One Year To Go For Star Trek Sequel…Or Is It? |
jump to navigation

One Year To Go For Star Trek Sequel…Or Is It? June 29, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Editorial,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

We are exactly one year away from June 29, 2012, which is the officially scheduled release date for the the sequel to JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek. So should we all start our countdown clocks? As the film has yet to get into official pre-production, most seem to expect that the next Star Trek will require a bit more waiting.  


June 29, 2012 – The Day Star Trek returns?

Before the Star Trek movie premiered on May 8, 2009, word had already come out that Paramount Pictures was ready for more from the same creative team. Star Trek producer/director JJ Abrams, made it clear that he was happy to return, but he wanted to write and direct another film project first. So on January 8th, 2010 Paramount Pictures set down a marker, picking June 29, 2012 as the release date for the Star Trek sequel, hoping to take advantage of the July 4th holiday weekend.

While JJ Abrams was shooting his Super 8 project with Steven Spielberg in the fall of 2010, the writing team of Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof started working on the Star Trek sequel script. The goal was to have a first draft done by spring 2011 leading to production starting in the summer. Clearly that hasn’t happened and Abrams himself admits that his busy schedule has put a delay into kicking off the Star Trek sequel production. 

The question is, will this delay in the production schedule result in a delay for the film’s release? There is still time for the Star Trek sequel to be made for its June 29, 2012 release date. While it usually takes around a year or more from production start to release on big budget effects movies, they can be done quicker. Director Matthew Vaughn started shooting X:Men First Class at the end of last August, and that film came out in early May. And while there isn’t a singed off Star Trek sequel script for pre-production, prep work did start in April based on an "extensive outline." This is all why JJ Abrams and his writing team have all been saying that they could still make the release date one year from today, but they have all also said that they will not allow quality to be compromised in order to just meet that date.

It may be counter-intuitive, but there is some good news in all of this. Paramount could have easily cobbled together some kind of team to get a sequel out by this summer, but they wanted to stick with Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Burke. The 2009 Star Trek film threaded the needle – garnering fan, critic and mainstream success – and a brand new team risked the just-revived franchise. And in the spring Abrams could have phoned it in on Star Trek, allowing pre-production to start without his giving it the proper attention.

So we wait. The conventional wisdom in the entertainment media is that the Star Trek sequel will be delayed to the Holiday season of 2012. Such a move would also probably mean that production would move to a start of November of this year, which would fall in line with the production schedule for the Abrams first Star Trek movie. Of course that film was originally planned for Christmas 2008 before its released date was moved (after production started) to May 8, 2009. And by the look of things, history may be repeating itself. Let’s hope, like with that film, in the end it will be worth the wait.

June 29, 2012 is the scheduled date for the return of Star Trek – but it wouldn’t be surprising if there was a delay getting out of spacedock

What is worth waiting for?

Sound off in the comments below. What would you like to see in the Star Trek sequel? And what would make it worth waiting for?


1. Paul Fitz - June 29, 2011

I just hope they get is right, take the time (not too much tho!).
If its as good as Trek 09, i’ll be happy.

2. Chris H. - June 29, 2011

Hard to imagine they’d really do a holiday release. The first film was pushed back for a few reasons, but one major reason was to turn it into a summer tentpole: they were that excited about it.

Nothing is certain, but I’d guess a summer ’13 release is more likely if it does get pushed back.

3. Nick Tierce - June 29, 2011

I think it’ll be pushed back, but weirder things have happened.

Heck, Ghostbusters took less than a year, start to finish.

4. Larry - June 29, 2011

awesome cant wait and please try and cut back on the lense flares this time, i liked them but i think you had too many last time :)

5. CanadianShane - June 29, 2011

One of the problem with success is you become popular and very busy…i mean the last Transformer movies came out the same summer movie season as Star Trek, and now here we go with a new Transformer movie this summer season, a complete year, optimistically thinking, before Star Trek…It seems Star Trek is a victim to the success of Abrams and his writers…they have all been so busy. Oh well, it will all be moot point if the next Star Trek knocks our socks off. I hope it all works out, I have faith in the Star Trek team that brought us the last one to do the right thing and bring us another awesome movie.

6. Josh - June 29, 2011

take your time guys and just make it right. Star Trek ’09 was great so we have complete faith in you.

7. MartyMayhem - June 29, 2011

How awesome would it be to have it in 3D too?

8. Kenneth-Of-Borg - June 29, 2011

I want to see myself in the sequel. It did not work out with my schedule for the first one but with any luck it will this time.

9. Vultan - June 29, 2011

I’m not sure if the “take your time” approach always works for the best. X-Men First Class, referenced in the above article, was considered by many to be a “rushed” production, and I couldn’t help but think while watching it in the theater, ‘So, this is what a rushed production looks like?—then by all means, rush them all!’

Anyway, I hope the next Trek will do as well—with the script, that is.

10. Enterprise C - June 29, 2011

Time for the sequel to shift from thrusters to warp speed! Go where no Star Trek has gone before! As Picard would say, “Make it so!”

11. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 29, 2011

What is worth waiting for?… I guess at this time they already have done the story of the film… I mean Bob Orci said they already knew what they wanted to do when he said they were in “soft” preparation… then, what may look different than they already have done?… if we wait more?… best pre -production?… best post-production?… well, whatever it is… I want a great movie in the end!..

And it seems that the script is never really done until the movie premiere… as Bob Orci said… by the way, they filmed additional scenes for Welcome to People, last week… and, they supposedly had already entered in the post-production of the film in March.

:-) :-)

12. Basement Blogger - June 29, 2011

Since you’ve asked the question. Here’s what I want to see in a Star Trek sequel. STAR TREK. I want see adventure, heart and INTTELLIGENCE.

As far as release date, there’s no script, except an extensive outline. I can’t see them making the June deadline unless the whole team goes into warp drive. If they don’t make it for June, that leaves the holiday period where it will face The Hobbit (production photos already out) the new Twilight movie, and James Bond.

It’s logical for the movie to be released in May of 2013. There’s less competition. And from a financial basis only, I reccommend they film it in 3D. No conversion from 2D. Why? I think it’s clear the 3D component makes the studio more money. The more money Star Trek makes the more Star Trek. And by the way, I’m not a fan of 3D but the thought of Star Trek filmed in 3D with proper preproduction intrigues me.

13. Hugh Hoyland - June 29, 2011

Well I suppose this is the price you pay for having A listers on board! :]

But these guys have put themselves on the hot seat with the possible delay and talk of “We want to take our time so we can make something really good and not rushed”. (Gotta watch what ya say IMO)

Cause if it doesnt track with fans and the general audience…well you know whats gonna happen.

But I have faith in these talented writers to pull this off!

14. Red Dead Ryan - June 29, 2011

Summer 2013 it will be. Paramount regards the new Trek movies as summer tentpole films. Plus, even though the sequel could hold its own against mainstream favorites such as “Breaking Dawn”, “The Hobbit” and “James Bond 23″, it would make even more money releasing it in the summer of 2013 which probably won’t be as croweded as next year will be.

Also, I would assume (and hope) that the upcoming Trek video game is released around the same time as the sequel. Having the game come out next year and the sequel come out in 2013 makes no sense at all.

Forget about 2012. Make 2013 the year of “Star Trek”.

Finally, the extra year should provide ample time for the Supreme Court to work on the sequel as well as their other projects. If this thing does go into late 2012 with little progress made, then I think there would be reason to be concerned. But I think they just needed more time to craft a great script.

15. Obsidian - June 29, 2011

Crikey, 2012 is too long. 2013? Sheesh.

Why don’t they film these things back to back? A la Harry Potter?

16. trekker 5 - June 29, 2011

Oh my God. I had forgotten the one year mark was today!! I guess I forgot because I just don’t have the excitement like I did;but then,waiting does that to person sometimes. I wonder if Bones could give me a stimulant to keep me going? Anyway,I would very much love some good news on Trek12,I mean,anything that would give me a little hope that it will be in 2012.

17. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - June 29, 2011


Because they want to keep up the suspense of it all.

I’m counting on next year. Besides, how many times do you get the chance to release a twelfth film in the twelfth year of the century?

Come on, J.J.! Bring on the lens flares!

18. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 29, 2011

“ was launched July 15, 2006 (as The Trek XI Report), the same day it was announced that JJ Abrams had finalized a 5-year deal with Paramount Pictures which included a new Star Trek film as his first project. ”

This is a quote from Wikipedia. If you do the maths, 2006 + 5 = 2011. What year are we now? The reason for the delay now – JJ Abrams is in negotiations with Paramount about renewal of contract…and whether he will do a 3D movie.
There is nothing new, apart from this tiny but pertinent bit of information.

19. Anthony Pascale - June 29, 2011

Firstly there is a wiki page about trekmovie?

Re Abrams deal
It was extended to 2013 already

20. DarthDogg - June 29, 2011

For years Trek was pretty much dead to the world. JJ Abrams was tasked with not only bringing it back, but also bringing it into mainstream popularity. Like the movie or not, he did it. But audiences are fickle and forget far sooner then later. not striking wie the iron was hot is shear MADNESS.

The wait is taking so long that soon, no one will give a crap. And to all those saying that its better to wait and allow them time to make a great sequel. well, that would be great if indeed all this time was spent doing so. unfortunatley, they still do not even have a final story, by the time they start filming, it will just be as rushed and half assed as any other sequel made nowadays.


21. The Riddler - June 29, 2011

Hurry the fu*k up, this is getting ridiculous!

22. Jordan - June 29, 2011

It’s going to be so rushed…

23. Aussie Ian - June 29, 2011

#21 Asterix or not, if you can’t express yourself without being vulgar, you really shouldn’t be contributing to a public forum


24. Jonathan - June 29, 2011

I’m expecting great things from the sequel, whenever it comes out.

25. The Squire of Gothos - June 29, 2011


26. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 29, 2011

#19 Yes, there is and a nice little pic of you as well, Anthony.


27. Jonboc - June 29, 2011

Still a year to go…maybe a year and a half, for Trek, yet today, the special effects extravaganza Transformers…a franchise with a little less substance,but at least as much ambition, opens in theaters everywhere. This, a follow-up to the second Transformers film that opened 1 month after Trek, in 6 of 2009. Something very wrong here.

28. Browncoat1984 - June 29, 2011

What would make it worth waiting for is that its a good, quality sequel. I want a sequel that improves on the first the same way Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan and The Dark Knight improved on their predecessors. I also don’t want just a retread of existing plots like Khan. I want lots of new but some familiar like we had with Trek 2009.

My biggest fear with it coming out next Christmas is that that’s also when the next James Bond film and the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is due out. This would create an almost identical situation to when Star Trek: Nemesis came out, facing stiff competition from Bond, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. And maybe its a good thing Trek might not make the original release date, because once again that’s going to be a pretty heavy period. Maybe Paramount should do something new and release the movie in September or October? A period when there isn’t much aside from sappy romances to go see.

29. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 29, 2011

Sorry but honestly at this point in time ive lost intrest in what or when the new trek movie will come out.
thanks alot JJ, Bob, and Alex. I really dont understand why JJ couldnt have simply did what he did with Mission: Impossible ghost protocol and let someone else direct the thing.(the trailer for M:IGP looks awesome by the way) fine you wanna make other movies, like super 8 but if you dont think you can have enough focus to work on something that has a 40 plus year fan base, step aside as a director and pass the reigns on to someone else you can handpick and trust to do just as good of a job as what you did with the first one. using MI4 as a great example again, Brad Bird was an excellent choice by JJ to take on directing the next MI movie.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again Nicholas Meyer would be a great choice, hes allready written the best trek movie ever made, as well as another great trek film as well, and JJ knows him. If not Nicholas Meyer then why not someone like Brian Singer or Matt Reeves or even Alex .

At the very least let everyone know once and for all, when to expect it. at this point it seems unlikely to be 1 year from today, but atleast tell us that dont say “Oh youll have a answer soon” or “once super 8 is released ill make a decision” Not only that but these actors have other commitments especially Zoe and Chris and Simon but Zoe in particular. the longer the wait the more likely there is to run into a situation where Zoe is not free to shoot because she’ll be busy shooting Avatar II or chris cause he will be shooting Jack Ryan or any one of the many projects he has lined up. not to mention he had to miss doing live theatre this summer cause it looked like Trek was going to start shooting in the summer.
(by the way chris is an incredible theatrical actor)

30. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 29, 2011

#20 you are right, i mean if they arent careful it might be the same situation that happend with the Zorro series where they waited 7 years to make the sequal and by that point the any love the audience had for the reboot was non exsistant for the sequal.
( i only mention this movie since alex and bob wrote the sequal for zorro, figuring using another movie that they worked on from what was a once popular film franchise brought back to life only to have it snuffed out again for taking to long to get back into theatres might give some prespective)

31. Jesustrek - June 29, 2011

9.- X-Men: First Class has been revealed as the most error-strewn movie of the year so far.

32. Buzz Cagney - June 29, 2011

Its going to be late.
I don’t buy into this whole ‘we would rather get it right than on time’ stuff. They’ve had more than enough time!
This script seems to have taken forever! I’m not quite sure what their problem has been. Too many other projects i’m assuming.

33. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 29, 2011

How about some string theory or quantum mechanics for a plot? Or the possible nature of time.

34. Vultan - June 29, 2011


I really couldn’t care less how many technical and historical “errors” X-Men had. It was engaging, well-directed and well-acted. One of the few superhero movies to actually make me FEEL something for the characters.

I look forward to the next one.

35. DarthDogg - June 29, 2011


Yea. Take my mother as an example. She was never a Trek fan. But she loved the new one. A year and a half ago she asked me when there was ever gonna be a sequel. Today, she doesnt even remember the film or care about a sequel. She represents the mainstreme crowd. The same mainstream crowd they have now lost because of taking so long. They did what seemed impossable. They brought Trek to the mainstream. Why leave them hanging in the dust. Your Zorro comparison is a fine example. I know that Trek fans and the people of this site will not lose interest, but you know, Trek fans alone cannot support this franchise, if they could, that last mess of a movie would not have been necessary to begin with.

It seems at this point, that JJ came in long enough to destroy the Trek universe as we always knew and loved it, and now is showing no interest in doing anything with it. THANKS ALOT.

36. Vultan - June 29, 2011


There’s one big difference with the Zorro and Star Trek productions—Orci and Kurtzman didn’t write the first Zorro movie. The two movies had the same director (Martin Campbell), but for some odd reason they went with different screenwriters for the sequel… and sadly it shows.

Another popcorn flick aimed at the Hasbro crowd [shudder].
Another lost opportunity.

I wonder if Nick Meyer is busy….

37. wasntme - June 29, 2011

I want to see it after the End of the World in 2012. Could you make this possible? Maybe we could join on mars or so? I will bring some popcorn. Who will bring the rest?

38. Jason - June 29, 2011

maybe they should just give the movie to someone who actually wants to make it

39. Mark Lynch - June 29, 2011

Even if they were ready to start filming right now, there is no way this film could be in the cinemas in a year. We know the script is not even finished, casting has not yet begun, nor has any location scouting or set building. Editing and Special effects alone take months upon months.

We will be lucky to see this film by December 2012. If Paramount wasnt a “tentpole” (hate this term) movie then consider June 2013 the landing date.

It feels as if everyone has better things to do than get Star Trek going again.

You don’t need inside information to see this, just a dash of common sense.

40. Mark Lynch - June 29, 2011

wasnt = want (damn typos!)

41. Panty Gorgon - June 30, 2011

I don’t care how long it takes, just make a film that is better than the previous offering.

And no romance between Spock and Uhura, or an engineering room that looks like a brewery

42. Ben Williams - June 30, 2011

Better to release the film later, you don’t want to be releasing your film in between the new Spiderman and Batman films, if you did then the film wont make as much money and they would slash the budget for the third movie.

43. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 30, 2011

36 being a big fan of the first zorro movie, I ofcourse know that they didnt write the first one. I was just using zorro as an example because it perfectly shows what happens when to much time is allowed to pass, and i thought it was all the more relevant considering it was a sequal the two trek writers also worked on, even though they had nothing to do with Mask of Zorro.

44. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 30, 2011

42 as TWOK showed us a smaller budget doesnt necessiarly mean the movie would be lesser.

JJ give the movie to nicholas meyer allready.

45. Matthew - June 30, 2011

Well, how often anymore do you see a big budget director who is more concerned with the quality of the product then with getting it out on time? Remember the LAST time Star Trek did that? What did we get? An unfinished film that wasn’t properly edited and took over 20 years for a definitive version to be released. Provided I’m not dead before it happens, I’m willing to wait an extra 6 months to a year to get a sequel. Good things come to those who wait. Be patient, my fellow nerds!

46. Basement Blogger - June 30, 2011

Star Trek, 3D and Transformers: Dark of the Moon

I just saw Transformers; Dark of the Moon. The 3D effects were spectacular, probably becuase most of the movie was shot in 3D. We should not fear a well shot, well lit Star Trek movie filmed in 3D. The effects in T:DOTM popped and there were money shots where things were hurled at you. Hey, I like that. Use it or lose it.

As for the Star Trek referrences and connections in T:DOTM here they are. At Sam’s apartment, two Autobots are watching an episode of Star Trek. They say it’s the one where Spock goes mad. I’m guessing “Amok Time’ since we don’t see the screen. Plus at the end of the movie, there’s a music credit for the episode. At Carly’s workplace, Sam comments on the clean and high tech office by comparing it to the bridge of the Enterprise. Of course, Sentinel Prime is voiced by Leonard Nimoy. Later he quotes the “The needs of the many…” line from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan much to the dismay of this Trekker since Dark of the Moon is terrible.

Did i say terrible? Yeah. I complained about Trek 2009’s pacing and when I saw this movie, maybe I shouldn’t complain. Non-stop pound you in your seats action and that’s bad. I had a headache after watching T;DOTM. Stupid too. Wild swings of comedy and drama. Movie was worse than Michael Bay’s other masterpiece “”Armageedon.” Instead of waterboarding terror suspects, we should show them this movie.

47. =A= - June 30, 2011

to be or not to be that date june 29th?

48. - June 30, 2011

I hope the character development is as good as X Men first class.

All else can bow to that one wish.

49. captain_neill - June 30, 2011


After the pain of Revenge of the Fallen I have no interest in seeing Dark of the Moon.

I know I did complain that I felt Abrams ‘dumbed down’ parts of Star Trek to get the mainstream on board but there is is one thing Abrams got right and that was getting good actors and making the characters work, unlike Michael Bay who just like to incinerate everything with explosions.

As long as they deliver a good script that works well and keeps faithful to the TOS crew I love and a strong script both on character and plot then I believe Star Trek XII will be a great film.

I am happy to wait longer to gurantee a good film, if Star Trek goes fully to Michael Bay mode then I will feel sad.

50. visitor1982 - June 30, 2011

4 years between movies is way too long for my taste… Three years is the max. If the creative team can’t do things on time because they have so many other things to do, then leave it be and give the franchise to someone who sees it as their top priority and who can do things on time.

Yes, I want quality. But that doesn’t mean I would have to wait 4 years to see a damn movie.

There is talent out there who can write 26 fabulous stories in one year (DS9). Of course TV is different compared to film, but this is getting ludicurous.

Get your act together or don’t do it at all!

51. Christopher Roberts - June 30, 2011

If it turns out to be 2013, that’s an important year for another long-term love of mine – Doctor Who. Their 50th Anniversary to be precise. If they suddenly decided to put out a film… I think might just end having to go live in my local cinema!

52. Father Robert Lyons - June 30, 2011

Please spare me the 3D. I can’t even glance at a 3D movie without feeling the need to evacuate my stomach. Something about the filming/screening technique gives me vertigo.

A few years back, I saw the Space Station 3D on IMAX at KSC. Sick.

About a month ago, I stopped in a Best Buy to see if the new 3D TV’s had the same effect on me. Yep. Thought I was going to loose it right there in the store.


53. Ron - June 30, 2011

According to, Paramount is expecting this latest installment in the TRANSFORMERS franchise to gross over a seven day period from this past Tuesday night premiere through the Fourth of July weekend to hit $200M, though the studio keeps lobbing lowball estimates of $150M-$165M.

That said – Paramount is sorely going to miss having a solid tentpole this time next year without STAR TREK, forcing them to move up GI:JOE sequel to fill the holiday slot if Bad Robot Productions cannot deliver in one year, I know GI JOE’s script is ready and filming starts in early August.

So – why would Paramount be willing to push back to 2013? That’s a loss of considerable revenue. And would they be willing to place STAR TREK in summer 2013 and run them with more Marvel movies.

There’s an argument that to pause and wait will produce a good movie of STAR TREK; perhaps pushing to deliver as scheduled will produce a better film. I don’t know – it’s not my profession – so we must defer to those who do know and work in that industry and I appreciate boborci posting here from time to time on such realities of his trade.

54. Quark - June 30, 2011

I am looking Star Trek almost every day. I don´t miss the new film.

55. Kirk, James T. - June 30, 2011

It has to be better than the first and that is a massive task in itself because the first one was truly epic. However i feel that a delay could hurt the sequel just as much as it being bad… What the people/critics want is a Star Trek that is ON TIME and as good if not better than the first. Summer 2012 has to be when this movie is released otherwise all the hard work they put into making the Star Trek brand popular with the first movie, will have to be repeated to a larger scale for the sequel.

I just hope that Abrams can take a lesson from this and not over-streach himself again with dozens of TV pilots. Clearly if the sequel is a massive hit and he goes onto doing a third movie, it will be Star Trek that cements his name into the mainstream rather than the likes of Lost or Fringe…

56. Voice of Reason - June 30, 2011

Can the movie be done and ready for next year? Sure… but just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should. Yes, at this point it is obvious that the team from ST09 leveraged their success to push other projects, clearly at the expense of the next Trek. As others have pointed out. ST09 and Transformers released at the same time, and T3 is in theaters now while ST09 doesn’t even have a script (and no, the ST II delay in no way shape or form is due to “quality”).

Sadly this puts Trek in a bad position no matter what. There are 3 bad choices:
Square Peg Round Hole it in order to shoehorn it into Summer 2012
Push it to Christmas 2012 and face the multi-buzzsaw of the other mainstream blockbusters already announced
Push it to Summer 2013 and have taken 4 years between movies

The only saving grace that I could envision is if they pushed it to Summer 2013 but filmed 2 movies back to back. I mean, lets face it. If they keep up this pace Chekov will go from a 17 year old wiz-kid to a married father of 2 between movies…(Hey it’s a new timeline…)

I mean, let’s be honest here, ST09 was a fun movie.. a typical summer action movie, but it wasn’t a classic that would justify waiting 4 years to get the same team together. If anythng, ST09 should have proven that we should not fall into the same “trap” of having caretakers of the franchise.

57. Cygnus-X1 - June 30, 2011

Summer 2019

58. Janice - June 30, 2011

Take the time and do it right.
And to make it even better–get Pike in there! I can wait till 2013 if I have to.

59. Jay - June 30, 2011

Well, maybe this is a bit consipiritorial (sp?), but I’m begining to wonder if there isn’t some disagreement on the script/story.

It just doesn’t make sense that it is taking this long. We heard in March that the story was 90% done. An extensive outline, etc. Right? They could even begin prep work.

Ok, if that is all true, then it shouldn’t take more than a week or two for these guys to get together with JJ and finalize a script and start working… what’s going on? It’s been several weeks since JJ has been freed up from Super 8 duties. What are they doing?

Is it possible he isn’t quite happy with the story/outline? Is it possible there is a major part of the story he doesn’t like and they are considering a rewite?

Is it possible Paramount execs are not happy with the announced “6 months behind schedule” comment and want them to bust their butts to get this film done on time? And JJ is balking at that pressure?

I just don’t get it. If things were so close to being done 3 months ago – and “just waiting on JJ to be free to join us” – then what is the hold up now?

60. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - June 30, 2011

Seen Transformers last night and there were several Trek References. Minoy as Prime even said that the Needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Transformers was a great movie and I highly Recomend it. Oh the 3D was great as well. In fact I kept forgetting it was in 3D as that is how good it was.
I hope Trek can come out next year on time. But. I would prefer quality and I can wait a few months if needed.

61. Jay - June 30, 2011

I don’t think it’s a matter of waiting a few months.

It’s just not that simple. It’s not just a matter of taking a little longer to make sure it’s a good movie.

Paramount is most concerned with profits. Yes they want a good movie, but only so much as it makes more money.

The bottom line fact of the movie buisness is that movies make more money in the summer. That’s why all the big budget, blockbuster type movies come out during the summer. People, especially young high school or college age people, go see them repeatedly throughout the summer. Something they rarely do during their couples weeks off during the holidays.

Paramount has a budget and a profit margin in mind for this film. They have formulas that predict how much a movie will make based on the date it is released. There is a very good reason for wanting to realease this movie over the July 4th holiday weekend next summer – MONEY!!

Paramount may very well be telling JJ “Hey if you want to push the release date to Holidays 2012, then we want to cut the budget 15% to maintain our profit margins.” And JJ could be saying he needs the full budget to make the movie he wants the way he wants, and Paramount could come back and say “Well, then get it done on time for June 29th!!”

62. Adam - June 30, 2011

Surely it will all depend on whether the cast have other committments beyond the time that they expected the sequel to film? Wait too long and it will be significantly harder to get them all together.

63. Shannon Nutt - June 30, 2011

December 21, 2012. Mark it down, cause that’s when this movie will be released. In the words of Harlan Ellison (quoting some Paramount execs) “Maybe we can throw some Mayans in there? MAYANS?!”

64. SoonerDave - June 30, 2011

Profitable priorities are what rule the day for Paramount, or, more accurately, profit *drives* priorities. Paramount is looking long-term – and they see more long-term value in retaining Abrams as a creative force for future (profitable) projects than making Trek 2012 (2013 or whatever) a priority. That’s why we hear so very little from the Paramount side in terms of “pressure” on Abrams to get off the dime and get the movie on the road.

Sorry, but all of the delay, inaction, and (absence of) communication tells me Paramount is happy to make Trek a back-burner franchise in favor of keeping Abrams happy as a long-term creative force for the studio. Just as the initial three-year delay between movies was the first sign, the fact that there continues to be very little concern on the part of the studio on what is clearly a behind-schedule project demonstrates other things are priority right now.

65. Jay - June 30, 2011

#62 Yes that is another part of this as well.

This is a buisness. As much as we all want to believe that they will take as long as it takes to make the best Star Trek movie that they can make, that’s just not reality.

The cast has commitments to other projects. They have time set aside for this project and they can’t just change everything at the drop of a hat.

Also, like any buisness project, when deadlines are missed, money is lossed. And in the movie industry, studio execs can lose their jobs over things like that. The week of the 4th of July holiday is the best week for the movie industry of the entire calander year. There is a reason they put Transformers 3 on that weekend. It is Paramounts headline act. Their big tentpole, summer, blockbuster movie of 2011.

Paramount put Star Trek in that same slot for 2012 because they belived it would be their headline, summer, blockbuster movie of 2012. They had high expectations. They don’t just put any movie in that week. They want their biggest money maker of the year to be in that week.

So no one can convince me that the execs at Paramount are not very upset right now at the suggestion that the movie will miss that release date.

Maybe the delay we are seeing right now – after Super 8 came out – is due to closed door talks between JJ and Paramount execs over how they can get this movie out that week next summer so they can maximise the potential revenues they have projected.

66. Hugh Hoyland - June 30, 2011


I will not see this movie unless there are Mayans in it! In 3-D no less.

67. Hugh Hoyland - June 30, 2011

But I may see it if they put in the Rock Man, now that would be cool! ;}

68. Jay - June 30, 2011

#64 Publicly they will never say anything, but privately, I would bet everything I have that they are not happy about having to move the movie if they end up having to do that.

Like I said, they scheduled Star Trek XII for the 4th holiday week because they expected it to be their headline act of the summer of 2012. And with that, they expected it to make the most money for them.

Moving it to the holidays later that year guarantees a certain level of drop in total money. No matter how they sugar coat it publicly to keep JJ on board, no company exec is happy about losing potential profit.

69. Aurore - June 30, 2011



People, please…one step at a time ; we* have to focus on the “ANNOUNCEMENT” !!!

When is it going to take place? What will it entail ?
These are the questions that need answering, FIRST!!!

* Alright , I admit it ; that’s what is of interest to ME , so, I’m throwing my first temper tantrum , on this site. Mmmmmmh… It feels so good…… I feel like a true fan , right now…..

If only I could get a warning of some kind , my bliss would be complete….Mmmmmmm……


70. BringBackKirkPrime - June 30, 2011

That’s right, take your time. Maybe another 2 years, maybe 3, 5, 10, never? This sucks

71. John - June 30, 2011

J.J. has to come back as the director, absolutely no one else should direct the sequel but him!!!

72. Mirror Jordan - June 30, 2011

Like a few others, I really think that delaying to Holiday 2012 will create another Nemesis situation. Best to stick to the original release date or perhaps a Fall 2012 release.

73. ML31 - June 30, 2011

Too much time and the actors will age too much.

74. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 30, 2011

Have to agree with those who enjoyed X Men. Great characters throughout, and more adult than usual. I typically don’t like superhero movies.

As for this situation, I’ll be curious to find out what the hold up is…whether creative problems, time constrants, backroom negotiations or simply a ruse.

75. Nemesis4909 - June 30, 2011

Personally I feel a little insulted as a fan at the lack of care that’s been taken in making this film.

I mean, think about if for a second. Back in 2009 “Star Trek” came out and it was met with rave reviews, both from fans and non fans which was new for Star Trek, for the first time in a long time it had broken out of the stigma of being Star Trek and the imagery that conjured in the minds of those who weren’t fans.

So what they had was an exciting summer movie that happened to be Star Trek. Next thing that happened is they said they’d delay the next film for 3 years in order to take their time to make the best movie possible.

Problem is, they’ve now proceeded to royally screw that up. By spending the past 2 years signing up for every other job they could get their hands on they’ve come to the point of the movie’s meant to be out next year and they’ve done no work, how is that right?

It reminds me of being a student and procrastinating when having an assignment due and then having to rush it the night before. A rush job is never as good as something you sit and think about and iron out the problems through subsequent revisions, I think most would agree on that.

Spider-Man’s out near enough the same time and they’re well through filming, The Avengers has started filming and so has Batman.

The filming should be started by now to give them time to pull it all together. So why are we as fans expected to accept a 4 year delay between films? It’s absurd. The lack of priority given to Star Trek is only going to anger fans (like me) and people who aren’t fans but enjoyed the first movie aren’t going to remember a movie that came out 4 years ago, at least not enough to be excited about it. Franchise momentum is gone.

There’s also this point to consider, the writers don’t seem to be very good at sequels. The first Transformers film had a fairly tight script in my opinion, the story flowed and I managed to care about the characters, then it did well and the second one happened. It was a mess, it seemed to me that the writers thought they could do no wrong so funnelled whatever nonsense they could think of in there and believed that everyone would love it when they didn’t.

What happens if they go into Star Trek 12 with that kind of conceit? Believing that whatever they do will be awesome. Will we get the same level of mess as “Revenge of The Fallen”? I, for one would hope not.

I have half a mind to boycot the Star Trek movie if it ever gets made (this would only work if everyone else does it) so that it bombs and teaches them a lesson about treating the fanbase with the due respect. They now risk losing everyone they converted. I wanted to hate the last film due to the nature of recasting iconic roles etc but when I watched it I just couldn’t because it is a damn good film, I just wish as fans we were treated with more respect.

What does everyone think of what I’ve said here? Obviously it’s just my opinion and isn’t fact.

76. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 30, 2011

Okay Aurore, consider yourself warned. Better? ;)

77. Aurore - June 30, 2011

76.moauvian waoul-aka : seymour hiney.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm……..Mmmmmmmmmmmm……Oh, seymour!
Thank youuuuu….. Oh…….seymouuuur…..Mmmmmmm……………


78. Jay - June 30, 2011

#75 I agree to a point. They created a huge buzz for Star Trek that hasn’t been seen, really since Star Trek II. It was the first Star Trek film since that one to get such wide spread critical praise.

I mean it’s frustrating for me as a fan to see films like Transformers make so much money when it clearly isn’t in the same league as Star Trek in terms of a good film. Just shows you what mindless teenagers can do for a movie in terms of box office.

But at the same time it’s frustrating to have that momentum waisted also. I’m particularly upset with JJ Abrams. I don’t think he has taken his role with this franchise seriously enough. Putting himself in a position to be so over-commited and falling behind on this film. That to me is disrespectful not only to us as fans, and the franchise, but to the studio that put the movie in it’s most prime release slot of the entire year. When a studio does that for your film, you owe it to them to bust your butt and get the best movie possible made on time for that slot.

I’m very disapointed. Holiday release = smaller budget. No doubt about it. Just when Star Trek was positioned to take off like never before.

79. Jamie - June 30, 2011

There’s no final script (and we don’t know how far along they are), there’s no financial plan greenlit, there’s no director signed on, no location scouting, casting, and no other pre-production work has started, and there’s already another movie (G.I. Joe 2, with The Rock) put into the sequel’s place in the summer schedule. It’s going to miss it, more than likely.

Paramount may not LIKE it, but they are trying to “relaunch” a franchise. If the second movie doesn’t do well, they’ll lose a lot of ground in that area and then they potentially lose a lot of money. They have to do this right or the whole idea crumbles. Frankly, considering how willing they’ve been in the past to squeeze every bit of money they can out of the franchise, I don’t mind them having to shut up and be patient for once. When studios interfere too much in a production, it ruins a movie, and we all know that.

And I don’t blame the writers or even JJ – they have lives and careers outside of this franchise. Who could have known two years ago that so many opportunities would present themselves to the team? Their careers existed before Star Trek and they have to continue after it; they can’t put their lives on hold and risk losing the ground they’ve gained just because fans want them to. They have futures to think of, too, and in this industry where there’s always someone willing to take your place, they need to take the shots they get.

I honestly think the question will be if it comes out in winter or summer of 2013. Paramount moved the first to summer because it was confident it would do well, and they might consider doing it again. I hope not, but I’m kind of prepared for it just in case. :/ We’ll see what happens, but I just hope at the end of this mess, there’s a good movie. I’d be a lot more pissed if we waited all this time for a piece of crap movie.

80. Mirror Jordan - June 30, 2011


Those are my precise concerns. What’s been bothering me about this schedule is now coming true. Fans are getting restless with the ever-growing wait and just a you said, “people who aren’t fans but enjoyed the first movie aren’t going to remember a movie that came out 4 years ago.”

That means trouble…

JJ should have handed the directorial duties to someone else, and produced.

81. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 30, 2011

Wow Aurore, um sure,,,, yeah, no problem. Anytime.

82. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - June 30, 2011

I’ve got to get over to France.

83. trekker 5 - June 30, 2011

#69,Aurore,hello! And,I know how you feel,if you read my post up at…humm,I think its #15,you’ll see that this time I didn’t get mad,more sad I should think. Because I have faced the facts,I just don’t have much hope left for 2012,unless that ‘announcement’ comes ‘soon’. *Sigh*.

84. Danpaine - June 30, 2011

“If you build it, they will come…”

Whenever it’s made.

85. monty mullins sr - June 30, 2011

i hope they get the time line back striaghten out the mess from first one

86. Katie G. - June 30, 2011

Okay, Anthony. We need a new poll:

Push it for June 29, 2012 — I can’t wait.


Take your time and do it right. I’ll wait.


87. Bucky - June 30, 2011

While I don’t think the flick will be out in a year, it’s not out of the realm of possibility. You know another project Damon Lindeolf and JJ Abrams went from 2 hr idea meeting to fully complete 82 minutes? The Lost pilot. And it’s freakin’ amazing, still one of the best episodes of the show and one of the best damn TV pilots ever made. So it’s not without precedent.

88. Jay - June 30, 2011

What ever happened to that “announcement” we were promised?

Things are very fishy. Apparently they have nothing to announce, or they would have by now. I’m thinking there is some “discussion” going on behind closed doors. Either about release date, or story…. nothing else makes sense.

If the story was essentially done in March, there is no reason for the script to still not be complete. You can’t tell me JJ hasn’t had time since March to meet with the writers and go over the story. And they have had time since Super 8 came out to finalize the script – IF in fact the story was done already as we have been told.

Unless it is done and the issue is Paramount insisting on the original release date for financial reasons… and the discussion is centered around that issue.

But something is going on….. and the longer it takes, the worse I’m feeling about it.

89. N - June 30, 2011

Star Trek XII will be great (it’ll always be XII to me like 09 is XI)

Making a good film is the most important thing and then a TV series or two, prime universe future preferably but whatever the franchise needs rebuilding.

90. Christopher Roberts - June 30, 2011

TrekMovie asked…

What is worth waiting for?

Sound off in the comments below. What would you like to see in the Star Trek sequel? And what would make it worth waiting for?

I answer:

Make it more like in this inital concept sketch…

Darker. Enclosed. More cream and reds, instead of ultra clean white open spaces.

Move one of the turbolifts, so the door opens at the back and to the right, more behind the Captain’s chair. So it’s visable in a tight shot of Kirk, like in the Original Series where he swivels round to face anyone who exits.

Directly behind him should be another computer station like to the left and right, not the triangular slats on the wall.

Lose a few of those transparent freestanding airplane-style course plotting screens. One somewhere on the Bridge is enough.

Build a proper set influenced by the TV shows, particularly TOS obviously and the layout in ENT but more advanced. A warp engine that runs horizontally along the length of a few decks. Not vertically as in TNG onwards. No Victorian stop cocks. Visable plumbing in Engineering itself. Pipes go inside bulkheads and are labelled GNDN – goes nowhere does nothing!

Retcon the redressed brewery as coolent replenishment, deuterium storage tanks, water reclamation, auxiliary control because the main room is still being fitted out… ANYTHING but those weren’t Scotty’s bairns we we’re looking at.


MORE EXPOSITION about Kirk going from CADET to CAPTAIN in a week.
Possibility 1)
History was radically altered when Nero arrived in 2233. There has been an ongoing war involving the Romulans for years, and lately Starfleet resources have been depleted, a shortage of Captain material due to mounting losses. Make this apparent in the new film, with that “Yesterday’s Enterprise” threat still ongoing and a more militarised Federation likely to fall soon.

Kirk’s relative inexperience has to be called into question and be tested. Look at “The Corbomite Maneuver”, a classic episode where Kirk sees himself in a young officier he’s grooming and puts too much pressure on him. That would be RADICALLY different now. Kirk is practically BAILEY now in the Abramsverse. Straight out of the Academy and somehow given the freakin’ Federation flagship to command!

Possilbility 2)
Kirk was assigned aboard a starship for a few semesters and proved his ability to command that way. Make that fact relevant to the storyline, for instance he was a trainee Cadet aboard the U.S.S. Faragut for a few months and encounters a similar threat, finding lessons learned there valuable to a new situation.

FALL OUT from the Destruction of VULCAN.
It should clearly be part of Spock’s storyline. Maybe involving Sarek or Prime Spock in the relocation of survivors. Where would there new home be? Would any problems arise from that? Romulans would probably take advantage of this 9/11 event in the Star Trek Universe and use it as a way of destablising the Federation. What bad decisions do humanity start making without the steadying influence of the Vulcans?

It would be nice to see some cameos from Scott Bakula as Admiral Archer and William Shatner somewhere.

Bill as Fleet Captain Garth in this universe? He’d chew the scenery as one of two villians in the film. The lesser physical role, given his age. Maybe instead of that, a smaller role involving a hologram of Prime Kirk left behind by Prime Spock?

Archer, I’d say had passed on shortly before the events of Star Trek (2009). His appearance would be more onscreen in the briefing room, records of the Romulan War showing him on the NX-01 and later at the Federation charter signing ceremony. Kirk, Spock and some crew member are reviewing footage in preparation to encounter the race face-to-face.

91. Orb of the Emissary - June 30, 2011


92. BringBackKirkPrime - June 30, 2011

I agree with:
“75. Nemesis4909 – June 30, 2011

Personally I feel a little insulted as a fan at the lack of care that’s been taken in making this film.

I mean, think about if for a second. Back in 2009 “Star Trek” came out and it was met with rave reviews, both from fans and non fans which was new for Star Trek, for the first time in a long time it had broken out of the stigma of being Star Trek and the imagery that conjured in the minds of those who weren’t fans.

So what they had was an exciting summer movie that happened to be Star Trek. Next thing that happened is they said they’d delay the next film for 3 years in order to take their time to make the best movie possible.

Problem is, they’ve now proceeded to royally screw that up. By spending the past 2 years signing up for every other job they could get their hands on they’ve come to the point of the movie’s meant to be out next year and they’ve done no work, how is that right?”

93. My Two Cents For What It's Worth - June 30, 2011

It isn’t coming out in a year. It’ll be holiday 2012 or even later. Abrams hasn’t given any announcement yet (neary three weeks after Super 8’s release date), and Lindelof & co. may have a story but there’s no written script. Zero.

When it’s all said and done, unfortunately NO ONE in the upper echelon will own up for the delay and take responsibility and say “we’re sorry.” They’ll pass the buck and tout scheduling and scriptwriting as excuses without anyone admitting “we could’ve handled this better.” Paramount gave them and the fans a release/target date a year and a half in advance that they’ve been chanting “we’ll make it, we’ll make it” over and over again.

And what if the response when it comes out isn’t as strong as with the first one? What if? Will everyone just fall in line with “the story/acting/etc could’ve been better” or will they recognize that the delay could cool some of the heat off of it.

Do I want the next one to be good? Of course. But if it’s pushed out farther that’ll be THREE YEARS between films. I’m not worried about being entertained. I know I will be. I’m worried they’re shooting themselves in the foot by jerking the fanbase around with promises of making schedule deadlines, and by making very large wagers on the fact that everyone (including non-fans) will still be excited about a new movie coming out in 2012.

94. Tiberius Kirk - June 30, 2011

Star Trek movies that premiere in Winter, tank!

Make it a Summer release!

95. Bill Peters - June 30, 2011

I figure it will be out No later then August 2012 I don’t think Parmount is going to Budge on the 2012 date, not the Month my be in Flux but I don’t see them releasing it Against the Hobbit. August or September at the lastest of next year if they move it at all.

96. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 30, 2011

“The bottom line fact of the movie buisness is that movies make more money in the summer. That’s why all the big budget, blockbuster type movies come out during the summer. People, especially young high school or college age people, go see them repeatedly throughout the summer. Something they rarely do during their couples weeks off during the holidays”

This is not always the case plenty of movies have made lots of money in the holiday season.
Heck the top two money making movies of all time Avatar and Titanic opened in the holiday season, and their has only been one summer movie to approach a level anywhere close to Titanic(The Dark Knight)
not to mention going back other movies that have played very well and made a lot of money in the holiday season movies like Superman the movie, Aladdin, The Lord of the RIngs trilogy, and lets not forget more than half of the Harry Potter films open in the Holiday season instead of summer. (in fact the only reason why the studio deviated from having strictly holiday releases for that franchise was that they figured by having a year and half between movies instead of two years for the most part would help to ensure they could complete the film series before the kids really got to old to play the parts.)

97. Jay - June 30, 2011

#96 Good points. There are exceptions to the rule, but you named some of the all time great movies. Star Trek hasn’t historically been in that class, so I doubt the next Star Trek will break into that class. Although I would love it if it did.

I don’t think Paramount will look at this and think “Hey Harry Potter made a ton of money in December, so Star Trek XII will too.”

Star Trek 2009 showed alot of promise and brought in a larger audience and very good money, but I don’t think it did so good as to expect to make as much money as the movies you listed, especially during the holidays.

98. Lt. Bailey - June 30, 2011

I just hope that they can meet that date, its been long enough as it is.

They need to keep Trek in the public eye as much as possible. Waiting 3 or 4 years in between films is going to cause some drop off perhaps. Especially since there is no new Trek on TV. While I do want a good film, I do want to have it sooner.

99. Jay - June 30, 2011

#98 I agree. I fear that alot of the “new” fans brought to Star Trek in 2009 have already begun to forget what a good movie it was. Having the old Star Trek stereotype so ingrained in their mind’s eye.

They really need to keep that momentum going. If you are Paramount or JJ, you don’t want to have to remind people what a good movie Star Trek 2009 was in order to get them out to see the next one. You don’t want to have to repeat the marketing and the cost associated with that.

100. The 76th Distillation of Blue - June 30, 2011

I was just showing quite a few examples of movies that have done just as well as summer blockbusters in the holiday season.

101. NuFan - June 30, 2011

29., 30., 43., 44., 96.

I thought you lost all interest and weren’t going to post anymore?

102. Shannon Nutt - June 30, 2011

@94 The Motion Picture, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, and Generations all came out in the Thanksgiving/Christmas window. They did quite nicely, if you hadn’t heard. Does anyone here really think Star Trek (2009) would have tanked if it came out Christmas 2008 as it was originally supposed to? That’s silly…a good movie is a good movie. Release it in March – it will still make $200 million.

103. Kirk, James T. - June 30, 2011

Ok so lets flip the coin…

Does anyone know for sure that JJ Abrams and his creative team along with Paramount Pictures and CBS are in a bit of trouble with Star Trek? NO!

For all we know the movie is still scheduled to hit screens on the 29th June 2012 with all parties confident that it will hit that mark – also there is another date to consider that may be a bit more appealing to Paramount – the 10th August 2012. The studio may not want to release Star Trek so close to The Amazing Spider Man but rather take the safer option and release it in August swapping release dates with GI-Joe 2.

I don’t doubt that the studio are perhaps a bit concerned at how much JJ Abrams has on his plate but we don’t know what has happened and is happening regarding Trek behind closed doors. The script could be ready and this is all part of the plan to wait until SDCC to reveal all, keeping it all hush hush in the meantime.

I think that the fact we’ve not heard anything from the powers that be is perhaps a sign that…. more is going on…. than meets the eye….

104. Trekboi - June 30, 2011

not to be a joke but this is a disaster.

they have lost momentum & public interest & the release date.

105. Adolescent Nightmare - June 30, 2011

How come the Star Trek 1 complainers are the ones who are most upset about the delay of Star Trek 2? Do you just not have anything else to complain about besides Star Trek?

106. Michael Hall - June 30, 2011

“Is it possible he isn’t quite happy with the story/outline? Is it possible there is a major part of the story he doesn’t like and they are considering a rewite?”

While we’ll probably never know the truth, I would be surprised if that was not, indeed, the case.

107. Jay - June 30, 2011

#102… I hope those are the standard we are going by. I shudder to think the next movie will fall to that level after the 2009 one took Star Trek to new heights.

108. Jay - June 30, 2011

I mean “aren’t” the standard. Hate typos.

By the way, this whole thing has me feeling the same way as I am about the NBA lockout. After such a wonderful season for me where my beloved Mavs when the title, now there is the possibility of no NBA for a long time.

Similarly, my beloved Star Trek is brought back to life in spectacular fasion in 2009 and now I feel locked out as the next film drags on and on and on…

109. NuFan - June 30, 2011

Hey, how old are you Adolescent Nightmare? I’m 15.

110. CanadianShane - June 30, 2011


111. Jack - June 30, 2011

I would guess that the folks involved are at least as interested as we are in having this thing be successful — unless the studio is being run by Mother Carlson and she needs Trek to lose money to help with her taxes.

112. FACTCHECKER - June 30, 2011

Gives ’em more time to perfect the CGI tech needed to bring back young Shatner.

113. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 30, 2011

some here are contradicting what bob orci has told us on previous threads. This not right. People are ignoring the 3-D question. I asked about summer school holiday times. No one answered.

(transcribed by Michelle – 9).

114. Rico - June 30, 2011

The summer of 2013 is really too long a wait. For a big, hit movie’s sequel especially. If they can get it done right, I still say summer 2012 or at the latest holidays 2012.

115. Anthony Thompson - June 30, 2011

I need to see ‘Cupcake’ in the sequel to make the wait worthwhile. OK, maybe not. But I really WOULD like to see the little spitfire who told McCoy to “shut up”. Please Bob, exert your influence over JJ to make it happen! : )

116. Aurore - June 30, 2011

83. Olivia .

Hi !
I did read your post , and , I understand your point of view .

Olivia, despite all the ongoing discussions regarding the next Star Trek,
I still firmly believe that, the sequel will be released in 2012.

In fact , I haven’t read anything here, or elsewhere, that could shake that conviction of mine. Mr. Abrams, himself ( or any member of the writing team), would have to …announce a 2013 release date, for the film, for me to start considering otherwise.

117. FACTCHECKER - June 30, 2011

I can’t wait to find out what happens to that welder dude who was building the Enterprise in space without a space suit.


118. Hugh Hoyland - June 30, 2011

Let me say this again, hopefully its not redundant. A lot of people seem to have the impression that the more time spent on something (a script in this case) the “better” it will be.

Remember this…that is NOT always necessarily the case at all. Many artist including screenwriters have stated that some of their better work came about while they were “under pressure”. Their time was up and they simply “Had to do it… period”. They forced themselves to create and got it done. And what they turned out was good work in their opinion.

Now this can also be the other way around to. Of course you can rush something to meet a deadline and it turns out to be poor work.

Its kind of a gamble really. If you know what you want, you can usually do it in a reasonable time though.

But if your dispersed and unfocused on any given project, it usually will take longer to get it done, logically. (Not saying thats the case here btw!)

119. CanadianShane - June 30, 2011

Hey #117, The Enterprise was built, at least partially in Iowa, on the ground, so no need for a space suit..

120. Anthony Pascale - June 30, 2011

One comment i have seen just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and that is that a 3.5 year gap between films is so long people forget. So I guess Christopher Nolan should just scrap his next Batman movie huh? There was a 3 year gap between BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT which made $1Bil. Nolan then made INCEPTION so the next Batman movie will have a 4 year gap. The next Bond movie will also have a 4 year gap. Die Hard 5 will have a 5 year gap. MI4 movie will have a 5.5 year gap. And the Spider-man, Superman and Hobbit film also have 5+ year gaps since last entries in those franchises.

So sorry there isn’t some magical point at 3 years and 1 months when people suddenly forget every movie they liked

121. cdp - June 30, 2011


Good point but I think the case here is not that its taking them a long time to write the script, but that they are waiting on JJ to wrap up all the projects that has going on so that he can take the time to read what they got and see if he likes the story. He also has to decide if this is something that he thinks he can direct as well as to see if he has any suggestions to through out there about the story.

122. cdp - June 30, 2011

^ 118

123. Vultan - June 30, 2011


Good points. But you’ll also notice that Chris Nolan pretty much does one project at a time. Back in November it was reported (at he handed over the Superman project to Zack Snyder and is now solely focused on The Dark Knight Rises. Smart move, and we’ll probably get a smart movie in the end.

As for tight deadlines, I suppose it depends on the person, but in my experience they do seem to force one to concentrate to a greater degree and the results are (not always, of course, but more often than not) better for it.

“Pressure makes diamonds.”
—George S. Patton

124. dmduncan - June 30, 2011

120. Anthony Pascale – June 30, 2011

And the gap was a lot longer than that between 2009 and the last time we saw these characters on the big screen, yet ST.09 managed just fine.

Gap paranoia is silly.

125. FACTCHECKER - June 30, 2011

The Enterprise was built underwater, by dolphins and sea anemones.

126. FACTCHECKER - June 30, 2011

Star Trek II: Keenser Takes Command

127. VulcanFilmCritic - June 30, 2011

79. @ Nemesis4909. I agree this long a delay does not bode well.
Something must be truly wrong. It’s been nine months that they’ve been working on this “script” which at this point is still an outline.
Who the heck at Paramount is in charge of this production? I guess nobody there can tell the guys at Bad Robot what to do now that they’ve got a hit on their hands.

The problem is that the producer, the director and one of the writers is the same person: JJ Abrams. He’s not going to crack the whip over himself! Nor are his friends who happen to work for him.

As many have said, four years is an awful long time to wait.
A lot can happen in four years:

You can get through college
Fan-boys become fan-men
Children move on to something else
Old Star Trek fans die off
The crew may grow as old as the original cast in TOS
Leading men can get chunky
(And while I doubt Zoe Saldana will lose her looks anytime soon, the prospect of a married lady with children running around in a miniskirt and kicky boots, and mooning over Spock like a teen with a crush on teacher, seems a little, well…lame.)

Are we going to go through another round of movies where we’re not supposed to notice how much the cast have aged?

I guess the feeling at Paramount is, Well these geeks have been here for forty-five years. Where are they going to go?We can release this movie anytime and they’ll be there to lap up anything we pour down the steps.

But they forget:
Interest in Star Trek is waning.
Interest in action-adventure movies in general is waning. (When stars like Liam Neeson start kicking butt at the box office, it kind of suggests a shifting demographic in hard-core moviegoers.)
Nimoy nor any of The Old Guard is in the picture

Just wake me up when the damn thing is done. If it’s good I’ll be back for more. If it’s terrible, then the studio will be free to hire another director.
I just can’t spend the next two years waiting around on tenderhooks.

128. Dee - lvs moon surface - June 30, 2011

…. debut in 2012… and do it right… make a great movie… this is a real challenge … because if it is to wait “as long as it takes”… whatever that means… anyone here can do this … Give me as much time as necessary and until I do!…. LOL …+LOL

:-) :-)

129. Dee - lvs moon surface - June 30, 2011

… The time required for me may be “forever”… but I can… ++LOL

:-) :-)

130. Devon - June 30, 2011

127 —— “”””79. @ Nemesis4909. I agree this long a delay does not bode well.
Something must be truly wrong”””

That’s conspiracy theory talk. Some of you guys are over analyzing this like it’s the end of the world. They’ve just been waiting on J.J. and for everyone to be on board when their projects were through, which seems to be now. Like the saying goes, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” so just relax.

“”””The problem is that the producer, the director and one of the writers is the same person: JJ Abrams””””

J.J. is not one of the writers.

“”””I just can’t spend the next two years waiting around on tenderhooks.”””

You spent 7 years waiting on the last one, you’ll be fine with this one. Sheesh.

131. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 30, 2011

What I am finding more annoying and frustrating than the delays in the making of the forthcoming sequel (bad enough), is what some of the posters are writing.

First of all, Bob Orci has said that there is enough of a proper script/story to do a “soft-prep”. Perhaps Anthony Pascale or even Bob might explain exactly what “soft-prep” means. Later it was mentioned that there are about 85 pages of story/script, as opposed to 70 pages mentioned sometime back. So when posters write about there being no script – that is false, unless Bob Orci is telling big porkies…

It is true that JJ Abrams said that he would making an announcement about the Star Trek sequel after he had finished work on Super 8. We are still awaiting that announcement. Renewal of his contract with Paramount has been done (Anthony confirmed that in another post). What I asked was when the summer/school holidays started (no answer – no one have school age children on this site? I live in NZ, different hemisphere, seasons are reversed). This question is because perhaps one of the reasons why we have not heard anything from Mr Abrams as yet is that he is on holiday with his wife and kids…

I posted an article twice on this site which talked about the financing of big budget movies and how lending of money has been tight. The big German bank has been very cautious in its financing of movie projects – preferring only movies that get massive returns, like the Transformer movies and others. Star Trek 09 did well, but not like some of these other movies. It is possible that there has been a tentativeness of the part of certain men in suits behind the scenes when it comes to how much money (if any – I hope not) they are prepared to risk on making another Star Trek.

Then there is the 3D question…

However, from the financial point of view, things appear to be looking up for Hollywood, in that some banks are a little more willing to finance slightly riskier ventures.

Do I need to repost the link to the article for a third time, because, for me, after reading that, some things started to make a little more sense and may, in some way, explain the apparent delay?

People need to stop repeating the same old and this crystal ball gazing is tiresome. Officially, the Untitled Star Trek Sequel is to be released on 29 June 2012, one year from now. That is what we all know, until we are OFFICIALLY told otherwise

132. Brett L. - June 30, 2011

How about taking even more time and thinking in terms of an epic 2 and 3 at once? It would be nice to have some ongoing story threads carry over into a third film.

133. CanadianShane - June 30, 2011

Star Trek is a victim to the creators of the movie’s success.

134. trekker 5 - June 30, 2011

#116,Aurore,It’s good to hear you have the faith my friend!! I do hope your right,I really do;as odd as it may sound,it makes me feel a little better that you think the way you do! :) Thanks for the cheer up!

135. Red Dead Ryan - June 30, 2011

I can’t believe the sense of entitlement coming from a lot of impatient fans on this thread. The movie will be ready when its ready. Probably summer 2013. That is only two years away. J.J Abrams, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof are highly sought after. They have careers outside of “Star Trek” and must seize every opportunity that comes their way because life is short and they might not get the same chances again if they devote all of their time strictly to Trek. And even if they devoted all of their time to Trek, it still doesn’t guarantee that the movie would come out on time and doesn’t necessarily mean the quality will be there.

The truth is, and its going to hurt many of you I’m sure, is that J.J Abrams and company owe us NOTHING. They’re making movies not for the hardcore, but for EVERYONE. This sense of entitlement is shameful and reinforces the stereotype that Trekkies are basement dwelling nerds with no lives.

136. oldtrekgeezer - June 30, 2011

I’d like to see:

(1) a rousing Kirk/McCoy argument/apology;

(2), a couple of Spock/McCoy exchanges;

(3) McCoy doing convincing medical stuff that demonstrates he really is one of the best docs in Star Fleet;

(4) a female character, possibly Chapel, who isn’t important because she’s a girlfriend, mistress, wife, mother, or sister (like Pike’s Number One in The Menagerie).

137. Keachick (rose pinenut) - June 30, 2011

“probably summer 2013″ makes it our “winter 2013″. What is so special about 2013? As you say yourself, “The movie will be ready when it’s ready”. Stop the crystal ball gazing…

138. Red Dead Ryan - June 30, 2011


Quit your bitching already! Anybody with half a brain could figure out that the sequel WON’T come out in the (our) summer-(your)winter because they haven’t even started on the script. Heck, they haven’t even finished the outline. And its NOT going to come out during the 2012 holiday season because Paramount regards the new “Star Trek” movies as summer tentpole flicks. Plus, the cast have other projects going on and the sets are still in storage, the production staff need to be hired, a budget needs to be set, and the music and visual effects might end up taking up to a year.


139. Adolescent Nightmare - June 30, 2011

True, but these people aren’t going to let the facts get in the way of their jonesing. They’re crack whores. Crack whores for Star Trek. Good or bad, they don’t care. Just give them their fix.

Oh, I turn 15 on the 10th, NuFan.

140. Vultan - June 30, 2011


So, essentially you’re saying these guys are opportunists and they should make as much money as possible while they can… with every possible project they can get? Okay. I can live with that. Everybody’s got to eat.

But I find it just a tad ironic that Berman’s Trek has been criticized for being a conveyor belt, cranking out episode after episode, movie after movie until everyone was tired of it all, and that criticism is perfectly valid. Though it seems now Trek has just been placed on another conveyor belt, only this time next to many different kinds of franchises in the big “Supreme Court” super-entertainment machine.

Whether the sequel is released next year or in two years, I don’t care which. But be sure that when an entertainment/art form is treated solely as a product on a “to-do” list, quality will inevitably suffer.

141. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 30, 2011

I can’t believe the sense of entitlement

Well of course they’re entitled. They’ve bought 3 ships and 11 books.

142. Nemesis4909 - July 1, 2011

I find all this chat about a “sense of entitlement” that we fans seem to have interesting. They’ve been making these movies for fans. They could probably have made a science fiction movie with a similar story, different character names and no Enterprise and then put it in cinemas and it might have been a hit but they made a “Star Trek” movie which means that they wanted “Star Trek” fans to watch it. Do you think they made the first “Transformers” movie just because they thought it was a high concept drama that could be mined for stories? I doubt it, like “Star Trek” it was made for fans.

My point is, as fans then we do have a sense of entitlement to have promises kept. Paramount set the release date of June 29, 2012 so that’s when we expect the movie to be made. Sequels to other successful films are brought out within 2 years and in many cases those sequels are worth watching (Iron Man for instance). Know why this is? It’s because the team behind other franchises actually give a damn about the people that liked the first one and they want to deliver another good movie while there’s still a buzz about it, that’s good business sense and it’s respectful to your audience.

Hell, we’ve had 3 Transformers movies in 6 years and say what you want about Michael Bay but the man actually cares about the people who watch his movies, I found his “I realise people didn’t like the first one so I’m going to try and make sure I fix that for the next one” attitude refreshing. I feel that the third one was something of an apology for the mistakes of the second one and that’s great, that’s the way it should be.

So I think if JJ Abrams and Bob Orci et al don’t have enough respect for their fanbase to actually do some serious work on a sequel (which shouldn’t have taken 3 years let alone potentially 4) let alone respect for their bosses at paramount who are paying for them to make this movie then get rid of them and bring in people who are actually going to do the work. Let’s not forget that they owe something to the cast as well, many of whom are probably turning down other work because they’re waiting for Star Trek, it’s not fair on these hard working actors involved with this movie.

I really think that if they can bring out another Transformers movie this year then we could have been sitting down to Star Trek this year as well, Paramount let the team have 3 years so they could pursue other projects and now it’s coming to the delivery date for things like scripts and they don’t have one. I find this to be an insult as a fan and as a moviegoer in general. Every other creative team in hollywood can meet promised deadlines so why not these guys?

So to respond to the “sense of entitlement” point, you’re damn right I feel a sense of entitlement and so should others.

143. Aurore - July 1, 2011

@ The writing team.

I FEEL ENTITLED to see a brilliant sequel.
You’d better deliver* , gentlemen,or else… I’ll throw a tantrum the likes of which has never been seen in the history of the internet . YOU ‘VE BEEN WARNED!!!

*Preferably before 2020. However, since I have no other choice but to wait, 2022, does not look too bad, all things considered…


144. Ruue - July 1, 2011

I wholeheartedly agree with #29 and #50.

DO it or leave it to other people and are willing and able to commit themselves to it fully.
Star Trek isn´t just an movie, its mythic and should be treated with tthe greatest respect and best attitude.

Who the heck cares about Super 8?
Have i missed any masterpieces by JJ and the Orci Team ( i really like those guys and i trust them, nevertheless…) ????

So, make Trek 12 your #1 priority and stick to it

145. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 1, 2011

120 the thing with Bond though is the reason why we havent seen a movie sooner, was due to MGMs Bankruptcy issues, now that MGM has been bought, and its finances have been straightened out the movie is on track for a release next year.

As for Die Hard 5, its lucky its being made in the first place considering how poorly the last one was recieved, and the fact that for a long time the only idea they had for Die Hard 5 was to team Mclain up with Jack Bauer and Do what was tentatively titled Die Hard 24-7 luckily Keifer and Willis both nixed that idea. It also says alot that they choose a commercial director to Direct the next installement

Spiderman and superman are reboots and no one really knows how either one of those will fare, especially considering how WB considered the last superman movie as being unsuccesful (other wise we would have gotten Brian Singers sequal several years ago)

as for MI 4 it was actually rather surprising that another one was being made considering how nicely they tied up everyones story at the end of MI3, and considering it didnt even make its production and marketing budget back durring its theatrical run.

Not only that all those movie franchises you mentioned have pretty much always been huge box office movies, Star Trek not so much, Trek 09 was the first movie to break 200 million (not accounting for inflation, or re releases) before that only 2 other trek films even topped 100 million. where as the first Mission Impossible did over 170 million part 2 did over 200 million the lord of the rings movies again all huge giant blockbusters

The Chris Nolan Batman franchise is also different in that even though he is taking an extra year to get Dark Knight Rises out, the Dark Knight was so well recieved and so popular (the 3rd highest grossing movie of alltime over 500 million at the box office.) and the movie he made in between (inception) again very well recieved both critically and at the Boxoffice that the mainstream public dont have any qualms with with waiting an extra year, and not only that there hasnt been any of the games about date changes and being behind schedule, from day one its been summer 2012 and thats when its going to hit. where as with JJ aside from Star Trek he really hasnt had a huge hit movie.
as i mentioned earlier MI3 didnt even make its production budget back,And again no one really knows for sure how well MI4 will do either.

and Super 8 may or maynot make a profit depending upon which budget you believe to be accurate, and even if you accept the lower budget, its still not a huge blockbuster so far, just barely crossing the 100 million dollar mark on thursday and most likely only do another 6.5 to 7.5 million this weekend, its likely going to leave the first run theatres very soon with even less money than MI3 had when its first run theatre run finished.

And Its not really about having some magical number of years for all movies where people suddenly forget, but it does happen with some movie franchises where to much time passes and intrest wanes to the point the main stream public are like “meh’
movies such as Men in Black II, Legend of Zorro, live free or die hard are great examples of Movies that would have possibly fared much better if so much time hadnt elapsed between the previous movie and the sequals performed below expectations with a planned 3rd zorro movie scrapped all togeather and MIB III taking a full decade to come to frutition.


146. Gary Makin - July 1, 2011

If they were on time, they’d be casting right now. It’s going to be put back. Three years is a long enough gap, so I’m disappointed. But Trek can still be huge in November/December.

147. Cygnus-X1 - July 1, 2011

59. Jay – June 30, 2011

—-I just don’t get it. If things were so close to being done 3 months ago – and “just waiting on JJ to be free to join us” – then what is the hold up now?—-

Perhaps there are too many chefs in the kitchen.

More people contributing to the writing this time around means more meetings, more discussion, more scheduling conflicts and more consensus required before they can proceed.

It’ll either make the story more air-tight and logically consistent with more eyes attending to detail, or more in conflict with itself as a product of disparate thought processes attempting to satisfy all its contributors.

Also, it could be that we’re waiting for JJ to develop his next hip, cutting edge, signature directing technique, the audience having grown tired of his lens flares.

148. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 1, 2011

#138 What I wrote is this – “probably summer 2013″ makes it our “winter 2013″. What is so special about 2013?” I made no mention of next US summer, 2012. What you, RDR, need to do is pay attention…

Damon Lindelof: “…Is it possible to start shooting the movie in September? Absolutely, we would totally be ready to go. But that doesn’t mean we are going to start in September, that is a question only JJ can answer… The fundamental idea of shooting it and getting it in the can and having it come out *NEXT JULY (2012) is entirely possible and we are confident we have the team in place that would be able to achieve that, but that might not be the best version of the movie.”
* My emphasis, noting year.

This is the THIRD time I have posted this quote from the relevant thread to this site. Don’t people actually READ the actual articles posted here?

I am NOT bitching and I object to being sworn at, RedDeadRyan. I am citing what the writers, Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof, have said about the present status of the sequel. It is you, RDR, who PRESUMES to counter what these people have said and written.
Bob Orci did tell us about “soft-prep” happening as we “speak”. In the interview with Anthony Pascale, one of the three noted that there were then about 85 pages of story/script written… I am using FACTS. You are just guessing, surmising, crystal ball gazing…

Just who are you to do that? Do you know something that the actual writers and producers of the Star Trek sequel don’t know?

If you had bothered reading anything that Dee posted here, there is indeed proof that a script is never quite finished until the movie is released, as Bob Orci himself has said. It appears that just this week Chris Pine, Michelle Pfeifer and Olivia Wilde were called back to do new scenes and/or redo scenes for Welcome to People, filming that was supposed to have finished in March and is now in post-production.

Please – an explanation of “soft-prep”? Thank you.

I am also getting tired of being bludgeoned by a poster here anytime I refer to what are supposed to be the only known FACTS, ie statements made by members of the Bad Robot production team and object to false statements made by posters here who feel no compunction in contradicting those actually involved the making of the sequel, unlike these people who are not. At the risk of being accused of flaming, I am going to write –


149. Kokolo - July 1, 2011

I just wanted to comment on some of you who said ST” should be in 3D because than it would make more money.

Are you paying attention to the box office this summer???? There is a HUGE backslash against 3D, it has basically become a handicap for US box office.

150. Christopher Roberts - July 1, 2011

You answer a question posed like “What do you want to see in the next Star Trek film” and all of a sudden, you’re accused of having a sense of entitlement! Geeze… If it’s all about Paramount’s entitlement and the entitlement of the writers, the Director and the stars – why bother paying attention to fans? I suspect when the time comes for a third film to fulfil the contract, it having gone badly wrong here, somebody somewhere will have to listen to fan entitlement – just to restore it back to the modest success it had been for nearly 40 years.

151. Dom - July 1, 2011

144. Ruue: ‘DO it or leave it to other people and are willing and able to commit themselves to it fully.
Star Trek isn´t just an movie, its mythic and should be treated with tthe greatest respect and best attitude.
Who the heck cares about Super 8?
Have i missed any masterpieces by JJ and the Orci Team ( i really like those guys and i trust them, nevertheless…) ????
So, make Trek 12 your #1 priority and stick to it’

I couldn’t disagree more. The fact that these guys do other movies (ie, they have a life!) and have other interests is part of what will give us better Star Trek movies.

I for one would rather wait while these guys make other films and keep working at their craft than get a churned out piece of garbage from the hermetically-sealed Trek-only world of Berman and his peculiar ‘Gene’s Vision’ cultists.

The fact that people who are busy in the industry still want to make something of a franchise that had become as tarnished and as big a joke as Star Trek is something Trek fans should be grateful for!

They say patience is a virtue, seldom found in women but never in a man. Well, I guess there aren’t enough women fans around at the moment!

152. Devon - July 1, 2011

“So I think if JJ Abrams and Bob Orci et al don’t have enough respect for their fanbase to actually do some serious work on a sequel (which shouldn’t have taken 3 years let alone potentially 4) let alone respect for their bosses at paramount who are paying for them to make this movie then get rid of them and bring in people who are actually going to do the work.”

And delay the movie time even more, good thinking there Sparky!

153. Oh Boy... - July 1, 2011

#120 Anthony,

Here’s the deal. NONE of the delay in the movie thus far has been due to making the movie better. It has 100% been driven by the outside commitments of people involved in the show. Everyone used the success of ST09 to leverage other projects before settling back down to work on STII.

As someone said above… one thing that ST09 should have taught us is that we should NOT get stuck relying on the same old group of people to control the franchise. This happened in the past and lead us to a large decline in the popularity of Trek.

If the folks who worked on the ST09 can free themselves up for a sequel that’s great… but the studio and the public shouldn’t HAVE to wait 4 years for a sequel

154. Adolescent Nightmare - July 1, 2011


You’re hilarious.

155. Jack - July 1, 2011

152. And I shouldn’t have to go to work every day.

At this point, I’d guess that turning Trek over to someone else would mean that it wouldn’t be ready for at least 18 months, likely much longer. Just a guess.

156. Jack - July 1, 2011

153. Bullseye on the crack whore thing, btw. Me included.

157. Oh Boy... - July 1, 2011

154 There is a purpose to going to work every day. You provide a service and get compensated for it. Please describe the benefit to having the sequel released 4 years later instead of 2?

As for the 18 month thing… that’s what we are most likely looking at now.. at a minimum. Also, let’s not forget that there are OTHER folks who’s time needs to be coordinated as well. Isn’t Chris Pine working on his Jack Ryan movie soon?

158. BringBackKirkPrime - July 1, 2011

This is well said! —
152. Oh Boy… – July 1, 2011

#120 Anthony,

Here’s the deal. NONE of the delay in the movie thus far has been due to making the movie better. It has 100% been driven by the outside commitments of people involved in the show. Everyone used the success of ST09 to leverage other projects before settling back down to work on STII.

As someone said above… one thing that ST09 should have taught us is that we should NOT get stuck relying on the same old group of people to control the franchise. This happened in the past and lead us to a large decline in the popularity of Trek.

If the folks who worked on the ST09 can free themselves up for a sequel that’s great… but the studio and the public shouldn’t HAVE to wait 4 years for a sequel

159. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

Look, the June 29, 2012 deadline was TENTATIVE. It wasn’t legally binding. It was always subject to change. Because filmmaking isn’t an exact science, things can take longer to do than previously planned. The guys in currently in charge of “Star Trek” weren’t hired by Paramount to work exclusively on the Trek sequel, they were also hired for other films, such as “Super 8″, “Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol”, “Aliens & Cowboys”, etc. “Star Trek” is but one film in a portfolio of projects that Paramount hired these guys to work on.

A four year gap isn’t the end of the world.

I guarantee that if all the whiners on this site had their way, the movie would be rushed to get into theatres and would be crap because the writers couldn’t focus on writing a good story and instead had to appease the whole lot of you. Then you guys would end up in a hissy fit that the movie sucked!

I’d rather see the release date pushed back so that when I go to see the movie I end up having a great time and go back many more times!

One of the greatest sequels ever made, “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”, came out SEVEN years after the original. Now I know what you’re all going to say, that the delay was due to legal reasons, but so what. At the end of the day, we got a classic. That was all that mattered.

160. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

I also like* how on this site whenever Anthony posts a rational explanation a whole bunch of you start splitting hairs to justify your own insecurity and impatience.


161. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2011

I will be as disappointed as anyone to wait more for the next Star Trek, but I understand it. I am sure that Paramount would prefer to have it all worked out, but they have decided that they want to stick with Abrams, well aware of his commitments. If the Batman franchise can survive a four year gap to allow Nolan to make INCEPTION, then Star Trek can survive a 3.5 or 4 year gap to allow Abrams to make SUPER 8. I dont know if Batman fans are attacking Nolan for not caring, etc.

And no, I don’t buy into arguments that Star Trek is somehow a unique case and cannot handle a gap like other franchises. This is the same argument we heard back in 2006 when people were saying that Star Trek was unique and couldn’t handle recasting like other franchises.

When Paramount set the date of June 29, 2012 (which of course was always tentative as the film wasn’t anywhere near being greenlit at the time) they were picking that date in advance to secure the space for STAR TREK based on the hope that Abrams could make SUPER 8 and STAR TREK one after the other and deliver for two summers in a row. This was an ambitious plan and it may end up being overly ambitious.

In the old days it was simple. Harve Bennett and then Rick Berman were essentially working at Paramount from 1981-2005 to make Star Trek product. This gave us a Trek film every 2.5 years or so (although they too had to rotate their writers and directors). Well that era is over and we have to get used to that. Sometimes producer/directors are willing to devote a period of their life solely to a franchise (like Michael Bay and Transformers, or Peter Jackson and LOTR), but often A-List types like to mix it up. Does that mean they don’t care about each of their projects? Of course not.

Remember that JJ Abrams could have done anything he wanted when he started with Paramount. After he signed his deal following MI3 he made his first film STAR TREK. And he has said that he only choses projects based on something he would “love to do”. It is understandable after doing two franchise movies he would want to do something on his own. As for Bob/Alex/Damon, they just followed his lead. If Abrams wanted a script by xmas 2010 I am sure they would have handed one in on time. They have taken other projects because they too are in demand, but as Bob told me in my last interview with him “give us a deadline and we will deliver”.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I think you are lost in the weeds. You are analyzing things too much and you seem to be demanding to have everything explained to you. Remember we are dealing with a Bad Robot production here. The amount of details we have been able to report already is probably more then they are comfortable with. Don’t expect to be kept aware of every detail what is going on. We will do our best, but i suggest some patience.

When TrekMovie has progress news to report it will be reported don’t worry.

and Red Dead Ryan
I appreciate the sentiments, but please treat everyone here with respect.

162. NuFan - July 1, 2011


Cool. Someone close to my age. I’m sad about the delay, but definitely not jonesing. I have a life.

163. Cygnus-X1 - July 1, 2011

161. Anthony Pascale – July 1, 2011

The long delay is disappointing, but what really stings is it being due to JJ Abrams who doesn’t have any particular loyalty to the Trek franchise. The Trek sequel, by all indications, is really just another project to Abrams, at best no better and no worse than others higher in his queue, though SUPER 8 does seem to hold more personal import and meaning for him, given his early experience on Spielberg’s home movies, etc….

It would be nice to have the de facto leader of the Trek franchise be someone for whom Trek actually has personal meaning and import, someone who believes in the core principles of the Trek philosophy, so to speak, someone with a vested interest in Trek, per se, and not simply as a career vehicle or just another gig on the schedule, someone for whom the rich history of Trek and the Trek Universe is meaningful and important and not just some “baggage” to be shed for the sake of hipness or expedience, someone for whom Trek is more than just a nice, fat paycheck.

That would be nice. And we might not mind the long wait quite as much were it so. If the long wait were due to the scheduling conflicts of Bob Orci, for example, it certainly wouldn’t be as bothersome. But, then, such a long wait probably wouldn’t be due to Bob Orci unless it were for personal reasons, because we all know that Trek is more to him than just a job and he’d be jumping at the chance to get started on the next one.

164. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2011


Where exactly have you got the info that Star Trek is not important to Abrams? Where is the evidence that Berman and Bennett were more steeped in the love and philosophy of Trek. Remember that Abrams chose Star Trek, whereas Berman and Bennett were assigned to Star Trek by Paramount.

JJ doesn’t do anything that he doesnt have a passion for, especially as a director. He chose to direct Star Trek 2009 because he loved the script and the idea of doing a new Star Trek movie. I have spoken to him about Star Trek and he loves the characters and the universe.

JJ Abrams may not believe in Star Trek as a religion or a way of life, but then again why should he? I dont. It is a movie and TV franchise with strong themes and characters. He believes in those. And that is good enough for me.

I really dont get this desire for some kind of ultimate Trek fealty. Are we to start putting people to loyalty tests? His job is to make Star Trek entertainment for the fans and the mainstream audience. So far he has done that and will likely continue to do that. It is possible to do that well and do other things. Do we need people to dedicate their lives to Star Trek?

165. Cygnus-X1 - July 1, 2011

164. Anthony Pascale – July 1, 2011

Having someone like Peter Jackson with his devotion and vested interest as the captain of the Trek franchise would be nice, yes.

As for Berman, you obviously won’t get me defending him or framing him as an exemplar for Trek leadership. And as for Bennett, if he and Berman were assigned to Trek by Paramount then they would not appear opportunistic, simply doing their jobs, and we’d just as well be blaming Paramount as their sub-contractors and employees. Were Berman and Bennett likewise dismissive of aspects of Trek, its history or fans in the way that Abrams has been? If so, I suspect the fans didn’t like it from them either. The point being that I never suggested Bennett and certainly not Berman as ideal leaders of the Trek franchise. My exemplar for that position would be Gene Roddenberry.

Perhaps I’ve got him wrong, but my impression of Abrams from his comments over the years (since he decided to do Trek ’09) is that Trek doesn’t particularly hold special meaning or import to him beyond a project to work on. Sure, he has artistic devotion and he does his best when he’s working on it. He is a professional. But I don’t get the impression that he’s in it for much more than personal gain. And Trek is so much bigger than that.

I’m not suggesting that it be need be a religion or a “way of life” for all involved (though, that would be exciting), as though they should wake up each morning and pray in the direction of Memory Alpha, but its core principles do inform peoples’ lives and have meaning that carries over into them beyond the TV or movie screen. There’s a set of ideas in Trek that are bigger than just a movie or a TV show. (When I was in high school, my Lit teacher had us watch a TNG episode to supplement a theme in a novel we were studying, for example.)

And I just don’t get the impression that it’s so for JJ Abrams. The impression I’ve gotten is that, as you say, he likes the plot and characters of Trek well enough, saw an opportunity to advance his career to the next level as a big film director with a well-known franchise that already had a hardcore built-in fan-base and a wider base of…shall we say…less excitable but still interested fans, all of whom would amplify and spread buzz about the project and that’s exactly what happened. Now, with the cache enhancement from ST09, he’s off doing other projects, and good for him. His career is zooming into the stratosphere (though he’s no Spielberg), but this is what we’re waiting on and we all know it. And it’s not a particularly satisfying excuse for a long wait from someone who, by his own account, wasn’t interested in Trek before it became a prospect for pecuniary gain.

166. NuFan - July 1, 2011

If not for JJ Abrams I would not be here.

167. SPACER8000 - July 1, 2011

It had better not delay. We already have to wait over three years.

168. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2011


I dont know what to say to you but the JJ Abrams you describe (dismissive, just doing it as a job for his career) is not the JJ Abrams that I know.

169. D-Rock - July 1, 2011

Why do people dismiss Abrams as a journeyman and hold Meyer up on a pedestal?

Also, I think Roddenberry gets too much credit for all things Star Trek. Gene cultists indeed.

There is a Star Trek tidbit on Deadline’s website buried in a GI Joe 2 article that Trek is officially no longer a part of Paramount’s summer 2012 lineup, with Joe and World War Z looking to plug the hole.

170. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 1, 2011

I get the impression from the little that I have seen of JJ Abrams is that he is as enthusiastic about Star Trek as he is about anything else he decides to become involved with. That enthusiasm is almost boyish like – in energy and dedication. He appears to be energetic, creative with an almost child like enthusiasm for anything he takes on, and that includes Star Trek. Has he and his Bad Robot production team stretched themselves too thin? Possibly, but that would not be just because of any pecuniary benefits that would come their way (after all, they have to eat as well), but rather their enthusiasm for the projects.

Anthony Pascale – you are probably right to suggest that I am perhaps getting lost in the weeds, but I suspect that I am not the only one around here. What I did not like was people here apparently contradicting what Bob Orci and Damon Lindelof have said about the present status of the Star Trek sequel. It just seems that some posters had not paid attention to what these guys have already spoken and written. To me, that seemed disingenuous on the posters’ parts. There is nothing to prove what Bob and Damon had said was not true.

Obviously Paramount saw the Star Trek reboot movie as being a summer “tentpole” movie for 2009. That was then though. They set a release date of June 2012 because they hoped that the sequel would be another summer “tentpole” movie. Whether that actually happens now is doubtful. Unless I am mistaken, there appears to be no evidence, either way, to suggest that the sequel has the same status in Paramount’s eyes as the first movie had. Therefore it is presumptuous to keep asserting to the point of using the “f” word that the sequel won’t be released until (US) summer 2013.

Personally, I think that if the Star Trek does come up against the likes of the Hobbit in December 2012, that only adds gravitas to Star Trek as being a high quality science-fiction movie, similar in quality to what we have to expect from Peter Jackson and his superb rendering of J R R Tolkien’s books.

OK – slowly climbing my way up the steep sub-tropical *bush* here into the sunlight. Oh for a machete – honestly, some of these nettles…

171. Aurore - July 1, 2011

“There is a Star Trek tidbit on Deadline’s website buried in a GI Joe 2 article that Trek is officially no longer a part of Paramount’s summer 2012 lineup, with Joe and World War Z looking to plug the hole.”

If true ( as in confirmed , here) , next on this site ( maybe ) :

Anthony Thompson Vindicated : 2013 It Is + True Fans Outraged : Say JJ Abrams Incapable Of Messing With Their Childhood ‘S Heroes On Schedule .

172. VulcanFilmCritic - July 1, 2011

What bothers me the most about the long delay, and I think it bothers others as well, is that it suggests that “Star Trek” is just one among many projects on the docket at Bad Robot.
If that is truly the case, then what we will be served in 2013 (or 2012 if we’re very lucky) will reflect that lack of passion, a nice workman-like piece of filmmaking that kills a few hours pleasantly with some cheap thrills.
It is the prospect of having Trek descend into that miasma of mediocrity that I fear the most. A flamboyant disaster, made with passion, would be much more enjoyable. At least there would be some moments of high drama worth savoring.
Clearly the Star Trek sequel was put on the back burner in favor of “Super 8.” That much we know. But given the bland, unmoving, formulaic nature of that film, one wonders, Why?
If I had access to the time portal, and I could change history so that “Star Trek” [TOS] was not cancelled in 1969, but went on to a fourth and fifth season, but they were just like the below-average shows of the late second/third season, would I want to see that?
The answer is: Hell, yes! Out of curiosity if nothing else. And that is why I will show up to see the next movie, no matter what it looks like: good, bad or mediocre. Still it would sadden me to no end if it is bad or even mediocre, because somewhere in the back of my mind I would be thinking, You know, there were other directors out there who could have done so much better. What a wasted opportunity!

173. Dom - July 1, 2011

165. Cygnus-X1

Abrams is a busy working producer. He needs to put food on the table. Same thing went for Gene Roddenberry. Of course he’s in it for the money. Everyone has to work! People might use Star Trek as a lifestyle thing (I suppose certain people need a pathetic obsession and better that it’s Star Trek than molesting kittens or something) but most Trek fans, y’know, like it and that’s as far as it goes. I never watched Trek as some sort of religion – all that crap comes from the 1980s/Berman/Gene’s Vision garbage that a bunch people who took way too seriously. I don’t see why JJ and co should have to open their wrists over effigies of Captain Kirk or something in demented shows of loyalty to the probably non-existent ‘Gene’s Vision!’

Abrams saw Trek as most people did: a franchise that had run aground and was bursting with potential. Star Trek isn’t special: it’s just another franchise, albeit one with a larger than normal percentage of weirdoes who are way too obsessed with it. Probably only Doctor Who fandom has a nastier bunch of fanatical borderline psychotics claiming be fans. Most Who fans and Trek fans are simply ordinary folks who happen to like to watch the shows.

People who have such big issues with Abrams’ Trek, the wait or whatever should move on to something else. I waited nearly two decades for a new Star Trek film and had no involvement with Trek because I despised the crap that I felt Roddenberry and Berman passed off as ‘legitimate’ Star Trek in the 80s to 2000s era. I came back when the combination of a new Kirk/Spock/McCoy Star Trek film and a certain producer/director were announced.

Similarly, I took breaks from Doctor Who down the years: detested the Russell T Davies/Eccleston/Tennant era, so walked away, but I like the Moffat/Smith era.

The breaks didn’t bother me: I had plenty of other things to watch! People need to take Bill Shatner’s advice more often! ;)

174. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 1, 2011

@ 168 Anthony Pascale,
With all due respect, I can see where Cygnus is coming from, even Howard Stern had the balls to ask JJ about grabbing the money.

At this rate we will only enjoy 3 new trek stories every 10 years.

We were promised with a renewal, instead we have


The market wants more but the supplier is stalling.

175. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 1, 2011

actually the supplier is not returning our calls !

176. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2011

so because howard stern asks about money, then the only reason Abrams did Trek was for the money? Um OK. Howard also made comments to Abrams about what a great bod his wife had. So I assume that he only married her because she was hot.

The movie is probably being delayed. That hapens in Hollywood all the time. Gaps of this length are normal.
I really don’t get why people are attaching all sorts of conspiracy theories and nasty connotations to this.

177. Voice of Reason - July 1, 2011


Here is the bottom line:

If STII releases and is a smash hit, you will be proven right
If STII releases and is mediocre (or worse) it will prove that 4 years were wasted, and yes… having waited nearly 1500 days for 90 or so minutes of mediocre film would certainly be a waste of everyone’s time.

So I guess.. the bottom line is that this delay simply puts MORE pressure on the team to deliver. We will know if they do, one of these days…

178. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2011

it is not the voice of reason that time is a factor in the pressure. That is a constant. My whole point is that gaps of 3-5 years are normal in the industry and that if the film is delayed it is not an indication of something sinister or craven, just overly ambitious planning.

I dont need to be proved right, as I am only stating context in the face of conspiracy theories and accusations. I make no claims that the sequel will be good, bad or something in between. If it sucks it sucks, but it wont be because of any delay

179. VulcanFilmCritic - July 1, 2011

A reporter once asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, and he said, because that’s where the money is.
Well, isn’t there money in “Star Trek?” It is as if Willie Sutton said, “I think I’m going to stop robbing banks for a year or two and start robbing taxi cab drivers.”

180. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 2, 2011

Sorry but JJ has lost my intrest, I cant honestly say I will be quite happy if he never gets around to making it and someone who actually wants to make it and get it out their to the fans takes over.
But that wont be the case, no now that its obvious that Super 8 wont even bring in what mission impossible 3 brought in, JJ is going to announce he is definately directing star trek (since thats the one movie hes made thats been a true block buster) and when it does finally hit, its not going to live up to the last one. I dont kno why he wouldnt just hand over the directing reigns to another talented director, and just produced the darn thing. could it be Ego?, could it be being to Naieve to think he could actually tackle so many projects at once? Could it be bad advice from his management? Could it be alex and Bob are spending to much time admiring their life size Han Solo in Carbonite statue that is in their offices? who knows and frankly at this point i could care less, thank you JJ, Bob, and Alex for killing off my excitement for a new Star trek movie.

Ive said all iam going to say on the matter and i backed up my thoughts in my earlier posts with facts and box office statistics that indicate as such.

Ill suport phase II before i spend a dime of my hard earned money on their trek sequel now.

181. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 2, 2011

And with that my Trek 09 poster signed by the entire main cast plus Nimoy, jj, bob, alex, and Michael Giachino has come out of my poster case and has been replaced with my Rocketeer poster instead.

182. Cygnus-X1 - July 2, 2011

173. Dom – July 1, 2011

I was going to address your points, explaining how you’d fallen into the slippery slope fallacy, exaggerating my points to make them absurdities. But then I read where you wrote this:

“Star Trek isn’t special: it’s just another franchise, albeit one with a larger than normal percentage of weirdoes who are way too obsessed with it.”

If you feel this way, you’re not going to understand where I’m coming from, anyway.

Suffice it to say that I don’t agree that Trek just another business endeavor, nor am I of the all-or-nothing opinions that you implied me to hold.

But the image you present of JJ Abrams out on the street dressed in rags holding a tin cup for alms if he doesn’t take on as many projects as possible is amusing.

183. Cygnus-X1 - July 2, 2011

169. D-Rock – July 1, 2011

—-Also, I think Roddenberry gets too much credit for all things Star Trek. Gene cultists indeed.—-

He gets too much credit for INVENTING what we all come here to talk about?

184. D-Rock - July 2, 2011

He did his part. A HUGE part, but others took it and made it better.

He made it too sterile. I’m surprised there wasn’t a full-time vacuum cleaner and someone cleaning the touchscreens with Purell in the lobby – er, bridge of the Enterprise by the time TNG rolled around.

185. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 2, 2011

@ Anthony,
Mr Abrams “hot wife” is not going to impact on the production of a new Star Trek film, but his drive for notoriety has, unfortunately.

Regarding “nasty connotations” your well aware of the passion of Trek fans and certainly my frustration especially when there are only hints of a delay to the second film and no official confirmation.

Makes me think that JJ is letting us all twist in the wind.

186. Cygnus-X1 - July 2, 2011

184. D-Rock – July 2, 2011

—-He did his part. A HUGE part, but others took it and made it better. He made it too sterile. I’m surprised there wasn’t a full-time vacuum cleaner and someone cleaning the touchscreens with Purell in the lobby – er, bridge of the Enterprise by the time TNG rolled around.—-

Of course, others added to and improved upon Gene’s ideas. But the core principles of Trek are mostly his. The soul and spirit of Trek are mostly his.

As for Purell, they probably had to assign someone to clean up after Shatner with all Kirk’s seducing of hot alien women back in TOS days.

187. Cygnus-X1 - July 2, 2011

But just as important, the integrity was Gene’s. One gets the definite impression from his decisions over the years that there were things more important to him than money. An impression I have not gotten from JJ Abrams.

188. Cygnus-X1 - July 2, 2011

Let me clarify — One gets the impression that Trek meant more to Gene than just career and income. I have yet to see any evidence of that from Abrams.

189. miko - July 3, 2011

At this rate Star trek will lose momentum, and all that is has gained from 2009 will be lost. Paramount will cancel trek 2 and we shall wait several more years before they decide to reboot it in a another fashion!
Still to some that might be a good thing!
I say let Michael Bay get his hands on the franchise. There is more sign of star trek in his movies at the moment!!
Perhaps even Ronald Emmerich would prove a worthy candidate in delivering some huge star trek devastation. One feels if his hands were on the project, Vulcan wouldn’t have been the only planet to bite the bullet, earth prob would have been wiped out too!!! ; )
On top of all that though trek 09′ was awesome! Would like to see that blown out of the water in 2012/13 with something spine tingling!

190. Dom - July 3, 2011

188. Cygnus-X1: ‘Let me clarify — One gets the impression that Trek meant more to Gene than just career and income. I have yet to see any evidence of that from Abrams.’

Tell that to Alexander Courage and a number of the other people who got shafted and failed to be credited (personally or financially) for their massive contributions to Star Trek down the years!

Do you really think Star Trek: TNG was really about Roddenberry’s love for Star Trek? He failed to make anything else successful after Star Trek, so when he got the chance at wrestling back control of the franchise with the spinoff TV show, he marched in there with his lawyers and made sure everyone else was shut out. Read Herb Solow and Robert Justman’s book if you really want to know about the background of TNG.

When I was growing up before TNG ushered in the vile era of the Cult of Roddenberry, the names Robert Justman, Gene L Coon, DC Fontana, Harlan Ellison, Herb Solow and John Meredyth Lucas were just as well known as Roddenberry’s.

Subsequently, Rodders, as Justman and Solow’s book points out, played up to an act which was to give the impression that Trek was entirely his baby. Also, he appears to have started to believe his own publicity with all this Californian guru creating a future utopia crap.

Roddenberry had an initial idea: a TV version of Forbidden Planet, which was embellished on by other, much more talented writers, especially Gene Coon.

I actually really despise all this ‘Gene’s Vision’ crap that people have vomited out left right and centre since TNG showed up!

Like I’ve said before, in the greater scheme of things, Star Trek is no more special than Superman, Iceman, Spider-Man, Batman and Robin too! It just means more to people who post on a Star Trek forum. Unfortunately, people brainwashed with ‘Church of Roddenberry’, ‘Gene’s Vision’ garbage will never understand that, like everything else ever created in the media, it’s core purpose is to make money. That’s life. Get over it, get a life!!

191. Dom - July 3, 2011

And after that little rant, I’m off on holiday surfing to chill out for a week after working too hard the last few months!!

Adios amigos! Peace and love! ;)

192. Cygnus-X1 - July 3, 2011

Well, there we have it.

All Gene Roddenberry ever cared about with respect to Star Trek was making money. The philosophy of the show, its vision of what humanity should strive for — these were of no value to GR beyond how much money it all could bring him. He had no vested interest in Trek content beyond finances, no principles pertaining to its content beyond making sure that it brought him every penny to which he felt entitled.

And since Gene Roddenberry was only in it for the money, then there’s no sense in complaining about JJ Abrams or anyone else being in it just for the money.

There’s the argument, if anyone cares to take it up.

193. Cygnus-X1 - July 4, 2011

For my part, I will read the Justman/Solow book (just ordered it on Amazon for a buck, and there are many more copies available at that price).

What I have read in terms of first-person accounts from behind the scenes of Trekdom I did more than a decade ago and my memory is not good enough to take up this argument with specifics. Suffice it to say that I formed an impression from what I read over the years, but am eager to check it with respect to the accounts of Justman & Solow (but neither will I necessarily accept their testimony as incontrovertible).

In any case, regardless of whether Trek meant much or anything to Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman or Harve Bennett beyond pecuniary gain, as you say it has been developed and augmented over the years by many talented people and, I contend, has become important and meaningful enough to deserve better than mere cupidity and pecuniary motives today.

Compare TOS and TNG to other TV series, for example. In 40 years, will scholars be referencing themes from Felicity, Alias or Lost? Will those shows inspire new inventions, worldviews and political discourse as Trek has done? Harry Potter is a huge franchise — will it be as influential to our culture (and others) as Trek?

I think not.

194. Anthony Pascale - July 4, 2011

Everyone who worked on Star Trek for Paramount was making money and to some degree therefore doing it for the money, including Roddenberry himself. But many (if not most) also had a love for the material, including JJ Abrams.

Things arent black and white.

Again Star Trek is not a religion or way of life or even a philosophy. it is a film and TV franchise with many themes, but in the end it is a product that people choose to buy and enjoy or not. It is unreasonable to demand that those who work on it devote their lives to it and become ardent evangelists for the philosophy of Trek above all else. That sounds more like a cult than a movie project.

195. Cygnus-X1 - July 4, 2011

And neither is a cult mentality what I am advocating. But I wonder if you consider Peter Jackson a cultist? If you do, then maybe to you I am advocating cultist behavior.

But on the contrary, I would emphasize that it’s not black and white.

However, I sense that some are in it more for the money than others. It seems to me that it meant more to GR than money, that he (and other contributors as well) BELIEVED in the ideas, principles, morality that he was putting forth to a great degree. Of course, like most people, he also wanted to make a good living.

But those who had no interest Trek prior to it being a likely source of wealth and career opportunity for them I do not consider equal in the above regard as those who were very much into Trek well before they’d a realistic prospect of making a living off of it. I think this is a fair point, I think it’s a consideration not unique to Trek, and I think it’s a good thing to advocate.

And I think Peter Jackson would understand what I’m on about.

196. Anthony Pascale - July 4, 2011

again cygnus, You seem to be operating on some strange assumptions about the new team and their feelings towards trek and have put others like Roddenberry and Jackson onto pedestals. I have tried, but you just want to believe what you want to believe. I know these people and know what you say isn’t true but feel free to believe what you believe if you like. Its a free country.

In the end all that matters is the product. Star Trek 2009 stands as their expression of Star Trek. If you can only enjoy it and future trek based on some kind of loyalty test, I dont know what to say

197. Cygnus-X1 - July 4, 2011

But let’s make it really simple. If the pecuniary and career motives of it were to suddenly disappear forever, would JJ Abrams still be interested in Trek? Would he watch the shows and movies (besides his own) and take to discussing its themes and story lines with people in his spare time? Trek has been around his entire lifetime, and when did he first become interested in it? Do you get the impression that Abrams really understands what Trek is all about — It’s ethics, morality, role of Science, worldview, vision of what humanity should ideally strive for? Do you think he has a good understanding of what the Prime Directive is without having to look it up or have his memory jogged (not that I’m a huge fan of the PD, but it has been a significant and prominently featured ethic in Trek since TOS)?

I GUARANTEE you that Peter Jackson could answer the above analogously with respect to LOTR. And his answers would probably be as good (if not better) as those of any academic literary scholar. He understands what it’s all about. It “means” quite a bit to him.

There’s the juxtaposition I’ve been fumbling with trying to make clear.

198. Cygnus-X1 - July 4, 2011

Why are you now lumping the entire “team” in with Abrams?

I began all this by drawing a marked contrast between Abrams and Orci, a longtime fan.

You really think that Trek didn’t mean any more to GR and the major writing contributors than just a way to make a living? All of that philosophy stuff was just something they threw against the wall and luckily it stuck? It didn’t hold any meaning for them? If that’s true, it’s quite disappointing.

199. Cygnus-X1 - July 4, 2011

Another way to look at it is: what has JJ Abrams added to Trek in terms of content? He’s made it popular and filmed it in a slick new style with lots of lens flares, non-stop action and a great chase scene set to a Beastie Boys song that would’ve made a killer music video to promote the film back in the days when MTV mostly played music videos. Granted, he’s proven himself a competent filmmaker. And if you like his style, then I can understand why you don’t mind subordinating the Trek franchise to the busy schedule of JJ Abrams.

But do you think that Nick Meyer’s contribution or GR’s, DC Fontana’s, Ron Moore’s, the other major contributors, were no greater in terms of content — “adding” to Trek as was said above — than that of JJ Abrams? If you do then we’ll never meet minds on this one.

200. cdp - July 4, 2011

In the past the market was so over saturated with Star Trek with several TV shows and movies all at once it was fatiguing the franchise. I think that is good and actually healthy for the Star Trek franchise to put out a movie every three or for years that way people will be so hungry for another movie that a lot of people will want to go to the theater and see it. Most franchise with sequels release there movies three or four years apart and do real well. So I wouldn’t be to worried about a large gap in between movies. As fare as content there is is only so much you can put into a two hour movie so obviously you would want a lot of action to keep the audience engaged in the movie. For me what I like about Star Trek has always been more about the characters and there interaction with one another and less about philosophy or SyFy elements. That said I think Star Trek will do just fine in JJ Abrams hands for now and I will gladly take a movie every three or for years until a new series is developed than having no star Trek at all. As much as I love Star Trek my life doesn’t revolve around it. For me its just a fun form of entertainment that I grew up with and love. I would never treat it like a religion or cult. If I need to learn about ethics or morality I can just go to church or school for that. Yes Star Trek can and does inspire people to become astronauts, political leaders, as well as in inspiring thought in other issues and that’s good and is one of the things I like about Star Trek but in the end of the day its just another TV and Film franchise that needs to make money to survive. I am not trying to offend anyone I am as much a Star Trek fan as anyone out there. The fact that I am on this site commenting should say something. I would never try to question anyone’s beliefs or views I am just sharing my own. Thanks.

201. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 4, 2011

Cygnus-X1 – You are no position to speak for either Peter Jackson or JJ Abrams. All any of us can do is listen to what these two people say about their respective projects and trust that they are being truthful. I do not sense any dishonesty among the Bad Robot team or the actors.

Chris Pine was never a Star Trek watcher but that has not stopped him from being a great new James T Kirk. They are professional writers, directors, producers, actors… that is what they do, and hopefully they give each and every project their fullest attention and effort to make the best film that they can.

The fact is that we have no choice other than “subordinating the Trek franchise” as none of us have any say or control over the whats, whys, whens, hows, ifs or buts. We can only express our opinions of our hopes, likes and dislikes, but that is all they are – opinions and they can vary enormously, as we all know.

202. TrekkieJan - July 5, 2011

I’m enjoying this conversation. I’m of the opinion that the new team, Orci included, have added nothing of substance to Star Trek. In fact, quiet the opposite – they have blown things up and killed off important characters.

I still hope Paramount comes to it’s senses and gives Star Trek to some good sci fi writers.

203. TrekkieJan - July 5, 2011

And by the way, Trek fans I meet in person agree this movie was not good Trek. I know that’s not the common opinion on this site, but the Trek fans I meet in person either didn’t like it or didn’t bother to see it.

204. Sarah - July 5, 2011

I’ve given up on a sequel.

205. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 5, 2011

Killed off important characters? Who were those? Spock’s mother? Kirk’s father? We never met Kirk’s father, George Kirk, until this movie and I would not say that Spock’s mother’s character was ever a pivotal character in any of the TOS TV or movie series. It was nice to see her in Journey to Babel and in Star Trek IV, but she was never a major character.

What Star Trek 09 did bring back into the picture was Captain Pike played by Bruce Greenwood. He was actually a very welcome ADDITION. We now have the SUPER 8!

206. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 5, 2011

The planet Vulcan is no more, but as Spock said, the history, knowledge and important cultural/religious aspects pertaining to Vulcan still lie within the hearts and minds of the elders they managed to save before Vulcan imploded.

207. Katie G. - July 6, 2011

I think some are forgetting that what these guys do is their “job”. They crank out movies.

For example, J. J. Abrams “is an American film and television producer, screenwriter, director, actor, and composer.” To try to hold him to one creation is ludicrous. It’s like not allowing William Shatner to be Denny Crane or Patrick Stewart to be Professor Xavier or do theatre.

An architect draws up plans for buildings, etc. and they don’t just keep making the same one over and over. They would lose a lot of business and not be able to stay in the game.

Even Gene Roddenberry did other things. He started out becoming a pilot and flew many missions in WWII. He then became a commercial pilot. Then be became a police officer, then left to pursue his writing career. He wrote television scripts and developed the Star Trek universe which took off. But, he also kept writing other things. “Andromeda” and “Earth: The Final Conflict” were produced posthumously from his writings.

Same with Alexander Courage and Jerry Goldsmith (along with many others). They did compose music for Star Trek but their repertoires are staggering — Star Trek was just (if you’ll forgive me) a drop in the bucket in their illustrious careers.

J. J. is busy because he is GOOD at what he does. Unfortunately, that means we’ll have to wait because our particular narrow focus is only a small aspect of what he does.

So… you’ll just have to be patient. If it’s any consolation, it’s killing me too because I want to see the next film so badly… Too bad 3 movies couldn’t have been done and released a year apart like what Peter Jackson did with “The Lord of the Rings” but you know what? We’ll survive…


208. Katie G. - July 6, 2011

Re: #203. TrekkieJan

“And by the way, Trek fans I meet in person agree this movie was not good Trek. I know that’s not the common opinion on this site, but the Trek fans I meet in person either didn’t like it or didn’t bother to see it.”

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you need to think about something: how many Trek fans have you met of the millions that are out there? Sorry, but to base your reasoning that this movie is no good because the ones you met didn’t like it is (forgive me) faulty logic. This is totally subjective. Everyone has different taste.

Just because we don’t like something doesn’t make it bad. I don’t enjoy country and western music. Does that mean it’s bad? I don’t enjoy eating liver. Or turnip. Does that mean they’re bad? Nope. Can’t stand Woody Allen movies. But others love them. It’s all subjective. Then again, if the package of raw chicken I have in the fridge has gone “bad”, that’s not my opinion. Even if I cook it, if I eat it, I’ll get sick. That’s different.

Personally I loved this movie. It had it’s flaws as does every other movie out there but I loved it anyway. Would have done some things differently but that’s my opinion.
Just my 2¢ worth.


209. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 6, 2011

Just make a good sequel that fixes things.

210. Cygnus-X1 - July 8, 2011

201. Keachick (rose pinenut) – July 4, 2011

—-Cygnus-X1 – You are no position to speak for either Peter Jackson or JJ Abrams. We can only express our opinions of our hopes, likes and dislikes, but that is all they are – opinions and they can vary enormously, as we all know.—-

I agree. And I have not claimed to speak on behalf of either of those men. I have merely expressed my opinions as clearly as I could. I have read and seen interviews by those two men, seen their movies, followed their respective franchises for a good while, and expressed my opinions about all of it.

211. Grace Lenihan - July 12, 2011

As I understand it, Star Trek 2009 was pushed forward 6 months to allow for its showing in Imax theatres. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.