Report: Paramount Already Working Around Star Trek Sequel Delay | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Report: Paramount Already Working Around Star Trek Sequel Delay July 1, 2011

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

More indications are emerging that the Star Trek sequel officially slated for June 29, 2012 is not going to make its date. While we await an announcement on how JJ Abrams and Paramount will proceed with their next Trek, there are indications a delay decision has already been made based on activity surrounding other Paramount Summer 2012 movies.

 

Paramount already at work on their Summer 2012 movies (except Star Trek)

Today Deadline has a report on the latest casting for Paramount’s G.I. Joe 2: Cobra Strikes (Adrianne Palicki has joined as female lead), but they also threw in this little tidbit:

The studio’s casting quickly; they need the film for next summer because the Star Trek sequel won’t be ready and this rebooted film and World War Z are prime candidates to fill summer slots.

As noted on the one-year countdown date, the conventional wisdom now that the Star Trek sequel will be delayed. And the recent report of Zoe Saldana considering taking a job shooting in September was another hint that Star Trek wont be shooting (as planned) in September. This latest activity on GI Joe 2 is just the latest indication that this film officially slated to be released six weeks after the Star Trek sequel is actually farther along in development.

To put things in context, here is a rundown of Paramount’s summer 2012 projects with release dates noted and the latest status.

May 11 – The Dictator [filming]
A comedy starring Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat). The film started shooting in May and Paramount has even already released a promotional image.


Official promo image from "The Dictator"

June 29 – Untitled Star Trek Sequel [scripting]
The sequel to Paramount’s successful 2009 Star Trek film is still officially in the development stage. Some prep work is being done based on extensive outline, but there is no announced start to pre-production or director (expected to be producer JJ Abrams). 


License Magazine Cover (from October 2010) – so far licensing for the sequel only official activity outside of scripting

August 10 – G.I. Joe 2: Cobra Strikes [pre-production/casting]
Sequel (and semi-reboot) to 2009′s G.I. Joe. Script finished and currently casting.  Director Jon Chu expected to start filming in August.


Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, Rapper RZA, and DJ Cotrona – all cast in GI Joe 2 in June

Summer TBA – World War Z [filling/casting]
Zombie movie (adapted from book by Max Brooks) is being produced and stars Brad Pitt. Filming  began two weeks ago. Today ET posted video of location shooting in Malta with Pitt battling a horde of zombies. While production has started, the film is also still in the process of casting.


"World War Z" location shooting in Malta

Looking at the above it is entirely plausible that Paramount will be able to shuffle things around and move the Star Trek movie without losing one of their pre-selected release dates for Summer 2012. However for now none of this is official.

Mainstream sharing fan pain

Of course most Star Trek fans are already feeling the pain of not getting a Star Trek sequel out for this summer, and we are even gearing up for another delay. But it isn’t just Trek fans. Today E Online posted their top 5 Biggest Letdowns of Summer 2011, and coming in at #5 was…

5. No Star Trek 2! As much as Super 8 has been loved, and as much as J.J. Abrams no doubt had to get his Steven Spielberg movie out of his head, and onto a screen, the throwback sci-fi movie is a big reason why Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk hasn’t taken a victory lap yet for 2009′s success. Call it the ultimate letdown: Hollywood makes a movie that you want to see sequelized, and then it doesn’t make it.

So it looks like it isn’t just the hardcore that are jonesing for more Star Trek.

POLL: Push for release or wait?

Even with all the above, the Star Trek team contend they could make the Star Trek sequel on time for the June 29, 2012 release date. So should they push it? 

Want Khan to return for 2016 Star Trek movie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Comments

1. Ahmed Abdo - July 1, 2011

Guess that can wait couple more months, as long as they will make a good Star Trek movie.

2. Snugglepuff - July 1, 2011

agreed

3. fizzben - July 1, 2011

dissapointed but I’d rather they do it right than rush it and do halfaz job.

4. AJ - July 1, 2011

So, this sucker’s up against “The Hobbit?”

We must…join with it, Gandalf….

5. captain spock - July 1, 2011

yes i agree don’t rush it, do a great job, but stop making other movies & concentrate on star trek first. you know if its delayed until after summer i would love to see it come out September 8Th.2012

the theme from star trek lyrics that was written by gene roddenbery in the music.

6. Kinneas - July 1, 2011

Dec. 21 2012

December 21′st , 2012 is one of those dates people are predicting as the ‘End of the world” or a turning point.

1) “If it is the end of the world…I’d rather be watching a Star Trek movie.”

2) We are at that turning point with regards to technology. Star Trek technology is coming to be now. MHD is now a buzzword. The future is now.

3) That will be the date on people’s minds most in 2012.

4) ST 2012 could speak on 2012, show how important Star Trek has been for the world & deliver hope for tomorrow, not one hundred or more years from now?

7. John from Cincinnati - July 1, 2011

Once again the world craps on Trekkers

8. John from Cincinnati - July 1, 2011

This isn’t about “pushing for a release or not” this is about some people who shall remain nameless have taken their own sweet time on other projects and THAT’s why Trek 2 got delayed!

9. John from Cincinnati - July 1, 2011

It would be an ultimate F U to the fans if JJ Abrams doesn’t even direct the next Trek movie.

10. trekker 5 - July 1, 2011

$&#@*^#!*%>}s**T!!! Can’t say I wasn’t ready for it,but it still don’t make me happy!!! I do want ‘em to take time and make it right,but I think they could use a little fire under their feet every now and again too!

11. Brevard - July 1, 2011

I’m getting sick to death of Hollywood releasing sequels to things we don’t want to see, yet Paramount can’t get on board with a sequel we do want to see. Why is this so difficult? The sequel has been in the works since ST 2009 opened. Thanks JJ Abrahms and crew. This is, indeed an F U to fans. It seems that they just don’t care. Paramount is set to make millions and millions off of this sequel. I’d think they could use the money. But, hey, GI Joe was sooooo good that it definitely deserves a sequel.

12. The Starfleet Veteran - July 1, 2011

#9… J.J. doesn’t care about the fans. He wouldn’t have made that abomination that came out in 2009 with the Star Trek name on it!

13. Basement Blogger - July 1, 2011

Fellow Trekkers, I’ll say this again. Since Star Trek will not make it for summer 2012, it’s logical for the film to be released in May of 2013. There’s no point for Paramount to release it in the holiday period of 2012. The Enterprise would do battle with the Hobbit, James Bond and that teenage vampire flick. There’s no reason for this no win scenario.

May of 2013 looks better. If you’re Paramount and got no blockbusters set for May, 2013, then put a delayed Star Trek there. Yeah, we’re disappointed. But better to do it right then do a rush job. If released in May, 2013, I also expect 3D. And if you’ve seen the craptastic Transformers:Dark of the Moon, a movie filmed in 3D can be impressive. Star Trek filmed in 3D might be really cool. So let the filmmakers prepare for that type of shooting.

14. Basement Blogger - July 1, 2011

Holy Groucho Marx. Take a look at Sacha Cohen’s beard! And Brad Pitt is in a zombie flick? Fascinating.

15. Vultan - July 1, 2011

All in all, I would prefer they just mothball the Trek movies for now and concentrate on putting another series on television. That’s where Trek has done (most consistently) its best work. Sure, the budget would be smaller, but there would be much more room to get to know the characters (hopefully a NEW ship and crew) and tell meaningful sci-fi stories—because that’s what it’s all about, people! Remember?

16. captain spock - July 1, 2011

i need to ask this how long of a fan are you? …. i’ve been a fan for nearly 45 years.
now that i read this artical again i must say that I’m very disapointed that the movie wount be out june of 2012 & I also feel the same as some of you do, that j.j. & crew are craping on us because of what. … paramount want them to do other projects before our beloved trek .
so what can we do nothing but wait until they decide to get off their lazy butts & start working on trekfull time ,personally i think it will be worth the wait

17. Robman007 - July 1, 2011

I sure hope it is not Dec 2012. I’d rather Oct/Nov or even sometime early 2013. Did Paramount not LEARN the last time a Trek movie tried to go head to head with a Lord of the Rings film. Nothing but bad can come from it.

18. Tanner Waterbury - July 1, 2011

I say delay until the Holidays. Any longer and it’ll be just plain irritating.

19. Devon - July 1, 2011

“Did Paramount not LEARN the last time a Trek movie tried to go head to head with a Lord of the Rings film”

They learned it couldn’t be done by a director no one cared about with a crew no one cared about anymore. This isn’t Trek of the old-guard folks.

20. Devon - July 1, 2011

“The sequel has been in the works since ST 2009 opened. Thanks JJ Abrahms and crew. This is, indeed an F U to fans.”

Yes.. a big F.U. to the fans because they want to do it right. Something Trek fans are not used to from the Roddenberry/Berman era.

21. Dee - lvs moonsurface - July 1, 2011

Yes … do it …do it … do it! …well, that does not depend on me, right?… so I just say what I want …what I hope!!!

A statement about it would be nice… I’m already irritated by so much speculation!

:-( :-)

22. DaiMonRon - July 1, 2011

Boy, it was hard to click “No” on that poll.

23. Dee - lvs moonsurface - July 1, 2011

They are taking so long to make the sequel… it will be reboot of reboot… they will have to convince many people again…

:-) :-)

24. Bill Peters - July 1, 2011

I figure it will be only a few months Delay if any that is done, not into 2013, Trek will be out in 2012 just Depends on when and I don’t see it coming out any later then September 2012

25. Bill Peters - July 1, 2011

I have to say that tell Paramount says something I don’t Belive these Romumors , I know it will come out in 2012 it just when that is the big deal, I don’t see Paramount backing away from the 2012 date because 2 1/2 in between Films is a good time, I see it coming out before Oct 2012

26. Basement Blogger - July 1, 2011

@ 20 Devon

Yeah, that Gene Roddenberrry really messed up Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan; Star Trek III: The Search for Spock; Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. And damn Rick Berman for TNG, DS9 and Voyager; twenty one years of successful televsion. And damn him for “The Best of Both Worlds” “Yesterday’s Enterpirse”, “The Inner Light”, “The Nth Degree”, “Tapestry” “The Chase” DS9′s “The Visitor” and on and on. Yeah, damn Rick Berman for all the excellent Star Trek he produced.. And damn you Rick Berman for global warming, while I’m at it.

Look, I agree with you it should be done right. J.J. Abrams is an excellent director. But I’m not going to worship him. If he doesn’t want to direct or wants to direct the movie, he should make a statement. Super 8 has been out for three weeks. Abrams could come off the Mountain with the Burning Bush and deliver the message. The fans have a right to be unhappy.

And I forgot one more thing, to curse Rick Berman. Damn you Rick Berman for the 2008 financial crisis.

27. dmduncan - July 1, 2011

I’ll bet fresh baked donuts that all the fan feedback and criticism really got Bob thinking abut ways to address some of the things that were brought up.

It took Stanley Kubrick 400 DAYS to SHOOT Eyes Wide Shut. That’s doesn’t include the years and years of preparatory work he did before starting to shoot.

I.e., If you want your steak well done, you’re gonna have to wait a little longer for it.

The extra time is not a promise of quality, but I think the odds increase heavily in favor of that possibility with the extra mental effort that goes into the story’s design.

28. Basement Blogger - July 1, 2011

@ 15 Vultan

I agree that Star Trek belongs on TV. Unfortunately, Star Trek’s hope for TV lies with CBS. Unless they can put some reality element in the show, or give a role for CBS head Les Moonves’ wife, Julie Chen; there is no sign that CBS is interested in doing anything with Star Trek other than riding Paramount’s coattails.

I’ll let Anthony Pascale say it for us. “I do believe that Star Trek is at its best on TV, a medium that allows for more complex storytelling and character development.” Link below..

Anthony’s statements on where Star Trek belongs and comments on the Bryan Singer Star Trek proposal.
http://trekmovie.com/2011/04/16/exclusive-details-excerpts-from-star-trek-federation-series-proposal/

29. ChrisM - July 1, 2011

Happy to wait as long as it means we can the best Star Trek film possible!! :)

30. Browncoat1984 - July 1, 2011

Yeah, I have no doubt that however long we wait they will produce a quality product. My biggest fear though is that they will take too long and it will have been so long since the 2009 movie that people will begin to forget it. Then again, The Dark Knight came out in 2008 and it will be 2012 before we see the sequel and conclusion to the Batman trilogy so you never know, perhaps people will see the trailers and go “yeah, that Star Trek movie was awesome! Gotta go see it!” My only other fear too is that they will release it at Christmas which in general is a more sandwiched release period and will have a repeat of Nemesis’ situation, where you had a LotR, Harry Potter and Bond all competing. Now you’ll have The Hobbit, and a new Bond movie, which I believe is also the first Bond film since 2008-09, can’t remember how long.

Still, I am not surprised that its being delayed at this point. I was kind of wondering when Paramount announces a new comic book series set in the new universe for fall and a new video game which as recently reported is supposedly “canon” so I have a feeling they were prepping us for a delay and giving us something to hold us over. Not as good as a DVD movie, miniseries or even an animated series but better than nothing.

31. Lostrod - July 1, 2011

I understand that some people may thing waiting until summer 2013 is “taking time to do it right”. However that still does not change the fact that Mr. Abrams and crew have chosen a myriad of other projects over the Star Trek sequel.

I admit I have NO idea what is going on with the production. However my anticipation for the movie dwindles with every non “announcement”. I can only imagine how the average movie viewer will perceive this delay.

I would not go so far as saying Mr. Abrams and crew is “crapping” on us, but I cannot help but feel they are being disrespectful.

Regards.

As an original fan I am disappointed.

32. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 1, 2011

Commence your whining, fat guys! God knows there is simply not enough opportunity to whine on the internet.

33. Charlie in Colorado - July 1, 2011

I’ve every faith in the Supreme Court that they will deliver another great Trek film. As far as I’m concerned, they can take all the time they need to make sure everything is right.

34. BringBackKirkPrime - July 1, 2011

By all means, don’t rush it. Take your time. Do a sequel to Super 8, call it Super 9. And maybe slate another G.I. Joe movie, part 3. Then maybe they will have had enough years to write a really, really, really good Star Trek script, and it might even be in time for the 23rd century! Maybe they will make it a hologram movie by then.

35. Thorny - July 1, 2011

I fully expect this movie to slip to May 2013, but not because Fall 2012 looks impregnible: it doesn’t. Hobbit is Christmas, the last Bond blew chunks, and the Twilight flicks are not the same audience at all. There’s room if Paramount wants it in the Fall. I just don’t think they will. They’ll aim for May and this time put their foot down on Bad Robot to make sure they don’t take their eyes off the ball again. Super 8 is not the Summer 2011 blockbuster they wanted and now they’ve lost their biggest movie of Summer 2012. Paramount is probably not a fun place to be around these days.

36. Devon - July 1, 2011

#26 – “Yeah, that Gene Roddenberrry really messed up Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan; Star Trek III: The Search for Spock; Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.”

Those were not Roddenberry productions.

“And damn Rick Berman for TNG, DS9 and Voyager;”

Exactly.

“The fans have a right to be unhappy. ”

They also have a right to wait. Fans with their conspiracy theories are not speeding things up one single bit, so reason to complain at this point.

37. Devon - July 1, 2011

#31 – “However that still does not change the fact that Mr. Abrams and crew have chosen a myriad of other projects over the Star Trek sequel.”

Because they came first and to their avail before anything with Star Trek. And that is their right, their priority, and their BUSINESS. Some of you are forgetting you are trying to dictate people’s ways of life, which should not be for anyone here to discuss.

“but I cannot help but feel they are being disrespectful.”

They aren’t. However, if you want to see “disrespectful” just look at some of the comments from people and their self entitlement.

38. BringBackKirkPrime - July 1, 2011

Scrap the movie and bring back the t.v. series.

39. chrisfawkes.com - July 1, 2011

3 years between movies is such a long time. Hope there is only two years break between the second and third.

Despite expectations of the new transformers being crap it was crap. No effort to surprise viewers.

X Men first class on the other hand, written by the same writer as the worst x men film stands as the most powerful lesson of lessons learnt in hollywood history.

For this reason i want gold. I want a film that i want to go and see again as soon as i’m walking out of the theatre. A film with spectacle but not reliant on it for it’s emotional core. A film that will make all those twats at school who thought i was a geek for loving Star Trek think that maybe i was actually the coolest kid in school.

Ok i was kind of kidding about that last sentence but for many trekkies that may be true. The next Star Trek film not only needs to be awesome but it needs to give the geek brigade that are trekkies a sense that some of the wrongs in their own lives have been righted too.

With so much hanging on this i say “do it ducimo, do it slowly”.

40. Vultan - July 1, 2011

#28

Yes, unfortunately CBS doesn’t seem to care about Trek at the moment, but—just a thought—since Paramount also does television, would it be out of the question for them to do a Trek series or direct-to-DVD movies? Or is it just CBS that has the rights to any and all Trek that doesn’t have its title appearing on a theater marquee?

41. Dee - lvs moonsurface - July 1, 2011

Well… the lament is heard not only here… I found this at EOnline.. was an article titled…”Five Biggest Movie Letdowns of the Summer”

“5. No Star Trek 2! As much as Super 8 has been loved, and as much as J.J. Abrams no doubt had to get his Steven Spielberg movie out of his head, and onto a screen, the throwback sci-fi movie is a big reason why Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk hasn’t taken a victory lap yet for 2009′s success. Call it the ultimate letdown: Hollywood makes a movie that you want to see sequelized, and then it doesn’t make it.”

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b250131_five_biggest_movie_letdowns_of_summer.html

:-) :-)

42. Devon - July 1, 2011

#40 – Paramount is no longer involved in television that I’m aware of.

#41 – That was in the previous news article here.

43. Jack - July 1, 2011

This dissing stuff is scary. They don’t owe fans anything, other than, maybe, a good movie. The same thing they owe the general public. I’d hope they respect the source material (which doesn’t mean following canon slavishly), which they have so far — and some of us may be handy (less so now thanks to wikieverything) for keeping track of Trek minutia, and our enthusiasm is probably welcome to a working writer… but I suspect Trek 2009 (and most of the previous successful Treks) would have done fine if every hard-core fan had stayed home.

Yeah, a delay sucks. Heck, maybe there ARE problems behind the scenes, but, really, who (here) knows?

Although, all that having been said, the whole game announcement (with a promise of payoff in the next flick) reminds me a little of all the crap that tied into the Matrix sequels.

44. Bill Peters - July 1, 2011

Anyone Notice the lack of Bob Orci being here ???? I think they will not disappointing us, we will have a Movie in 2012 now if it is July or August 2012 and not June 29th we’ll I can wait and see what comes and know it will be good.

45. VulcanFilmCritic - July 1, 2011

Now this is an interesting turn of events: bad publicity.
Pushing back ‘Star Trek” in favor of weaker fare is a really, really bad business decision.

Dear Paramount, if creating a new “Star Trek” movie is such a CHORE, then give the project to someone who actually likes the franchise and would consider it an honor to be involved with it.

46. sean - July 1, 2011

It’s a production delay from an in-demand production team. It’s a bit of a bummer, but it’s hardly a middle-finger to Trek fans. Know why Rick Berman lived and breathed Star Trek? Because no one else wanted him. It’s not a slight to Berman, it’s simply reality. He was not a hot property. He was ‘the Star Trek guy’. JJ, Bob, Alex, Bryan, etc., are not just ‘The Star Trek guys’. That’s part of why it’s great we managed to get them. There’s no need to read every little thing as some kind of slight to fans. These guys have engaged with the fanbase more than any previous production team (Ron Moore’s AOL chats aside). They’ve done nothing to indicate they’re taking their responsibilities for granted.

47. VulcanFilmCritic - July 1, 2011

I know that the hearts of the Bad Robot team may be in the right place, but good feelings do not cut it in the entertainment business…and it IS a business.
Treat it as such.

I too would like to do a good job at work, too, but I can’t just take my sweet time, because I am such a sensitive artiste. Deadlines are deadlines.

How would you like it if you hired a contractor to re-do your kitchen and he said, I have a couple of other jobs which are really important to me and I have to finish them first, and I want to do a really good job for you, so I’m going to push back the start date on your project a couple of months?

Well, isn’t that the same thing?

48. MJ - July 1, 2011

@47. I agree completely. I am getting very frustrated myself with the continual delays.

That being said, if when the contractor finally got to you kitchen, he did such a great job that your neighbors and family complemented it for years to come, the memories of the initial delays would quickly fade, and you would go back to that same procrastinator contractor to sign him up to redo your living room.

49. Spock - July 1, 2011

Big Mistake people will move on by Dec. 2012. Those who watched the first one will be gone. It will come out in the midst of 2002 Nemesis syndrome (10 years later!). It will get beat up by Bond, and the other films coming out at that time (just like 2002 Nemesis)… It will fall short, then, we will have another 10 years without Trek. These guys are making a huge mistake, Trek at it’s best came out every 2-2.5 years 1982, 1984, 1986, then a screw up in 1989 and greatness in 1991, screw up in 1994, greatness in 1996 and 1998 and failure in 2002. Long waits are bad for the franchise especially when using the same cast (Trek ’09 does not count, because it was a reboot and TMP was a comeback).

50. Bob Tompkins - July 1, 2011

Big sigh.

51. Commander/Captain/Ambassador Spock - July 1, 2011

While I really don’t want there to be too long a wait, I really don’t want to see the next movie go up against the Hobbit. I am sure that the next movie will be great (I really enjoyed the first one), but there are some battles you just don’t fight and this is one of them.

52. Jack - July 1, 2011

48. exactly.

and in this case, they’re all already working on a bunch of rooms for the same homeowner.

53. Bill Peters - July 1, 2011

Trek comes when we need it most and when it is need most by the world for hope. JJ and Team will not fail us. Star Trek will be here in 2012 now what month who knows, but it will be here in 2012

54. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

The sequel is going to come out in summer 2013. I guarantee it. A fall 2012 release is unlikely because the earliest the film would start shooting is in January 2012. But Chris Pine has the Jack Ryan movie to shoot and that is probably going to happen around that time. So I’d expect shooting to begin around spring of next year. I say its better to take all the time needed to craft the best possible sequel. I can wait.

#41.

Did you even bother reading the article before you started spamming?

55. Anthony Thompson - July 1, 2011

6. Kinneas

Go join a cult and drink some kool aid.

56. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - July 1, 2011

Do NOT rush it into theaters to make a summer deadline. That’s what killed Transformers 2, Paramount wanted it to kick butt during the Summer, but the Writer’s Strike forced Orci and Kurtzman to turn in an unfinished mess of a script. If Paramount had delayed Transformers 2 til the Winter, Orci and Kurtzman would’ve been able to refine the script, and Paramount would have still done well in the Summer thanks to Star Trek.

57. Anthony Thompson - July 1, 2011

24 and 25. Bill Peters

I’ll write your latest prediction down (“before October 2012″) because your prognostications have been so accurate in the past. ; )

58. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 1, 2011

Bring back the geniuses who brought us such masterworks as First Contact and Nemesis. Star Trek is supposed to be deep and meaningful. Now those were some thinking man’s movies!

59. MJ - July 1, 2011

@54. RDR, how can you say this — do you realize that the studio completely started over in April and hired a new writer for the Jack Ryan project? As slow as the Trek script is moving, here is my bet that Trek will start shooting in November and the the movie will be out in November/December 2012. Trek is near pre-production, while Jack Ryan is not going to be filmed until next Spring.

60. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

And can we stop with the “Nemesis” comparisons? The Trek sequel would do fine against Bond, “The Hobbit”, and “Breaking Dawn”. Although it would do even better in Summer 2013 with less competition.

Better to be a big fish in a small pond, I think.

61. MJ - July 1, 2011

@49 “Big Mistake people will move on by Dec. 2012. Those who watched the first one will be gone.”

Dude, the Mayan 2012 thing is a fraud. I predict that the vast majority of the people who watch the first one will still be around to watch the 2nd, sans a very small percentage who will have died of old age, disease, cancer, accidental death, death while in military service, etc.

62. Ellienne - July 1, 2011

I want to see every Star Trek actor in this movie. One lash hurrah before the great 12 21 2012 Mayan apocalypse. :D

63. njdss4 - July 1, 2011

These guys only have one chance to get this movie right, so I voted “No” without having to think twice. I’d rather wait another year past its original release date, as painful as it would be, to make sure that it’s done well.

64. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

#58.

The Jack Ryan movie will be ready to shoot in January. The script isn’t going to take nearly as long as the Trek sequel, plus not as many sets are going to be needed to be built for the spy thriller. On the other hand, judging by the last updates, the Trek sequel is nowhere near ready for production. They haven’t even begun the script. They’re not even done the outline.

65. MJ - July 1, 2011

@59. Bond is coming out very early in the holidays in mid-November 2012, and Star Trek does not compete against the same crowd as Breaking Wind (lol), so I think having a Trek/Hobbit Christmas next year would be outstanding.

66. Matthias from Germany - July 1, 2011

Hey, who wants to tell me those guys (abrams, orci and co.) have no personal organizer? It is all a part of marketing. nothing more.

67. MJ - July 1, 2011

“The Jack Ryan movie will be ready to shoot in January”

RDR, you are sitting up there in Vancouver typing this on your computer like it is fact, like you have some hidden source? Excuse me if I am a bit skeptical of your supposed A priori knowledge of how the Jack Ryan movie is going to play out given they have just started over on the script.

68. MJ - July 1, 2011

Some background on the Jack Ryan Script cluster-f**k:

“Koepp Next Writer On Jack Ryan Franchise Reboot

Posted on 29 April 2011 by Rich Drees

David Koepp has become the latest writer to take a crack at the screenplay for Paramount’s revival of their Jack Ryan franchise based on the series of techno-political thrillers from Tom Clancy. Koepp will be replacing Steve Zaillian on the project who was hired but then almost immediately left the project without turning in any work.

Deadline is reporting that Koepp will be getting a seven figure salary to “redraft the script by Adam Cozad.” But if you have followed the comings and goings of screenwriters on the project, you are probably asking yourself, “Which script by Adam Cozad?”

For the uninitiated, Paramount had been looking at reviving the franchise for a while, after it had crashed and burned with the 2002 Ben Affleck-starring installment The Sum Of All Fears. Hossein Amini had delivered a screenplay that the studio seemed to have liked, but they set aside when they bought the 2007 Black List spec script Dubai by Cozad, hiring Cozad to retool it into a Jack Ryan franchise relaunch vehicle.

After Cozad turned in his new draft, now titled Moscow, Anthony Peckham was brought in to do further work on it. Paramount brought Cozad back on board for another run through the script before hiring and then loosing Zaillian.

So which script of Cozad’s will Zaillian be working on? It is doubtful that the studio is backtracking all the way to the original Dubai draft, so that leaves the retooled Moscow or the post-Peckham draft.

It remains to be seen if Koepp will be the one to turn in a draft that the studio likes enough to give the greenlight to director Jack Bender to go ahead and get the film in front of the cameras. But if he is the one get the job done or if the studio has to go through another round of writers, I can only hope that the final project will be as entertaining as the Writers Guild arbitration for screen credits are promising to be.”

69. Red Dead Ryan - July 1, 2011

#67.

No, I’m sitting in Victoria typing on my computer. :-)

Okay, I was really just theorizing. But it is quite likely that the Jack Ryan movie will start shooting before the Trek sequel does.

P.S

I ran into a guy on the street dressed as Spock from TOS. It was remarkable. He looked just like Leonard Nimoy did during the tv show!
I wish I had a camera.

70. Spock - July 1, 2011

“And can we stop with the “Nemesis” comparisons? The Trek sequel would do fine against Bond, “The Hobbit”, and “Breaking Dawn”. Although it would do even better in Summer 2013 with less competition.”

I seem to remember Rick Berman saying the same thing in summer 2002 in the Star Trek Communicator magazine. Except it was regarding ‘Die Another Day’, Some Lord of the Rings Film, a Harry Potter Film, and ‘Maid in Manhattan’ all of which clobbered Nemesis. Yes, Nemesis was not good, but, even Trek V opened at the top of the box office. He also said that they were different audiences and that Nemesis would have no problem, etc. Trek will fall flat or would not do as well as it could with those other releases.

61- people will move on, the target audience will have found something new, and everyone will be nearly 4 years older…

71. Basement Blogger - July 1, 2011

@ 36 Devon

Devon writes, “(My quote post 26) And damn Rick Berman for TNG, DS9 and Voyager;”

“Exactly.”

First, you do know I was being sarcastic. And please quote the whole quote. Otherwise, you might end up like Fox News. The whole quote from 26 reads like this.

“And damn Rick Berman for TNG, DS9 and Voyager; twenty one years of successful televsion.”

For some reason you forgot the” twenty one years of years of sucessful televsion.”

Second, you say, “They also have a right to wait.” That doesn’t make a whole lof ot sense. Fans are the customers. Does McDonald’s say you have a right to wait for your food? Really?

If your point is that we should wait for a better product, yeah I agree with that . I’m already resolved to wait till 2013, for financial and quality reasons.

72. Edward Phillips - July 1, 2011

It is a shock, but not a surprise this film has the potential to slip release slot. However, I think Paramount has to be careful how it manages the Bad Robot stable. Clearly, they value it by allowing them the time required to develop other projects close to their hearts and then come back round to Star Trek.

However, Trek is a huge financial business to Paramount – not just from box office, and as such they will be wanting another chapter.

I don’t think the time delay is that bad between films, the best comparison is Bond which has had regular interrupted quiett periods away from the big screen and come back (usually after enforced legal delays) stronger than ever with a fan base intact and new viewers following on to.

What is frustrating in this circumstance is after such a strong critical and commercial film in 09 that Bad Robot/Paramount haven’t been able to get a sequel smoothly tracked in.

There will undoubtedly be huge pressure on the sequel, it can’t win and any weakness will be jumped upon. I do worry that no matter how good the writers, director and cast are, they really won’t give us an ever better film.

As regards release dates, holidays/Christmas is a no no for me. It’s much too crowded with Bond returning (he will dominate right through from Nov to 26th Dec and poss beyond) and Twilight. They may not be the same demographic as such but there are only so many screens a film can play on and only so many the casual cinema patron will take a chance on.

Don’t forget The Hobbit will bow too…that’s a monster of a film, franchise and fan base too.

Summer 2013 now looks a much better fit.

Plus, you also have to consider the secondary, but often more financially rewarding market of the dvd/blu ray/download/pay tv market. If the film comes out in the summer theatrically then they get another bounce financially at the Christmas market to sell the home video (and repackage earlier titles again). Coming out later in 2012 doesn’t give Paramount that.

In the words of The Godfather…”it’s purely business…it’s nothing personal!”

That’s my opinion anyway here in the UK!

73. Yob Mosher - July 2, 2011

This will make two Trek films in a row that were not released on the date that was stated. Not very fair to the fans. If you have no intention then don’t give a solid date in the first place. Might I suggest that you focus on making the film already? You have had more than ample time to get all the pre work done.

74. Kinneas - July 2, 2011

@AnthonyThompson. I have joined a cult. Its also a historic, world changing, subculture spawning, icon creating thing called Star Trek. Also part of the greatest global conspiracy out there. Kool-Aid now? Its just getting good. LLAP
-
Since the script is almost done, potentially with a legend in storyboarding & cinematographer they could knock it out pretty fast leaving plenty of time for post processing?
-
On CBS and Next Trek: After third movie? MMO tie in allowing Trekkers to participate in shaping canon events?

75. Basement Blogger - July 2, 2011

@ 40 Vultan

From what I know, Paramount doesn’t have the televsion rights to Star Trek. I’m sure if they tried to do a Star Trek TV show, they would get sued by CBS. Or would they? According to Wikipedia, Sumner Redstone owns a lot of both companies. Link.

Viacom owns Paramount. They also own some television networks. Comedy Central, Spike, MTV, TV lLand etc. So I would say Paramount can produce TV shows. I would guess that Paramount can’t do Star Trek on TV without CBS suing them. But the fact that Sumner Redstone owns a lot of both companies complicates things.

And without reading the contract that split off CBS from Vicacom, I have no idea if Paramount can release direct to DVD new Star Trek shows. We know that CBS has the Star Trek TV library and does their video releases. Does that include any new Star Trek for DVDs other than theatrical movies? I don’t know.

1. Link on CBS ownership; Redstone owns much of both CBS and Viacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS#CBS_Corporation_and_CBS_Studios
2. Link on Viacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom#Assets

76. Devon - July 2, 2011

#71 – ““And damn Rick Berman for TNG, DS9 and Voyager; twenty one years of successful televsion.””

TNG and maybe DS9 were successful. Voyager.. just enough for UPN’s standards, and that isn’t saying anything, of course, this wasn’t to do with what I said to begin with.

“Fans are the customers. Does McDonald’s say you have a right to wait for your food? Really?”

Yes, and our purchase already gave us one movie. The ticket does not guarantee us an ownership or a certain schedule by Paramount. Paramount have no further obligation to anyone here from that $10.00 that was given in 2009 or any other time, technically.

“If your point is that we should wait for a better product, yeah I agree with that . I’m already resolved to wait till 2013, for financial and quality reasons.”

That and my other point to some people is to “Stop b****ing.” It comes out when it comes out.

77. Basement Blogger - July 2, 2011

@ 76

Well, Devon, I want to see the day when McDonald’s runs the ad campaign,

“You have the right to wait for your food.”

78. James McDonald - July 2, 2011

They have had 2 years to write a new script and get prepared for filming in August. Star Trek (2009) was going to be released in December 2008, then they moved it to May 8, 2009. To save production time, they should allow actors to look at cue cards.
Didn’t Paramount Pictures say before the first movie was released that they wanted to get started on Star Trek 2 (#12) right away?
If JJ Abrams doesn’t want to do it, then get another director that’s excited to cast and film it now. Not having the script finished is just laziness. That’s what professional writers are for.
I have always believed, why don’t they begin writing the next script as soon as they are done with the first script. It’s only one piece of paper away.
The best two movies connected together with a continuing story right from the end of the previous movie was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984). Fans only had to wait for 1 year and 362 days.
Having to wait 3 to 4 years for another Star Trek movie is just ridiculous and laziness on the producers and writers. The original STAR TREK fans (1966-69) who really want to see the movie are getting older. They want to see the movie too. Let’s get it done.

79. Andrew - July 2, 2011

There will be immense pressure on the film if it is released in 2013 because everyone would have waited four years for the next film to be released and the film being pushed back increases expectations that the movie will be good if not great.

At this point, unless they have a hell of a story with lots of action and character development along with it, I seriously think that they should rush it to meet the June 29th date or at least summer 2012 just so they have a built-in excuse if the film doesn’t live up to expectations. The film could then serve the purpose of Star Trek lll which kept up interest in the brand and allow the team to try and make a Star Trek IV type movie which obviously people loved a lot more than Star Trek lll.

I just think that by delaying the movie, expectations increase exponentially that the next movie will be a Dark Knight and if it turns out to be more like a Matrix Reloaded, then I think it could seriously harm the brand. At least if the movie is released next year and it turns out to be like an Iron Man 2 which people didn’t like as much as the original, hey, at least they’re still planning another sequel as well as the Avengers.

Waiting until 2013 or winter 2012 is too long and it’s my opinion that they make the best movie they can for summer 2012 and if it isn’t as good as Star Trek ’09, then take as much time as they need to make Star Trek 3 (or 13) the best possible movie, like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

80. Phil - July 2, 2011

STAR TREK 12 not 2

81. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 2, 2011

I am officially depressed. More no news. I can’t decide whether to vote Yes or No in the poll. Wake me up when there are actually FACTS, not conjecture and theorising… (looking at you, RDR…)

There is the bitching and then there is the bitching of those who claim others are bitching…Duh.

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

69 was that out on hollywood blvd?
If so stay away from that dude he was actually arrested last month for kicking the crap out of a guy who took his picture just standing infront of Hard rock and refused to pay a tip.

He is one of the more unstable characters out their. if youre not talking about hollywood blvd then thats freaky that there is a second guy who looks dead on like Nimoy from TOS

83. Geekette - July 2, 2011

Star Trek 2 beginning / sorry well on the way, down the tubes.

They should start looking for another director. Abrams obviously has better things to do.

If I were one of the actors, I’d be really pissed. They have been holding their diaries for nothing.

84. Aurore - July 2, 2011

The sequel will be released in 2012 , unless Mr. Abrams himself ( or any member of the writing team ) “comes forward” to announce otherwise.

I’m in denial , you say ? Well….”maybe”.
We’ll know for sure, in 2012…or 2013.

:))

85. Gold Coast Rob - July 2, 2011

Gotta say I’m over the movie already. Don’t care whether it happens on time or in 2015. A new TV show would press my buttons far more, a weekly dose of Trek -v- a once every three year fix, no contest. Dump the move And let’s go weekly. Look at what a kick-arse job or friends have done with Hawaii Five-0.

86. trekker 5 - July 2, 2011

#84,ah,Aurore!! Hello! And I love how you try so hard to keep in that frame of mind!! But I really have to agree with you,because I also think you are in denial. Ah well,all I can say is !#$&%#@&!! And I might add s**t!! Sorry for my out burst,but if I didn’t get it out some way I surely would have blown up. :)

87. bradpitti - July 2, 2011

well thats great – but at least we have super 8, and prometheus thank you so much bad robot!

88. Devon - July 2, 2011

#79 — “””””””f JJ Abrams doesn’t want to do it, then get another director that’s excited to cast and film it now.”””””

J.J. hasn’t even read it, and will likely direct anyway, so this won’t be an issue.

“”””Not having the script finished is just laziness.”””

It doesn’t seem that you’ve followed J.J. and Co. very well. They have had several projects going. That is far from “laziness.”

“”””I have always believed, why don’t they begin writing the next script as soon as they are done with the first script. It’s only one piece of paper away.”

Because that is not practical. When you write one script, you should go on to the next thing because who knows what will happen with the first script or the success of the first film. Why spend all that time writing a sequel to something that hasn’t come out and could be a failure? Bob Orci specifically commented on such a thing too.

===

#83 – “They should start looking for another director. Abrams obviously has better things to do.”

Abrams focus is on Star Trek now.

Honestly, I understand that we all want a new film as soon as possible. But some of these comments are actually coming out of unnecessary frustration or anger and are not very rational. It’s going to be okay folks, seriously.

89. VulcanFilmCritic - July 2, 2011

Action adventure movies have definitely descended to the level of the Grade B movie. Instead of finding the best talent for the project we are stuck with a production company that feels that this project is something that can be put on the “back burner.” I get the feeling of something being cranked out.

I remember when the 1978 Superman movie debuted I read about all of the talent involved and how many people worked on the script. Reading about it again today in Wikipedia, I was shocked to learn of the level of talent associated with this movie:

Alfred Bester was asked to write a treatment, then
Mario Puzo, David and Leslie Newman,Robert Benton wrote a script
and then Tom Mankiewicz was called in to do the re-write

Look, the only thing holding this project up is the script. Would it kill the guys at Bad Robot to call in a script doctor at this point? Someone who can turn around a turkey in a matter of days? Someone who’s been associated with Star Trek for many years, both as writer and as director?

PAGING DR. MEYER! Dr. Nicholas Meyer! CODE GRADE-B! You have a patient in the emergency room that is showing early signs of “turkey-itis!”

90. KHAN 2.0 - July 2, 2011

in a way 4 years works in the sequels favour somewhat as my guess is they going to have Trek ’2′ set pretty much at the end of the 5 year mission(that is if it is a 5 year mission) with the assumption that pretty much all of TOS has happened inbetween (as in the new IDW comics) they’ll reference/easter egg certains elements though (maybe a pre titles sequence showing the end of a “reimagined” ep like The Doomsday machine)..but for the most part it’ll be an all new adventure

anyway they released Aliens and T2 seven years after their first installments and if anything it made them *more* of an event. Batman 3 is happening 4 years after that last one too..

obviously itd be great if it was out 2012 but its no biggie

91. Buzz Cagney - July 2, 2011

‘take your time’ ? Exactly how much MORE time do they want? Unbelievable really.
I’m glad the guys are doing well and in demand but i’m not so pleased to see them treating Trek as a time-filler.

92. Buzz Cagney - July 2, 2011

#15 nice try Vults!
Patience is a virtue. :-D Your time will come.

93. KHAN 2.0 - July 2, 2011

anyway summer 2012 is pretty cramped (as is xmas 2012 now)…

and besides stuff like Iron Man 3, F&F 6, Dark Tower, Pacific Rim and Thor 2 locked for summer 2013, there isnt much else at the moment so Trek 2 could nab a nice spot there before all the others start rolling in like Mad Max 4, Die Hard 5, Wolverine 2, Capt America sequel, Deadpool and even stuff like Indy 5, Ghostbusters3, Terminator 5, Blade Runner 2 and the Highlander remake,

94. Trekky - July 2, 2011

2009 Star Trek is the best Star Trek EVER made. I can wait until they do it right again for the sequel. However 3 years is quite a long time.

95. Flake - July 2, 2011

I want Trek 2 in 2013 and Trek 3 in 2014 to make up for this mess!

TNG in HD as well with ILM reopening their model shop and buying back the ENT-D model just to make new effects. Funded by Abrams personal bank account. Do it!

96. Scooter - July 2, 2011

Do it right or don’t do it. If it’s Christmas 2012, so be it. This film will be released either duing summer or the holiday season. Fall and spring releases are usually not “blockbuster” movies. I’d rather see it delayed 5-6 months and done right, than pushed. Oh yeah, NO SHAT, NO KAHN! Keep it fresh guys. Actually, if Shat did a cameo as another character, say a bartender, Kirk’s grandfather, that might work.

97. Christopher Roberts - July 2, 2011

Delays are fine to me, if the end product is better. I can fill my free-time with other TV shows and films… and if I wasn’t so lazy, my inner hardcore fanboy could easily assemble the episodes from Star Trek’s history, to make my own DIY Greatest Hits seasons. That’s not to mention pick up books and comics out there I still haven’t read.

WHAT WOULD I RECOMMEND BE DONE TO EASE THE WAIT?

Film a special prequel TV Movie leading into the next film. Basically take $10-20 million from Star Trek 2′s budget and use it for an event on the small screen, that both sets up themes to be continued in cinemas and acts as promotion for the delayed film.

Essentially the way comic/graphic novel – Countdown tried to serve as closure for the Next Generation, the Prime Universe post Nemesis and delve into Nero’s backstory. BUT an actual televised piece of Star Trek that ties into what’s coming.

Working on the theory that a STAR TREK SEQUEL has something in common with Original Series episode, “Balance of Terror”… mentions the Romulan War as an event in Starfleet’s past…

Personally I’d use this as an excuse to reassemble the cast of STAR TREK ENTERPRISE and tell that story… sort of, in the style of Babylon 5′s In the Beginning. That of a First Contact situation covered up and a war which resulted in the Federation being born. Out of that – I’d get a fitting end to the previous TV series and the new movie would get a bad guy who survives, coming back to take on Kirk, Spock, McCoy and everyone in new movie universe.

98. Danny - July 2, 2011

Where’s the rule that says STAR TREK must released in Summer or at Nov-Dec Holiday season? What’s wrong with October 2012?

99. jas_montreal - July 2, 2011

I’m starting to lose interest in the star trek sequel. I’m getting the feeling we have star wars fans making it and their taking their sweet time because their involved in a bunch of other projects. Why should i care and pay for the star trek sequel?

100. Janice - July 2, 2011

It’s too bad the Star Trek sequel is on the back-burner.
I can wait till summer 2013 though–but it better be GOOD and with Pike there and JJ directing.

101. Aurore - July 2, 2011

86. Olivia.
How are you? (despite the article).

“#84,ah,Aurore!! Hello! And I love how you try so hard to keep in that frame of mind!!”

It’s easy, really, I don’t have to try hard, Olivia.

I’ve waited 18 years for a new Star trek movie ; between the Undiscovered Country and Star Trek The Future Begins, there was nothing , as far as I’m concerned. I never was interested in any of the spin-offs that had followed The Original Series.

Besides, when I tried to give some of the The Next Generation movies a chance ( around the year 2000 , DVD ), it was to discover, amongst other things, that James Tiberius Kirk was no more…

So, when I say I can wait , I mean it . Hopefully , of course, I won’t have to wait 18 years…

102. Neumann - July 2, 2011

97- Can I say that while I dig Bab5, I found that war flick to be boring… it was like a checklist of events (like Razor) and did little to excite me. I just felt I knew it already. Although I will say that I always felt Bab5 was the story of the founding of the Federation, just in a non Star Trek universe.

100- I keep thinking Pike would be a good “Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is–” type part in the movies.

Personally, I will be rather upset with myself if I don’t manage to write my OWN Star Trek movie by the time this comes out (as I intended to do with the sequel) to keep my geek-ness busy. And that’s my only thought about release dates at this time.

103. The Riddler - July 2, 2011

Ditch Abrams and lets someone else play. Stop screwing around!

104. N - July 2, 2011

I can and will wait for XII but not striking while the iron is hot is a bad move.
They should have started work straight after XI imo – #12 Super 8 is the abomination here

105. Kirk, James T. - July 2, 2011

I’m not voting because If they can get this movie out in time for June 29th then great! if they feel they cant then OK take your time so my vote is on the fence at the moment.

These guys though should be working hard to get something out in time for this year’s SDCC so that the world knows that there will be a new Star Trek sometime in 2012.

106. Hugh Hoyland - July 2, 2011

I think there will be an anouncement soon! And I think we will be happy by what we hear. :]

107. BringBackKirkPrime - July 2, 2011

99— jas_montreal – July 2, 2011

I’m starting to lose interest in the star trek sequel. I’m getting the feeling we have star wars fans making it and their taking their sweet time because their involved in a bunch of other projects. Why should i care and pay for the star trek sequel?

EXACTLY!

108. Christopher Roberts - July 2, 2011

102. Fair enough. But war wouldn’t be the only narrative content. Just a pivotal event told from Admiral Archer’s point of view. The framing story would have to be set around 2251 to be made relevant. He visits a laying the keel ceremony for the new Enterprise and meets Pike, then losing his beagle at the end of the story. :)

109. BringBackKirkPrime - July 2, 2011

YES 78, I agree—-
78. James McDonald – July 2, 2011

They have had 2 years to write a new script and get prepared for filming in August. Star Trek (2009) was going to be released in December 2008, then they moved it to May 8, 2009. To save production time, they should allow actors to look at cue cards.
Didn’t Paramount Pictures say before the first movie was released that they wanted to get started on Star Trek 2 (#12) right away?
If JJ Abrams doesn’t want to do it, then get another director that’s excited to cast and film it now. Not having the script finished is just laziness. That’s what professional writers are for.
I have always believed, why don’t they begin writing the next script as soon as they are done with the first script. It’s only one piece of paper away.
The best two movies connected together with a continuing story right from the end of the previous movie was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984). Fans only had to wait for 1 year and 362 days.
Having to wait 3 to 4 years for another Star Trek movie is just ridiculous and laziness on the producers and writers. The original STAR TREK fans (1966-69) who really want to see the movie are getting older. They want to see the movie too. Let’s get it done.

110. Christopher Roberts - July 2, 2011

101. Aurore – “I’ve waited 18 years for a new Star trek movie ; between the Undiscovered Country and Star Trek The Future Begins, there was nothing , as far as I’m concerned.”

That’s a pretty depressing assessment. But surely there were other TV shows and films that took the place of your affection for “THE ONE TRUE STAR TREK™”? :-}

111. Christopher Roberts - July 2, 2011

BTW – The One True Star Trek™ is a registered trademark of people of a certain age who dine a diet of small children and pretend that nothing significant happened in popular culture after 1985. Laughs. :) ;)

112. Capt Crash - July 2, 2011

Well, let’s hope that the primary cast/actors will be available in due time. I wonder about certain projects for these actors being put on hold because of the “wait-time” on the Star Trek sequel. Wasn’t there an initial conflict with Chris Pine and the next Jack Ryan film getting underway due to Star Trek?

Hey these actors need to work, and respectively so, therefore I am willing to bet 2013 (Summer) is more likely, because of additional delays in actor availability and schedule conflicts!

Hey…TPTB, if the sequel is going to be that delayed…how about start penciling the third sequel and shoot them both back to back. That would be awesome! Plus, they would have the time at this point…….I also wonder too if the current script has a story arc to it?

113. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 2, 2011

#54. Red Dead Ryan…

Yes I read the article but I feel the right to enforce my cry… you know I’m not a fawning all the time…

:( :-(

114. VeratheGun - July 2, 2011

Clearly, there’s stuff going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to. But come on! Boborci, you and your cohorts have had TWO YEARS to get this script written. What is the delay? The budget? The storyline? Egos?

Three years between movies is the gold standard. Any shorter than that and you risk a mess like Iron Man 2 (story obviously rushed); any longer, and audiences tend to move on.

The fans were promised a sequel in three years. Now, deliver on that promise. Make it happen.

115. Jack - July 2, 2011

97. You’re upset about the delay and you want them to do MORE extra projects? ;).

116. Jack - July 2, 2011

109. To save production time, they should allow actors to look at cue cards.

Wait, what?

117. Aurore - July 2, 2011

110.”That’s a pretty depressing assessment. But surely there were other TV shows and films that took the place of your affection for “THE ONE TRUE STAR TREK™”? :-}”

You’re hilarious !

What I meant , of course , was, that , in my opinion, there were no STAR TREK series, movies, that were worth my attention , Christopher.

I, personally, see nothing depressing in such an assessment ; I was not going to force myself into liking *Star Trek* shows I had no interest in watching , for instance ( not saying that was what you were implying, I’m merely answering your query.).

:))

118. sean - July 2, 2011

#58

“Bring back the geniuses who brought us such masterworks as First Contact and Nemesis. Star Trek is supposed to be deep and meaningful. Now those were some thinking man’s movies!”

Haha. Great joke! I nearly shot milk out my nose.

119. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 2, 2011

We really should be saving the more obnoxious of these posts for future use. It would be great fun to throw their own words back in their faces and have a long record of their own lack of credibility. They just seem so certain we’re going to forget everything they’ve said.

We are not.

120. Christopher Roberts - July 2, 2011

115. I see what you mean. Too many projects going on as it is. But you know, I had thought about this while the last movie was going on. You got Star Trek sets standing in a studio (which doesn’t happen all that often these days compared to the good old days). Why not use them for more than one production. I mean they could’ve redressed the Kelvin set more than just for the Kobayashi Maru simulator. A 22nd Century starship with a few extra tweeks. Same corridor sets Robau walked along. Hire Scott Bakula for ten days. Practically writes itself.

121. Hugh Hoyland - July 2, 2011

I’m not gonna complain to much because it aint gonna make em get it done any faster.

I just hope we get some sort of firm answer soon so we know where we stand either way. :]

122. TonyD - July 2, 2011

While I’m all for taking all time to do it right, it is kind of sad that after 3 years they still don’t have anything definitive set up. Michael Bay was able to do Transformers 3 (in native 3D no less) in that time frame while Trek is still spinning its wheels in the script-writing stage. I’d call it a case of all the creative people involved just spreading themselves too thin.

123. "Check the Circuit!" - July 2, 2011

Can’t fault the creative team for “spreading themselves too thin.” You know how it works in Hollywood in most cases. Flavor of the month. Fame is fleeting. They should take advantage of being in demand while they can. 10 years from now, they may be struggling to find a job. (I hope that’s not the case.) Remember, they’re managing careers…not Trek fan’s expectations.

The sad fact is, if you get too close to Star Trek as an actor or on the creative side, Hollywood doesn’t take you seriously. The way to survive seems to be to diversify.

And unlike many of us here, they have interests outside of Trek. Let ‘em do their thing. More power to them.

At the end of the day, make a good Star Trek movie that’s worth the wait. People will come.

124. Alec - July 2, 2011

Take your time, Supreme Court. We’ve had too much quick, rubbish Trek: VGR; ENT; TNG films. Take your time to get it right. Trek is still recovering from all this. It’s not quite reached that height of popularity that it can, now that it’s been given a proper budget and targeted more at the mainstream and not at fans of a TV show that went off the air well over a decade ago.

I would happily wait a little longer, provided it’s another good film.

125. Bill Peters - July 2, 2011

57 I think Production has all ready started Somewhat, I mean the Video game coming out has the Voice Actors lined up so I think work is Starting without them saying so. By the way I do think that before Oct 2012 is Respectable, I may be wrong but I think Paramount will not back down.

126. Bruce Banner - July 2, 2011

Perhaps the wait for the sequel is being done on purpose, so that this cast of actors have time to work on other projects. That way they aren’t typecast and unemployable after their time with Trek comes to an end.

If you never see Pine doing a convention (down the road), then I think my point will have been proven correct. This group of actors does not intend to depend on Trek conventions for their income, they want work acting in movies and TV.

127. dmduncan - July 2, 2011

122: “Michael Bay was able to do Transformers 3 (in native 3D no less) in that time frame while Trek is still spinning its wheels in the script-writing stage.”

And if they wanted Star Trek on the same level as Transformers I’m sure they could have whipped up a sequel just as fast.

So yeah, rush the sequel regardless of readiness, because we all know that the real payoff for a lot of Trekkies is not having a good movie, but in the satisfaction of being able to berate the production team on Trekmovie for producing a dud.

Bob and team are smarter than that. In fact, I lucked out finding some footage on YouTube of Bob expertly handling a couple of impatient Trek fans that proves the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ne4v7Ojm1M&feature=related

128. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 2, 2011

#119. DeShonn Steinblatt …

Yes… people who are just theorizing… and feel entitled to accuse me of being “spamming”… just because I repeated the same thing that was in the
article of AP … may be easier to hit on me… but I do not forget easily!!!

:-) :-)

129. VulcanFilmCritic - July 2, 2011

I’ve never understood what people are referring to when they say “Star Trek fans.” They seem to want to lump us all into this one group. Usually they mean the truly dedicated fan who attends conventions, maybe buys a book or two, is involved with gaming, etc. Let’s call this fan group the Inner Core.

What the Powers That Be seem not to realize is that we are a heterogeneous group. At the height of the series’ popularity, the audience for any of the franchises was estimated at anywhere from 20,000,000 to 33,000,000 (near network numbers.) But not all of these people include the kinds of fans parodied in movies like “Galaxy Quest,” (the Inner Core.)

But Star Trek fans also include: Dr. Martin Luther King, Angelina Jolie, newscaster Anne Curry, Christian Slater, Eddie Murphy and the president of the United States. I’ve met many many truly obsessed fans in the worlds of medicine and education. These people are not all that visible, and the principal actors were often surprised to find out who their fans were. But their devotion to Trek is almost as strong as that of the Inner Core. They just don’t plan their lives around it. Let’s call this fan group the Solid Center.

Lastly there are those who like Star Trek but they are kind of fickle; they may or may not show up, depending on the quality of the product. These are people like ME. I didn’t even know there was a “Star Trek V” and a “Star Trek VI” until 2009, because I had walked away from it, for many years. And I, like many of my peers, had no intention of seeing the new movie.
What got me in the theater was word of mouth and the near-miraculous appearance of Leonard NImoy. Let’s call this group, the Outer Rind. (I guess I’ve slipped into the Inner Core since 2009, though.)

Then there is everybody else, who may show up to a Star Trek movie because it is just a well-made, entertaining movie. Lets’ call this group, Everybody Else.

The people you can take for granted are the Inner Core and the Solid Center. They will be there, no matter what.

But the big numbers are in the Outer Rind and Everybody Else. That is who “Star Trek” (2009) was made for. I guess the feeling is: the Outer Rind and Everybody Else just don’t care when this movie gets made. So just make a good movie. Period. Whenever. Period.

130. trekker 5 - July 2, 2011

#101,Aurore,I have been a fan of Trek all my life,but I’ve only been a Trekker for 3,going on 4 years now,I mean,before Trek 09 I hadn’t seen a Trek movie on the big screen,I was one of those’I’ll watch it on TV and say I like it but I get Spock and Kirk mixed up’ kind of people. I’m not like that now you know :) Now I can not only tell them apart,but everything else about them too!! :) Thats a reason why I’m so ready for the next Trek,because the frist one made me a Trekker!! And as for the ST:NG movies,I agree with you in that I didn’t care for any of them much,but I liked the show,if only for the acting of the one Sir Patrick! :)

131. CmdrR - July 2, 2011

Make a good movie you’ll want to show to your grandkids.
Because you wil be.
Said another way, Generations is still drawing fire in these forums after 17 years (and counting.)
Don’t blow it, just to make some arbitrary deadline. The suits will make their bucks… and many more of them if we LOVE this film.

132. Red Dead Ryan - July 2, 2011

#82.

No, this was a guy who I ran into in Victoria’s Inner Harbour on Canada Day. We were joking about how he should have a walk-on cameo in the sequel where he passes NuSpock who sees him, shakes his head in confusion/bemusement and says, “Nah!”. Also, there was a violinist Darth Vader nearby.

133. N - July 2, 2011

I like your post 129, I’m a far cry your stereotypical Star Trek fan, I love DS9, VOY, ENT and I do enjoy the TNG series and movies, I feel so young (and sometimes thin) compared to the expectation of a Trekkie, or sometimes any sci-fi fan for that matter. I guess there’s something to be said for IDIC.

134. Opcode - July 2, 2011

I wouldn’t have a problem with the 4 years wait if they were using all that time to make a better movie, which isn’t the case. Those guys basically spent the last 2.5 years doing something else and just now are starting to seriously give the new movie some thought. Supposing the movie gets released by the end of 2012, that would be the usual 1.5 years production time, which means we would be watching the new movie this year had they started right after the first one.
I say, Paramount, get a new team. There are lots of talented people in Hollywood, people that understand and care a lot more about ST than the current team. And that don’t have overbooked schedules.

135. Ian - July 2, 2011

HAAHAH I knew it would get delayed. I knew it!!!

I am surprised that Paramount didn’t rush it and slap it together like Star Trek V. Doesn’t matter to me the last one was pretty lame story wise and I am sure since they have the same writers there will be ZERO substance this time around.

All HAIL the Hobbit!

By the way, the movie is ST XII. NOT ST 2. We already had that.

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

JJ has only directed one real blockbuster, Star Trek, meanwhile MI3 didnt make its budget back and Super 8 wont even make what MI3 made 5 years ago.

Honestly Brian Singer needs to be allowed to make a trek film, the guy is a great film maker and he understands Trek, and can make a great movie and doesnt play games. are all of his movies perfect NO, but what director can say all their movies are, definately not JJ Abrams.

If not Singer than find someone else who is great not only in the Sci Fi field but other genres as well.

it doesnt take months and months and months to write a awesome script, some of the best movies ever made were written in a few weeks time. All this waiting does is ensure that when it does get released if it doesnt live up to trek XI that it will be the death knell for film versions of Trek since peope will be soo fed up with having to have waited 4 plus years for something that ends up being not good.

I dont know perhaps i need to take a few months break from visiting this site(which i like the site by the way) or reading any trek related news stories just because i think that seeing articles every few days about the lack of progress on the movie is what is really making it frustrating. maybe for myself if I just step back and not keep upto date on the lack of progress It wont bother me so much.

not sure how long I wll keep this up since this is a great site but its worth a shot.

137. Bruce Banner - July 2, 2011

@134 There is a reason these guys are busy. Think about it this way. Two restaurants on opposite sides of the street. One is packed, the other almost empty. Would you rather wait at the busy place to see if its worth it, or just go in the empty place and take what they give you. @136 Thats what happend to SINGERMAN RETURNS.

138. sean - July 2, 2011

#136

MI3 made $400 million. Star Trek actually made less on a slightly higher budget. If Star Trek was a blockbuster, so was MI3. Super 8 had a budget of 50 million, and has already made 150 million. I’m not sure how either of these could be considered failures.

139. Truth - July 2, 2011

@77

His point is that the McD’s “ad campaign” analogy doesn’t work, because you already paid for their product and received it. ST09 was your Big Mac– you paid for this, and you received it. You have not paid for any other product that you are currently waiting to receive. Paying for ST09 didn’t guarantee a sequel. They owe nothing to us, but still we would really like to see a sequel. And so they are working on developing it. We have no say in this process (we are too busy writing on a Star Trek message board).

“You have the right to wait for your food” implies that you purchased food that you are not receiving– and they are making you wait for it. You have nothing invested in seeing the sequel. You just want to see it because you remember that the last thing you bought from them was really good– but at the moment it is not for sale. So you have to wait until it is. You’re not waiting for food you paid for, but waiting for McDonalds to open for business again as it develops its new menu.

140. Odkin - July 2, 2011

Super 8 was such a bomb that I now give the unwisely delayed Trek a 25% chance of getting put in turnaround.

141. Ray - July 2, 2011

#136 – “JJ has only directed one real blockbuster, Star Trek, meanwhile MI3 didnt make its budget back and Super 8 wont even make what MI3 made 5 years ago. ”

I think you need to define “blockbuster” because STAR TREK & MI:3 made about 2.5-times its budget in box office revenue, and SUPER 8 has already made 3-times its budget in some four weeks, and it is still in the top 10 US domestic and has not opened everywhere internationally, so it has the potential to make 4 or 5 times its budget easily.

Check out the figures at BoxOfficeMojo and you can review JJ Abrams’ performance in terms of revenue as a director or producer.

I don’t know what Hollywood considers blockbuster-status. I always assumed it was $500M+ in performance revenue. If that’s true, he’s made no blockbusters but he has made money as a director and that’s what counts at the end of the day, yes?

142. Tom - July 2, 2011

I totally understand the delay. It really is taking long to get Shatner in the movie despite what he says

143. N - July 2, 2011

Bryan Singer would be a great choice for director, the delay was probably because JJ wanted to do his stupid spielbeerg side project. I imagine if they had a confirmed director (be it JJ or anyone else) then everything would have moved a lot quicker and a lot smoother.

Sometimes it sounds like “still working on the script” is just “we want JJ so we’ll wait”

144. Basement Blogger - July 2, 2011

@ 139 Truth

You miscontrue my point.. Go back to where Devon responds to my post @ 26. I said fans have a right to be unhappy. Devon repsonded by saying, “They also have a right to wait..” @ 36

My McDonalds’ comment was to show how illogical that “right to wait” comment was. And it wasn’t about paying for the food and waiting for it. I did not say we had any money invested in Star Trek.. I mean think about this logically and don’t try to bend it like a pretzel.. But let’s see what I really meant.

So let’s pretend we’re running a fancy restaurant.. And let’s pretend that a customer comes into the door and hasn’t paid for his food. You think of an ad campaign, “You have the right to wait.” in a big sign posted above the door and printed on the menus. Do you think the customer will be excited, happy and encouraged to eat at our place? I will bet ten quatloos that our ad campaign will be a big mistake for our business.

But let’s use a movie example and one that is closer to Star Trek. You and I run MGM. Our big franchise is the James Bond. We are in bankruptcy, so we don’t know when the next Bond movie is coming out. You convince me to run an ad campaign that says to Bond fans, “You have a right to wait.” I would again bet ten quatloos that our campaign to keep interest in James Bond by lecturing the fans that they have “a right to wait” will turn them off. In fact it’s kind of condescending to the fans. So do you really think telling fans of our Bond franchise, “You have the right to wait” will encourage them to get excited and come to our new Bond movie whenever it comes out?

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

138 Domesticly MI3 made less than its production budget, and that doesnt even take into account the Marketing budget.
Super 8 did not cost only 50 million to make, just take a look at the movie and you can tell that its plain as day, alot of people in the industry have said that the number was low balled to save face on what would have been a high profile bomb.
Super 8 has only made 107 million dollars domesticly, at the end of the day what the movie does domesticly and on home video is what the studios really take into account even to this very day.
but hey what do i know ive only worked in theatrical exhibition end of the industry for over 2 decades.

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

141
your talking worldwide, and while world box office gross is gaining more importance, at the end of the day still what really matters to the studios is domestic grosses. and as i said MI 3 didnt even make the amount of its production budget. (and dont get me wrong i love MI 3) super 8 budget has been widely known to be extremely low balled by Paramount to save face, heck even a layman who has no experience in the industry can look at that film and tell it cost way more than 50 million dollars.

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

In anycase i really am done commenting on this now, Ill check back on the site in 6 months maybe then we will have some real news and just speculation and nothingness.
have fun everyone.

148. Disinvited - July 2, 2011

#131. CmdrR on July 2, 2011 wrote

“Make a good movie you’ll want to show to your grandkids.”

I’m sure Paramount’s targeted teen demographic, at this point, largely feels as if it’s going to be a good movie that they WILL watch in premier with their grandchildren.

It’s one of those human truisms that time appears to travel much more slowly for the young than oldsters such as myself.

149. N - July 2, 2011

Star Trek seems to be getting the Shaft. Before you know it these actors will be to old for the parts. Its a movie series not a tv series.

150. N - July 2, 2011

Delaying ST this time has nothing to do with getting it right. It has to do with the people involved doing other projects. I wouldn’t have a problem if they were almost finished but thought they need more tweaking but heck this movie is just being delayed for other projects. Its not a top priority for all involved.

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

one last thought, then bye bye for a long time.
Those saying that people whining sound like they are entitled.
Guess what Fans have earned the right to feel entitled, its their money, that is reason why people in the industry have a job to begin with.
without Fans going to see the final product JJ and everyone else in the movie industry right on down the line to the ticket taker at the theatre door, wouldnt even have a job.
you spend 15.00-18.75 sometimes even more now on a movie ticket, then yeah you darn well have earned the right to speak your mind on it.

ok i am done see you in atleast 6 months (for real i promise this time lol)

152. VulcanFilmCritic - July 2, 2011

133. Well, N, here’s another interesting factoid: The majority of Star Trek fans self-identify as primarily TNG fans, so what does that mean for a TOS-reboot?

And I agree, some aging on the part of the principal actors is to be expected.
Witness the rapid aging of Mark Hamill in the first three “Star Wars” movies. Also Mr. Nimoy aged a bit and Mr. Shatner got balder and struggled with his weight just within the three seasons of TOS.

Of course, the script will be written to accommodate a more mature crew. We can’t play around at Starfleet Academy forever.

153. MJ - July 2, 2011

#131. “Make a good movie you’ll want to show to your grandkids.”

That is the problem — by the time this movie finally comes out, my kids will be all grown up, and I’ll be able to actually see it opening night with my future grand-kids. LOL

154. MJ - July 2, 2011

@127. What’s so wrong with new Transformers movie — saw it today and it was the best of the three, and better than any of the comic book movies I’ve seen this year. For what it is (special effects driven summer popcorn fun for 12 year old boys), it is very good and a lot of fun. And the use of 3D was the best to date outside of Avatar.

They all can’t be bicycle art films, DM. :-)

155. Brandon - July 2, 2011

I’ll say this for anyone thinking Dec 2012 is a good idea for release. The Lord of the Rings trilogy won 11 Oscars. Star Trek got one and it wasn’t for story, director or special effects….It was for make up. So I say let ‘em take their time I don’t want to see the franchise get ripped a new one!

156. Vultan - July 2, 2011

#152

Mark Hamill’s aging through the Star Wars trilogy had quite a lot to do with a bad car accident he suffered near the end of production of A New Hope. If I recall correctly, he had to have reconstructive surgery on his face. And this is believed by some fans to be the main reason for the creature attacking him at the beginning of Empire Strikes Back, to “explain” in-universe his looking noticably different from the first film.

It’s similar to what Lucas and Spielberg later did in Last Crusade to explain Harrison Ford’s famous chin scar (also from a car accident).

Anyway, here’s hoping the Supreme Court doesn’t have to “explain” any “scars of the stars” in future Trek movies. :0

157. SoonerDave - July 2, 2011

Geez, formalize the announcement and get on with it already. That Paramount is willing to the rumor mill churn on this is just a further demonstration that the powers running the show at Paramount don’t give a rat’s backside about Trek. It’s been allowed to backslide to the bottom of everyone’s priority list, right into oblivion.

We have this awesome reboot at hand, some of the greatest momentum in Trek’s history, and the studio (among others) just whiffs on it – worse still is that no one genuinely seems to care.

This sucks.

158. Ray - July 2, 2011

#146 – “while world box office gross is gaining more importance, at the end of the day still what really matters to the studios is domestic grosses”

That’s not true. Money is money, that’s all that is central, no matter where the theater is located showing the film – whether we are talking about Beijing, China or Peoria, IL, Sydney, Aust. or Odessa, TX.

159. Gary Makin - July 2, 2011

Wow, this thread is long.

160. Voice of Reason - July 2, 2011

My opinions only:

1. If the movie is pushed to Summer 2013 it will be 4 years time
2. In that time.. there is no Trek on TV or big screen
3. New movie will be 90 minutes or so… maybe 120 max
4. Anyone that thinks releasing 90 minute of Trek every 4 years is in any way, shape or form “good” for Trek is nuts!
5. If they are going to delay it to 2013… they would be better served to film back to back movies which could then be released in 2013 and 2014. This would save money, keep the crew together, and stop the “aging” of actors (Let me honest.. Yelchin is going to age 4 years by the time the next movie comes.. on their current schedule he will be 27 or 28 by the time a 3rd movie was done. Remember, Chekov was 17 in the movie…). It would also allow them to capitalize on any momentum generated from the next movie.

161. VulcanFilmCritic - July 2, 2011

156. With all due respect Vultan, a receding hairline, paunchy jowls, bags under the eyes and weight gain are NOT the result of facial reconstructive surgery for trauma. Not even BAD facial reconstructive surgery can do that. But the normal aging process can.
Just look at the results for Mark Hamill in Google Image. Has he had an automobile accident every year since 1997?
Here’s hoping Chris Pine fares somewhat better.

162. VulcanFilmCritic - July 2, 2011

Sorry I meant 1977.

163. Red Dead Ryan - July 2, 2011

I find it funny how some people here are comparing restaurants with movies. They’re not even remotely related, except for providing services, which are completely different themselves. You go to a restaurant to EAT, which is important to keep you going. Now, you got many different options of eating, and where. You can also stay home. But if you do go out to a particular restaurant and they don’t give you what you want, are late, or don’t cook your food properly, you have the RIGHT to complain, get your money back, and go somewhere else.

Movies, on the other hand, work a lot differently. We all go in knowing that there’s a chance that we won’t like the film we paid to see, or that it won’t live up to expectations. Once you pay for the ticket and popcorn and take your seat, there is no going back. If the movie stinks, then its a waste of however much you paid. You took a risk and lost. You can’t ask for your money back. You don’t have the right to complain to the manager. So you shrug it off. On the other hand, if the movie ended up meeting or exceeding your expectations, then it was worth it. And you may end up going back several more times.

On the other side of the coin, studios take an enormous financial risk on making big-budgeted blockbusters. Nobody knows how well a particular blockbuster (or low budget art film, for that matter) will do in theatres until the opening weekend numbers are released. Add to that the new competition arriving for several weeks/months the movie is in theatres which erodes revenue every week the movie is out.

At the end of the day, when you go see a movie, you pay the studio to entertain you. When you go to a restaurant, you pay to EAT, which is essential in the long run for survival, unlike seeing a movie. The risk is also greater at a restaurant, where you can get food poisoning, or bad service. A bad movie is merely superficial. So is a delayed film in comparison to a late meal.

One should definitely complain when their meal is 40 minutes late at a restaurant, but complaing about a movie getting delayed that has no real benefits outside of entertaining you is quite silly and superficial.

164. Red Dead Ryan - July 2, 2011

compaing=complaining

DAMN TYPOS!!

165. Vultan - July 2, 2011

#161

Oooo… kay, maybe we watched different movies… but Hamill looked (to me) to be in pretty good shape in Return of the Jedi. Plus, I believe those three movies weren’t meant to be set within the same year, so… I guess aging happens in other galaxies, too!

166. Vultan - July 2, 2011

#163

I think they were using restaurants-as-movies in a metaphorical sense, as relating to the business/customer relationship. Maybe the circus coming to town would have been a better example. ;)

167. Red Dead Ryan - July 2, 2011

#166.

Still doesn’t make any sense. Restaurants are a different kind of business from show business. How people interact with both differ as well.

The food/restaurant business is more substantial in the risks they take, as well as the risks people take going to them. Restaurants have more to lose if they don’t please their customers.

Show business is entirely superficial, except for the studios’ bottom line. People have little to lose going to a movie, and studios, can withstand several duds if they got a number of other films that are hits.

Plus its easier to cook a great meal than it is to make a great script. One can taste-test and add spices to a meal to enhance its flavor, but a movie script can have the best of ideas, intentions, and story but still not resonate with audiences.

I think you are right about the circus coming to town being a better example. A circus can get delayed for a number of reasons. Such as the arena not being ready, animals getting sick or trampling on/attacking clowns, or elephants having bad diarrhea. :-)

168. Harry Ballz - July 2, 2011

Speaking of bad diarrhea, has anyone seen the latest Transformers movie?

169. Red Dead Ryan - July 2, 2011

I considered going to “Transformers 3″ but went to see “X-Men: First Class” again. Enjoyed it as much as the first time.

170. Devon - July 2, 2011

“you spend 15.00-18.75 sometimes even more now on a movie ticket, then yeah you darn well have earned the right to speak your mind on it.”

We’re not talking about the 2009 movie. But bye bye for a while.

171. Vultan - July 2, 2011

#168

Good one, Harry! :D

#169

And good choice, RDR! I’ve been considering going to see X-Men a second time, too. It’s so far my favorite movie of 2011. Hope I’ll be able to say the same about Captain America. Considering Joe Johnston’s record, it can go either way. Maybe—just maybe—he had the same mindset as when he directed The Rocketeer. Oh, and according to screenrant, he’s also thinking about a sequel to the old flying “hood ornament.” Link:

http://screenrant.com/captain-america-joe-johnston-rocketeer-2-benm-121310/

172. Mel - July 2, 2011

If they don’t make the movies faster, the male actors need all toupees, when they made the 3rd movie! Personally I am also hoping, that they make more than three movies with the current actors. That definitely won’t happen, when they are old and grey!

173. sean - July 2, 2011

#146

You have that backwards. Worldwide grosses are what most studios watch, not domestic. Thus why Paramount was concerned that most of Trek’s grosses were domestic, whereas most blockbuster type films make the majority of their money overseas.

174. Charla - July 2, 2011

I admit I am disheartened at this constant barrage of information regarding how Trek is going to be put on hold. I used to come here often and I still come here probably once every 1-2 weeks, but with all this talk, I admit I am myself losing interest in the topic of the release date.

All this talk just seems to show where Paramounts priorities are as well as JJ’s, (I don’t want to include the writer’s because they seem happy to write it, but I think even this continual topic is growing old with Bob. It seems he isn’t on as much but I was hoping it was because he is writing the sequel- or maybe he thinks we are just a bunch of lunatics! LOL (He’s had to put up with alot of negativity but has most always been kind to respond too. )

I guess I would like for someone to come out and just tell us trekkers that yes, it is going to be delayed, end of story. I have held out my belief that it was going to be on time throughout, but with each visit here, my confidence is waning as well as my interest.

Of course I will be the first in line on opening day when it does come out- that won’t change. But being put off again the second time for the second movie sends signals to me that getting Trek out in a timely manner is not paramount to those in control of the movies release. (pardon the paramount pun)

So, in summary, I would like to see someone from the powers that be come forward and have the kahuna’s (sp?) to tell us EXACTLY what is going on. I will support them no matter what the decision, as I said above, I would be among the first to see the film, but I do believe we deserve to know when it will be released, don’t need any reasons why if there is a delay, just tell us when to expect it, and stick to it.

It’s like the dates where the guy tells the girl after what was thought of as a great time, “I’ll call you” and you never hear from them for many months…if ever…. (And no, thankfully, this hasn’t happened to me but now I know the feeling! – ditched I guess??)

We have been in limbo long enough.

Ok. Life is calling! Have a safe, and great holiday weekend everyone!

175. MJ - July 2, 2011

@174 “So, in summary, I would like to see someone from the powers that be come forward and have the kahuna’s (sp?) to tell us EXACTLY what is going on. I will support them no matter what the decision, as I said above, I would be among the first to see the film, but I do believe we deserve to know when it will be released, don’t need any reasons why if there is a delay, just tell us when to expect it, and stick to it.”

Charla, I completely agreed with you. This is getting ridiculous!!!

176. Brett Campbell - July 2, 2011

14 – “Brad Pitt is in a zombie flick? Fascinating.”

It will be fascinating to watch the zombies out-act him.

177. Brett Campbell - July 2, 2011

156 – “Mark Hamill’s aging through the Star Wars trilogy had quite a lot to do with a bad car accident he suffered near the end of production of A New Hope.”

It wasn’t an accident. It was a suicide attempt.

178. Brett Campbell - July 2, 2011

Well, maybe I’m wrong. I often am. That’s why I don’t get married — I don’t need a wife to tell me how wrong I am all the time.

I checked on line, and most sites call Hamill’s car crash an accident. But I seem to recall reading an interview with him over thirty years ago, and that he said it was a suicide attempt. Does that ring a bell for anyone else?

179. Harry Ballz - July 2, 2011

177.

What proof do you have of a suicide attempt?

180. Harry Ballz - July 2, 2011

178.

No, it doesn’t.

181. Vultan - July 2, 2011

#177

Where did you get that?
Source please….

182. Brett Campbell - July 2, 2011

Harry — it was a long time ago. And I think that it might have been in a “People” magazine. Maybe it was tabloid fodder; I can’t recall. But I seem to remember his being quoted that he was depressed that he was locked in a contract for a TV show just prior to the success of “Star Wars.”

It may be faulty memory on my part, or bad journalism on the part of a publisher. Lots of untrue stories reported in Hollywood press. But I seem to recall reading it just prior to “Empire Strikes Back” release. I usually have a pretty good memory, and I don’t think it was something I simply made up. But I don’t find anything on the ‘net now to substantiate it. So maybe I read some bogus story.

183. Jason - July 2, 2011

isn’t December 2012 also going against the next superman, on top of the hobbit and james bond

184. Brett Campbell - July 3, 2011

180 & 181 – Sorry to have been so brash in pronouncing it a suicide attempt. I just vaguely recall reading it somewhere — it over three decades ago. I should have said that there had been some rumors of it. Better still, I should have kept my mouth shut. Did not mean to kick a hornets’ nest.

185. Chasco - July 3, 2011

#80 and #135 – STAR TREK 12 not 2

Thanks, I was beginning to think I was the only one getting annoyed by the ‘Star Trek 2′ stuff.
Star Trek 2 = ‘Wrath of Khan’

And if Star Trek TWELVE is even half as good as that, I’ll be content.

186. Kirk, James T. - July 3, 2011

It’s Star Trek 2! The second instalment of a brand new version of the Star Trek brand.

187. VulcanFilmCritic - July 3, 2011

Since I started looking back at montages of the stars, I noticed that a good predictor of how someone ages in the future might be predicted by how they’ve aged in the past, even if that past includes the teen ages.
Those actors who hardly seem to age show an almost monotonous string of images. Only their clothing reflects what year it is. For example, Matt Damon.

So I thought it might be morbidly interesting to speculate on which actors are going to show the most wear and tear as a result of this snail-paced franchise.

Chis Pine, like Matt Damon, shows a remarkable monotony of his images (even though his montage covers a shorter time period than Mr. Damon’s.)
Still I would expect him to show the same kind of aging. He’s 31 now and a little aging would in fact be a good thing as he hopefully evolves from sociopath/brat into a captain we can believe in.

Mr. Quinto, however, I worry a little about. His recent images show a tendency towards a squarer, fatter face. I think I would be important for him to maintain a long, skinny face without jowls for as long as possible. Not a problem for Mr. Nimoy who has always had so little fat in his face that his skull was clearly visible. Vulcans age, but they enjoy tremendous longevity. The sagging, wrinkled skin of Nimoy was acceptable, but jowls are not.

Karl Urban, 39, shows a very interesting pattern of aging. When he was young, he had a very round face which is maturing quite nicely into an attractive cragginess. Always a plus for the cranky Dr. MCoy but watch out for the development of a double chin.

Zoe Saldana, 33, is a classic beauty with great bone structure. She is expected to live up to Gene Roddenberry’s original description of Lt. Uhura as a woman who looks the same between the ages of 20 and 50. Being a Latina of African descent, she has a genetic advantage. Only the hormonal shifts of pregnancy could possibly derail her ascent to challenge Halle Berry’s Timeless Beauty status. Also drug abuse or alcoholism could affect her looks a la Whitney Houston.

One of the actors that I expect to age the most over the years is Simon Pegg. He is 41 years old now but he looks a little older. His image page shows an evolution of a somewhat baby-ish face directly to middle age. In addition, he has suffered a tremendous loss of hair. I don’t suppose Starfleet regulations will allow the engineer to wear a hat.

The other actor who might have some problems is Anton Yeltchin. I suspect that it may be difficult to maintain the Boy-Wonder type of persona for long. His montage shows maturation to a type of elfin adult like Joel Grey or Tobey Macguire. But thinning hair is also expected to be a problem, and his haircut does not allow for a Monkees style “rug.”
He’s only 22. Yikes! I’d be seriously considering some backfill of those receding temporal areas with microplugs. Soon.

John Cho wins the contest for successful aging. My God, he’s 39! However, another 8 years (assuming two more movies) might be pushing it.

188. Will_H - July 3, 2011

While I don’t think things should be rushed, it seems like they’re moving at such a snail’s pace right now that some deadline pressure might do some good.

189. Khan 2.0 - July 3, 2011

187 – wow. maybe they should just fire everyone and start again eh?

190. Sebastian S. - July 3, 2011

Frankly, if World War Z is half as engaging as the book and audiobook (a full cast recording), then I’m more excited about that project at this point.

The people behind Star Trek have flitted away too much time, energy and resources on other, seemingly less meaningful (to us, anyway) projects and that indicates (to me) a general lack of emotional investment to the Star Trek franchise; a shame really, as ST09 was really exceptional. But the public has a short memory. And all of that enthusiasm for ST09 could easily wane if the wait’s too long for the next one. Strike while the iron’s hot.

But, what’s done is done; they might as well take their time on it now (no one loves a rush job). I just hope these delays will whet the public’s appetite, and not decrease it. If they’re going to make this new series a trilogy? Then commit to it body and soul; no more multitudinous sideline projects that’ll only divert from that goal (the cast won’t stay their current ages forever, you know….).

WWZ however (if done right) has the potential to be one of the greatest zombie projects ever; right up with AMC’s “Walking Dead” (which is, IMO, the most exciting show since the reboot of Battlestar Galactica in 2003).
That book was truly amazing; hope the movie’s even half as good.

191. Christopher Roberts - July 3, 2011

Actors play younger than themselves all the time. The sequel could open with just six months having passed since the first film, I doubt many wouldn’t be able to suspend their disbelief.

192. ObiWanCon - July 3, 2011

I’m having a good laugh at all the talk about the actors getting old, because when I think back to a lot of people on the net saying that Star Trek 2009 was going to be Star Trek 90210, because the actors were too young so to now have people saying there to old is hilarious.

193. N - July 3, 2011

that was a little confusing; 149 and 150 aren’t me, maybe I should change name when I comment here

194. dmduncan - July 3, 2011

Never ever heard of a Mark Hamill suicide attempt. I’d think that’d be big news.

195. VulcanFilmCritic - July 3, 2011

192 ObiWanCon. I’m laughing too. It’s the characters who are supposed to be young, not the actors. You have guys and gals in their 30′s playing Starfleet cadets.
As someone who has been this age and blown way past it, I can tell you, age has a way of blindsiding you. Just when you think you’re going to be spared, BLAMO!
But maybe that was the plan anyway. Start with actors who could convincingly play young versions of themselves for the origins story and then bring them into the TOS time-frame.
When you think about TOS, remember what Nimoy’s Spock looked like in the first pilot. Which was later re-labelled as Spock 11 years ago. He does have certain youthful exuberance compared to the cool character he eventually settled on.

196. Charla - July 3, 2011

192- I remember that! People also must consider that the make up dept. does wonders for any flaws on the actors, and if that isn’t enough, there is always computer programs that will take away or add just the right touches.

197. Khan 2.0 - July 3, 2011

maybe its all a big bluff that its not ready and the script is already done and has been for a while and they are going to start secretly filming any day now under something like ‘Blue Harvest’ for the summer 2012 release date. but everyrthing will be secret until someone leaks out whats happening either by cellphone pic or AICN report.

198. NX01 - July 3, 2011

I want a good Sequel, but they just should have been working on it already. I am disappointed and really bumbed out. It’s been 2 years and these people are not getting any younger.

Thank God we have James Cawley and phase 2 to fill the empty Star Trek void in our lives.

199. Ivory - July 3, 2011

Take your time and make a great movie rather than a half baked sequel like we have seen so many times before. These guys are in demand for a reason. A few months one way or the other is insignificant.

200. Brett Campbell - July 3, 2011

194 – Again, perhaps “tabloidish” crap I read over 30 years ago, and can’t recall where I did so. Subject is perhaps best dropped.

201. Christopher Roberts - July 3, 2011

194. & 200. He was involved in a car accident wasn’t he? Or am I making that up? Between Star Wars and TESB, he acquired a few scars they covered up with make-up on camera. Again… I’m not that big of a fan to know. Just an observation.

202. Red Dead Ryan - July 3, 2011

Mark Hamill was in a car accident just before “The Empire Strikes Back”. I don’t think it was a suicide attempt because I would think he would have opened up about it by now if that was the case. Whenever he talks about the “Star Wars” years, he has nothing but fond memories.

203. P Technobabble - July 3, 2011

As Capt. Kirk once said, “You don’t wake up one day and say ‘Today I will be brilliant’.” You can’t rush creativity, whether it takes a year, two years, four years, whatever.
Just because the script is taking longer than expected does not mean the writers are incapable or imcompetent. I think if you simply factor in the committments to other projects and a serious desire to produce a fabulous Star Trek sequel, it is quite easy to understand why this project may have fallen behind. Truth is, we have NO idea of what is going on in the world of Abrams/Orci/Lindelof/Kurtzman, etc., other than to make guesses and for some people to moan and groan.
As Spock once said, “You must have faith that the universe will unfold as it should.” I think that applies to this situation quite nicely.
I’m sure the guys are doing their very best to give us their very best…

204. Sebastian S. - July 3, 2011

#202.

I recall an old interview around that time (can’t remember where) where Hamill said he’d rolled his BMW into a meridian or something like that (I don’t remember any mention of drugs, alcohol, or suicide attempt). It actually happened during the post-production phase of the first Star Wars movie (1977). There were a couple of quick pick up shots of Luke from a distance that were done with a double (that piece of info came from “The Making of Star Wars” by J.W. Rinzler).

They then wrote in the Wampa attack in Empire Strikes Back to explain the change in his facial appearance (Hamill did need extensive plastic surgery; his nose and mouth are noticeably different from the 1st movie to the 2nd). But luckily his scars had largely healed by then (his ‘wampa scars’ were makeup).

Lucas had also gone on record (half-jokingly) that if Hamill had died, he would’ve gone on with another Jedi candidate for the sequel (the ‘other’ Yoda spoke of originally was NOT Leia, according to producer Gary Kurtz; he also maintained Leia was not originally intended to be Luke’s sister as well. Hence their creepy kissing).

As for Star Trek’s delays? My other concern is that the actor’s will get itchy feet waiting for shooting to commence and get committed to other projects; thus pushing ST:12′s start date back even further. This isn’t like the TOS cast, who were (largely by typecasting) more committed to each movie’s production schedule. The new cast were somewhat established before ST09 and will have rich careers beyond it I imagine.
Hopefully, it all works out… :-)

205. MJ - July 3, 2011

FYI to all — I have never read any conjecture in the mass media, from the late 1970′s through today, about Mark Hamill’s auto accident being a suicide attempt. And I can remember following pretty much everything written about Star Wars from the time the first movie was released through Return of the Jedi. This is absolute rubbish!

206. Khan 2.0 - July 3, 2011

in way of compensation for not having it out summer 12 i think we should get the following:

-Trek 3 out 2015 (or 2014 if filmed back to back with Trek 2)

-Shatner cameo (either as grandpa Kirk or JTK i dont mind)

-KHAN

-lengthy phaser beams(not star wars ‘blasts’)

-PStewart as Picards ancestor

207. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 3, 2011

Mark Hamill will only talk about SW if he is paid $50,000.
Justin Lee Collins did a documentary called BRING BACK STAR WARS as part of his “Bring Back” series.
“He was offered an interview with Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), albeit for the price of $50,000; after raising several thousand dollars Collins was unable to negotiate the price any lower, and was forced to abandon any hopes of meeting Hamill”
Justin also did a Bring Back Star Trek episode but I digress from the Star Wars theme that this thread has derailed onto ;-)

208. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 3, 2011

@ 206. Khan

after JJTrek 2 there will not be another Trek until 2016 which will be made to coincide will the 50th anniversary of Star Trek :/

209. Christopher Roberts - July 3, 2011

Perhaps we should just all bite the bullet and accept Star Trek HAS basically become Star Wars now… since nobody involved in the franchise seems to know or care otherwise.

It’s all about the midichlorans isn’t it? ;-)

210. Christopher Roberts - July 3, 2011

And that Wookie growling in the background, while Cadet Kirk was promoted to Enterprise Captain! :-}

211. MJ - July 3, 2011

Perhaps we should just bit the bullet that asinine posts like #208 are basically going to crop up every so often on this site. :-)

212. Paul - July 3, 2011

Slackers. :-P

213. mynameschris - July 3, 2011

I think they should make the best movie they can and if they need more time they should postpone, same goes for releasing it at the best time.

I dont think the new films will have the same problems as the older ones being released against big competition, my only worry would be the Hobbit.

If you think by taking other work and then possibly needing to put back the next Star Trek they are for some reason giving the fans ‘the middle finger’ I think you need to get over yourself.

214. richpit - July 3, 2011

I haven’t read any of the other posts here, but I’m saying that if they don’t make summer 2012, they better push out to Summer 2013. They better NOT relegate Trek to a “holiday release” movie. After that last movie, Trek is a summer blockbuster franchise, not a Christmas franchise.

215. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 3, 2011

@211 MJ
I’ll break this down for slow learners ;-)
Trek movies are now a “Tent pole” production for Paramount and the next JJ Trek movie will not come out until summer 13.
JJ is contracted for 3 Trek movies.
JJ then has 3 years to produce another Trek film to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Star Trek in 2016.

Whats the alternative way for Paramount to mark 50 years of Star Trek on film?

216. MJ - July 3, 2011

@213. That is ridiculous. Do you not realize that the two highest grossing movies of all time were released at Christmas?

217. mynameschris - July 3, 2011

When did I say dont release them at Christmas…or are you saying its bad to release them them?

All I’m saying is they should be released when they are finished to the best of the ability of the people behind it not to meet the expectations of when the fans demand it.

218. OMNI - July 3, 2011

Maybe this will give them time to make a REAL engine room instead of the brewery they used and teach JJ how to eliminate lens flares from the final cut. I’m sorry, but if it’s as lame as the last one, I hope that Paramount goes broke THIS summer. I found the last film painfully un-watchable. JJ’s pacing is like a frenetic child high on sugar. And the ship, well, it just sucked.

219. steve - July 3, 2011

Rush? Rush?
They don’t know the first thing about rush!
By the time this movie is made the stars will be so big they won’t be able to afford them for anymore movies.
Then it will be time for another…………………………………reboot
If Harry potter and Frodo can get their act together and make movies that have far bigger production values then why can’t JJ and the gang.

220. steve - July 3, 2011

Seriously, how hard can it be to rent out a budweiser factory and an apple store for a couple of months.

Star trek new voyages make star trek quicker than this lot

221. Tom - July 3, 2011

#206

Definitely down for a Shatner cameo. The boys have had 5 and a half years to figure out how to make that happen. Damn shame it hasn’t. Perhaps they should run a contest for best Shatner idea. One lucky fan gets to see the scene or scenes filmed

222. MJ - July 3, 2011

@216 “If Harry potter and Frodo can get their act together and make movies that have far bigger production values then why can’t JJ and the gang.”

Dude, that is probably the worst example you could use to contrast how slow Trek 2 is moving. The Hobbit production took 3 years to get a green light with multiple financing and organizational setbacks. LOL

223. MJ - July 3, 2011

@218. “Definitely down for a Shatner cameo.”

Oh Jesus, I thought we finally beyond the bring back fat shat nonsense. Sheesh, Scotty, please beam me off of this board. :-)

224. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 3, 2011

@ 215. MJ
your post is……..”asinine” .
This is why JJTREK 1 was delayed:
“Paramount chose to delay the release date from December 25, 2008 to May 2009, believing that the film would reach a wider audience.”

225. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 3, 2011

Star Trek Volume 2, Number 2

In a world with more than 14 million separate and unique issues of Spiderman #1 is that so hard to understand?

226. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 3, 2011

You cannot compare Harry Potter or the Hobbit to this Star Trek sequel. Both Harry Potter and the Hobbit were books first – they already had plots – beginnings, middles and endings. Star Trek does not.

BTW, the NZ Government is helping finance the making of the Hobbit films to the tune of about $100 million, through tax breaks and government organisations like Creative NZ.

As far as I can see that appears to be the only silver lining in all this, is that Chris Pine has never looked better – appears happier, more contented with some colour on him (he looked so pale sometimes). Just look at the pictures of him with William Shatner and the picture of Chris with JJ Abrams…

Without knowing anything about him really or how film shooting schedules work, it just seemed quite an ask for him to go from doing a full-on two month filming of Welcome to People playing the lead character to playing another lead character in a Jack Ryan movie and then onto Star Trek, playing another lead character. That is a lot of work.

My understanding is that filming is hard work, especially if you are a lead and I know he is young and healthy and certainly up for it but he is not superhuman. Of course, I am more than thrilled that Chris has been given these leading characters to play!

So this delay in doing the Jack Ryan movie might have been a little bit of a godsend for him as he was able to take some real time out – to unpack properly in his house he bought in Nov/Dec last year until after he had finished doing Welcome to People, spend some time in the Grecian sunshine, exploring the local LA sites (Runyon Canyon….) I googled Runyon Canyon btw – that’s how I learn geography…:)!

However, this man does need to be gainfully employed as “my captain”, Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise. Mr Abrams, Bob Orci et al, see to it, sooner rather than later!

Slightly less depressed, because of the way Chris Pine appears to be looking at the moment. Keep up the good work, Chris, in whatever it is you are doing!

Anthony Pascale – I hope you are able to let Chris Pine know that he can contribute here if he wants. We won’t bite! (Now, other posters – we will not bite CP, will we?)

227. Star Trek Sequel Fan Already - July 3, 2011

I’d much rather be impressed and satisfied later than be disappointed and upset earlier.

228. Danny - July 3, 2011

@187 – “John Cho wins the contest for successful aging. My God, he’s 39! However, another 8 years (assuming two more movies) might be pushing it.”

I don’t mind the concept that Sulu in the NuVerse is older – that perhaps he joined Starfleet later in life and is older than those around him, even Captain Kirk. I like the idea that even in the 23rd Century, you have people who can have a career change and still be able to join “the military”.

229. Bob Tompkins - July 3, 2011

78- It is not laziness on the anyone’s part. Everyone involved is just in too great of a demand now. TV pilots and series, other movie projects- we can’t blame these guys for striking while they are hot; therein lies the problem. Transformers can crank one out every 2 years because Michael Bay has almost exclusively devoted his time to that Franchise.
Harry Potter keeps to a schedule, the fans are kept happy and keep buying tickets.
The list of better handled Franchises is pretty extensive.. Bond, X-Men, Spider Man, even GI Joe is on schedule.
Star Trek should be treated the same way, but it’s not. Set a reasonable schedule and keep to it. If the team can’t get to it in a timely manner, move on. There are diverse capable hands who could do it. By the time we get to the 3rd movie from these guys, the actors will be at the age where a Wrath of Kahn remake won’t be a silly thing….

230. Bob Tompkins - July 3, 2011

Scale problem. Looking at the CGI model of the Enterprise, if the bubble dome on top of the saucer section is the bridge, as it has been previously, there is no place on the ship that could hold a brewery-sized engineering section. All the more reason to not use a brewery for engineering the next time, my main complaint about the first movie….

231. MJ - July 3, 2011

@224. Read my lips:

1. Avatar
2. Christmas Release
3. Total take: $2 Billion +

232. MJ - July 3, 2011

Also, compare:

True Grit Xmas 2010 release = $250M gross

versus

JJ Super 8 Summer Release = $153 M to date (it will probably make another 20 to 30 million and close at about $175M).

The Holiday versus Summer argument has always been nonsense. Great movies do well whenever they are released.

233. Mike - July 3, 2011

#232 – “The Holiday versus Summer argument has always been nonsense. Great movies do well whenever they are released.”

Someone on here wrote why not release STAR TREK in Oct 2012.

Yeah – you’re correct, MJ – the ST fans will be in the theaters, and the non-ST fans who want to be entertained will be watching, too.

234. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 3, 2011

#226. Keachick …before the photos in Runyon Canyon… Chris and the cast of “Welcome to People ” filming additional scenes for the movie… producers were still busy shooting “Welcome to People ” recently…

“Principal photography for the film, which has a budget of less than $50 million, began in January and ended in March, but, as often happens, the studio decided to shoot some additional scenes.
So DreamWorks obtained multiple permits to film several days last week in nearly a dozen locations across Los Angeles County, including a soundstage in Van Nuys, a home in the Hollywood Hills, the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood and on Kanan Dume Canyon Road in Malibu, a studio spokeswoman said.”

source: latimes.com in June 28.

:-) :-)

235. Vultan - July 3, 2011

***** HAVE A HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY, EVERYONE!!! *****

“Give me the Trek sequel now or give me death… eh, on second thought, I can wait.”
—Patrick Henry, Founding Father, Trekkie

;D

236. N - July 3, 2011

226 – unintentional innuendos? :P

237. Phil Connors - July 3, 2011

Jeez, 236 comments. None of which feature Bob Orci. Just the same 9 people saying the same things and voicing the same complaints, with the occasional 7 paragraph treatise analyzing the shape of people’s faces and how Martin Luther King loved Star Trek.

*clock radio plays Sonny and Cher*

238. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 3, 2011

#236 N – Unless there is that numbering problem again, I wrote post no. 226. “unintentional innuendos?” I am not sure what you mean.

Yes, Happy Fourth of July, Everyone!
I’d better write it now before it becomes 5th July. As I type this, the time here is 4.51pm Monday, 4th July 2011.

#234 Wow. What’s Alex Kurtzman has got cooked up for us with this story? Can’t wait. Any information on Welcome to People film release dates yet?

239. meme - July 3, 2011

Paramount Fire JJ this is an outrage these trekkies are paying their money for a new one. Star Trek needs a new director I agree the actors that they have now might not come back for the parts that they have if they take too long to make the movie neither will the fans buy it It will be a loss because by the time they make the movie the interest will be gone for the majority Hate to say it star trek is not important to JJ he needs to back out and hand the job to someone else because he don’t have time

240. Odkin - July 3, 2011

Is there any evidence, in the entire body of work of Abrams/Orci/Lindelof/Kurtzman that “more time” in any way shape or form equates to higher quality?

There are a lot of apologist sycophants here sayng “don’t rush it, make it better”. This isn’t a question of “Do you want it good or do you want it Tuesday?”. It doesn’t take 3 years to write a script. It takes a solid idea, a keyboard, a locked room, talent, craftsmanship, a deadline and some professional discipline. And maybe a month or two, tops.

Nowhere in there are the following things required:
Interviews
Publicity tweats
Commitees/”Courts”
Fan interaction

I said it before. Super 8 bombed. Trek isn’t getting serious focus. The cast is going to move on. I predict they lose one cast member minimum, with a 25% likelihood that the entire project gets shelved.

Best case scenario is a maximum of three movies from this staff. It’s a paycheck. It ISN’T their entire career like it was with Roddenberry and almost all of the original cast.

241. Devon - July 3, 2011

I don’t understand a few of the comments (and I’m not sure those posters making the comments do either) that suggest “firing J.J.” is the way to go. J.J.’s attention is now on Star Trek. What good would “firing” him do? And secondly, Bad Robot is J.J.s production company (and J.J. is producing.) So is J.J. going to fire himself????

It seems like the large part of the delay was everyone getting their schedules together. They finally are, so stop complaining.

===

#220 – “Star trek new voyages make star trek quicker than this lot”

The people in charge of Phase 2 don’t exactly have the workload or schedules that the people over this film do. They are not in demand Hollywood writers (I mean that respectfully.) Having said that.. “this lot” also have been involved several film and weekly TV projects in the last few years too.

242. bradpitti - July 3, 2011

sadly true. jj dont care anymore. hand star trek over back to ronald d. moore. ds9 was truly one of the best series of star trek. and battlestar galactica ? one of the best sci-fi series ever produced !

243. MJ - July 3, 2011

@239. Super 8 did not bomb. It has made over $150M to date and cost $50M to make. Was it a huge hit? No. But did it make some money? Yes.

244. MJ - July 3, 2011

Anthony, can you please run a “sockpuppet check” on some of the posts above. Thanks

245. captain_neill - July 4, 2011

At least Nick Meyer got his draft done in 5 days, the fastest ever for a screenwriter.

It can take a while to write a script but a 70 page treatment only at this stage, I am happy to wait but i hope they make a good strong script, strong on both character and plot.

246. Buzz Cagney - July 4, 2011

Happy 4th to you guys.
No hard feelings from here in merry old England! lol
To be honest I think i’d have wanted some representation for my taxation too! :-D

247. Devon - July 4, 2011

#244 – “At least Nick Meyer got his draft done in 5 days, the fastest ever for a screenwriter.”

As Bob Orci pointed out.. that was based on several previous drafts!

248. Buzz Cagney - July 4, 2011

But Nick didn’t have two other guys helping write the finished thing!
Sorry, but by any measure Bob and Co. are really dragging their heels on this. The movie had really better blow us away after all this waiting lol

249. Jamie - July 4, 2011

Why is everyone talking about firing JJ? You realize that he can’t sign on officially as a director until A SCRIPT exists? And that he has very little control over when a writer chooses to sit down and write? He’s really got very little to do with this delay – it’s on the writer’s shoulders. He picked up other projects because a script was supposed to be getting worked on, but it wasn’t. If you want to fire someone, fire the writers who didn’t even START working on his until like December of last year (ya know, when the script was supposed to be DONE). But if you “fire” them then guess what? It DEFINITELY won’t make any of these release dates, because the new writers will either have to start over or make a new draft with what’s already written, all of which takes as much if not more time than it’s going to take them to finish what they have. I get being frustrated but really, use your heads, people. Some of these suggestions make no sense at all.

I would like to see Star Trek back on TV, though. I just don’t think it’s a priority for anyone right now – they’ve got a movie franchise they’re trying to solidify, and until that’s done (whether it works or not) they probably think there’s no reason to try a tv show. Especially after the fiasco that was “Enterprise.”

250. Christopher Roberts - July 4, 2011

248. Never hurts to pick on “Enterprise” does it? I got a lot of enjoyment out of the “fiasco”, particularly towards the end.

251. Christopher Roberts - July 4, 2011

Well played, sir. Does slow-handed clap. You get comfortable up there on that moral high ground. It’s a looooong way down. Defending JJ but putting the boot into somebody else’s Star Trek.

252. P Technobabble - July 4, 2011

Doesn’t every Trekkie know the story behind the script for TWOK, and Meyer’s part in it, by now?

253. Christopher Roberts - July 4, 2011

Nicholas Meyer did a fantastic job on TWOK, but the story was essentially already set down between Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards, with nobody liking the scripts they had… until Meyer cherrypicked the best of each, whilst inserting his own angle to the story – Moby Dick references, acknowledging the cast were not spring chickens and ensuring Nimoy had role in the story he wouldn’t be able to refuse. He also took no Screenplay credit, something he regretted IIRC…

254. Christopher Roberts - July 4, 2011

I think Spock’s death originally came earlier in the story, until Meyer introduced the Kobayashi Maru ruse at the beginning and shifted the real deal, as the big surprise at the end. It was around this time leaks surfaced – he received death threats? Anyhow it’s something he talks candidly about in the DVD commentary.

255. Tom - July 4, 2011

#223 MJ

Come on MJ give the fat bald former captain a post credit scene at minimum.

Bob, Alex, Damon may all be on the beach for the fourth jotting down ideas and putting the script together in between going in the water. texting jj as they go…

256. Smoking Robot - July 4, 2011

Why reboot a series and then take 3 1/2 or 4 years to continue it? This is ridiculous. They should do a new Trek show on tv.

257. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 4, 2011

#238. Keachick …I do not know anything about the premiere of “WTP”… if you remember Bob Orci said here a while ago that there was no release date yet… but in the same article of latimes.com that I mentioned above said…

“The movie, which is due out next year, ….” … so …whatever! ..

:-) :-)

258. Anthony Pascale - July 4, 2011

MJ,

A routine check did reveal one person posting under 3 names in this thread. They will not be returning to TrekMovie commenting

259. Hugh Hoyland - July 4, 2011

I agree that Trek can do very well in the winter. And I think thats likely when it will happen. Bring it! :]

260. Gary - July 4, 2011

I have a better proposal… lets just not make Star Trek 2.

If the script is going nowhere, and 2 years have passed by and no progress in being made… lets drop it.

Star Trek can sell quite well… we know this know.

Make a nice fun trilogy in some time and that’s it.

261. VZX - July 4, 2011

The Fourth of July is even more fun in space:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgYwt8Cat7s

Kirk you have a phone call!

262. Jan - July 4, 2011

Where is the problem to work on the movie as of now and make it’s originally planned date? After all the work on the crew’s other projects is finished!

263. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 4, 2011

@256 Anthony
OH! a bit of intrigue XD
Please tell us the names please Anthony, the weather here is terrible and my kids are getting wise to my cheating as the monopoly banker also my hip is too fragged to play twister, give us a bit of gossip and help a poor father on vacation out pls pls pls ;-)

264. MJ - July 4, 2011

Ah, my sock-puppet detection capabilities are world class…they are only outmatched by my bloated ego! :-)

265. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 4, 2011

…LOL …wow MJ!!!

:-) :-)

266. Punkspocker - July 4, 2011

Trekkies should all stay away from A A Habrams movies. I haven’t seen super 8 yet and I have free passes! No love from fans loyal to the core!

267. MJ - July 4, 2011

@266 “Trekkies should all stay away from A A Habrams movies.”

Agreed. I liked his first film, the romantic comedy, “Hannah’s Botmitzpha,” but thought his last movie, “Saul takes a Saudi wife” was too political charged for my tastes.

268. Basement Blogger - July 4, 2011

First, Happy 4th of July. It seems to be appropriate to defend dissenters and that includes those who complain about the delay of the next Star Trek movie. Because from all the mutliple voices comes truth. See Tinker v. Des Moines.

Freedom of speech is one of the basic fundamental rights that Americans have. It enabled the founders to spread the idea of liberty which eventually lead to a new country. Today, freedom of speech leads to truth, wisdom and justice. See Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 512 (1968); Thomas v. Granville Central School Dis., 607 F.2d. 1043, 1047 (1979) We use freedom of speech to redress our grieveances.

While TrekMovie is not a public forum, there is some legitimacy for customers to air out their grievances or complain about a company’s product. Years ago Coca Cola in an effort to compete with Pepsi put out a new product called New Coke. The New Coke was to replace the original coke. Customers complained, i.e. they dissented. And the rest is history. “Old” Coke came back and New Coke disappeared. Link.
Remember that when somebody tells you that it does no good to complain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

269. Charla - July 4, 2011

# 208 PTechnobabble- I think what I would like and maybe some other people here would like is to hear a definitive, “Yes, it is going to be delayed.” Or a “No it is on schedule.” I wouldn’t think a reason would be expected, or an exact date even.

As much as I love this website, it also could be (and no offense Anthony) that so much has been spoken to about the release date of such a highly anticipated film, that the information provided is becoming redundant and causing frustration rather than releasing information that is more definitive. I think everyone should also consider that the information that is released publicly may very well be out of the S.C. hands, and more in Paramounts too.

I don’t wish to offend anyone, but just hope that if anyone involved in the movie and this website sees this, realizes it is not meant to ridicule or pass judgement or negativity, but to express concern for the lack of communication.

I truly respect each of the writers, JJ and the others for their talents not only in Star Trek but also their other projects too. I fully support them. I appreciate this website and the information Anthony and the staff provide to all of us. It’s because of this website that I watch the other movies and TV series that the S.C. are involved with.

With that said, I would just like to read something that addresses the release date in more concrete terms.

I also must add that I can’t believe the posters who are saying to fire JJ – and that the crew doesn’t care about ST etc etc blah blah … Come on!! REALLY!! If it weren’t for all of these guys we wouldn’t even be here discussing ST09… all we need is to know it is going to happen, and preferably WHEN, wait for the date, buy a ticket and ENJOY!! (Then come back to Trekmovie.com and talk about how excellent it was… :D )

270. Charla - July 4, 2011

#215 Olley Olley Olley et al… lol

I had to tell you I thought the same thing because I watched a special on Star Trek over the weekend from biography highlighing the 30th Star Trek anniversary. It was a good show, I enjoyed it because it had James Doohan and Deforest Kelly along with the rest of TOS cast and most everyone from the other series, too. (I hadn’t seen much footage of the two of them before other than TOS)

But delaying it would put them at that time frame, and it would be a huge marketing advantage. But shhh… we hope that they don’t see that, right! haha (I know it has to have occurred to them, really) so we may be on to something…

271. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 4, 2011

232 super 8 has only made 107 million domesticly so far.
And there is no way in heck that super 8 only cost 50 million to make.
Paramount issued that low ball budget number late in game when they realized after test screening reactions that they had a huge problem on their hands.

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

#268 I have never lived in a republic. NZ is like Canada in that we still have a Governor General and a British style Parliament. Britain is a constitutional monarchy and has been so before the drafting of the US Constitution. Much of US legislation is based on British Common Law. NZ was the first country to give women the vote. I have not felt any less free for not having lived in a republic.

As I understand it, Trekmovie.com is a public forum. All I need to do is to google this site, click on and I am here.

#217 You know all this for a FACT, do you?

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

Sorry, that was #271.

274. Mel - July 5, 2011

It is better to make a movie which costs 300 mio $ and makes in the cinemas 600 mio $, than make a movie which costs 50 mio $ and makes in the cinemas 200 mio $.

A return of 300 mio $ is just better than a return of “only” 150 mio $.

That is why they make those extremely costly movies with a budget of 200 mio $ and more. When such a movie is a success and makes double, triple or even more times the amount of its budget, it is very lucrative. Smaller budget movies usually don’t make such a big amount of money.

I was hoping that they turn Star Trek into a really big budget movie series, but I guess Paramount doesn’t expect it to perform so well. So it doesn’t have the highest priority for them.

I mean compare Kung Fu Panda 2 from Paramount with the last Star Trek movie. Both had the same budget, but Kung Fu Panda 2 made already 531 mio $ and it is still in the cinemas, and Star Trek only made 385 mio $. I just think Star Trek is not successful enough to have the highest priority for Paramount. :-(

275. Aurore - July 5, 2011

@Roberto Orci.

I’ll be one of the first in line to buy your behind-the-scenes book on Star Trek 2009 AND Star Trek II ( 2012) .

That’s right. As I said before ; unless Mr. Abrams, you, Damon Lindelof or Alex
Kurtzman, comes forward to say otherwise…I’ll be seeing my ( Star Trek ) sequel in 2012.

:)

276. P Technobabble - July 5, 2011

269. Charla
Believe me, I feel your pain… I honestly can’t sit any closer to the edge of my seat, waiting for the next Trek movie, without falling off. Yes, for some strange reason, solid news about the status of the film gives us a warm and fuzzy sense of security and confidence. And I’ll bet it’s hard on Anthony because he’s giving us every bit of info he gets, and all he can give us is what he gets. And I’ll bet it’s hard for Bob O. to come in here and try to satisfy our endless desire for details without simply telling us everything about the film. All we can do is be patient. And for those who have trouble being patient, remember the words of Adm. Kirk, “We learn by doing.”
274. Mel
I don’t think it’s fair to draw any comparisons between K F Panda and Star Trek. Panda is a family film, with lots of kids taking their parents to see it. (nyuk nyuk). Trek09 certainly attracted a wider audience than other Trek’s in the past, but it’s still a niche thing. It’s not a family movie, per se. We can also consider TVH, which also attracted a wider-than-usual audience, but as successful a film as that was considered, it, too, did not make the same kind of money that family films tend to make. My point is that I think Star Trek IS a high-priority for Paramount and they want it to be a blockbuster. So, if Abrams and Co. say it’s not ready, I think Paramount thinks enough of Star Trek to support the team that’s making it. IMO, of course…

277. NuFan - July 5, 2011

271.

Wow, that was a long absence.

278. Charla - July 5, 2011

Good point P Technobabble- (your last statement to #274 Mel-

Paramount may be actually supporting the crew if the crew isn’t ready yet by delaying the film.

Either way, delayed or not, in the end, your right, we must be patient.

279. Thomas Jensen - July 5, 2011

If there has to be a delay, then so be it. But… just make sure the time between the first movie and the second movie is years apart as in real life. These actors look great, but everyone ages, so if they are going to make it realistic, then include this aspect as well.

Star Trek, TMP was supposed to be about, four to four and half years after the series, including the never filmed last two years of the series. In real time, ten years had passed and the actors looked pretty darn good, but certainly they looked much older then the time frame in the film.

280. mike poche - July 5, 2011

i would like to see a new series circa sept 2016… as the 50th annversity
of the orginal .

281. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 5, 2011

270. Charla
“#215 Olley Olley Olley et al… lol ”

I guess you assume that I am one of the “sock-puppets” that MJ was complaining about.
I can assure you that I’m not, that person types reams of text, i do not.
I haven’t got the time or Machiavellian qualities to copy/pasta from other boards. I’ve been lurking around this site since 08 and only comment occasionally.
As for 2016 being the 50th anniversary and the arrival of the 3rd JJTREK movie to coincide, if Im wrong I will happily admit it.
But I will only be wrong if JJ has to delay JJTREK 3 until 2017, his trend with Star Trek supports that unfortunate conclusion.

282. Starfleet's Finest - July 5, 2011

You know, as much as I would love to see the sequel come out on time (becuase I feel I will most likely implode from waiting any way) there is no way I want them to rush through and half-a$$ something just to meet a deadline; Star Trek deserves better than that. I implicitly trust that Abrams, Orci, and the whole creative team involved will make the absolute best movie they can and for that I say: please, take as much time as you need! (But not too long! Keep the imploding remark in mind!)

283. Sarah - July 5, 2011

Like I said: I’ve given up on a sequel. It’s pretty clear Trek’s current powers that be aren’t committed to this. Their heart’s not in it.

284. Charla - July 5, 2011

#270 Olley Olley Olley, — no I wasn’t thinking of you as a sock puppet…. don’t know how that came across in the text I had written. I only noted that you had a though process similar to mine in regards to the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.

That was all- sometimes text misconstrues the meaning of what was said…. sorry if that happened here.

Oh also, just thought your screen name was funny when I typed it… :D

285. Disinvited - July 5, 2011

#282.

So no latter day Roger Corman could do a good budget Trek movie? Hmmm…I would think even JJ’s SUPER 8 might tend to argue against that kind of limited artistic vision?

286. Disinvited - July 5, 2011

#283.

I suppose we’ll just have to let them speak for themselves but I pointed out from the beginning that the 2009 movie sequel wasn’t going to be Paramount’s number one priority no matter how many good vibes their PR department arranged for the fans in the press.

And I’ll repeat this again, “There is absolutely no correlation in Hollywood that says more time (or money for that matter) guarantees superior quality and success.”

Much as I might be fascinated by a 6-hour Trek movie I think many might learn something from what happened with Taylor’s CLEOPATRA.

287. Kev -1 - July 5, 2011

279- I think Kirk said five and half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations. After the last two years of the five year mission (unfilmed). It came out about right. And, this is not a dig.

288. Kev -1 - July 5, 2011

Oops. Two and a half years CSO + 3. I stand corrected.

289. meme - July 5, 2011

No disrespect intended to JJ but they need to give Trek to someone who has time to do it they should be on the third one by the time the second one comes out Does everyone seriously want to wait until December 2012 or 13 for that matter because of procrasination or give it to someone who could turn it into a TV series they know people are waiting on this movie it is disrespectful to do loyal star Trek fans like that especially the ones who are defending JJ Abrams in spite of him dragging his feet with the next movie

290. meme - July 5, 2011

Man that is mean to you guys and bogus thats why I said Can Him! cause he don’t have time (no disrespect intended) just telling the truth cause Trek is not priority give it to someone who have time

291. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 5, 2011

JJ is NEVER going to direct the next movie. ST09 is spoiling in the bottom shelf. I think he is going to walk away from the mess that is now Trek.

292. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 5, 2011

I hope he does though! The challenge would be to “put things right again.”

293. TrekMadeMeWonder - July 5, 2011

TOS style and all.

294. Red Dead Ryan - July 5, 2011

Geez, its only a frackin’ movie! Some people are taking this all way too seriously. It’s not a life and death scenario.

295. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 5, 2011

#272 uh Yeah I do!

296. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 5, 2011

277 what can i say this place is addictive lol, I did manage to make it a few days though lol

289 you are right and If he has a full plate then, he should pass the directors chair on to someone else, like he did with Mission Impossible.
as it is right now the longer the delay the more pressure there will be for the movie to top the last one. And if star trek XII ends up not being so hot, JJ will look very bad for the way things have been handled.

297. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

#293 There is nothing “to put right again”.

298. VulcanFilmCritic - July 6, 2011

If there is going to be such a delay between movies, and there doesn’t seem to be much interest at Paramount in Star Trek anymore, then why not plan to make a really good trilogy which will end…that’s right…END, in the year 2016 or 2017, to roughly correspond with Star Trek’s 50th anniversary.

The model for Star Trek doesn’t have to be the old franchise which went on and on forever. Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, et al, created their characters and therefore would have a proprietary interest in playing them themselves. Always. Also with the possible exception of Nimoy, they were ALWAYS available for sequels.

Not so today. Rather than get into a situation like “Hellboy” where you get one movie and a sequel and that’s it, why not plan out the entire sequence of the next two movies now, like the Harry Potter franchise, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars.

One thing the show TOS never had was an origins show, nor did it have an ending. The end of the mission. Why not plan for that? We have the origins show. We may get a good ripping story in the middle, and then plan for a true ending story where the crew come home. Really come home, after a terrible all out war or something. It might be very moving.

As in the Star Wars franchise you could leave the back door open for potentially another series in the future but you could also just stop there as well.

299. P Technobabble - July 6, 2011

I think it’s a real hoot to listen to some folks writing off Star Trek.

For one thing, Paramount could’ve given up on Star Trek right after TMP. Even the cast thought that would be the end. That film was a mess from the start, and it cost Paramount millions of wasted $$$. The mad rush to finish that film ultimately led to a product that no one was really happy with.
Yet, here we are, 32 years later, and Star Trek is still around. The end of Star Trek? I don’t think so. As they say, ‘Friends is friends and business is business.’ The company and producers might be our “friends,” in the sense that they are making something for us. But the business of movie-making is a costly, complicated matter. The business of making successful movies is any company’s first and last priority, hmm? Do you think Paramount cares if it’s Star Trek or ‘Grandma’s Gone Wild’ that turns out to be a successful movie? Star Trek is a huge priority to Star Trek fans. Star Trek is a priority for Paramount in the sense that it holds the potential to make them some big $$$.

300. VulcanFilmCritic - July 6, 2011

Perhaps, but I think it’s time to at least consider ending it in a way that is not abrupt but well-planned.

I don’t know what the numbers are, but I bet they are dwindling. William Shatner’s new series on the Creation conventions would seem to be a deal designed to inject new life into a crumbling cultural phenomenon.

Star Trek is dying. There are no shows on TV. The attractions in Vegas are closed and the audience is mostly old folks. The kids are not turned on by this anymore, not like in the 70′s and 80′s.

The first step in dealing with death is of course DENIAL.
I

301. Aurore - July 6, 2011

@275. Aurore.

Wait a minute….
Come to think about it, we might end up watching the sequel in 2013, after all !

Let’s get real ; the dubbed version won’t cut it for us . And, I doubt the DVD will be available as soon as July 2012!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:))

302. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 6, 2011

@ 299. P Technobabble
If you think that Paramount see Star Trek anything other than a business then your very mistaken.
It was Paramount that changed ST Phase II into TMP after they seen what a cash cow Star Wars and the expenses of the pre production of Phrase II was what spiraled the production cost of TMP.
TMP was a blockbuster, it was Paramounts greed that made it cost so much and so flawed.
It was Paramount that talked Rick Berman into Enterprise even when Rick said that Trek needed to be “rested” after Voyager.
It was Paramount that was again so greedy with the success of the Star Wars prequels that they gave JJ a contract to make super 8 between Trek films just so they would have his notoriety attached to New-Trek and the result is we have to wait for the next film, again.

If you think Paramount is a friend of Star Trek then ask yourself WHY they haven’t commissioned another Star Trek series.

303. Anthony Pascale - July 6, 2011

Waiting sucks but all the talk about how 3 or even 4 years is somehow fatal or even unusual is just factually wrong. As is deriding JJ Abrams for doing other projects in between.

Just look at the recent Batman franchise. BATMAN BEGINS came out in 2005 and revived that franchise (and became an inspiration/model for Paramount and Star Trek). Chris Nolan then did THE PRESTIGE in 2006 (was working on it before BB) and then released THE DARK KNIGHT in 2008 (a 37 month gap between films still grossed over $1B). He then went off to do INCEPTION in 2010 and will be back for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES in 2012. So there will be a bit more than a 7 year gap between Batman movie 1 and movie 3.

So tell me again how a 3.5 (or even 4) year gap between Abrams first and second STAR TREK film equals doom and proof he doesnt care about Trek? Did Nolan get this kind of guff from Batman fans? Oh and the whole “Star Trek is unique and cant be compared to anything because it is super special” is not a realistic argument, just like it wasnt when talking about recasting back in 2006-8. So yes waiting sucks and it would be nice if they announced something official. But Star Trek will survive the gap.

Oh and Paramount are very happy with the results of SUPER 8 and with JJ Abrams. And remember they signed him to a new deal right after MI3, so they liked that too, and they certainly liked STAR TREK and CLOVERFIELD. The head of the studio talks about Abrams as being their budding Spielberg.

And the fact that after ENTERPRISE and NEMESIS failed Paramount still put Abrams and money into Trek starting in 2006 shows they value the franchise. And the fact that they didnt assign it to a new team when Abrams told them he wanted time to do SUPER 8 shows that they feel it is important to stick with Abrams. Sure they wish it all worked out, but in early 2010 when they tasked Bad Robot to deliver SUPER 8, MI4 and Star Trek all by summer 2012, they knew there was a risk.

304. boborci - July 6, 2011

303. Good points.

305. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

#302 – “just so they would have his notoriety attached to New-Trek and the result is we have to wait for the next film, again.”

Notoriety? Why on earth would Paramount want someone and their “notoriety” attached to one of their projects? Do you know what “notoriety” means?

I think, especially in this economic climate, if the studio can make back (near) twice what it cost to make a film and then some perhaps, then they would be happy. Paramount must be very happy at the moment as this year they have already made $1billion, with some of that coming from the success of the latest Transformers movie. The Transformers movies may not be everyone’s taste, but it does appeal to a LOT of people and that has got to be good for the studio’s financial books and more likely ensures that we get a good Star Trek sequel, albeit a little later than initially planned.

306. Mel - July 6, 2011

@ 276. P Technobabble

I don’t see why I shouldn’t compare Kung Fu Panda 2 with Star Trek. Both are Paramount movies and both are supposed to make money for them. At the moment Kung Fu Panda 2 is just more successful than Star Trek in this regard. That simple truth may annoy some Star Trek fans, but it is just the the case.

If Paramount could make 20 animation movies in a year and all would be as successful as Kung Fu Panda 2, they would do it, even if that means no money for other kinds of movies, including Star Trek. But as similar movies (and animation movies geared towards families are kind of similar in a lot of regards) are in heavy competition with each other and 20 similar movies would hurt each other in the cinemas, film studios make movies of different genres. So we will also get scifi movies for teenagers and adults.

I didn’t say that Paramount doesn’t care about Star Trek at all. The last movie DID make a nice profit. I just think it doesn’t have the highest priority. Star Trek is not like Harry Potter. A HUGE cash cow, so that they even divided the 7th book into two movies to make even more money.

307. boborci - July 6, 2011

Paramount really does care about about Star Trek, which is why they have given us so much leeway to get it right.

308. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

Harry Potter is a Warner Bros production. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the third longest book. The longest book in the series was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and my kids complained that so much had been cut from the book in order to fit it into one movie and were disappointed about there being so many omissions. Still a good movie though.

My sons have read all the Harry Potter books at least twice, cover to cover. Apart from the film series being a cash cow, the studio may have also considered the artistic merits of making two movies from the long Deathly Hallows book, especially since this book represents the finale to the book and film series.

309. Charla - July 6, 2011

# 307 Bob- that’s very good to know! thanks! =)

# 303 And Anthony, I have heard that JJ is the next Spielberg too- not sure if it was through here or a magazine, but either way, I do hope he directs ST again and it sounds like he would be their first choice as director. Good news, gotta like that!

310. Harry Ballz - July 6, 2011

307.

Bob, I’m sure that in return for our patience you are going to give us a dazzling epic adventure in the sequel, right?

311. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

Bob Orci – Hi! I hope all is well.

I think it is still not knowing what is happening, as in will JJ Abrams direct the sequel? Will he be doing it properly in 3D or 2D as this will affect the time taken? Then there is all the news – as in no news and all the conjecture, theorising and general nastiness sometimes. There are also times when I do feel like JJ is teasing fans. I know some people think they are being clever or funny, whatever, but personally I have not found (the appearance of) teasing either clever or funny, just mean and perhaps even a little deceitful.

Whether we like it or not, this is the age of the internet. It is a wonderful tool which is also badly abused at times as well. Some of the trolling I have read (not here, thankfully) is just sooo bad – perhaps being able to use pseudonyms allows people to be who they really are and what is written can be just so mean, scary and crazy, especially when anonymous bloggers threaten a director’s life because they think he made a film they thought sucked. Really sick. Given that in the last century, humanity has seen two world wars and the evil of the Holocaust (just to name but one atrocity), it is clear how far some people will go and how low they can sink.

Anyway, sorry for the whatever above. Just like to hear some real news and not be left “in the dark” wondering…

312. Jack - July 6, 2011

I really got to live in the moment a bit more — every morning I search for Trek 2 and iPhone 5 announcements.

307. Not trying to blow plasma, red matter, tachyons, etc. up the Trek guys’ er, wormholes (I’m now regretting this entire sentence)… but this whole “they don’t care” bit doesn’t quite fit with the evidence. They certainly could have rushed something out. Just like they could have ignored canon entirely (their solution is also wise as it lets Paramount easily keep producing original universe Trek stuff, which they likely would have done anyway). We’ve seen plenty of proof over the years that it takes more than a bunch of sequences, that round table ‘hey, we haven’t seen Kirk x yet?’/ ‘Shatner really wants to ride a horse in this next one,’ or just the right combination of elements (an action director, a great villain, an
Oscar-winning screenwriter, a fan who keeps bashing Nemesis [me]) to
create a Trek that those involved in (and us) truly care about. That passion, and risk, seem to be an important part of great Trek, and great stories generally. Or something.

313. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 6, 2011

Real news about Trek 2 … that would be so good …

Mr. Bob Orci is there any chance of “Welcome to People” debut this year? …

Ok …I’m just dreaming with “an answer” about it …

:-) :-)

314. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 6, 2011

@ Keachick
Notoriety: a notorious or celebrated person.

@ Anthony
yep, the wait sucks.

315. Voice of Reason - July 6, 2011

@303 Anthony

Talk about how a 4 year wait for Star Trek “could” be fatal is not factually wrong at this time. When the movie is out (which will be sometime after is starts being made.. whenever that might be) we will see the results. The number will speak for themselves. If ST2013 proves to be a monster hit, no one will ever utter another word about the 4 year gap. If it flops you better bet your bottom dollar that the 4 year delay will be mentioned as nauseum.

As for your last paragraph… I believe it actually supports the opposite conclusion. As you said “in early 2010 when they tasked Bad Robot to deliver SUPER 8, MI4 and Star Trek all by summer 2012, they knew there was a risk.”. Yes, and which of the 3 was the sacrificial lamb?

Time will tell… it always does.

316. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

Perhaps the plan is to try out Welcome to People and This Means War on audiences downunder first (Australia and NZ) along with a premier of at least one movie here in my city with CP of course in attendance (I need to know times and dates), before they release the movies on the US market. It has happened once or twice before.

OK, I am dreaming the dream, but that is all I have right now…sigh…

And there were Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto laughing with Karl Urban about the way Karl seemed to refer to Auckland as being “his city”. Karl was born in Wellington and only moved up to Auckland this century, because this is where most of the work is (except for Peter Jackson movies – he’s all over the country doing his Tolkien film work – cool stuff) and most, if not all, flights to LA leave from Auckland Int’l Airport (a ten minute drive for me). I, on the other hand, have lived in Auckland since I was 12 months old (was born just north of Wellington) so Auckland is more my city than Karl’s city. However, since he and I are now both residents of Auckland (our city), we are now known as JAFAs by the rest of NZ and that’s a title Karl Urban cannot weasel out of …:)

I am pretty sure Battle-Scarred Sciatica knows what a JAFA is…

Gosh, I am gabbling…

317. Anthony Pascale - July 6, 2011

RE: gap could be fatal
Again no. If the star trek sequel sucks, which might happen, it wont be because there was a 3-4 year gap, it will be because it sucks. Paramount has certainly made the call that the risk of trying a new team is greater than any risk posed by a gap.

I would also go as far to say that if they did push to make the June 29 date, the chances of the film sucking are higher.

RE: sacrificial lamb
Well actually MI4 was originally slated for a summer 2011 release, but that got moved to Holiday 2011. And as the last MI movie was Summer 2006 it makes sense for Paramount to make it a priority over Trek. Plus Abrams decided early on he wouldnt direct the film, just co-produce with Cruise.

318. Disinvited - July 6, 2011

#317. “And as the last MI movie was Summer 2006 it makes sense for Paramount to make it a priority over Trek.” – Anthony Pascale – July 6, 2011

Actually, it doesn’t make any kind of sense, given the point you were making is that gaps even as wide as 7 years don’t matter.

319. Anthony Pascale - July 6, 2011

obviously eventually a gap can make a difference, especially when your star is getting old. It makes sense for Paramount (and an aging Tom Cruise) to get another MI4 out sooner rather than later.

But I still think the difference between 3 and 4 years for Star Trek is negligible. After that i can see how eventually there would be ramifications. but so far we arent talking about that we are talking about Holiday 2012 maybe summer 2013

320. Disinvited - July 6, 2011

#319.

I’m glad you concede that there’s a limit. But given that the original MI TV series survived 7 years, I don’t think his age is that much of an issue…yet. I mean Ford did Indiana Jones into his 60s. Cruise has a little more time left.

Also, if memory serves, wasn’t there some issue a while back at Paramount about putting Cruise in his place? Granted most of US here are biased, but it does seem odd that that place is ahead of STAR TREK.

321. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

“Granted most of US here are biased, but it does seem odd that that place is ahead of STAR TREK.”

No, it is not odd at all. It makes perfect sense to me.

322. P Technobabble - July 6, 2011

302. OLLEY, 306. MEL, 307. BOB

First, I’ll say that what I was trying to say in 299 didn’t come out quite the way I intended after re-reading it. I started out saying that Paramount could have given up on Trek a long time ago, but, as it turns out, it is important enough to them for Trek to still be around 43 years later. When I said “Star Trek is a priority for Paramount in the sense that it holds the potential to make them some big $$$,” I should have prefaced that remark with something like, “In terms of a movie studio wanting to put out successful films…” In fact, in some post somewhere I did say something like, “The writers and producers say it’s not ready, and Paramount is supporting them by giving them time.”
OLLEY, you begin by saying I would be mistaken if I thought Paramount saw Trek only in terms of business. My remark was a little too black and white, and we’ve heard it from Bob, himself — Paramount cares about Star Trek. But you go on to talk about Paramount’s greed, which tends to make me wonder what you really mean. I think Paramount wanting to put Star Trek on the big screen was a sensible move in light of the success of Star Wars. It was just good business. Apart from the costs of Phase II production, there were also millions of $$ wasted on that Abel fx company which managed to produce hardly anything. This was followed by hiring Trumbull and Dykstra who probably didn’t come cheap. So I don’t think Paramount was spending a fortune in order to make a fortune. They were committed to making the film, whether it was because they were businessmen or fans, or both.
MEL, you could compare Panda to Trek, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Sure, they’re both made by Paramount, but what else do they have in common? I simply think that by appealing to entire families, a movie like Panda is bound to make a ton of money, especially if it’s a good movie, like Shrek, or Finding Nemo.
As always, this is IMO, and I’ll stand corrected even if it gives me indigestion.

323. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 6, 2011

“RT: @screamo_ranger Will you play “Worf” in the Abramsverse Star Trek TNG movie? #AskObama A: If he would only ask!”

Is this about US President Barrack Obama playing Worf in the alt-universe?

OK – It does not make sense for him to play Worf, but he could play Tuvok’s grandfather (uncle) – a nice little cameo in the making?

If it was alright for a Jordanian prince to appear in a couple of Star Trek episodes (TNG, DS9), why not the US President in the film sequel? Cripes – imagine all the security though… BTW, is Barrack Obama a Star Trek fan?

324. Anthony Pascale - July 6, 2011

Some people seem to want to glean some meaning in a possible delay for Star Trek, and some seem to want to find something sinister. It is really just a matter of logistics.

As for Cruise, he was out of favor at Paramount due to his overly generous deal Now he is back, but at a much reduced cut in $.

As for Paramount, they love all their franchises and want them all to grow. A focus on film franchises is a stated strategy of Viacom’s new chief and the studio head. So they are not going to just drop Star Trek or mistreat it.

325. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 6, 2011

There should be a 16 year gap between Star Trek 2 and Star Trek 3. It certainly worked for Dr. Who. Plus, it would teach “the fans” some manners.

326. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 6, 2011

“a matter of logistics”… yes indeed… “but part of me feels”… not only!

:-) :-)

327. Red Dead Ryan - July 6, 2011

I think in this case, the less we know the better. Any details regarding the Trek sequel seem to have a lot of folks in a panic and resorting to paranoid fantasies. The movie is going to be delayed a bit longer. So what. Happens all the time in Hollywood. The Trek sequel will get done. And if we go into late 2012/early 2013 without a finished script, then the concern will be valid. But we aren’t there yet so we just have to have faith in the writers. There’s nothing we can do about it so we might as well just forget about it.

328. Jack - July 6, 2011

wasn’t MI-whatever always scheduled to bereleased before the Trek sequel?

anyway, I think (just my opinion) brand recognition (gosh, I hate marketing-speak) isn’t necessarily too affected by the time that’s passed since the last whatever… Of course, I’m basing this entirely on myself, and my reaction to any nostalgia-dependant trailer, like, say, the new Planet of the Apes. i’m tryong to think of another, similar example. I know this doesnt exactly fit the example because it’s (Trek) the second in a new series but, heck, when the next Bond flick comes out, its success or failure wont be thet result of the gap between films. People know Bond. People know Trek.

329. boborci - July 7, 2011

313. No release date yet for Welcome to People yet, but it may be early 2012.

330. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 7, 2011

#329. boborci …

Thank you very much for your attention… I’ll be waiting for WTP, too!

:-) :-)

331. Mel - July 7, 2011

I am curious if Paramount will bother to promote the next Star Trek movie more in Europe. If I wouldn’t have actively searched for information about the last movie, I could have easily missed it, that it came to the cinemas. And I live in a country, where they did at least promote it a little. Other European countries were completely ignored. That may be one reason, why Star Trek did quite bad in Europe in comparison with other big movies. I mean only 33 % of its gross was made outside of the USA/Canada. Big movies made generally 50 % and more outside of those countries.

I regards towards 2D vs. 3D, this article is interesting:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3201&p=.htm

“Three movies received the ballyhooed 3D treatment, but they mostly reflected a continued softening of the format. Despite saturation-level 3D location counts, Green Lantern and Cars 2 each debuted with 3D shares in the 40 percent range (and went down from there), while 3D saved some face with Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which came in at a still-unremarkable 60 percent. In each case, 3D’s more-money-from-fewer-people approach has simply led to less money from even fewer people.”

So a higher profit may not be an argument for 3D anymore and the situation may get even worse for 3D movies in 2012/13. At the time of Avatar, 3D was still very new. Now it is nothing special anymore. Tons of movies are in 3D. Most people have already tried it out at least once. And it seems a lot of people won’t/can’t pay those high 3D ticket prizes anymore.

There is also the problem, that a lot of people can’t simply watch a movie in 2D anymore, if they don’t like 3D or if they find 3D too expensive. My local cinema for example has 7 halls, three of them with 3D, and they simply don’t show 3D movies in 2D. They use only their 3D halls for those movies. So you have only the choice of not watching a movie in the cinema, or to pay exorbitant prizes. I guess more and more people decide to do the first.

332. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 7, 2011

#331. Mel …

I have seen many reports on the Internet of people who heard of Star Trek, just when the film was released on DVD… so, maybe they have to pay more attention to that when promoting the sequel…

:-) :-)

333. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 7, 2011

Please – Anthony Pascale – please delete post #316 by me Keachick (rose pinenut) July 6. A little over the top, daft and embarrassing. Thank you so much.

#329 Bob – Thank you. If Welcome to People does get released early 2012…:)), then there will be two Chris Pine films. This Means War is to be released on 17 February 2012, where Chris plays one of the lead roles. Woohoo!!! Sooo cool!!! I’d better start saving my coins now…
And then the Star Trek sequel later. Is it possible that I could get all pined out? Nah, never…

334. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 7, 2011

#314 Actually notoriety means: “well known, esp. unfavourably (a notorious criminal; notorious for its climate)” as in “well known for its BAD climate”.

Celebrated: “publicly honoured, widely known”.

Therefore notoriety has more to do with dishonour and bad behaviour, whereas celebrated has more to do with honour and good behaviour. Both people exhibiting opposite behaviours are well known.

335. dmduncan - July 7, 2011

Ooh. Welcome To People sounds a little Indie-ish. Will have to see how that turns out.

Thanks for the heads up on City Island a while back. Got a chance to see it recently. Excellent film. All that time I lived in NYC and never had a clue that such a cool little place like that even existed!

336. dmduncan - July 7, 2011

333: “If Welcome to People does get released early 2012…:)), then there will be two Chris Pine films. This Means War is to be released on 17 February 2012, where Chris plays one of the lead roles. Woohoo!!! Sooo cool!!!”

Sounds like you’re pining for someone.

337. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 7, 2011

LOL …unfortunately will not see any movie debut this year starring Chris Pine… so, my DVD player will have to work a lot! …+LOL

:-) :-)

338. Anthony Pascale - July 7, 2011

RE: wasnt MI4 always first?
Yes and no. Cruise started talking MI4 in early 2009 before the star trek movie, but abrams wasnt attached until the summer. At that point they were essentially at the same point, with both the trek sequel and MI4 in development with writers assigned. In theory both could be out by summer 2011, but only if Abrams was not directing as he had already indicated his next project would not be a franchise film. By late 2009 Abrams had said he would only produce MI4 but could still direct Trek but would direct another project first (later revealed to be Super 8). So at that point the projects began to diverge.

In early 2010 Paramount announced Trek for Summer 2012 and Mission for Summer 2011 (and at the same time Abrams was writing Super 8) which was also later announced for Summer 2011. As 2010 went on Mission moved to Holiday 2011. So the possible move of Star Trek can really be traced back to late 2009 when Bad Robot began the process with three films in development (SUPER 8, MI4 and STAR TREK SEQUEL). They and Paramount thought they could deliver three films between Summer 2011 and Summer 2012 with Abrams producing all 3 and directing 1 (possibly 2) of them.

Again so as I said all of this is just logistics and scheduling overreach, nothing sinister and not a conspiracy.

339. Starfleet's Finest - July 7, 2011

You know, I only found trekmovie.com only a short while ago (and let me just say this site is amazing and my new addiction) and have been apart of the dialoge an even shorter time. But what I have noticed as a constant pattern is the overall paranoia and disapproval of… practically everything it seems. The major issues for a lot of the followers are: they didn’t like what was done with the first movie (i.e. The death of Amanda Grayson, the brewery for engineering etc.), it’s taking too long for the sequel, JJ really doesn’t care, and all hope is apparently lost, etc.
I’m probably inviting the sharks, throwing my opinion around but here’s my take on the whole thing. Without JJ, Orci, and all the rest, we would still be sitting around with the last Trek projects being Enterprise and Nemesis (which is a safe assumption, no one really wants) and pining for the glory days of TOS and TNG. Star Trek 2009 finally breathed new life into a franchise that was trapped in a rut. Not only that, but it has also introduced a younger generation (and people who have originally didn’t really pay attention to Star Trek) to the franchise which is what will make Star Trek really endure through the years. And good grief, if you’re still complaining, at least be happy you have something new to complain about and not the same thing for the past few years.

340. Disinvited - July 7, 2011

#338.

Logistics. Exactly and I agree.

But it seems odd to me that an ensemble cast like TREK with all the complicated scheduling and contracts that could entail, gets delayed. I mean some of those actors’ agents must have been smart enough not to commit their talent to doing 2 more sequels no matter how much time that could take. There has to be some pay or play in there somewhere no matter how “generous” Paramount is with time.

With MI4, the casting pretty much hangs on one actor who is more than committed to it regardless of any possible contract snags. That’s why I find it odd.

341. Anthony Pascale - July 7, 2011

Again pay or play only factors in if the studio exercised the actor’s options and had them schedule for specific times, something that should not have been happening as far back as when Paramount/Abrams decided to put MI4 ahead of Trek

Again you and others seem desperate to find some hidden meaning here. There is no there there.

If Anything with Abrams handing off MI to another director but maintaining his option to direct on Trek, it showed that he felt closer to Trek. And remember that it is Tom Cruise who plucked JJ from TV to give him his big break as a director for MI3, and yet that wasn’t enough to get JJ to commit to direct MI4.

Anyway I am done with this thread. I am repeating myself at this point. People can believe what they want.

342. VulcanFilmCritic - July 7, 2011

#339. Starfleet’s Finest

Paranoid? What makes you think Star Trek fans are paranoid?

As for constantly kvetching, it goes with the territory and has been a part of Star Trek fandom from day 1:

Number 1! Who the hell does she think she is?
I can’t stand Scotty’s hair combed back like that!
Barry Atwater, do you think he was right for Surak? Really?
The third season sucks!!!
What do you mean you are not Spock?
Shatner looks like a muscular dentist!
The GREAT TOS vs. TNG War
What’s up with the Black Vulcan?
Enterprise sucks!!!

Did you really think we’d treat Star Trek (2009) any differently?

343. Lolo - July 7, 2011

Who cares when……..once it happens!!! I NEVER liked Star Trek much until I unwillingly took in the 2009 movie….. and now I am hooked. That movie was so good that I am waiting with bated breath for more!! Now I find myself tuning in to all the old Star Trek tv shows. As a matter of fact, I just watched the 2009 movie again and it is just as good as the first time I saw it. I officially love Star Trek!

344. Chris - July 17, 2011

It seems that every other Trek movie is an apology for the previous inaccuracies,(how is that possible in the first place – the history is so well written already) so this will have to be a doozie. Take your time, get it right, don’t allow the “franchise” to fade away, produce some quality.

345. Herb Finn - July 22, 2011

They rushed ST:TMP to met a release date and look how that turned out!

346. xixihaha567 - September 10, 2011

This is some good stuff. It took me a whilst to come across this weblog but it was worth the time. I noticed this page was buried in google and not the number one spot. This web publication has a lot of enjoyable stuff and it does not deserve to be burried in the search engines like that. By the way Im going to save this site to my list of favorites.

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