice - June 7, 2011

Well, my vote goes to May or June 1013. Just not the winter!

91. Buzz Cagney - June 7, 2011

#90 they’ve said they aren’t going to do time travel again. ;-)

92. KHAN 2.0 - June 7, 2011

what about if they didnt do a sequel at all and Trek09 would be like a standalone big budget version of TOS?

or maybe instead of a sequel thered be another tv show in 2013 uses the sets from the 2009 movie (with a new set of actors as K/S/B etc as the current ones are too big for tv)

93. chrisfawkes.com - June 7, 2011

I’ve read reviews where people are comparing x men first class to the new star trek.

It would be a good idea to reciprocate in learning some lessons perhaps. The character development in first class was superb. Not only magneto but the relationship between magneto, xavier and raven.

The subtext in fassbender’s eyes as mcavoy says “they are just innocent men following orders” was pure gold, up there with anything in cinema, A split second to see what was intended for good and the nerve it hit. The fact that magneto was so reasoned it was hard for those in the audience to decide which side to pick.

Many have been hoping the next Trek is the equivalent of the dark knight. Now we can add x men fc to that. (i’ve seen it three times this week).

The right men are on board to make it happen.

Hoping for the best.

94. the Quickening - June 7, 2011

#67. Anthony Thompson
Where have you been the past couple of years, homeboy? Trek09 out-grossed ALL the other Star Trek films, including on an inflation-adjusted basis! That fact was reported here numerous times!
____

Sorry, but I don’t spend my life here, so I missed all that verbage. If you would have read a little carefully, I acknowledge that the movie probably made more. Was it really substantially more though?

The $398 that Trek09 made worldwide is peanuts compared to what “the big boys” make, which was my main point.

95. Kev -1 - June 7, 2011

TMP is the inflation adjusted champ worldwide. Reported on this site.

96. Jamie - June 7, 2011

Hmm honestly I don’t get why they’d literally swap it with G.I. Joe – that’s only like 2 extra months, not long at all really. I really see holiday 2012 or summer 2013; the first got moved to summer so it wouldn’t surprise me if it happens again.

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

#45. Michael –
“Dee@39 – RDR has this belief that STAR TREK cannot compete against other franchises and high-profile films and has made the argument “….

Yes I’m following the crusade of RDR for “the debut in the summer of 2013″…

… but speaking for myself… I’m not naive I know it’s important for the franchise a big earner for the sequel … but as a fan, I’m not thinking in the sale of the product… I think in to enjoy the product a good product, by the way… I guess it’s up to producers and the studio find a balance between delivering it to the audience a great product and sell it well!

And speaking of other franchises, guys selling very well the hit Harry Potter and Twilight around the world… I think “Star Trek 09″ could have made greater international box office than did… something did not work… I saw someone commenting on another article here, she only learned of Star Trek when the film was released on DVD… I know she was not alone in this situation… then they forgot to warn a certain potential audience, right? … I hope they become more aware about this when launching the sequel!

And give to us a great movie… sell well, the “product “… and the movie will make a great ticket!!! … I HOPE!!!!

:-) :-)

98. the Quickening - June 7, 2011

95.

TMP is the inflation adjusted champ worldwide. Reported on this site.

———-

Well, Anthony says it not. Somebody wrong.

99. Wanker! - June 7, 2011

WHO CARES? I DON’T!

100. Shannon Nutt - June 7, 2011

It will be Christmas 2012. Trust me.

If it’s not ready for June 2012, it’s certainly not going to be ready for August of 2012, and if it’s ready for Christmas 2012, there’s certainly no good reason to delay it until 2013. Who cares if it will be going up against a Bond and Hobbit movie? It would have been going up against a Batman and Spider-man movie in the summer, so that’s pretty much an even trade-off. Good movies are going to find big audiences no matter WHAT time of year they come out (Paramount could release this baby in March and still make $200 million domestic).

101. Shannon Nutt - June 7, 2011

Oh, @83, Christmas was NOT a dumping ground in 1997. It wasn’t a dumping ground in 1987! There’s a long history of “big” movies (both Oscar contenders and blockbusters) being released between Thanksgiving and Christmas, including Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home in 1986.

102. Greenberg - June 7, 2011

I’m hoping for another director – but that’s a big gamble. Just the same as we could get a better director, we could also get a worse one.

103. Buzz Cagney - June 7, 2011

Based on numbers from Boxoffice.com, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is king of the hill for the ST movies, generating $239,115,674 in inflation-adjusted dollars as of 2009, beating Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the save-the-whales movie), which holds the number two position. (Voyage Home still holds the record when not adjusted for inflation, logging in with $109,713,132 in 1986 dollars.)

Star Trek: Nemesis, the final film to feature The Next Generation cast, is by and away the least successful film in the series, only grossing $43,254,409 in 2002, nearly killing the ST movie series after twenty-three years.

Domestic — Inflation Adjusted

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): $239,115,674

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): $212,328,919

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): $192,290,437

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984): $163,237,856

Star Trek: First Contact (1996): $149,493,266

Star Trek: Generations (1994): $129,980,545

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): $127,720,425

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998): $107,451,468

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): $93,951,918

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002): $53,387,173

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_domestic_box_office_gross_for_Star_Trek_The_Motion_Picture_1979_adjusted_for_inflation_2009

And according to this very site Trek ’09 made $194.8m in its home market.

So TMP and TVH are still the daddies with Wrath right up ’09′s chuff.

104. I'm Dead Jim! - June 7, 2011

@32. Anthony Thompson – June 6, 2011

“I’ve noticed that Bob has been conspiculously absent from these boards since his “big f-ing mouth” comment. I wonder if perhaps he’s been muzzled by Paramount (or JJ)?”

I must have missed this. What was it about?

105. Flake - June 7, 2011

@103: Trek 2009 made $257,730,019 which when adjusted for a small amount of inflation is $271,000,000 today and by far the highest grossing Trek movie. $194.8million is out of date information!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm

106. Azrael - June 7, 2011

what I dont understand is why everyone here actually believes JJ and co when they say the script isn’t done. Why do you think they have time for planking (whatever the hell that is)? They have been done for months now, all they are doing is playing JJ’s secrets game now.

107. Adolescent Nightmare - June 7, 2011

105.
Perhaps deliberately out of date.

108. roy - June 7, 2011

Even if the Star Trek sequel was released in June, 2012. Isn’t the Spiderman reboot supposed to be released something along the lines of six days later. Maybe it would be better if Star Trek had a release date about one year later. It’s all supposition anyways as the final word rests with Paramount.

109. MJUSTIN** - June 7, 2011

I don’t understand the lens-flare hostility, I liked them, i’ve noticed Steven Spielberg used them often in his older classic films…

110. dmduncan - June 7, 2011

Oh my how little confidence there is here.

This isn’t gonna be a TNG movie, folks.

I’ll put this Star Trek up against ANY movie and sleep easy.

111. Jefferies Tuber - June 7, 2011

I refuse to see SUPER 8 theatrically for causing this delay.

112. Thorny - June 7, 2011

I’m honestly not concerned with the quality of the script. I think at worst we’ll get a pretty good movie (a’la Trek III or Trek VI), and we’ll probably get a very good one (TWOK or First Contact). But it will be in May 2013. The problem as I see it is that the crew has too much on its plate and didn’t pay enough attention to Trek until too late. Why Paramount allowed that to happen, I’ll never know, but it happened.

I would like to point out that to me, November 2012 doesn’t look all that hostile. “Ouija”, “47 Ronin”, and “Rise of the Guardians” Really? Trek would stomp those. And “Yet Another Twilight”? Twilight fans are about as incompatible with Trek fans as fans can be. I think I know three males of the species who are at all interested in Twilight, and only slightly more females interested in Trek. “Hobbit” and “Superman” are threats, but they’d be at least a few weeks later than Trek in mid-November, no worse than Dark Knight Rises in Summer 2012.

But I do think May 2013 it is, because of the glacial progress on this movie, even November will be tight. Paramount will be ticked that they have one less blockbuster for Summer 2012, but happy to have Trek launch Summer 2013.

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

According to an osteopath/chiropractor that I have just spoken with, planking is just another name for one of the many yoga exercises, so I was right in my initial assessment. I am talking about how Bob and Damon are doing it, by the way, not how some of the crazies are “planking” – more like being plonkers. Yoga is more than 5,000 years old, so nothing new about this so-called planking.

It could actually be an indication that both those guys have been inordinately busy tapping on their keyboards and looking at computer screens for some time. Quite incidentally the osteopath said the best way to relax and loosen up any tight or tired muscles, perhaps even relieve some tension headaches… is by lying stretched out flat on the stomachs, which is just what our two writers were doing.

Everything that I’ve been saying/writing will no doubt be ignored by those here who like nothing better than to criticise (or is that, crap on) two people working on a movie that is to be the next in a series belonging to their supposed favourite franchise.

Don’t people go out anywhere in winter in the USA? It is nearing the middle of winter here and still people manage to hop in their cars and go places, even to the cinemas!
(It may be a problem for people living in the colder, more northern parts of the USA, and even more so for Canadians, but it can’t be much of a problem for people living in the warmer more southern states like California…)

114. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

83 you are very wrong December has never been a Dumping ground, Decemeber has always been where very prestige Oscar calliber pictures have had their releases.
Its also has had a huge history with Big blockbusters going back to the 70s

Disney in particular has had some huge hits in Nov/December.

Titanic was originally a scheduled July release, it was set to go head to head with Air Force One, till Harrison Ford told paramount very pointedly release Titanic against Air Force One and I will never appear in another Paramount studio production again. Sherry Lansings fear of losing Harison Ford from any future Paramount Productions is what caused Paramount to push back Titanic to December.

August on the other hand here in the industry is known as the dumping yard of wanna be summer blockbusters. Always has been always will be.

115. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

83
Superman the movie came out in December
Star Trek The motion Picture came out in December
GodFather part II came out in December
The Exorcist came out in December
The Sting came out in December
The Graduate came out in December
Love story came out in december
Larwence of Arabia came out in December

I could go on and on and even some of those go further back than the 70s

116. Battle-scarred Sciatica - June 7, 2011

Hey Buzz.

Let us know how you get on with getting your local cinema to show CETK.
I remember going to see it at the cinema.
I just watched the Blu-ray version recently and still love the Roy Neary scene when he is being interviewed after being caught trying to get to Devils Tower.

“What in the hell is going on around here? Who in the hell are you people?” *thump on desk*
I bloody love that scene.

if you can get your local cinema to show it, I will see if I can get mine to show it too. Well worth seeing it on the big one!

117. N - June 7, 2011

@111 I refuse to see Super 8 because it looks AWFUL, a film centred around a bunch of children = no. This years had X Men and Kung Fu Panda (both brilliant) and in just over a week Green Lantern.

@109 JJ>Spielberg XI was infinitely better than anything that hack could make (sorry I just hate Speilberg films)

Batman/Spiderman/the listed films — I couldn’t care less about tbh. Though I will probably watch The Hobbit if the trailer’s good.

118. "Check the Circuit!" - June 7, 2011

Something just occurred to me. The entire 3-season run of TOS would have taken place between these JJverse movies! 79 hours often brilliant storytelling in the same timespan as the production of 4 hours of movies.

Is it me, or is something wrong with that equation?

So what, they are no other creative people that are worthy of working in the Supreme Court’s sandbox while we wait (and wait) for a new Trek adventure? Lots of great stories to be told out there, thataway. C’mon CBS/Paramount…let’s put some quality product on the shelves.

119. the Quickening - June 7, 2011

#103, 105

Okay. Still contradictory info. I’ll have to do some quick research myself. I’m looking to compare domestic and foreign, as well as total worldwide gross that is adjusted for inflation and, if possible, adjusted for population growth to get the fairest comparison possible.

120. Jonboc - June 7, 2011

The story is evolved enough, that pre-production Is, no doubt, already in progress. Aside from script-specific uniforms and props, everything is already there. The main sets are already there…movies are shot out of sequence, no reason they can’t film on existing sets while new sets are being built. Then actors are all on board and have their schedules cleared for filming. The post production CGI should go faster with all the computer models of the Enterprise already built. The script just needs to be fleshed out by adding scenes to connect the dots of the 70 page outline they already have.

Honestly, I think the writers probably just want JJ’s feedback and undivided attention before they wrap the script up…so he WILL want to direct it… which they probably have had since JJ locked down the final edit of Super 8. They can hit the summer 2011 target release date, and hit it with all the quality that we’ve come to expect from this proven team. No worries.

121. Rico - June 7, 2011

I vote Thanksgiving time, 2012.

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

Well, the Pinto are back in town (ie LA) after Zachary Quinto spent many months living and working in New York and Chris Pine is rumoured to have been in New York, Greece and quite likely in Europe as well (like Germany). Should we take the appearance of Pine and Quinto back in the Hollywood, LA, stomping ground as a good sign of things to come? Hope so.

Not sure where Karl Urban is but no doubt he won’t be too hard to find, once the time comes for Bones McCoy to do his thing, which hopefully will be a bit more than what he had in Trek 09. It is likely the others aren’t too far away either…

123. the Quickening - June 7, 2011

Wasn’t able to find population adjustment, nor up to date info for a few of the figures, but here is the inflationary adjusted gross comparisons:

STAR TREK ’09
Domestic:  $257, 730, 019
Foreign: $127, 950, 427

Worldwide Total: $385,680,446 million

STAR TREK: TMP
Domestic:  $239, 000, 000 (rounded off)
Foreign: $169, 000, 000 (rounded off)

Worldwide Total: $408,000,000 million

STAR TREK: TMP THE WINNER!!!

… And if you factor in population adjustment, which is rarely done, the fact that U.S. movies didn’t stress foreign sales until recently, IMAX cinema that didn’t exist when TMP was released, I think it’s fair to say TMP is the winner.

So, no more debating… STAR TREK: TMP is still the highest grossing TREK film.

124. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 7, 2011

^ Source?

125. Devon - June 7, 2011

# 123 – No.

126. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

124, 125 It easily had more tickets sold than star trek XI did.
the fact that Star Trek TMP sold more actual tickets than star trek XI says a lot. heck Star Trek Generations sold about the same number of tickets if not more than star trek XI (note i am not saying generations made as much money, i am saying the actual physical tickets sold)

127. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 7, 2011

I cant wait till this weekend when the super 8 falls way way way below what alot of you on here think its going to do. I checked the numbers while at work today and super 8 is tracking lower than X-Men FC did this time last week and X-Men FC was a very good film, that unfortunately underperformed at the box office.

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

What – you can’t wait for something to not do well, especially when you consider all the people involved in doing their best to make a good movie and a successful one at that? Hardly a charitable sentiment.

129. Cygnus-X1 - June 8, 2011

123. the Quickening – June 7, 2011

—-So, no more debating… STAR TREK: TMP is still the highest grossing TREK film.—-

That is impressive and surprising. Most people would say that ST’09 was the better film, myself included.

But one should keep in mind Netflix, DVD rental, other online streaming….

When ST:TMP was released in 1979, for the most part, people either saw it in the theater or didn’t expect to see it at all. Of course, within a few years, home video and cable TV had greatly expanded, giving those who’d missed theatrical releases a second chance to see the movies. But most people didn’t expect to be able to see a movie any time soon (or at all) if they missed it in the theater. This increased demand for movie tickets cannot be dismissed when comparing box office receipts. Though I’m still surprised by the numbers, as I’d assumed substantially larger box office receipts for ST’09.

130. Devon - June 8, 2011

#126 – It only sold more tickets outside of the U.S. That was it. And not an favorably reviewed Trek either, which is probably why it’s superior sequel did not perform as well.

However, to get this back to reality = It should be noted that Star Trek XI, on top of its Box Office intake, NOW STANDS AT $100,000,000 in DVD sales. That’s not including Blu-Ray sales.

Source: the-numbers.com

Can we say this about “The Motion Picture?” No. So, we’re back at the original point, Star Trek 2009 can compete with the big boys (at least, much more so than previous Trek.)

And thus, as The Quickening tried to close out any retorts.. “no more debating.”

131. Devon - June 8, 2011

#129 = I wouldn’t worry about it. “The Motion Picture” has usually not been looked at as any kind of “success story,” especially in comparison to what came after.

132. Devon - June 8, 2011

#126 – “Star Trek Generations sold about the same number of tickets if not more than star trek XI ”

Source? And you realize you are the very first person to make such claim in the 2 years it’s been out, right? This should be a treat.

133. Mark Lynch - June 8, 2011

If a comparison is going to be made against all the Trek films. Then it should not be $$$ inflation adjusted or not. Lets just look at overall ticket sales.

My bet is that ST:TMP will have done better than ST:09 But I really don’t have the time to dig deeply into it, that is for more interested people… :)

134. Mark Lynch - June 8, 2011

Oh yeah, I voted for Summer 2013, because I think there is nowhere near enough time to deliver a quality product by June 2012 and winter 2012 is already too crowded with big movies.

So my choice is we’ll see this in Summer 2013. A delay not dissimilar to the first one. Well twice as long but you get my point…

Still, at least we might have a decent PC Star Trek game to tide us over in 2012.

My God, just realised that if it is Summer 2013, I’ll be one year off 50 by then. does that make me too old to go and see it?

135. boborci - June 8, 2011

32. Nope.

136. Mark Lynch - June 8, 2011

Nice to see you’re still around Mr. O :)

Why aren’t you off writing the script in a bunker somewhere ;)

137. Jai - June 8, 2011

What really happened in JJ’s most recent meeting with the sequel’s writers…

Damon: Good news, guys. I’ve written the first line of the script.
Orci: About damn time. Let me take a look.
Damon: Took me two whole years, plus 90 minutes of staring at that floor, but I finally got there.
Orci: Wait a minute. “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away” ?!
Damon: Sure. What’s wrong with that ?
Orci: When I showed you ‘The Wrath of Khan’, exactly what part of “In the 23rd Century” did you not understand ?
Damon: It’s an alternate timeline.
Orci: It’s a parallel universe, not “Star Trek: In Name Only.”
Damon: Hey, that would make a great title for the sequel.
Orci: It’s a faaaake !
Damon: It’s a reboot.
Orci: Not exactly.
Damon: Yes it is. It’s a reboot. With Ewoks.
Orci: I said no Ewoks.
Damon: None at all ?
Orci: No.
Damon: Little shiny noses ?
Orci: No.
Damon: Little furry feet ?
Orci: No.
Damon: Do it do it do it do it do it.
Orci: If I put an Ewok in the movie’s opening scene, and make it wear a red shirt, will you leave me alone ?
Damon: Hell yeah. What’s the big deal with the red shirt ? Does it make the Ewok special ?
Orci: Er…sure.
Damon: Where exactly will it be in the first scene ?
Orci: Back…and to the left.
Damon: Oh no.
Orci: Oh yes.
JJ: Sounds like a plan. Put a lens flare on it and we’re good to go.

138. Jai - June 8, 2011

^^ Just kidding again, Mr Orci ;)

139. NuKirk - June 8, 2011

#130= that is also not counting iTunes Downloads and other paid Digital Downloads, then you factor in the cable pay-per-view sales, etc…

140. Jai - June 8, 2011

Jokes aside, JJ made an excellent point when he eloquently said “I would just so much rather make a movie that’s worth people’s time than make a movie that’s on time”.

It’s reassuring to know that, and it’s exactly the type of “big picture” approach that the team should be taking. The goal is to make the highest possible quality movie, not just a “satisfactory” movie that meets any preliminary deadline. If that means there’s a delay in the release of the finished product, so be it. Ultimately it’ll be worth the wait.

141. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 8, 2011

#137 – Jai

…you’ll end up angering Mr. Lindelof… he can get very angry… He faces up to Emma Frost with all superpowers that she has … be careful!!! LOL

:-) :-)

142. captain spock - June 8, 2011

to bad we could not have any star trek movie open on star trek day(september 8th) that would be cool

143. captain spock - June 8, 2011

you know it would be nice if they do move the movie back because the big shirts paramount guys want to do G.I . Joe first, its like i said in my above post move the premiere date to September 8,2012 of star trek 12 .
jj Abrams is a perfectionist person every thing has to be right before the film go out. & with bob orci being a trekker & writing the scrip this is worth the wait.
so lets see what happens

144. Jai - June 8, 2011

Dee, re: #141

Hopefully not. I was just joking around again.

Anyway, we all know that when JJ diplomatically responded with the lens flare suggestion at the end of the meeting described in #137, what he was really thinking was “Uh-oh. I’d better go tell CNN there might be a slight delay…”

;)

145. captain spock - June 8, 2011

this would be a really nice thing for the memory of Gene Roddenberry & i would like the fellow trekker to get behind this, have some one sing the lyrics to the theme of Star trek Written by the great bird. in the next movie.

beyond
the rim of the star-light
my love
is wander’ing starflight
i know
he’ll find in star-clustered reaches
love,
strange love a star woman teaches
i know
his journey ends never
his star trek
will go on forever.
but tell him
while he wanders his starry sea
remember,remember me

theme from star trek
lyrics by Gene roddenberry

146. Lt. Bailey - June 8, 2011

I would like to think it will be worth the wait. What may trouble some people if not most, is that none of us are getting any younger. Those who were children in the mid 60′s watching Star Trek on TV (not in re-runs yet) are now in their 50′s at least. So waiting for 3 years or more between films is tough to bare.

It does look like it will be 2013 for the next film….or maybe it is all a hoax and they really started filming it in secret for the 2012 realease date. Who knows??

147. the Quickening - June 8, 2011

#130

I’m a TREK fan period, and not trying to take sides. Not a huge admirer of either film, and consider both poor entries in the TREK film saga. I was only interested in getting to the bottom of why so much contradictory info as to which was the worldwide leader in terms of ticket sales at the time of release.

What I noticed was happening was that the fans of STAR ’09 were always using domestic only figures and ignoring adjustments to inflation to justify their claim, and STAR TREK: TMP fans were always ignoring the domestic figures themselves that clearly indicate STAR ’09 made more in U.S. sales.

I just wanted clarity.

As to the argument whether TREK can compete with the “big boys”, the answer is yes–if you are only considering domestic figures, and, no–if you are considering foreign sales figures–and, again no, if you are considering worldwide gross. Since cinema has now become an international community market, TREKs inability to solve this dilemma, is the major element that keeps it from truly being a “big boy” player in my opinion.

You wrote: “Can we say this about “The Motion Picture?” No. So, we’re back at the original point, Star Trek 2009 can compete with the big boys (at least, much more so than previous Trek.)”

Don’t know how you can say that when TMP did a better job (adjusted gross) in ’79 in foreign ticket sales ($169, 000, 000 as compared to $127, 950, 427). To a degree, it can be said, TREK is going backward, and not forward in this regard, furthering the work that TREK must do to become an international big boy.

Thanks.

148. boborci - June 8, 2011

Jai

Love the Kennedy stuff! Hilarious.

149. boborci - June 8, 2011

147. I believe you are mistaken about adjusted gross figures. Trek 09 topped them all, even adjusted for inflation.

150. Daoud - June 8, 2011

Even if you put it in quatloos, you’re right.
http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/alltime_numbers/domestic/adjusted
Star Trek 0 comes in at #227 all-time inflation adjusted.
Star Trek TMP comes in at #242 all-time inflation adjusted.
.
Now get back to getting that plankforsaken script done! :)

151. Adolescent Nightmare - June 8, 2011

149. Yes it did. This information is readily available and the posting of fake numbers should get a ban.

152. Steven - June 8, 2011

FYI – The holiday 2012 season has become more crowded with Disney’s THE LONE RANGER co-starring Johnny Depp is slated for Dec 21, 2012.

http://www.deadline.com/interstitial/?ref=http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/hi-ho-silver-away-disney-dates-lone-ranger-for-december-21-2012/

153. Daoud - June 8, 2011

And wouldn’t we love to give Giacchino the punny opportunity to write an “8/10/12 Overture”?

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

My post numbers don’t correspond to other people’s numbers. Uh-oh.

I am not sure about the notion of filming Star Trek in secret. Are we going to see a very bearded Captain Kirk and Mr Spock in this sequel? That is how our two actors have been seen until very recently when Zachary Quinto was seen clean shaven. Chris Pine is still being described as the “scruffy” one (meaning bearded). Chris Pine was on the Welcome to People set until March and before that was in Vancouver filming This Means War until mid December 2011. Zachary Quinto did an extended season doing (one of) the lead role in the play, Angels in America, on off-Broadway, New York, until some time in February this year. Not sure what the others have been doing, but I think some of them have been quite busy as well. So, unfortunately, I frankly do not see how any Star Trek could have been filmed, certainly not those scenes with the main actors in them.

Sort of OT – If I am correct, we have just forgotten to celebrate that man who said those lines to James Kirk, “All I got left are my bones”. Karl Urban turned 39 on Tuesday, 7 June.
Happy belated Birthday, Karl Urban. May you have many, many more and also (of course) have a wonderful new year. We want to see you sooner than later being the nuBones McCoy once again.
Make it so – Bob, JJ et al.

155. KHAN 2.0 - June 8, 2011

to make up for the delay (if it is to be summer 2013) they should do BOBW style cliffhanger end to Trek ’2′ (khan?) and film it back to back with Trek ’3′ for release in summer 2014 (a 4 year gap then bam! bam! like the BTTF sequels)

no waiting another 3 years.. trilogy done …new tv show in 2015

156. P Technobabble - June 8, 2011

I think there is also something to be said for the promotion and marketing of a film. It’s not really about a release date or how long between films or loss of momentum. It’s about setting up the audience. Isn’t that what teasers and tag lines are for?
If Trek09 had merely been another TNG film (which could very well have happened), do you think it would have been as popular and well-received as Abrams’s Trek? I think by promoting “Star Trek” as a ‘beginnings’ movie it helped bring in a wider, more curious audience.
I don’t think you could promote a Trek sequel with the tag line “Khan Returns,” for example. I don’t think such a film would be a huge draw because the number of people who would think “Who or what the hell is Kahn?” could be significant. We already know you cannot make a Star Trek movie simply for Star Trek fans. But when you can say “Star Trek — the story of how these iconic characters came together,” it has an allure that makes you think “Now this is something I gotta see.”
IMO, of course…

157. Anthony Pascale - June 8, 2011

RE: highest grossing
This is a bit murky and really has to do with what numbers you trust and how you adjust for inflation.

There is no doubt Star Trek 2009 was highest
grossing domestic adjusted for inflation.
ST09: $257M vs. TMP: $239M (1979 dollars in 2009 dollars)

However when you factor in foreign sales it gets more complicated. The global total for ST09 was $386M. Adjusting the reported global total for TMP using 1979 dollars (to 2009 dollars) gives you $405M. However, TMP opened in December in the US, UK, Australia, but 1980 everywhere else. So much (if not most) of the money actually came in 1980 and inflation was pretty high back then. So if you adjust TMP for 1980 money you actually get $357M (less than ST09). If you split the difference then you get something around $379M (still less than ST09). So to get TMP to come in ahead of ST09 you have to count all the money, including money it got in 1980 in 1979 dollars.

Plus, I have also not always trusted the reported foreign sales for TMP as they seem abnormally high for a Star Trek film, much more in proportion to any Star Trek film of the 80s (Box Office Mojo does not have global data for TMP, the number comes from other sources). And when you look at IMDB’s reported TMP UK sales (Star Trek’s usual largest market) again ST09 outperformed TMP adjusting for any inflation. So I am not sure where all the foreign money came from in the first place.

So in my view Star Trek 2009 is the highest grossing of all time, but it is close between TMP and ST09 regardless.

There is also a bit of apples and oranges comparing an 1979 film to 2009 in terms of theatrical box office. Movies stayed in theaters for months in those days. Now they move to the home market much more quickly and although there isn’t any specific data, it is reasonable to assume Star Trek 2009 made much more in the home video/PPV market so in aggregate it was an even bigger grosser for Paramount.

BTW: I did a full analysis of Star Trek 2009′s box office in late 2009 (w/ lots of charts)
http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/05/star-trek-finishes-theatrical-run-with-385m-full-box-office-analysis/

158. Desstruxion - June 8, 2011

How about some animated “straight to dvd’s” while we’re waiting? Maybe some decent comic books too.

159. dmduncan - June 8, 2011

156: “I think there is also something to be said for the promotion and marketing of a film.”

So you’re saying lying face down on the floor doesn’t count?

160. dmduncan - June 8, 2011

Actually I think I’d like to see a poster of the entire cast planking in Starfleet uniforms. Laid out in a “V” with Kirk at the tip, and closest to the camera.

“Star Trek. Coming 2012-ish”

161. the Quickening - June 8, 2011

#126

Good point.

162. Cygnus-X1 - June 8, 2011

157. Anthony Pascale – June 8, 2011

Thanks for clearing up the box office receipts issue, Anthony.

But which film had a greater impact upon the aggregate demand and inflation rate of its respective economy?

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

Bob doesn’t seem too worried. Are you Bob?

164. Devon - June 8, 2011

#161 – What was his point?!?!? The whole thing about Generations supposedly selling more tickets than Trek XI has to be one of the most outlandish claims on the site.

165. Basement Blogger - June 9, 2011

Thanks Anthony for the analysis on which Star Trek movie got the highest grosses at the box office. It’s interesting to note that both ST: TMP and Star Trek are two different takes on the franchise. TMP is more like the TV show whereas ST was more of an action movie. It is also puts TMP in a more positive light since it obviously grossed a lot of money.

166. Basement Blogger - June 9, 2011

As we wait for some word that Star Trek is underway, The Dark Knight Rises.

http://www.thefablife.com/2011-06-08/anne-hathaway-gives-stuntman-a-black-eye-on-the-dark-knight-rises-set/

167. Aurore - June 9, 2011

163.moauvian waoul-aka: seymour hiney.

What are you talking about seymour ?!
EVERYTIME the man comes here, he “looks” and sounds terrified!

:)

168. Anthony Thompson - June 9, 2011

165. BB

TOS was NEVER as boring as TMP was!!!

169. Jai - June 9, 2011

Bob Orci, re: #148

“Love the Kennedy stuff! Hilarious.”

Thanks Bob. The sketch serves as a good follow-up to the world-famous “JFK, JJ Abrams and an Ewok walk into a bar” joke. Gotta love those little koala-bear ears (the ewok, not JFK. Not sure about JJ).

[Still kidding]

Speaking of JFK and aliens, some incredible recent revelations you should definitely check out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378284/Secret-memo-shows-JFK-demanded-UFO-files-10-days-assassination.html

The plot really does thicken.

170. P Technobabble - June 9, 2011

159. dm

They may have been promoting how much they loved that luxury vinyl flooring.
Unless it was hardwood…

171. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 9, 2011

Okay Bob, can I have your attention? Quit doing pushups, or kneeling before the altar of star wars or whatever it is that you’re doing down there and answer us. And don’t worry that we will take what you say and try and beat you with it. I’ll just have everyone close their ears. Trust me, we do it all the time around here.
So then, what iis the deal with the script?

172. the Quickening - June 9, 2011

#157

Well, I certainly see why this is a tricky issue. It’s definitely murky. Of course my conclusion above was based on the information given. How could TPTB use the 1979 inflation rate and not factor in the 1980 rate as well? Kinda makes you put into question all statistical conclusions.

What about population disparity during time of release of both films? Number of tickets sold? Margin of error? To some, if these are factored in, TMP probably comes out ahead. We’re talking about ST ’09′s $386 million as compared to ST: TMP’s $379. That’s only a difference of $7 million. Talk about close. I now understand why this whole subject has been so contradictory and why there is a difference of opinion. Both positions could be held to be true.

As I stated above in my first post, I thought ST ’09 probably grossed more, but not by much, which ended up being the truth after all.

Thanks for the additional information.

173. Daoud - June 9, 2011

I’m sorry Anthony that you eliminated my post, but it inspired me to recalculate a second set using 1980 inflation, adjusted using the same percentage for Empire Strikes Back which came out Summer 1980. The data:

Star Trek 0 (2009)
$257,730,024 . . . . . Domestic
$270,101,000 . . . . . Domestic adjusted 104.80%
$127,950,427 . . . . . Foreign
$134,092,015 . . . . . Foreign adjusted
$385,680,451 . . . . . Worldwide total
$404,193,015 . . . . . Worldwide total adjusted

Star Trek TMP (1979)
$82,258,086 . . . . . Domestic
$261,761,000 . . . . . Domestic adjusted 318.22%
$56,741,914 . . . . . Foreign
$180,563,648 . . . . . Foreign adjusted
$139,000,000 . . . . . Worldwide total (Uses $139MM from CNET 2006)
$442,324,648 . . . . . Worldwide total adjusted

Star Trek TMP — using inflation rate 262% Empire Strikes Back
$82,258,086 . . . . . Domestic
$261,761,000 . . . . . Domestic adjusted 262.89%
$56,741,914 . . . . . Foreign
$149,168,849 . . . . . Foreign adjusted
$139,000,000 . . . . . Worldwide total
$410,929,849 . . . . . Worldwide total adjusted

So, even shifting to using 1980 rather than 1979, and TMP still slides past Star Trek 2009.

the Quickening, I think you were right all along. However, another aspect to consider is that the cost of movie tickets has OUTPACED inflation. So it took a lot more butts in the seats to see TMP to get that 139MM gross compared to butts in the seats for ST’09. I still have my $2 ticket stub from TMP. Inflation adjusting that for 1979 it should be $6.36 at the movies (or using 1980, just $5.30). It’s $9 today however.

174. Daoud - June 9, 2011

Spreadsheet obviouisly went kerflooey there, and copying over brought the wrong numbers in. Oh well. It’s a tie.

175. Adolescent Nightmare - June 9, 2011

I don’t understand why Roddenberry was fired after TMP if he produced the 2nd most successful trek movie. He deserved to make 3 more after that. Unfair.

176. Basement Blogger - June 9, 2011

As we wait for the Enterprise to leave space dock, there’s already a plot for Hangover 3. According to the ScreenRant report, Zach Galifianakis accurately leaked out the plot to Hangover 2, so maybe he’s got it right.

http://screenrant.com/hangover-3-plot-details-sandy-118955/

177. Basement Blogger - June 9, 2011

@ 168

No doubt, Star Trek: The Motion Picture had problems. The film had too many first person shots inside of V’Ger. There was a lack of dramatic tension; probably could have used scenes of actuall damage to the Enterprise, i.e. red shirts getting zapped. Yeah, I know there weren’t red shirts in the film. Still, it was Star Trek. It was intelligent. Like the original series it had something important to say. And of course, it had the magnificent Jerry Goldsmith score.

178. Radioactive Spock - June 9, 2011

If they wait til summer 2013 I’ll have my 2 most anxiously anticipated movies to see back to back, as I’m a huge Dark Tower fan. If thats what it takes for Team Trek to put out the best possible movie, then I’m behind it 100%, but I’ll be sad at the wait.

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

A query to Anthony Pascale – why are people here allowed to post links to this site about subject matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with Star Trek or any of its present or past actors, and yet you deleted my link showing the two main actors of the present Star Trek film series as they have been seen most of this year – wearing beards? Just wondering.

Bob Orci – Will Pine/Kirk still have his beard when it comes to filming the sequel? Will Quinto/Spock be bearded once again, as Quinto has been over the past couple of months at least, until very recently?

How about throwing us a bone. People are starving here. Have mercy.

180. Devon - June 10, 2011

#175 – He caused production delays, ran overbudget, and people did not act favorably toward that film. What we got next was probably the most important Trek film in the Franchise history, nuff said.

181. Devon - June 10, 2011

#177 – “. It was intelligent. Like the original series it had something important to say.”

There was absolutely nothing of any importance that TMP told anyone. Ever.

182. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

@181

I think you need to go back and watch TMP again. It had a lot to say about the human condition.

Things like, “Why am I here?”, “Who am I meant to be?”, “Is this all that I am. is there nothing more?”
Pretty important and deep questions that lie at the core of our humanity. It may be a flawed motion picture in some respects, however, the DVD release of the “Director’s Edition” pretty much fixed it up.

If you don’t like TMP, that’s fine and I’m not here to change your mind. But to try and say it had nothing to say is just daft.

As far as I am concerned, TMP was the best Star Trek film ever, because it got its point across without having to resort to frenetic fight scenes, fast cuts and blowing everything up in sight. Which might make me somewhat old fashioned but I don’t care if I am out of step.

183. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

@177
Have to agree, the music of TMP has never been surpassed by any other Star Trek film, 2009 included. Jerry Goldsmith should have won an Oscar, as should have the Effects team. Still, at least they were nominated.

I bought the 25th anniversary CD of the TMP soundtrack and sometimes listen to it when I don’t have the time or possibility of watching the film. I just watch the scenes in my mind as the music plays.

184. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

The comparison of box office performance between ST:TMP and ST 2009 has intrigued me, so I have been looking up the domestic box office numbers for ST:TMP and ST 2009

Domestic grosses
ST 2009 = $257,730,019
ST TMP (actual) = $82,258,456
ST TMP (adjusted) = $249,772,639 (using average ticket prices in 1979 and 2009)

Number of tickets sold
ST 2009 (assuming average ticket price of $7.50 for 2009) 34,364,002
ST:TMP (assuming average ticket price of $2.47 for 1979) 33,303,018

So it is very close, domestically speaking, in terms of both money earned and cinema viewing figures.
ST 2009 is not the runaway success some would have us believe. I could not easily discern the international figures, so they are not included here.

Which is the better film? Your opinion is as good as mine.

185. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

Ref post 184
Or if you adjust for actual inflation, $1 in 1979 is now worth £0.337 (approximately) source: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

So using that for box office $ adjustment, ST:TMP grossed $244,090,374

But to be honest, I think calculating the adjustment using ticket prices for the year of release makes more sense in this scenario.
At least it does to me.

Remember, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. :)

186. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

Sorry I meant to say that $1 in 1979 was worth $0.337 against a dollar in 2009

I also apologise for the accidental use of the £ sign before. Hey, I’m English, I’m surprised they weren’t all £ signs…. ;)

187. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

Sorry guys, but I just found some official figures for International BO grosses… So my updated report is as follows;

Inflation adjustment is using what $1 was worth in 2009 ($0.337) source Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Ticket adjustment is using the average cinema ticket prices in 1979 ($2.47) and 2009 ($7.50)

Domestic grosses
ST 2009 = $257,730,019
ST:TMP (actual) = $82,258,456
ST:TMP (ticket price adjusted) = $249,772,639
ST:TMP (inflation adjusted) = $244,090,374

Foreign grosses
ST 2009 = $127950427
ST:TMP (actual) = $56,741,544
ST:TMP (ticket price adjusted) = $172,292,138 (not really a valid computation, but included nertheless)
ST:TMP (inflation adjusted) = $168,372,534

Overall grosses
ST 2009 = $385,680,446
ST:TMP (inflation adjusted) = $412,462,908

Number of tickets sold domestically using average ticket prices of year of release
ST 2009 = 34,364,002
ST:TMP = 33,303,018

So unless I cannot add up or the figures are wrong….
1) Overall ST:TMP is still the highest grossing Star Trek film Worldwide, allowing for appropriate inflation adjustment to be taken into account.
2) Domestic ticket sales ST 2009 comes out in front by a small amount.

188. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

Oh for an edit button…
Above should be “…What $1 in 1979 was worth in 2009…”

189. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

All films with the exception of ST:2009 adjusted to 2009 $

Worldwide Grosses

FilmYearGross ($)TMP1979412,462,908TWOK1982214,896,000TSFS1984179,600,212TVH1986260,143,586TFF1989121,521,785TUC1991152,676,030Gen1994173,689,537FC1996205,167,028Ins1998155,045,641Nem200280,291,137ST2009385,680,446

190. Mark Lynch - June 10, 2011

All films with the exception of ST:2009 adjusted to 2009 $

Worldwide Grosses
Film…….Year…….Gross ($)
TMP…….1979…….412,462,908
TWOK…1982…….214,896,000
TSFS….1984…….179,600,212
TVH……1986…….260,143,586
TFF…….1989…….121,521,785
TUC……1991…….152,676,030
Gen……1994…….173,689,537
FC……..1996…….205,167,028
Ins……..1998…….155,045,641
Nem……2002…….80,291,137
ST………2009…….385,680,446

191. Basement Blogger - June 10, 2011

@ 181

Devon says, “There was absolutely nothing of any importance that TMP told anyone. Ever.”

That’s not correct. TMP dealt with the defininitions of life. There was existentialism. V’ger questioning its existence. There was Spock who learned to embrace his emotions. Love. Decker realizes even in her probe state, he saw some humanity in Ilia. That would lead to his “sacrifice.” Of course, there was Roddenberry’s optimistic vision of the future. There were references to that from the glorious music coupled with United Federation of Planets logo, Starfleet and the Enterprise.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture had its problems. But no one can ever say it wasn’t Star Trek. I like to paraphrase what Leonard Nimoy says about Star Trek it is adventure, has heart and is intelligent. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was and is Star Trek.

192. Jai - June 10, 2011

I mentioned this on a related discussion a few weeks ago, but to reiterate, in many ways TMP was probably the most realistic in terms of what it would (will ?) actually be like for humanity to encounter a truly ‘alien’ extraterrestrial civilisation tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years more advanced than us.

The galaxy and the rest of the universe beyond it are far larger and much, much older than many people are able to grasp. If intelligent life isn’t a one-off (namely us), there is going to be some extraordinarily awe-inspiring, staggeringly powerful, and perhaps very intimidating stuff somewhere out there. TMP captured the ‘unknown and unknowable’ vibe of that kind of civilisation and the experience of running into it very well.

Not in the sense of mutated Voyager probes coming back to hassle us, of course, but in the sense of massively advanced aliens who won’t look anything like us, whose psychology we won’t be able to anthropomorphise, and whose technology (both in terms of size and sophistication) will be on a scale far beyond anything we can even remotely begin to achieve ourselves.

TMP obviously isn’t to everyone’s taste, and I think TWOK ‘fills the gaps’ brilliantly, but TMP could be dauntingly, chillingly accurate in some ways. The mysterious real-life ET’s won’t necessarily all be wrinkly-foreheaded aggressive types who make a good coffee, y’know, even if some of them are (allegedly) small grey critters who irritatingly keep abducting people, or unseen entities with a penchant for leaving stylish graffiti in cornfields every year ;)

193. VulcanFilmCritic - June 10, 2011

118. “Check the Circuit” You are so right, Sir! If the entire run of TOS scripts could have been written in the span of time between “Star Trek” and its sequel, then it is logical to assume that something is wrong. Terribly wrong. Either Bad Robot is stretched so thin that it cannot meet its commitments or these guys just don’t have a clue as to how to write a Star Trek script. I’d like to think the former is more likely.
But another thought based in emotion rather than logic occurs to me. The New York Times recently referred to JJ Abrams as the Judd Apatow of science fiction and fantasy. *Ouch!* One need only look into the somewhat vacuous eyes of Mr. Apatow in his Wikipedia profile to see what a truly back-handed “compliment” that is.
J.J Abrams has said that he would like to make a movie like “The Dark Knight.” And by that I think he means a serious movie, not just a mindless summertime action-adventure flick. Something that takes Star Trek to a whole new level. Something we’ve never seen or thought of. Not necessarily dark, but deep.
Mr. Abrams is putting a lot of effort into this new movie “Super 8.” At his age I think he wants to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, as anyone would, by folks in the industry.
Recreating Star Trek, not just re-booting it, is going to take some time. (Just compare “The Cage” to “Where No Man Has Gone Before.”) So let’s allow the guys at Bad Robot at least try. The easy thing to do would be to just “update” our favorite villains of the past, and put the usual crew in play. The hard thing to do is to write about a new future rather than simply re-heat a defunct TV show.
With care, passion and attention to detail, either the sequel will be a shooting star or a glorious failure, but it won’t be boring.

P.S. And if the next movie really does fail, isn’t Harlan Ellison still alive?

194. Mark Lynch - June 11, 2011

@192
Perfectly said. Couldn’t agree more.

195. Devon - June 11, 2011

“”””@181

I think you need to go back and watch TMP again. It had a lot to say about the human condition.””””””

No, it didn’t, in anyway shape or form.

“””””@ 181 – Devon says, “There was absolutely nothing of any importance that TMP told anyone. Ever.”

That’s not correct.””””

It is very correct. Say it with me guys… “The Motion Picture” said nothing of any significance to ANYONE.

196. Devon - June 11, 2011

#193 – “118. “Check the Circuit” You are so right, Sir! If the entire run of TOS scripts could have been written in the span of time between “Star Trek” and its sequel, then it is logical to assume that something is wrong. Terribly wrong.”

If it was, then J.J. would be putting the brakes on Super 8 to “save it.” Fans are in more of a panic about deadlines than the writers, and the writers do know what they need to do and not do and when to do it. Everyone needs to relax. It will come out when it comes out.

“or these guys just don’t have a clue as to how to write a Star Trek script.”

Did fine in 2009. Star Trek script writing is no different than any other. The speculation and needless panicking (not saying you are) really needs to stop.

197. Mark Lynch - June 11, 2011

@195
Like I said, if you don’t like TMP, that’s fine by me. But your statement about it is still incorrect sir.

198. Mark Lynch - June 11, 2011

@ Devon
Actually what I should have said, TMP said nothing to you… But it did to me and a lot of others…

199. Devon - June 11, 2011

198 – @ Devon
Actually what I should have said, TMP said nothing to you… But it did to me and a lot of others…””””

At least you think/were told that it did.

200. Bob Tompkins - June 13, 2011

Time to hand off Trek to someone who can devote the time and energy to the Franchise and give it the attention it deserves.
Pass it around if need be. Who would not like to see Spielberg direct a Trek and John Williams score it? As Executive Producer, Abrams would have the time in his too-busy schedule to keep it within the scope of his reimagination. Even the writing team is apparently too busy to devote the time.
They brought it back the right way, but Paramount is mishandling the Trek Franchise once again. A Transformers movie every 18-24 months, but 3 years between Treks? At this rate, the actors will be older than Shatner before we know it.

201. F. Anderson - July 20, 2011

An open appeal to JJ Abrams: Please brink back Leonard Nimoy as Spock ! The link to the other universe in the plot of the new Treks is needed and ensures “old school” fans (such as I ) that there is more to the new “action” Trek then just effects. Please keep the characters at the forefront – you owe it to the cultural legacy of acceptance and equality that the original series stood for. Get Mr. Nimoy back in the game!

202. carol - January 3, 2012

hi i have a colletion of star trek dvds that came with amag (BUT NO MAGS NOW) & was wondering if any body was intresting having them as they was my husbands before he died & im moving & no longer have room for them as im down sizing ! has any body got any ideas where i could get rid of them eather sell or swap for something else !!??

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