JJ Abrams: Making Headway On Star Trek Sequel – Resisted Studio Pressure To Rush Before Ready | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

JJ Abrams: Making Headway On Star Trek Sequel – Resisted Studio Pressure To Rush Before Ready July 28, 2011

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

Now that the Star Trek sequel has been officially delayed, producer (and likely director) JJ Abrams is talking a bit about how the team are finally "making headway" on the project and he also revealed how he resisted pressure from the studio to fast track the film before he felt it was ready.

 

Abrams: Star Trek finally making headway + resisted studio pressure to rush

In some brief comments to the LA Times, Star Trek sequel producer (and expected director) JJ Abrams backed up recent comments from his writers that now that he is free of Super 8, he is on the Star Trek case, saying:

What works, in the feature world and television, is something that has real staying power. We’re working hard on that, making the kind of headway that frankly I wish we were able to make months ago. But you can’t do everything.

Abrams also revealed that he had to resist pressure from the studio to push the Star Trek sequel forward when it wasn’t ready:

There was a lot of desire [on the studio side] to fast-track a new ‘Star Trek’ and have it be shooting already. And in theory we could have done that. But what all of us [the creative team] were concerned about is the release date be the master we were serving. Nothing is more disheartening than something going in front of the camera before it’s ready. The crew can feel it and the cast can feel it. It’s just a heart-attack machine.

It is disappointing that the Star Trek sequel is being delayed. It appears that Paramount and Bad Robot were overly ambitious with their planning, trying to get Super 8, MI4, and the Star Trek sequel all out by summer 2012 with overlapping schedules. However, I think all Trekkies would prefer a Star Trek film which had the team’s primary attention instead of one where they were rushing, especially if it would have had JJ Abrams phoning it in on Trek while he was more focused on other projects. Also, his ability to resist the pressure from the studio shows how Star Trek is now in a different world than the old days when Paramount set the rules and producers and directors working on Trek often didn’t have the pull to fight back. There is no doubt that some past Star Trek films could have benefited with more time and/or more resources.


JJ Abrams directing his first Star Trek film
- didn’t want to rush sequel before it was ready

Comments

1. Aurore - July 28, 2011

“Nothing is more disheartening than something going in front of the camera before it’s ready. The crew can feel it and the cast can feel it.”

People in the audience can feel it too.

2. jr - July 28, 2011

I’m glad they want to do it right and not rush it. Perhaps JJ should consider someone else direct so he can launch/maintain other projects.

3. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 28, 2011

I think what they should have done is start writting Trek 2 just after Trek 09. I really believe they should start writting Trek 3 right after trek 12 is released and that way everyone can win. But. as it is. Might as well take there time in giving us one hell of a Trek Movie.

4. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 28, 2011

So. Bob and the court. Ger cracking after Trek 2 is released and promoted.

5. AL - July 28, 2011

I respect this, but I do wonder if they also were stumped for a plot.

6. No One Khan Hear You - July 28, 2011

I’m happy he pushed back.

7. Bill Peters - July 28, 2011

:) I rather have a good Trek movie that takes a little longer then have a Trek Movie that sucks and is out faster, anyone Remember Nemisis?

8. 12YearOldTrekker - July 28, 2011

No comment

9. Brevard - July 28, 2011

I absolutely agree that filming should not begin before the script is ready. But, really, whose fault is it that the script is not ready? I have to point my finger at JJ. He, nor the writers, were willing to put the time and effort into making it happen. They were all busy doing other things. JJ keeps using Super 8 as an excuse. Honestly, I can’t believe that Paramount wouldn’t want a big blockbuster opening soon, rather than a small “pet project” like Super 8. Super 8 will never make the kind of money that a “tent pole” film like Star Trek will. And Super 8 wasn’t that good. It was just a Spielberg ripoff. And, I’d like to think that Spielberg could have done it better.

I really liked JJ’s direction on ST 2009, but at this point, I say let someone else take control. While we are at it, why not get some new writers too? Maybe some folks who aren’t already doing a hundred other things.

10. MJ - July 28, 2011

Wah Wah Wah Wha. Stop whining, commit to the movie, and get it out by Christmas of next year, which allows the extra time you say you need, plus still gives the fans the reward of not having to wait two more fracking years for this movie.

11. Sebastian S. - July 28, 2011

It already feels like the whole thing’s on ice. I’m rapidly growing indifferent at this point, sadly. After this delay, there’ll probably be a cast member starring in another project that’ll cause another delay, and so on. Seems like Trek is becoming the B-project for all concerned.

When I see it? THEN I’ll be excited…. ;-)

12. MJ - July 28, 2011

@11. Sebastian S, you and I in full agreement — who would have thought, dude? :-) Best to you!

13. Brevard - July 28, 2011

#5: I agree. I think this is all about being stumped for a plot. I just think the writers had no idea where to take the franchise.

God help us if we get Khan again. No, no, no…

14. Yob Mosher - July 28, 2011

JJ should be fair. Implying that the studio is rushing you when you have had YEARS to work on this. He and the writing team should come out and accept part of the blame. After all they have been doing other projects which seems to be part of the reason we are going to have to wait.

15. trekprincess - July 28, 2011

Why are they doing this, do they care about Star Trek or not

16. bradpitti - July 28, 2011

I dont think rushing was ever a real option. wheter from the studio or the prod. team – paramount knows these boys well and they might not want to mess with their “golden creatives” – on the other hand – paramount invested in jjs super 8 – and it didnt quiet go supernova – now jj has the ball to decide – if he is only wants to do it – or has to do it for the studio remains seen but doesnt really matter. now the crew is trying to calm down the negativ buzz – that they are finally back on their common playground is nice to hear – i hope that will happen more often in the future – also because – they have all together good chemistry – in designing, ploting, and telling of the stories as you can see in many episodes of lost.
i know time has passed since the airing of the first few seasons, the movie world are waiting and so many different interesting projects yet has to be developed and created. hopefully the supreme court will be back doing tv.
however paramount has really lots to do for their major relases – gi joe, mi4 etc.
and yeah do the engine romm new please – as scotty would OWN it after the first few adventures! :-)

17. Mel - July 28, 2011

“Abrams also revealed that he had to resist pressure from the studio to push the Star Trek sequel forward when it wasn’t ready:”

So it was definitely not Paramount, who delayed the movie. That the movie isn’t ready, is because the producers/writers are prefer doing all kinds of other things over the Star Trek sequel. Star Trek is obviously not their main priority.

If they need again 4 years between Star Trek 12 and 13, because they prefer again doing all kinds of other projects, I hope Paramount get other producers/writers for the last part of the trilogy.

18. El Chup - July 28, 2011

It is absolutely not disappointing that the sequel has been delayed if it means that a picture worthy of the Star Trek brand is forthcoming….and a apicture, as suggested, that is better than the first one.

19. Shannon Nutt - July 28, 2011

JJ has really painted himself into a corner, because if the movie is anything less than great, he’s going to get a lot of backlash. I used to think the hardest thing to get made in Hollywood was a Superman or Indiana Jones film…now I’m begining to think it’s Star Trek!

The whole rushing/polishing script thing doesn’t hold any weight either…there are examples of movies made on the fast/cheap (The Wrath of Khan is one of them) and movies made without complete scripts (Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive is a recent example) that turned out great. There are equal examples of movies that took years to get to screen that turned out to be awful.

20. MvRojo - July 28, 2011

Glad they’re focusing on making a good product. I just hope the general audience doesn’t lose interest in the interim. Four years is a long time between sequels, and people tend to have short memories.

21. captain_neill - July 28, 2011

When different drafts were done for what became The Wrath of Khan and Nick Meyer was able to take elements from those drafts and create an improved script which more or less became The Wrath of Khan in 5 days that was a great talent. Now the combined talents of Orci and Kurtzman and Lindloff have more or less taken 2 years just to write a 70 page treatment.

Nick Meyer had a great talent with this. Not saying the writers should write it fast, Russell T Davies is an example of how bad scripts can turn out if they are written within 2 days. But Nick Meyer had a talent that allowed a great film to come together in a short time.

But the delay and all that is giving me less faith in what you all call the Supreme Court on this site.

22. MJ - July 28, 2011

““Abrams also revealed that he had to resist pressure from the studio to push the Star Trek sequel forward when it wasn’t ready:”

I never thought I’d say this, but it kind of makes me want to hug a Paramount Exec. :-)

It is good to know that at least somebody in a position of power regarding the sequel gave a flying frack about getting this movie out in a reasonable amount of time.

23. captain_neill - July 28, 2011

20

Sometimes I think if films didn’t have explosions and shots longer than 2 seconds these days a film might not be a hit these days.

Sorry just a comment to short memories. Its sad but true.

I was told by a friend there was audience applause for Transformers 3 (I refused to see it due to the pain of the second one) and I was thinking how can these dumb movies get so much applause.

24. Jack - July 28, 2011

22 reasonable to whom? Things get delayed (Man of Steel?). Personally, I’m thrilled that they’re taking their responsibility seriously. What’s six months in the bigger scheme of things?

25. Andrews - July 28, 2011

So, couldn’t we have heard about this six months ago, instead of them continually claiming it was “in progress” and “being written” and whatnot? A little respect for the fans waiting patiently for this would really be appreciated. I understand Hollywood has its politics, but the fact remains that it still looks and feels like we all got jerked around for a year (two years?).

Surely there could have been a way to avoid appearing like they didn’t give a crap about the movie or the audience excited for it.

26. MJ - July 28, 2011

@24. We are possible talking an entire year delay. If it is six months, I can live with that. If the sequel is delay an entire year, well frankly, that really irritates me.

27. MJ - July 28, 2011

@25 “So, couldn’t we have heard about this six months ago, instead of them continually claiming it was “in progress” and “being written” and whatnot? A little respect for the fans waiting patiently for this would really be appreciated. I understand Hollywood has its politics, but the fact remains that it still looks and feels like we all got jerked around for a year (two years?).”

Exactly. I could have done without the secrecy, the inconsistent information, and the not being straight with the fans thing for the entire first half of this year.

28. MarkP - July 28, 2011

Hi, we the assembled fans of Trekdom want you, the creatives responsible for the series, as it stands now, to know that we see no reason why in the name of God (or whatever divine figure you choose) you can’t drop everything to appease our selfish need for a new Trek film…RIGHT. NOW!

Don’t you know that, despite the successful work you’ve done on other projects, that your careers LIVE AND DIE based on our fannish impulses? How DARE you work on ANYTHING other than our precious Star Trek.

How DARE you talk and brainstorm about storylines and concepts when we can bash out a fanfic K/S slash story in 4 hours, which no one in their right mind would ever pay to read…BUT I DIGRESS! What do you mean you want to have time to craft something that may actually be good, when I’m standing here with my hard-earned cash that I’ll shell out for anything with “Star Trek “on it, no matter what the quality! Don’t you care about the franchise, or the fans!?!?!

The point is…You people have no idea what’s being done, or what JJ and team are thinking. Maybe they have multiple story ideas, and need to work them all a bit, to see which is strongest. And, frankly…We’ve seen what happens if creatives work on Star Trek, and only Star Trek. *cough*Berman*cough* So, let these folks work on multiple projects, and gather ideas and put together the best package they can. THEN judge it.

29. Jack - July 28, 2011

9 why do fault and blame always have to come into this, seriously? Yeah, he was working on another project — big deal. Fans here are making all these assumptions, based on what? We’re demanding the best Trek movie ever, heck, the best movie ever, in one breath and in the next we’re tearing apart the people charged with making that happen, based on no actual information (and telling them it shouldn’t be this hard to come out with a decent story, as if we knew).

MJ. You’re annoyed that the script wasn’t done months ago and that filming isn’t over by now. Fair enough. Sounds like a lot of people are.But is this going to turn into an angry Shatner- is- fat-ish rant on every post for the next 18 months?

There have been hundreds of hours of Trek produced, not all of it good, and only a handful of all of those have truly been great. There’s no easy, magic formula to telling a good story.

30. Anthony Pascale - July 28, 2011

Look Abrams wanted to do Super 8 before doing another franchise film. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about Star Trek, it just means he wanted to his own project (just like Chris Nolan has done other projects in between Batman movies). Steven Spielberg took 8 years between Raiders and Last Crusade (3rd Indy movie), in between he directed 3 feature films (ET, Color Purple and Empire of the Sun)…so was he “dragging his feat’ and “apathetic” about the Indiana Jones franchise?

Paramount said fine do Super 8 JJ by 2011 and oh by the way can you produce MI4 too. At that point they probably should have put Star Trek onto the 2013 schedule (just like with Nolan giving a 4 year gap between Batman movies to make Inception), but they soldiered on in the hope they could do it all. They couldn’t. Shit happens.

I find it amusing that some people still seem to want to go back to the old days with a team that really could only do Star Trek movies and wish that Paramount was able to force a sub-par Star Trek product out before it was ready. Havent we had enough of that in the past?

31. webitube - July 28, 2011

Thank you, JJ!

Take as much time as you need.

32. Andrews - July 28, 2011

@22

“It is good to know that at least somebody in a position of power regarding the sequel gave a flying frack about getting this movie out in a reasonable amount of time.”

You can bet Paramount isn’t happy about the delay, for the usual reason, that being $$$. Star Trek XI was a smash hit and has the potential to topple The Dark Knight in terms of sequel cash, and everyone who came out of the theater was desperate for a sequel ASAP. That interest and enthusiasm doesn’t last forever.

The execs can hear money dropping out of the piggy bank coin by coin with each passing month and they’re not pleased.

33. Rico - July 28, 2011

Film two sequels back-to-back!

34. Andrews - July 28, 2011

@everyone’s sarcastic “fannish entitlement” posts

I’m not demanding the sequel RIGHT THIS MINUTE, DROP EVERYTHING, I DON’T CARE IF IT’S A SUPBAR PRODUCT. Not in the least. I’m happy to wait for a good movie.

I AM irked that all parties concerned waffled and lied and were evasive and kept silent and basically did everything they could to seem unapproachable and apathetic about this for two years. (Does this mean they WERE apathetic? Not necessarily, but it’s how they CAME OFF.)

A few press releases here and there are not hard to issue. A little respect goes a long way.

35. NuFan - July 28, 2011

I love how the people who say they’re losing interest post hundreds of times per day. Empty threats are embarrasing and make Star Trek fans look bad. Paramount knows full well you will be first in line on opening day. Who are you kidding? When it’s adults doing it, it’s even more retarded.

36. Jack - July 28, 2011

34. Who lied?

37. Tempest - July 28, 2011

Good for JJ. I’d absolutely, positively, definitely rather wait for a GOOD movie than have the next Trek come out too soon and have it wind up like The Undiscovered Country. *shudder* There are more than enough bad Trek movies already. I’ll wait as long as I have to for another good one.

38. Andrews - July 28, 2011

@36

I guess they weren’t lies so much as “misleading half-truths”? The release date, the insistence everyone was working on it, the claim that the script was “being written” for a year and then oop, sorry, that was the OUTLINE, the script has actually just been started; the assurance that it was all still on schedule LONG after it was obviously clear to them that it wasn’t.

PR fail.

39. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 28, 2011

#33. Well Said. make Treks 2 and 3 Back to back and make it an Epic Star Trek Adventure. It can be done.
OR. Have Harry Ballz write the Script for Trek 3. Come on Harry. We know you can do it.

40. Adolescent Nightmare - July 28, 2011

35.

Well, clearly some of these adults actually are retarded. Imagine having one of these whiny she-males as your dad.

41. Jack - July 28, 2011

And if ends up being released 2-ish years from now… Yep, I’ll be disappointed. But, what’s the alternative? Heck, at least it’s not set for 2014. Yet.

I’d meant a six month delay from when they thought, or we thought, they’d be filming – back when that was this summer.

But again, this whole, ‘they’ve kept secrets from us, they’ve misled us, they’ve disrespected us…’ Well, the moving target (and the assumption/false hope it will come together sooner rather than later) is part of writing (as is the ‘we need it now!’ from the boss). All we’ve had is crumbs from other interviews on other projects — they’ve been no official announcements…

and, I’m guessing, making an official announcement/ putting out a press release is a commitment and a hell of a big deal (and produced by, and affecting, the entire Paramount machine, not just Orci going,’heck, we didn’t get that scene worked out this week like we’d hoped, I’d better fire off a press release today’)

I’m guessing they’re not doing that until they’re sure when this thing’s coming
out, and Paramount has something to replace it next summer.

42. Matt K - July 28, 2011

@30 – Very well said Anthony, I agree with everything you wrote.

43. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2011

Has to be a misquote. He wasn’t resisting Paramounts efforts to rush it before it was ready; he resisted Paramount’s efforts to rush it before HE was ready.
What chutzpah!

44. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2011

The whole article is misleading. ‘Back in the day’ Paramount had a team that was Star Trek centric and was very successful until the misfire of Nemesis. There was no reason anyone had to resist Paramount’s needs for new Trek. The people were already on the job and ready to go.

45. lawmanjcl - July 28, 2011

I can recall the wonder of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” on the big screen after years of watching syndicated repeats; but learning after-the-fact of the rushed production and the compromises made to meet the Dec. 1979 release date (Mr. Trumbull’s “crop it, flop it, or drop it” comes to mind), I could have easily waited another year, even more, if the time would have produced a better movie. To the current production team, permit me to thank you for putting the focus and emphasis on producing a “quality” movie, rather than “a” movie for a locked-in release date.

46. NuFan - July 28, 2011

40

No Thank You, Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

47. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2011

But, hey, I am not involved with this website other than as a reader, so I can think whatever I want to think. Mr. Pascale sort of has to go with the flow, like all the other Media do these days.
Trade truth for access. It’s the ‘New Politics of Being a Journalist’.

48. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2011

45.
There was no team in place for the first feature and yes, it was rushed and shows in the quality. I am not saying rush the next one. I am saying it could and should have been out by now if Paramount still had a dedicated team.

49. Jack - July 28, 2011

21. Yep, Meyer did it (reportedly combined various completed drafts in days) 30 years ago for an 11 million dollar movie starring TV actors all pushing or over 50.

45. Fantastic point. They were writing the script while the thing was shooting, weren’t they? And it showed.

Heck, even Trek 09 showed signs of the writer’s strike, in my uninformed opinion.

40. Being a she-male doesn’t automatically make you whiny.

Oh, and, yeah, I’d missed the post about putting GI Joe in Trek’s slot.

50. Jack - July 28, 2011

47. What access?

This is a fan blog. This ain’t journalism. Nor does it need to be.

51. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - July 28, 2011

Ok. From this point on we should have our own Anthony Pascale be the main man on Star Trek Movies. I’m sure he can get them written and made every 2 years and make then GREAT!!!!!!!.

52. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 28, 2011

#19 – “there are examples of movies made on the fast/cheap (The Wrath of Khan is one of them) and movies made without complete scripts (Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive is a recent example) that turned out great.”

Except that in the case of Wrath of Khan, that is not quite so. The final script was written in a few days, after many rewrites over a few months (or so I believe). With the Fugitive movie, that was basically a compressed remake of the 60’s television series The Fugitive starring David Jansen (dec.) as the original Dr Kimble. The story was already known. All they did was modernise it, give the one-armed man a better backstory/reason for doing what he did than in the original series and get the fabulous Tommy Lee Jones to play the US Marshal Gerard. Harrison Ford was OK.

Whether Bob Orci was placating us here or not, over the past few months, Bob Orci has called us his “consultants” and many of us have been giving him advice on how to improve engineering, bridge etc etc, script ideas, our take on the various characters and what we do or don’t want to see… As anyone can attest, posters have agreed and disagreed (quite vehemently at times) about how the next movie should show the main characters – the most controversial being the Spock/Uhura dynamic. Nobody is sure how much notice Bob Orci took of all these suggestions and gripes, but it is possible that some of this stuff is being taken into account as the four guys go to getting a proper script done and dusted, ie something to give Chris Pine/Zachary Quinto to look at… (as in, eg, do Chris/Zach need to spend more or less time in the gym? Chris learn to do Kirk-fu?…) Does Karl need to get a medical degree, because “I’m a doctor, not a judge”?…:)

Now that they are all in one place (if only it had been earlier, but that’s in the past), let’s encourage them to do the best that they can, reminding them that they are making Star TREK, not Star Wars, Indy, Transformers or whatever else blah blah blah, that might capture their attention momentarily and throw them off the great Trek path.

Good luck, Bad Robot. Make it a good one. Have fun.

53. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2011

50- Mr. P. certainly has more access than you or I do, correct? If he posted something critical of TPTB, his access [whatever that consists of] would certainly be diminished, reducing his access to whatever you or I could dig out on our own.

It’s the situation Cenk Yugur faced with MSNBC. Know what to kiss and when or move on…. Everything is politics these days and I am tired of it…

54. Anthony Pascale - July 28, 2011

I think there is a fair point that the delay announcement could have been done earlier, but it is hard to say when they knew they couldn’t make it. In talking to folks over the spring I started asking “can you still make it?” and there was always hope. They did think a September shoot could work. Things probably became clearer by the time super 8 was done, but then there was the issue of Paramount giving up the spot so Paramount had to look at their whole schedule.

55. Mel - July 28, 2011

I think it was said, that they won’t start filming this year. So I guess the earliest time for the sequel is summer 2013. Although at this point in time I wouldn’t be surprised, if it will be winter 2013. Just one schedule conflict with an actor and Star Trek’s filming may be pushed back even more.

56. Barb - July 28, 2011

I admit it… I’m glad to hear that Paramount WANTED to get it done. That is the most reassuring thing in this Abrams-centric self-serving article. I hope JJA can produce a good Trek movie, meaning one that offers more than a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but one with a compelling story.

I do take heart in the fact that most franchises produce only a few movies on each reboot. I’m just not a JJA fan. So, if Paramount WANTED to get it out, after Trek XIII or JJA Trek III, one can hope Paramount will do yet another reboot. I hope I live long enough to see it.

57. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 28, 2011

#38 Without knowing, I suspect that there was a script done but the Paramount execs didn’t like it, so it was back to the drawing board for the writers, which is why there appears to be just an outline or is it a “90 page scriptment” as Damon Lindelof has just described it.

It is the apparently loose way words like “story outline”, “script” and now “scriptment” (all having slightly different meanings) have been used, that has been confusing. So which is it? I suspect – all of the above, which are what the writers/producers/director(?) are working through now.

Enough already, JJ, with this “Direct or not to direct?” stuff. Duh!!!

58. OLLEY OLLEY OLLEY - July 28, 2011

I’m just glad that JJ is not driven by the Studio, and the fans for that matter.
A great professional.

59. Mel - July 28, 2011

@ 54

But they already did know in spring, that they will be busy with all kinds of other things for months and couldn’t even concentrate on writing a script. And there is other prep work required before filming and for a lot you need to know the script before it can start. Star Trek is also a movie full of special effects. It needs quite a lot of time after filming until it is ready. And of course they need time to promote the movie. Considering that they all knew this, how could they seriously still believe in spring, that the movie won’t be delayed?

60. trekker 5 - July 28, 2011

#1,Aurore,I agree,with you and JJ;when a flim is not ready,you can see it,in fact,you can hear it too,and it sounds like writers missing letters on a keyborad!!

61. joie - July 28, 2011

The part of ST TMP that was rushed was the special effects, only cause the studio decided in the eleventh hour that the Robert Abel effects house couldn’t handle the challenge and so handed off to Trumbull at the last minute. The SCRIPT was actually years old, having been written for the Star Trek Phase II TV series, so Roddenberry had plenty of time to work on it.

STII TWOK, on the other hand, was written, rewritten, and produced quickly and cheaply and is still considered by most to be the best of the Trek movies.

And, famously, the script for Casablanca was unfinished when filming began. The producers didn’t even decide how the film was going to end until the last minute.

On the other hand, film history is full of examples of films that took a lot of time to produce and ended up as turkeys: Cleopatra and Heaven’s Gate come to mind.

So anyone who tells you that there is a direct relationship between the quality of a film and the amount of time and money that’s put into it doesn’t know his movies.

62. Basement Blogger - July 28, 2011

@ 10 MJ

I’m don’t believe the film should come out in the holiday period of 2012 because of the competition. (Hobbit, Bond, Teenage Vampire movie) Yeah, that means 2013. Tha being said, I’ve said this many times MJ. You’ve defended the Supreme Court. We’ve fought hard. Everybody should listen to your complaints. That’s because you have credibility because of your zealous defense of the Supreme Court. So when you complain about the delays, everybody should listen.

63. Opcode - July 28, 2011

@56
I agree with you 100%. Sad, but true…

64. James McDonald - July 28, 2011

I am with Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire, only I would go so far as to say when you are finished with Script #1, start on Script #2. For example, Superman and Superman II were two different scripts, one story, but filmed back to back. The James Bond movies are back on track with MGM and now will be able to release one every 2 years again beginning in 2012. The script for Quantum of Solace was finished quickly and turned in to the studio on November 1, 2007. They began filming in January 2008 for six months and the movie was released in October 2008 for the UK and November 2008 for the USA. Now that is making a movie on time. The SAW movies were made every year. They began filming in March and the movie was released in October the same year. Before the movie was released, they already had the next story outlined.
JJ Abrams team should have done Star Trek 2 (#12) first and then Super 8 and Mission Impossible IV later.

65. Basement Blogger - July 28, 2011

Thanks Anthony Pascale. You said, ” It is disappointing that the Star Trek sequel is being delayed.” I’ve debated others who say fans should not complain or be unhappy. That’ doesn’t meant Trekkers should go wild. But it’s okay for Trekkers to be disappointed.

I liked Star Trek (2009) but have criticized it also. I look forward to the next film since the Supreme Court said they are going to go deeper. But in the meantime, I’m going to catch up on Enterprise and Voyager. And maybe the videogame will let us explore strange new worlds. Hopefully, if we’re still alive, I ‘ll be exicited to see the next movie in 2013.

66. Thorny - July 28, 2011

62… Technically, I think Thanksgiving Wednesday 2012 would be fine for Trek 12. Almost no one actually liked “Quantum of Solace” so the demand isn’t exactly deafening, and Bond is coming out Nov 9 anyway, Breaking Dawn 2 has almost no audience in common with Trek, and 47 Ronin starring Keanu Reaves doesn’t sound like a blockbuster to me. But I do think Paramount wants Trek as a Summer tentpole, so my money is on the week after Iron Man 3.

67. MJ - July 28, 2011

@28 “How DARE you talk and brainstorm about storylines and concepts when we can bash out a fanfic K/S slash story in 4 hours, which no one in their right mind would ever pay to read…BUT I DIGRESS! What do you mean you want to have time to craft something that may actually be good, when I’m standing here with my hard-earned cash that I’ll shell out for anything with “Star Trek “on it, no matter what the quality! Don’t you care about the franchise, or the fans!?!?!”

That’s ridiculous. No one is clamoring for a rush job on the script? K/S — why are you mentioning that sick puppy tracsh? For my part, I would have been mullifed by just a little fracking direct and honest communication of what the hell was going on the past six months instead of the silence, contradictory statements and unintentional misinformation we got as JJ went “into his shell.” I’ll say it again, in terms of comunicating with fans, Peter Jackson is the Gold Standard, and JJ could learn a lot from him.

@29. “MJ. You’re annoyed that the script wasn’t done months ago and that filming isn’t over by now. Fair enough. Sounds like a lot of people are.But is this going to turn into an angry Shatner- is- fat-ish rant on every post for the next 18 months?”

Jack, it looks like we are finally getting real information from the Supreme Court. So no, I really don’t think you are going to have to worry about me complaining about this for the next 18 months. However, I reserve the right to bring up this topic if I see them delaying this further beyond next Christmas — I thint two more years is fracking ridiculous.

@62 “I’ve said this many times MJ. You’ve defended the Supreme Court. We’ve fought hard. Everybody should listen to your complaints. That’s because you have credibility because of your zealous defense of the Supreme Court. So when you complain about the delays, everybody should listen.”

Exactly. I loved Trek 09 and have defended it and Supreme Court repeatedly. I LOVE NU-TREK !!! But as a supporter and great fan, I don’t like being taken forgranted. I am a huget LOTR fan as well — in the Hobbit production communiations, even when the prep was dragged out for two years doing to studio financing issues, Peter Jackson kept the fans appraised of what was going on. Again, he is the Gold Standard for a franchise leader — if JJ did 50% of the communications with the fans that Jackson does, most of us would have full buy-in right now to these Trek events, because we never would have been left in the dark.

68. Thorny - July 28, 2011

64… I hope we’re aiming for a better movie than “Quantum of Solace” though. “Solace” made a ton of money from people who loved “Casino Royale” (like I did) and were sorely disappointed. I for one will probably wait for Blu-Ray to see the next Bond, unless the reviews are really, really good (and “Royale” is the only Bond movie that got such reviews in the last 30 years).

69. MJ - July 28, 2011

All, Sherlock Holmes made half a billion dollars on a Holiday release when up against Avatar, so excuse me if I am not shaking in my boots over the Christmans 2012 calender. Release Trek on November 30th, 1.5 weeks after Breaking Wind (and 2 weeks after Bond), and we’ll own the movies for two weeks before the Hobbit comes out, plus make continued great money during the Holidays. In fact, I think in this scenario that Trek will make more money versus the overrated “tentpole” summer release in 2013.

Besides, I think they owe it to us fans to get us this move before an entire two years passes now. Looking at the posts on these boards, you sense that the “good will” generated by the Supreme Court from Trek 2009 is waning, and this behooves them and the studio not to delay this any further than is absolutely necessary. Look at the poll here as well — 75% of respondents agree with me on this.

70. Andrew - July 28, 2011

65

However, Iron Man 3 is distributed by Paramount so they’re not going to want to release Star Trek right after Iron Man and potentially decrease the grosses for both. The rest of that summer looks kind of crowded so I don’t think there is room to squeeze Star Trek in until August. If they really wanted summer blockbuster money, they should have delayed the film sooner and secured a release date. I think since Man of Steel got moved from the winter to the summer, there is enough space for Paramount to make good money in Winter 2012.

71. Anthony Pascale - July 28, 2011

Iron Man 3 is Disney. After they bought Marvel they bought out Paramounts distribution rights on Iron Man and the Avengers. Right now Paramount have no live action films for holiday 2012 or summer 2013. They have 1 animated film in each (with Dreamworks)

72. Michael Hall - July 28, 2011

” Also, his ability to resist the pressure from the studio shows how Star Trek is now in a different world than the old days when Paramount set the rules and producers and directors working on Trek often didn’t have the pull to fight back. There is no doubt that some past Star Trek films could have benefited with more time and/or more resources.”

Well. . . in theory, yes. But in the end, it all comes down to talent, and based on past performance I’d rather have Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer working under a tight deadline than the entire “Supreme Court” keeping to their own schedule. Sad, but true.

73. MJ - July 28, 2011

@72. Don’t agree with your indirect slam on the Supreme Court’s talents, Dex, but frankly, this is a case where we could have used a little old-school Paramount Exec can of whoop-ass to get these guys off the dime. :-))

74. Devon - July 28, 2011

“Besides, I think they owe it to us fans”

They owe us nothing. No one does.

75. MJ - July 28, 2011

@74. Check out Marketing 101 at your local university. We are “customers” of Star Trek….do some research on how for-profit organizations need to keep customers happy to succeed and expand. Loyal, happy, well-informed customers are very good for business.

76. Capt. of the U.S.S. Anduril - July 28, 2011

You know, I am VERY glad that JJ resisted the pressure from Paramount. Anybody else remember Revenge of the Fallen? THAT is what a rushed movie looks like. Horrible story, choppy effects during the last part of the movie, and characters that appear and disappear from scene to scene. I don’t want that in my Trek.

77. red dead ryan - July 28, 2011

I think its great that J.J Abrams refused to rush the sequel into production. I supported his and the writers desire to do other projects in between “Star Trek” movies. But no more excuses. Time to get the ball rolling, the ship sailing, the show on the road, the rocket off the ground, etc. whatever you like. Summer 2013 is the absolute latest I’m willing to wait. Any more delays and we’re going to have problems.

78. red dead ryan - July 28, 2011

#8.

“No comment”

That is a comment.

79. Jack - July 28, 2011

56. Barb – July 28, 2011

” ….That is the most reassuring thing in this Abrams-centric self-serving article. I hope JJA can produce a good Trek movie, meaning one that offers more than a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing…”

Well, it’s about him and asking him about the progress on the movie. Is that Abrams-centric? What’s self-serving about it?

80. Buzz Cagney - July 28, 2011

There is a world of difference between ‘fast track’ and ‘getting on with it’. What we have is a team that are just too busy on other projects. In fact they are so busy they can’t even seem to remember what scripts are written. It was reported at one time that Trek 2.0 was written- then it became an outline.
Sorry, but, and i’ve said it before, i’d be kicking them up their arses. They’ve dropped the ball.

81. BaronByng - July 28, 2011

Ok, how many of you complainers have ever worked on a major motion picture? Produced? Directed?

It’s like organizing a battalion to go into a theatre of war. Pre-planning, strategy, logistics, ensuring the right department heads, and that they have everything they need (talent, material, manpower, tools) to get the job done. Location scouting. Previsualization and animatics. Auditions. Extras. Moving all these people around, keeping them housed and fed.

Then there’s the timeframe of the operation, having a plan for how things are going to happen, what needs to happen to enable the next set of things, and so on. Then there’s post-operations (post-production), and once it’s ready to go and perfect, test-audienced and all, the giant marketing machine turns on. And there’s budgeting. And accounting. And getting people to cut deals and give you stuff for free (yes, even on a $100M picture, the budgets get stretched thin). And coordinating a hundred different external suppliers. And managing the press and the gossip rags. And…and…and….

It’s not like picking up your home video camera, putting on some Rubies costumes and running around in the woods with your buddies making “pew pew” noises with toy phasers and editing it on iMovie.

It was JJ’s choice to make Super 8, which was a great movie. And everyone on the team has other projects. Just because they picked up the Star Trek mantle (and did a great job with it) doesn’t mean they’re chained to desks and ordered to work on Trek and nothing but. They’re professional creatives. They tell stories, they make and produce movies and TV shows.

Imagine if you were a star chef with an amazing kitchen crew (and sous-chefs you mentor into becoming stars in their own right). Would you cook the same menu forever and ever? Would you never open different restaurant concepts and explore different cuisines? Would you say no to your crew becoming better at what they do by branching out, taking the time to stop, deal with professional burnout, etc?

Oh yeah, making and producing 3-4 movies in a year? That won’t happen forever. Doing that kind of intense work means you NEED downtime in between.

Part of the reason any Hollywood player is valuable is also the concept of scarcity. Actors can’t be in too many movies at once for fear of diluting their appeal. Directors can’t go to the same plot well too often (M. Night Shyamalan’s ‘twist endings’). Some movies are just filler with interchangeable actors, others are “events”, and others still become cinematic milestones. Point being, no-one ever did good work, regardless of genre, by being overworked, with a rushed script and compressed production schedule. It takes the time it takes.

82. Jack - July 28, 2011

75. Fair enough. Although, they don’t even have a pre-product to promote or market yet. Placating the fans (whether it be here, or in the script) is probably the least important of all the things they should be doing. Complain to Paramount’s marketing department.

Bottom line, and I’m not a fan of blanket statements: but it’s pretty likely that everyone here will see the thing at least once. And, like I’ve said before, the number of hardcore fans are a drop in the bucket.

I’m just glad they’re working on it. It can’t be easy to be struggling on something and come here and see that the self-proclaimed true fans are revolting because of a little delay with the script. Seriously, they said appropriately vague stuff in interviews — they didn’t promise *us* anything.

MJ, you mention Jackson — well, that thing’s been delayed for years… and, it’s his baby. And, we would have been likely calling for his head, complaining about his arrogance or saying, heck – anybody can do this thing – years ago.

P.S. Roger Ebert liked Cowboy’s and Aliens. I am intrigued.

83. Adolescent Nightmare - July 28, 2011

All these “If I’m still alive” comments. I think the tag line for the next one should be “Not your Grampa’s Star Trek”.

84. red dead ryan - July 28, 2011

83.

Nope. The next movie will be called “Star Trek XII: So Very Tired”. ;-)

85. Buzz Cagney - July 28, 2011

Bones to Chekov, ‘how old are you kid?’…. ‘i’m 46′. !!!!!!!

86. Jack - July 28, 2011

Heh. Not “Enough, already” ? ;).

87. Buzz Cagney - July 28, 2011

Bones to Kirk, ‘oh great, he’s older than I was when we did the first movie’ !!!!

88. Jack - July 28, 2011

Typo: Cowboys and Aliens

81. Good post.

89. Devon - July 28, 2011

#75 – “Check out Marketing 101 at your local university.”

Check out “You are Owed Nothing by Filmmakers 101″ at yours.

90. MJ - July 28, 2011

@80 “There is a world of difference between ‘fast track’ and ‘getting on with it’. What we have is a team that are just too busy on other projects. In fact they are so busy they can’t even seem to remember what scripts are written. It was reported at one time that Trek 2.0 was written- then it became an outline. Sorry, but, and i’ve said it before, i’d be kicking them up their arses. They’ve dropped the ball.”

Well said, Buzz.

91. Devon - July 28, 2011

#80 – “Sorry, but, and i’ve said it before, i’d be kicking them up their arses. They’ve dropped the ball.”

And the ball is being played now, all is good. No more complaints warranted.

92. Jack - July 28, 2011

91. Exactly.

93. MJ - July 28, 2011

@91 @92. If I see progress that looks like they are going to at least make and effort still to get this out by the 2012 Holidays, then I am on board with you guys concerning no more complaints. However, if I see more procrastination and weak-ass excuses (e.g. “Oh, isn’t it wonderful how JJ is fighting the big mean studio for us so that they will have more time”…PLEASE!) that push this into 2013, then I reserve the right to complain.

94. Buzz Cagney - July 28, 2011

you may be correct, #91, but right here, right now, I do feel like complaining. So I will. ;-)

Lets hope after all this talk of taking their time to get it right the end product is the dogs bollox. If its not then look out- if you think you’ve read complaints then you are in for a shock! lol

95. Buzz Cagney - July 28, 2011

I’m with you MJ. I can live with 12/12. Beyond that and i’ll be very frustrated.

96. Jack - July 28, 2011

93. Agreed, completely.

97. Jack - July 28, 2011

P.S. the headlines for this story, online, include “He’s in no hurry to boldly go anywhere.”

And, if were still sending our demands in a massive letter made from newspaper clippings (although, we may be the hostages in this scenario), i want to add:

No tachyons, positrons or anythingions, either alone or in waves, beams, bursts, streams or pulses, no sparks from the ceiling or phantom steam bursts at every hit, no reconfiguring of anything to emit anything, no rerouting anything from anywhere, including EPS relays or conduits (never want to hear EPS anything again), no phase variances, no quantum anything, no warp signatures, no anomalies, no “shields down to _%,” no rewriting of DNA, no reversible mutations, no final act magic solutions, no
meta winks to the audience.

98. MJ - July 28, 2011

no transducers, nothing gaseous, nothing phased.

gotta have shields down to X% though…that is old school.

LOL

99. trekprincess - July 29, 2011

I don’t know why it’s taking a long time to write a story for the next Star Trek film honestly I think it’s the script and JJ Abrams that holding the sequel back

100. captain_neill - July 29, 2011

Well taking the time will hopefully gurantee a stronger film.

Hopefully allow for a better plot and good character moments.

It’s a different Star Trek now so still hard to beat Wrath of Khan, FIrst Contact and Undiscovered Country but I believe Star Trek XII will still be a good movie.

101. Devon - July 29, 2011

#93 – “@91 @92. If I see progress that looks like they are going to at least make and effort still to get this out by the 2012 Holidays, then I am on board with you guys concerning no more complaints.”

Complaining will not speed it up nor accomplish anything else.

“that push this into 2013, then I reserve the right to complain.”

But not a reason. We could have NO new movies to talk about at all if it weren’t for these guys. Just relax.

102. MJ - July 29, 2011

@101. Sorry, but I not going to smoke a bong with you and sing Kumbaya and pretend I like it if the movie get’s further delayed beyond Christmas 2012. You are of course welcome to do that — I won’t be objecting. But please spare me the condescending “relax” lecture, would you please?

103. Jack - July 29, 2011

98. ;).

The “shields down to” never made tons of sense to me, although I realize that if they’re impenetrable, it makes it tough to tell stories. Are they only capable of absorbing a few shots? Why isn’t the power diverting automatic? I know. I like how Trek 2 wrote around that — the shields (which had previously been called, variably, screens and force fields) were either up, down or not working in the nebula (and I guess they did say that a few phaser shots weren’t enough against Reliant’s shields). It just seemed like that whole sequence — shields down to x, etc. etc. until they’re down or almost down, prompting trick/heartfelt speech/or brilliant idea from the crew — was drained of suspense years ago. At least Trek 09 did it quickly.

Roger Ebert rambles, and it’s easy to automatically engage the Trek rationalizer and defend against his gripes, but in his review of Nemesis, he writes:

“I’ve also had it with the force shield that protects the Enterprise. The power on this thing is always going down. In movie after movie after movie I have to sit through sequences during which the captain is tersely informed that the front shield is down to 60 percent, or the back shield is down to 10 percent, or the side shield is leaking energy, and the captain tersely orders that power be shifted from the back to the sides or all put in the front, or whatever, and I’m thinking, life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields. The shields have been losing power
for decades now, and here it is the Second Generation of Star Trek, and they still haven’t fixed them…
…the “Star Trek” world involves physical laws which reflect only the needs of the plot…
….I think it is time for “Star Trek” to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future, to a time when starships do not look like rides in a 1970s amusement arcade, when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads, and when wonder, astonishment and literacy are permitted back into the series. Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy”

104. Daniel W. Ring - July 29, 2011

Take your time JJ.

105. VulcanFilmCritic - July 29, 2011

The situation today is completely different than that which existed in the 1980-early 1990’s. Star Trek was quite popular then, with multiple franchises on TV, well-attended conventions, and lots of tie-ins. The movies only had to be as good as the TV show, TOS; they didn’t have to compete in the marketplace as a real movie.
Today, there is of course no original content on TV and very little in syndication, except late at night.

I was looking at the seating chart for the convention in Chicago, which will probably be Mr. Nimoy’s last. Half of the preferred seats have yet to sell. In addition, I wonder what is the point of this new “documentary” or “reality show” that William Shatner is making in conjunction with Creation Entertainment. It sounds more like a gigantic infomercial to me, designed to flog this dying horse. It seems that “Star Trek 2012 or 2013″ today must be judged as a stand-alone movie rather than an automatic-hit-franchise. Although the fans will be “the first in line” our numbers are dwindling. “We are becoming an endangered species” (also.)

The potential exists for Star Trek to go in a completely different direction, and I seem to remember hearing J J Abrams say that he wanted to make a darker movie than what has existed in the past. I would welcome that.
Look at what is in the theaters today this summer, all kinds of kiddy-pap and absolutely no adult fare. Frankly, I’m sick to death of what passes for entertainment in the summer. I wonder what form this new Star Trek will take. If the release date is Summer 2013, I think we can expect that kind of summer blockbuster-tent-pole film that has become all too common, but a Holiday 2012 release might predict a very different kind of film.

I was thinking, what if Ridley Scott made Star Trek? What would that look like? I was of course thinking of how he adapted Phillip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” into his masterpiece “Blade Runnner.”
Now I’m not saying that Star Trek should morph into some really dark apocalyptic nightmare, but what if the same attention to detail was brought to bear on depicting the 23rd Century. “Star Trek 2009″ was basically a movie about a defunct TV show, not really a science fiction movie. I spoke to people who had no prior experience with Trek, and they had no idea what most of the laughing and cheer for this movie was about. For example, seeing a young, raving, drunk Dr. McCoy entering the shuttle craft. It’s popularity depended on a lot of “in” jokes.

I think the potential exists to go way beyond the variations-on-a-theme that we have come to expect from Star Trek. I hope all this extra time will be put to good use in giving us something we could never have expected.

106. P Technobabble - July 29, 2011

Well, I have to stand corrected in my thinking Paramount had more control over the scheduling of the films than the producer — at least in Abrams’ case. On another thread I said something like, “I don’t think the studio would let a producer pick what film he wanted to do first,” and I was wrong, so it seems. But I do think the fact that Abrams didn’t want to be rushed with Star Trek proves that the man has enough respect for the material, and enough integrity, to want Star Trek to be done “right.” Hopefully, this will halt anyone from saying ‘Abrams doesn’t care about Star Trek,” any longer

Meanwhile, I don’t think the sequel will take any sort of drastic turn away from what Star Trek, in general, is. There was never really anything about Trek that was dark, or pessimistic (except DS9, perhaps), and I don’t think the sequel wil take us in a darker direction. In everything the Court has said so far, it seems clear to me that they get what Star Trek is about. I believe it is their intention to give us a movie that is true to the spirit of TOS.
And if I’m wrong about this, too, I guess I’ll have to stand corrected again and change my name to TheApologist.

107. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

Fast track? Fast Track?
You had three friggen years to make the GD movie.
and you still havent made it for the love of GD
fire JJ before its to late.

108. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

pull? the guys directed only 3 movies with only one of those actually making back its budget.

109. Silvereyes - July 29, 2011

102 MJ

I understand your frustration at this delay, but refering to your post @22, the Paramount execs’ desire to get the movie going ealier has nothing to do with their giving a flying frak about the movie, they know Star Trek is a money making franchise and they just want to have the revenues come in asap. To them, it’s a business.

110. Janice - July 29, 2011

So–it’s still not confirmed that JJ is going to direct? I hope he does and I’m glad he won’t rush it.
Take your time, put out a great ST sequel and get Pike in there and I’m a happy camper. I have no problem waiting till 2013. I’d wait longer than that for Pike to be there!

111. Danpaine - July 29, 2011

I really don’t see what the fuss is all about. So we wait.

Until then, everyone who wants to has HUNDREDS of hours of Trek to watch, in whichever incarnation is their favorite. I watched TMP again last night and loved it (again).

*Haven’t you folks ever really looked forward to a vacation, only to look back later and realize the anticipation was the best part about it?

We can’t do anything about the delay, so CHILL. Hopefully it’ll be worth the wait. My two cents.

112. Shannon Nutt - July 29, 2011

@108

Mission Impossible III cost $150 million and made $397 million.

Star Trek cost $150 million and made $385 million.

Super 8 cost $50 million and has made (so far) $181 million.

JJ has a VERY good track record.

113. Jack - July 29, 2011

107. How would firing the director speed up the process?

114. Adolescent Nightmare - July 29, 2011

I’m sure they’re terrified that the people who have been whining for two years are going to whine for another two years.

115. gingerly - July 29, 2011

That second quote…

Thank you, JJ, seriously, THANK YOU.

116. gingerly - July 29, 2011

*looks @ some the other comments*

Some you guys bitching about this taking so long, would have been the very first people to complain about a subpar end product.

…Wondering what went wrong and retro-actively saying what they should have done. :-/

What they should have done is what they are doing. Taking their damn time to get it right.

You can’t have a good cake before all the proper ingredients are procured and it’s had time to bake.

117. LaSalle - July 29, 2011

I don’t believe any of this.

When Paramount barks Abrams jumps! They are flipping the bill for this so they are not going to let Abrams get in the way of them making money. So Abrams can pound his chest all he wants but he is not in charge.

As for 3D, it WILL happen because Paramount wants it.

118. LaSalle - July 29, 2011

Maybe this time they can put out a movie that has a real story with no plot holes the size of mountains.

119. Steve-o - July 29, 2011

i dont know if anyone has mentioned this but why not film trek 2 and 3 back to back. this way they can just get it over with only make us wait one year. if television actors can film a seasons at a time then surely an actor can film two movies at once

120. Jack - July 29, 2011

114. Ever have anything nice to say? Just wondering. Don’t get me wrong — it is whining.

121. Jack - July 29, 2011

106. I’ve always wanted a dark Trek that ended horribly, hopelessly. A couple of them alone in a shuttle, I guess kind of like the start of Trek 09. Or something dark and brooding, like the Searchers. Play up the western roots. Harry Potter kind of mixed the wonder with the dread nicely — although they had 8 movies/7 books to pull it all together.

I hope we get that expansiveness that prompted such debate a few posts back.

And I’ve become the constant poster.

122. MJ - July 29, 2011

@116 “What they should have done is what they are doing. Taking their damn time to get it right.”

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that they have been concentrating on Trek and working hard to get it right. However, that assumption is completely incorrect. They have not been “taking their damn time,” the problem rather is they have all been engaged in multiple other projects, and so have not had enough time to spend on Trek. So it is not really a quality issue as you infer.

You stand corrected.

123. MJ - July 29, 2011

@109 “I understand your frustration at this delay, but refering to your post @22, the Paramount execs’ desire to get the movie going earlier has nothing to do with their giving a flying frak about the movie, they know Star Trek is a money making franchise and they just want to have the revenues come in asap. To them, it’s a business.”

Yes, I realized that. My point though was that a little bit of studio pressure might actually be good here for the well-meaning supreme court, who would probably just as well multi-task and get the sequel out in 2013, all things being equal.

@114 “I’m sure they’re terrified that the people who have been whining for two years are going to whine for another two years.”

Yawn!

124. Kirk, James T. - July 29, 2011

@ Bob topkins,

Ohhh listen BOB, if your just here to roam about waving your ridiculous points about then I suggest you pick up all of your trade secrets and go launch the Rick Berman “The franchise was better when he was at the helm” fan-site…

What we would have got from a team who had been doing Star Trek for TOO LONG would have been an unholy mess of a movie, no matter how much money you could have thrown at it, it would have just been another film or TV series that would fall back on a tried, tested and tired formula, failing to open Star Trek up to a larger audience whilst stumbling about within the confines of this tiny but ever so loud percentage of the fan-base.

Before 2009 The franchise had been a stagnant mess. Since TNG ended, Star Trek’s Executive Producer at the time relied too much on “Gene’s vision”, the fan-base and too much on what had worked before. It reverted into telling tales that only the die-hard fans would love and get – simple as that. No new ideas, no new ways of developing the myth, it folded in on itself and imploded to the extent that even many of the fans decided to walk away…

… So just because this new team does not want to be doing Star Trek every day for the next 18 years, doesn’t mean that they are not as committed to making the best picture they can.

In 2009 Star Trek for the first time in a long time had become something that was not sterile, formulaic or this film that relied on it’s audience knowing anything about the past 700 hours of Trek. It like so many great Star Trek stories, stood proud, on its own as part of this non-linear tapestry.

If you can’t accept the blatant facts when they are as clear as day then just leave because you’re talking shit. I’m sorry about the language but man alive if this were a live discussion I’d be kicking you up the shuttle bay. You don’t understand, you never will so just go away and bury yourself in the Star Trek you grew up with believing that it was all just one linear timeline and that it never broke from the holy grail of canon…

I just hope that you someday realise that as with everything else, Star Trek needs to grow, it needs to change with the times, it needs to remain relevant and whilst TNG was a superb piece of TV, since 1994 – the franchise was left to stagnate and implode up its own arse.

As fans we’ll love it all no matter how bad it may be to everyone else but there comes a point when you can’t actually see the wood through the trees. When that happens we get fans exploding in a fit of rage when someone else dares to dream up a slightly different design for the bridge, god forbid anyone blow up Vulcan…. Oh wait.

Fortunately the majority of fans, unlike you, are bright enough to understand Trek needed a shot in the arm and isn’t a ship in a bottle…

125. red dead ryan - July 29, 2011

Another reason why these guys put off the “Star Trek” sequel to do other things was to avoid being known as “the Star Trek writers”, a problem that many previous Trek writers faced when trying to find work outside of “Star Trek”. For example, Nick Meyer, who worked on three Trek films, was never able to escape from the shadow of “Star Trek”, specifically “The Wrath Of Khan”.

Outside of the hardcore Trek fans, nobody knows who Nick Meyer is, or cares. This despite the brilliance of TWOK.

As I have said before, I supported their desire to branch out to do other projects. But now that those are completed, its time to get the sequel going.

126. Kirk, James T. - July 29, 2011

@125,

I think your right in a way – I think we’ve become used to having creative people do nothing but Star Trek for 45 years..

… Many fans seem to be dumb-asses and not realise that these guys aren’t going to waste their professional lives doing ONLY Star Trek when these guys are talented enough to go off and work on other projects and films like Super 8, Cowboys & Aliens and MI4.

No one expects Chris Pine or Zoe Saldana or Sir Patrick Stewart or William Shatner to commit their lives to only Star Trek. The notion is ridiculous that the fans expect these guys chained to Star Trek until they’ve ran out of ideas.

Its full speed ahead for Abrams and his team now and I can’t wait for November 30th 2012.

127. MJ - July 29, 2011

@125. Hmm, he was an author of series Sherlock Holmes novels, and also directed Time after Time, plus the mega TV mini-series, “The Day After.” I think I am older than you, so I actually watched these productions when they came out. Plus, I believe he directed several other films and did multiple other screenplays. From your younger perspective, you have probably never heard of these?

128. captain_neill - July 29, 2011

Nick Meyer made a spalsh with The Seven PerCentSolution years before his Trek involvement. A very good book I might add.

129. MJ - July 29, 2011

@126 “… Many fans seem to be dumb-asses and not realize that these guys aren’t going to waste their professional lives doing ONLY Star Trek when these guys are talented enough to go off and work on other projects and films like Super 8, Cowboys & Aliens and MI4.”

You are missing the point. The point was we were provided information by the Supreme Court and the studio that the movie was gong to be released on 29 June next year….and they knew at the time that they were doing Super 8, Cowboys and Aliens, etc. Then, we are given inconsistent and I think unintentionally misleading information of script progress (e.g. Orci said here several times statements that essentially said a full first draft of the script would be done in March, then he goes into a black hole on the topic, and then JJ tells us in June that all they have still in the 80-page outline) that leads us to believe everything is on track. And then, JJ goes into a hole for multiple months and we get this overly-dramatic build-up of “will he or won’t he” direct the next movie.

So the issue for me is not really that the movie has been delayed. The issue is that the Supreme Court appears to be “the Keystone Cops of time management, fan communication and fanboy drama”

130. colorado_gamer - July 29, 2011

When the new one comes out 2012 or 2013; I will watch 2009 movie the day before and it will not seem like anytime has gone by…. That is movie magic.

131. red dead ryan - July 29, 2011

#127.

I’ve heard about “Time After Time”, and “The Day After” but never watched them. I was born in January 1981, so I wasn’t even two when TWOK came out. So it was several years before I got to see that movie.

I think most of what he did was before my time, and anything he did after “The Undiscovered Country” was off the radar, for me at least.

The reason I brought him up was because there seems to be a lot of people who insist that J.J Abrams be fired with Nick Meyer as his replacement based on the success of “The Wrath Of Khan”, which was made 29 friggin’ years ago!

I mean, if people want to see a new director for Trek, then at least suggest someone who is a contemporary of J.J Abrams, like “Moon” and “Source Code” director Duncan (Zowie Bowie) Jones. He already knows how to work with complex visual effects, and understands plot and character well. You don’t need to go back in time for that.

And believe it or not, MJ, but I’ve now (sadly) changed my mind about William Shatner appearing in the sequel. I don’t think it should happen. I love Shatner, and he’ll always be the first, best Kirk, but I’m sick of all the nostalgia trips. The time will come when Trek has to cut its ties to the past and move on. It might as well be now.

132. Ryan Gromm - July 29, 2011

If I was Paramount, I would have asked Orci/Kurtzman immediately following the solid critical reception of the first film: Can you write the sequel and have the first draft of the screenplay handed to us within the next 6 months?

If they had said yes, I’d say great your hired, get to work… if they hesitated and said umm, ahh, not exactly, I’d say sorry, were going to let some newbies take a stab at the foundation you just laid…

You can’t tell me Paramount isn’t freaking out right now, knowing the only summer blockbuster movie they have for summer 2012 is GI Joe 2… That’s an epic failure. Perhaps the reason Abrams and co. are now talking Trek seriously is Paramount probably threatened to can them recently… Maybe they brought them into a room and said OK guys, enough is enough, we can’t afford anymore delays on this, either do it, or resign from the project….

It’s not about critiquing Abrams and his writers to where they should only be concerned about Trek, but I’d say 3 years was a more than reasonable amount of time to get a sequel written, and ready for summer 2012… Just unacceptable if I’m a studio head…

From a fan point of view, I’d prefer a younger set of writers, and a director could have had a shot with the sequel or hell, bring Nick Meyer back to do what he does best….direct a good, well written Trek sequel.

133. Michael Hall - July 29, 2011

@ # 105 VulcanFilmCritic–

Excellent post. I doubt very much that’s the film were likely to get, given the predelictions of this “Supreme Court,” but it’s certainly in line with what I’d like to see.

–And, much as I hate to admit it, you’re also right about “flogging the dead horse,” in terms of the Star Trek phenomenon that ran from the early Seventies to somewhere in the Aughts: it’s mostly over, aside from us die-hards. For all the talk of Abrams’ “reviving the franchise,” Trek 2009 was exactly what it appeared to be: a well put-together summer popcorn movie based on an ancient TV show, with a cameo appearance from one of the original stars thrown in for crossover appeal. (Kind of like the Mel Gibson remake of “Maverick,” now that I think of it.) It wound up doing reasonably well for Paramount, but as a standalone movie. It remains to be seen if fickle American audiences will even remember the Abrams film when the next one is released, but if it does well my guess is that it will be primarily due to its own appeal, and not that of any of the films or TV series with the “Star Trek label” which preceded it.

134. John from Cincinnati - July 29, 2011

JJ is being very disengenuous when he implies it was the studio looking to “rush” Star Trek 2 out when in fact they had YEARS to write and plan the movie. It was JJ who let the schedule get away when he devoted too much of his time to Super 8.

135. Buzz Cagney - July 29, 2011

#104 absolutely PMSL! He doesn’t bloody need telling to take his friggin time! Luckily he isn’t a Pizza Delivery Driver!

136. John from Cincinnati - July 29, 2011

The original series was completed before the time it takes between ST09 and Star Trek 2 to get released.

137. T'Cal - July 29, 2011

Now we’re really, REALLY working on it!

138. John from Cincinnati - July 29, 2011

Now it’s clear. The new Supreme court only wants to do one more movie in the original series time. Star Trek 2 will end with them finishing their 5 year mission. Then starting with their third movie they will all take place during the Wrath of Khan period.

139. MJ - July 29, 2011

@132 “You can’t tell me Paramount isn’t freaking out right now, knowing the only summer blockbuster movie they have for summer 2012 is GI Joe 2… That’s an epic failure. Perhaps the reason Abrams and co. are now talking Trek seriously is Paramount probably threatened to can them recently… Maybe they brought them into a room and said OK guys, enough is enough, we can’t afford anymore delays on this, either do it, or resign from the project….”

Great post!!! I would not be surprised if that happened. And that would be a closed-door meeting that nobody would want to talk about afterwards — hence Anthony would not be aware of it from his discussions with Orci, etc.

140. MJ - July 29, 2011

@131. Agreed RDR.

141. Kokolo - July 29, 2011

God Trek fans are THE WORST. Bunch of f—ing crybabies. Reading the comments here, you sound like frustrated 12yo girls in their first relationship.

142. Lt. Bailey - July 29, 2011

I really do think 2013 would be too long to wait. The first films were like 2 years apart. Sure they had some problems to work out but the studio bigshots, Gene Roddenberry, the actors, Harve Bennett, Nick Meyer, etc all worked out the fine print each time. It was not easy by any means, if you read Shatners, STAR TREK MOVIES MEMORIES, it will open your eyes to the studio system and what it takes.

143. Anthony Pascale - July 29, 2011

MJ

Are you trying for the captain neill thread spam trophy ? Oh and stop bullying everyone with dif opinion. No on has the right opinion, not even me.

144. Adolescent Nightmare - July 29, 2011

Well, one thing’s for sure. There’s going to be complete and total news blackout on Star Trek 3.

145. sean - July 29, 2011

The only thing the Supreme Court owes fans is a good movie. FFS people, films are rescheduled and shuffled ALL THE TIME. The first movie was delayed six months, and I’m pretty sure we all managed to get through it. 4 years between sequels does happen – The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises will have a 4-year gap, and I’m sure no one is concerned that people have forgotten about the franchise.

146. PEB - July 29, 2011

wtf?! enough with the complaining! remember when other trek movies were RUSHED out of the gate? how different could generations have been if it hadnt been rushed? im glad there’s a desire for another movie but let them work on it when everyone is able to so the fans and the general public get something worth seeing. maybe some of you wanted the film rushed so you can form an angry mob and start the “i told you this would suck” chanting. just chill out, we’ll get the new film and anthony will deliver all the news but after years of trek films that felt rushed, i dont want the studio pushing just because of dollar signs and blockbuster scheduling.

147. Brevard - July 29, 2011

A little off topic, but I think it says volumes about the projects that are happening for these folks while they are not working on the next ST. Anybody read the reviews for Cowboys and Aliens? Anybody else worried that the “Supremes” may have lost their touch when it comes to writing? Methinks, writers block is definitely the reason this ST project has been delayed.

81. Yes, I work in the entertainment industry and I am one of the complainers. Trust me, it does not need to take 3-5 years to get a movie made. Even a big budget sci fi film. If all involved want it to happen, a really good movie can be released within a year.

148. MJ - July 29, 2011

Cowboys and Aliens got a horrid review today in the LA Times.

149. MJ - July 29, 2011

@145. Chris Nolan NEVER publicly committed to a release date within 3 years, so that point is not viable. Paramount and the Supreme court had committed to a June 29, 2012 release date.

“The first movie was delayed six months”

Another non-viable point — the movie was done in time for an earlier release, but the studio decided to hold it for a summer release. That is not the case here — they are really behind here!

150. MJ - July 29, 2011

@144 “Well, one thing’s for sure. There’s going to be complete and total news blackout on Star Trek 3.”

Agreed. That’s they way Chris Nolan handles the Batmans. You either do the Nolan blackout method, or you go full bore with fan communications like Peter Jackson does. The “half ass” method of Supreme Court fan communication just creates opportunities for misunderstandings, confusion and acrimony.

151. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 29, 2011

HMMMMM!!!!….

:) :-)

152. MJ - July 29, 2011

@143. Anthony, I apologize for coming across as bullying. With this post, I am taking several days off from posting. Have a nice weekend! Best, MJ

153. John from Cincinnati - July 29, 2011

This entire website exists for communication about “Trek Movies” does it not? I’ll go with the Peter Jackson method.

154. Anthony Pascale - July 29, 2011

I get that some people are angry, I am disappointed about any delay too. Basically way back when Paramount went to the new team and said “lets do another Trek” and they said “sure but we have other projects we want to do first” (primarily Cowboys and Aliens for Orci/Kurtz, finishing Lost for Lindelof, and Super 8 for JJ and Burk). At that point Paramount had two choices: 1. bring in a new team to get out something Star Trek by 2011, or 2. wait for the new team. They went with option 2, but they said “how about by summer 2012″. And that is when the mistake was made. They all (the team and Paramount) should have known it was pushing it, but they thought they could pull it off. They should have said holiday 2012 or summer 2013 way back then (like Nolan did with WB after Dark Knight), but Paramount and the new team (together) rolled the dice. And remember that during this process the studio also tasked Abrams & Burk to produce MI4 as well, so its not like they didn’t know what twas going on. I think that up until the spring of this year, as late as May, the Star Trek team really thought they could pull it off. But by late May it appears that it became clearer they couldn’t and that is when you started to hear hedging from the team.

So yes it was a failure of planning and over ambition on the part of the studio and the team. It is disappointing and I wish that by June they just admitted it wasn’t going to happen. But to add any more malice or conspiracies to this is just misguided or even paranoid. Sometimes a cigar (or a delay) is just a cigar.

And for those who seem to now think Paramount should bring in a new team, well that ship sailed two years ago. If they started over with a new team now it surely would be impossible to get anything out by holiday 2012 or possibly even summer 2013. And with some of the names being thrown around you would be lucky to get anything before 2014, 2015 or beyond as most other high profile directors have projects lined up.

155. T'Cal - July 29, 2011

By the time the third film is released, Chris Pine will look like William Shatner from Invasion: Iowa!

156. VulcanFilmCritic - July 29, 2011

@106. P Technobabble: “Meanwhile, I don’t think the sequel will take any sort of drastic turn away from what Star Trek, in general, is. There was never really anything about Trek that was dark, or pessimistic (except DS9, perhaps), and I don’t think the sequel wil take us in a darker direction.”

@133. Michael Hall: “I doubt very much that’s the film were likely to get, given the predelictions of this “Supreme Court,” but it’s certainly in line with what I’d like to see.”

Thanks for your interest. I distinctly remember a quote from JJ Abrams where he said he wanted to make a darker movie, and he mentioned “The Dark Knight” as being the kind of movie that he wanted to make.

By “dark,” I don’t mean a stylistically dark kind of film noir, but a film that is powerful, gripping, suspenseful, and dealing with adult themes. “Star Trek ’09” itself was pretty dark. We get to witness the death of Kirk’s father, we see his troubled past, Vulcan gets destroyed, and Spock’s mother is killed. That’s pretty dark, no?

Even TOS was itself kind of “dark” for a sci-fi show. Although filmed in gloriously bright Look Magazine colors of the 1960’s it explored some pretty “dark” human instincts and themes. And although it never dwelled too long on the unhappy pasts of the men of Starfleet, they all had some demons. For example, why is Scotty an alcoholic?
Kirk is basically a kind of Holocaust survivor who in childhood witnessed the deaths of 4,000 people. McCoy, why is he in Starfleet? Nurse Chapel is unhappy, giving up her career in science to become a nurse so that she can find her long-lost finance, Roger. Loneliness abounds on the Enterprise.

Personal problems aside, the 23rd Century is ruled by mining companies and even Starfleet is a handmaiden to them. Many starship captains are unhappy and complete nervous breakdowns are not uncommon. Despite solving hunger and many technological problems, the civilians we meet are generally not happy campers as well.
On the surface, it’s a shiny and new world but there is an undercurrent of tawdriness: prostitution, smuggling (Romulan ale, etc.) and corruption.
And mental hospitals are still in existence (and overcrowded.)

The darkness of the world of Star Trek was never overt, but it was certainly there. I would think that there is enough stuff there to mine for nuggets of pathos.

157. SoonerDave - July 29, 2011

All this demonstrates is what I claimed all along – that Paramount valued the Abrams relationship as more important (however slightly) than getting Trek out the door. Yes, they could have brought in a different production team, but didn’t see the need to risk compromising the existing relationships that had been cultivated.

Whatever the mechanism, Trek loses *another* year of momentum.

C’est la vie, as Kirk said..

158. Andrew - July 29, 2011

We so dont need another predictable plot though – another large ship dwarfing the Enterprise…. hm. Been done to death.

We need a plot that uses a bigger backcloth – fleet against fleet, espionage, intrigue and undercover, out in the strange and hostile galaxy (perhaps like star wars’).

And we need to know more about the characters – Scott, Sulu, Uhura. Maybe the standard film length needs a little stretching too to allow for more detail, more depth.

It soooo can’t be another Shinzon, Nero bad guy either. Been there, done that. Maybe the dark needs to be darker too?

159. dmduncan - July 29, 2011

Well since they’re taking so long to make the sequel, maybe they can start writing the THIRD film now as well, so that the third one is neither rushed nor takes a Ponn Farr cycle to get made.

160. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

154. Anthony Pascale – July 29, 2011

So you’re saying that, if Paramount wants James Cameron or some other big name director for Star Trek 3, they should sign him now while his calendar still has openings for 2014 or 2015.

161. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

I would pay $200 a ticket to see a James Cameron Star Trek that is 3.5hrs long in full THX Imax 3D with help from meyer and nimoy.

162. Anthony Pascale - July 29, 2011

159
Not sure if you are joking or not, but in reality the real A list/visionary directors like Jackson, Cameron, Spielberg, Aronofsky would likely never sign on to do the third film in a series already defined by one director. Such a director would want to define the universe from the start

I think if a new director were brought in for movie #3 it would be a solid guy but from a lower tier, like a Matthew Vaughn, David Yates, DJ Caruso, Alex Proyas, Peter Berg, Timur Bekmambetov, maybe Niel Blomkamp. But assuming Abrams is still producing it could be someone from his circle of trust, and the most likely candidate for that would be Jack Bender (directed lots of LOST and is directing Pine in new Jack Ryan movie). Maybe even Alex Kurtzman, depending on how Welcome to People turns out.

163. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

162. Anthony Pascale – July 29, 2011

—-in reality the real A list/visionary directors like Jackson, Cameron, Spielberg, Aronofsky would likely never sign on to do the third film in a series already defined by one director. Such a director would want to define the universe from the start—-

Like when Cameron did the sequel to Ridley Scott’s Alien, set in the exact same future world? Like when Irvin Kershner did Empire Strikes back in an even more already-defined universe? Like when Nick Meyer directed TWOK in a universe that had been defined over the previous 15 years by other directors in both TV and film, including the original Khan story, “Space Seed” by another director, and then came back and directed STVI with the three interluding sequels having been directed by other people (Nimoy and Shatner)?

164. dmduncan - July 29, 2011

162: “159
Not sure if you are joking or not,”

Only about the Ponn Farr cycle. If you are thinking big enough then your mind sort of floats ahead to future possibilities anyway, mapping out the consequences of what you are writing now so you can say okay, this part is one story and this over here is ANOTHER story. Knowing the future direction also helps your current project stay consistent unlike what happens in the X men series of films where nobody feels any obligation to make what they are doing precisely fit what anybody else is doing.

I’m with you on handing the third film off to a new director. I say let JJ off the hook NOW so his future workload isn’t a concern and start thinking about what talented new director could pull it off. And yeah, think about the third film story NOW.

Are there any consequences that are too large to deal with in the second movie but that follow from events in the second movie so that they can actually come up with an outline for the third playing off the second???

Think big! NOT small. Big!

165. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#163

My vision would be to be a world war 3 of films versus the Klingons and the Humans/Federation is losing so badly they need help from the past, the past being genetically engineered humans in the name of Khan :)

It’s a Empire Strikes back Judgement Day, Humanity versus Aliens arc for part 2 and 3 where Kirks ego gets crushed by the Klingons so much that they need help from Khan, Khan saves the day in this alternate reality :)

Of course part 2 would be 2.5hrs long and part 3 would be 3hrs long with James Cameron doing part 2 and Nolan doing part 3 lol I can dream can’t I?

166. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

You sure can, friend.

Following up what I said earlier, I realize that Kirshner and Meyer were not “top tier, big name” directors at the time, but Cameron was certainly on his way up and the main point is that all of the above mentioned sequels stand out as being the best or amongst the best of their respective series, and I don’t see any sense in an arbitrary line in the sand beyond which a “top tier” director (however we are to define term and judge those who qualify as such) will step in order to get involved in a pre-existing franchise. Certainly a director with James Cameron’s skill and resume would not feel too insecure at the prospect of being judged against JJ Abrams.

167. Anthony Pascale - July 29, 2011

Cameron has moved on from when he directed Aliens and now is focused on Avatar. And Meyer was no A lister and proves my point. Peoples director wish lists need to be realistic

168. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

And certainly if a “lower tier” director like Kershner and Meyers had the vision to do what they did with their sequels in the already-defined universes of their respective franchises, a “visionary” like Cameron would be at least as capable.

169. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

167. Anthony Pascale – July 29, 2011

—-And Meyer was no A lister and proves my point. Peoples director wish lists need to be realistic.—-

I agree that it’s probably unrealistic that Cameron would do it, but not for the reason that you gave. If he was a Star Trek fan, saw an opportunity and had the time, I don’t see why he wouldn’t go for it. What point were you trying to make about Nick Meyer? That he only did it because he wasn’t top-tier? I just don’t see anything intrinsically necessary for the director of a Trek Sequel to be non-top-tier.

170. dmduncan - July 29, 2011

Cameron is a bigshot now. He pursues his own visions not other people’s because he can afford to vs. the new guy who’s lucky if he gets a shot at anything. Besides, the bigger the shot the more he wants to imprint his own vision on the material. James Cameron didn’t even strictly stick with the Ridley Scott look for the aliens. He changed their heads.

There’s plenty of people they can find to direct a Star Trek sequel and JJ probably wants to move on too.

171. dmduncan - July 29, 2011

Besides, a true “auteur” would not fit in with the team spirit they have going here with some guys writing and JJ shooting. An “auteur” director is going to reinterpret whatever they write himself. These guys seem to have a lot more pull in this configuration with JJ than screenwriters typically have where they get no love and their name appears in the end credits in tiny letters right after “Color Timer.”

172. VulcanFilmCritic - July 29, 2011

171.dmduncan: ” Besides, a true “auteur” would not fit in with the team spirit they have going here with some guys writing and JJ shooting. An “auteur” director is going to reinterpret whatever they write himself. ”

Exactly! Which is why this franchise must stay away from guys like James Cameron. I saw the first draft of the script he did for the Spider-Man movie.
I almost vomited in my own mouth. His “vision” for Spider-Man involved some kind of bondage fantasy involving Mary Jane, spider webs, and a peculiar spider mating dance.
My God, I can’t imagine what he’d do to Spock!

173. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

Hey, if a condition of James Cameron directing a Star Trek sequel is him changing the heads of the aliens to evoke a more visceral reaction from the audience, that’s fine by me. Let him switch the crews’ heads around too…turn it into a quirky subplot of the movie, whatever.

All I’m saying is that, just as there are big-shot Hollywood actors, like Tom Hanks, who also happen to be Trekkies, it stands to reason that there might likewise be big-shot Hollywood directors who happen to be Trekkies. I mean, the franchise has been around for nearly 50 years and become a part of the fabric of Western civilization; that’s plenty of time and exposure to think that there are some big-shot Trekkies out there who’ve been secretly toying with the idea of doing a Trek film for years now. And now that the success of ST’09 has reminded everyone that a Trek film can also be very lucrative (which is the best thing that JJ Abrams has done for the franchise), I wouldn’t be at all surprised for someone of James Cameron’s stature and caliber to pop up one day and declare that he wants to put his mark on this great American enterprise (no pun) and mythological tradition of the Western world and show everyone how a Trek movie is done.

Is it a long shot? Probably. But I see no reason why it’s not possible. All it requires is James Cameron or whomever to want to do it.

174. Mel - July 29, 2011

Who cares if it is an A list replacement? Not all of their movies are good. On the other hand there are less known producers/writers, who are also able to make good movies. A big name doesn’t guarantee a good movie. A small name doesn’t guarantee a bad movie.

So I am all for replacing the current producers/writers for the last part of the trilogy. Get some people, who have more time and don’t need four years to make a movie.

Star Trek 12 won’t be ready before 2013. I really don’t want to wait until 2017 for the next movie. Get some other people and be ready for 2015.

175. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

172. VulcanFilmCritic – July 29, 2011

—-His “vision” for Spider-Man involved some kind of bondage fantasy involving Mary Jane, spider webs, and a peculiar spider mating dance.
My God, I can’t imagine what he’d do to Spock!—-

Dude, pon farr on steroids!

You’re only make me want Cameron even more!

176. Jason - July 29, 2011

he should have done the star trek sequel first, and then super 8.

177. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

James Cameron would probably reboot Star Trek and give us his version of the TOS Prime Time Line with lots of twists, turns, and genius special effect shots that would set the benchmark for the next 100 years.

James Cameron would tie in green/peace movement allegories and make GR proud but at the same time include insane amount of shots and cool cinematography to make it film worthy, the kind of film you can wait in line for days and hours before the opening day. The kind of film you wait for it to appear at your local best buys and wait another 10hrs to get the special edition deluxe directors cut with loads of bonuses.

James Horner would be a welcome back to score James Cameron’s Star Trek, since the two work on Titanic and since Horner did WOK.

James Camerson’s Star Trek would be the stuff of movie legends having garnered all the Academy Awards lol even the ones it didn’t belong to, Saturday Night Live and all the comedies like Family Guy and American Dad, Robot Chicken would be doing sketches of for the next 20 years, the kind of Star Trek that gives way to Arcade Games, Toys, and a new type of space agency, the one that doesn’t sit on it’s ass rolling out school buses to some cheap ass space station.

178. dmduncan - July 29, 2011

173: “Is it a long shot? Probably. But I see no reason why it’s not possible. All it requires is James Cameron or whomever to want to do it.”

Actually it requires the whole team at bad Robot to want him to do it, but even assuming he made his will known to them, why would they call in a guy who’s going to wreck everything they started so he can have his personal vision? Besides that…I don’t think the guy is that great. He’s a wonderful technical innovator and he makes epic films but he’s weak on story and he’s always involved with story even when he doesn’t give credit to those who came up with “his” ideas first, so the trouble it would cause having him aboard wouldn’t be worth the result in my view.

I just think it’s better to find that new guy who would do a really bang up job and who doesn’t yet have the power to boss the continuity crew — which is what the supreme court is — around. There’s no shortage. Really. You don’t keep seeing the same names over and over because that’s all there is out there.

179. dmduncan - July 29, 2011

Also, for anybody who’s been directing movies for a while, what’s the attraction of coming to a production where some other guy made all the production design decisions for you? What if he doesn’t like the sets? Or the Enterprise? Or the uniforms? To be stuck with things you don’t like on “your” own film would totally suck. I’d be counting the minutes till quitting time because I wouldn’t be as invested. So either they are going to keep JJ or they will find someone new to whom those decisions matter less than having a career. TV is a place where that happens regularly so it may make sense to draw some talent from TV.

180. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#179

Even if James Cameron was horny to direct a Star Trek and lets say Paramount pulled off this miracle. I am sure James Cameron can do whatever his heart pleased, it would be his movie and he would start from scratch, maybe to even the birth of the Federation and scrap all that came before including the whole TNG cochrane first contact bs.

Future earth would be interactive as Back to the Future II, with the hoverboards and flying cars and all. I would imagine it would be as real as total recall or miniority report where it does look like the future?

James Cameron would ask for a billion dollars lol as the movie budget :) hopefully it won’t turn out like water world.

181. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

The kind of epic film where it has a documentary in itself detailing how painstaking or expensive this shot or that shot would be or how innovative and never before tried or done this shot will be, something that blows your mind.

182. Cygnus-X1 - July 29, 2011

178. dmduncan – July 29, 2011

—-I just think it’s better to find that new guy who would do a really bang up job and who doesn’t yet have the power to boss the continuity crew — which is what the supreme court is — around. There’s no shortage. Really. You don’t keep seeing the same names over and over because that’s all there is out there.—-

That is also an exciting possibility.

I think the best thing that JJ Abrams has done for Star Trek has been to take it from the hands of Paramount who had it set up as a machine in their factory to crank out a movie every 2-3 years, and make it, as you said, an auteur-worthy film project.

And as you also said, there’s no shortage of brilliant young auteur film-makers out there who’d do a bang-up job with a Trek film and who are champing at the bit to do just that.

But I also think that we should not settle for less. We should not go backwards and settle for the days of mediocre Trek films past. Most of the TOS Trek films should rightly have been as compelling as Alien and Terminator were in the early 80s, and today’s Trek films should be as compelling as The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings. Abrams has shown that there’s a lot of money to be made by Trek films. Let’s not settle for mediocrity with the Trek logo on it like too often in the past. Star Trek has earned its place in Western mythology, popular culture and has even significantly influenced Sciences and NASA. And it’s certainly earned the respect, effort and talents of the best and the brightest filmmakers, as well as the up-and-coming best and brightest.

183. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

I want there to be continuity, which means all of the Bad Robot team need to be doing the sequel, which is already behind schedule. It would also be a good idea to get a good first draft outline done for the third movie and submitted to Paramount execs for their approval, we hope, once this sequel gets completed.

It is possible that there was an outline presented to Paramount early on but some executive threw it back at the writers… The story, script doesn’t just have to appeal to JJ Abrams, but more importantly, it needs to appeal to the Paramount suits. It appears that now what has been submitted is approved of…

Paramount executives are no doubt rubbing their hands with glee over the success of 3D Transformers 3, their big 2011 summer blockbuster “tentpole”(?) movie. No doubt they are hoping for similar success with GI Joe 2 next year. Not that this is a bad thing – gotta make a living and the better Paramount’s overall bank balance is, the better it is for Star Trek and other movies that may not attract quite as big an audience, but are still popular nevertheless and movies that are worth being made. My fear is that Paramount will insist that the Bad Robot team do a Transformers type movie, because, at the moment, that kind of movie gets the butts and the greenbacks.

I am wishing/hoping that the writing/producing team are trying to resist this kind of pressure in order to do a decent Star Trek movie.

184. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#183

No need to bash transformers to lift star trek up to some first class arsty fartsy film. Apples and Oranges here, transformers is about good vs evil and done in a fashion of showcasing usa might in military, hot woman and cars. Star Trek about exploration and cops in space with opera scores and a message about our current society.

185. DeShonn Steinblatt - July 29, 2011

182.

Be that as it isn’t, you’re not getting your “rich history” back. Anthony is correct and the obvious has already been stated. Going forward, each changing of the guard at Star Trek will usher in an all new universe. Not some pathetic return to the old one to please a handful of caucasian males on the internet who got very carried away with their fantasizing, and now found themselves somewhat lost.

You don’t tell JJ Abrams he can have his own universe and then tell James Cameron that he can’t. In contract law we call it precedent, but in trekkieland we call it reality.

186. Trekboi - July 29, 2011

Rubbish- JJ is just trying to Spin the fact Star trek is just a paycheck to him & he doesn’t care about fans missing out.

a sad hateful part of we wished very bad things for them.

I cant believe they got us all excited over the first film then left us abandoned with nothing of the nu universe but a comic adaption.

They got payed- its just a job to them- they don’t care that they have robbed us of a sequel by the time this film comes out it will be the film the third film should have been

The only way to make up for it is write an epic 2part sequel & film both at the same time- releasing them a year apart- but they are too lazy & self-indulged to do that for us- so what can we hope for another film in 4 years so 3 films in 10 years is all we can get?

These “people” are Killing Star Trek- Putting it on hold & depriving us of new material just so no one else gets payed to work on start trek

Just them
it’s all about them

STAR TREK belongs to the fans- the dream is ours not any production crew & there will be others who can actually do the job- guess we will just have to wait till the actors are too old & they “Re-imagine” it again- hopefully paramount wont let it drag out with these “people” like they did in the Berman years

187. Trekboi - July 29, 2011

The star trek films aside from the 2 Star Trek 1’s (Star trek the motion picture & Star Trek 2009) were never prioritised & they always turned & blamed the fans- said we didnt support it- but they never gave it the support other mainstram movies got.

History repeats itself.

Star trek 2009 is proof if given propper mainstream support by the studio Star trek can succeed but the sequel isn’t & wont succeed- it’s too late- it will bomb & they will blame Star trek itself- lame as he is George Lucas had a Plan for Star Wars & he executed it beautifully with it being the main focus of his career.

Star Trek has no centre- no one person, plan or goal & it is helpless with people just picking its bones for the paycheck.

188. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

#184 I am not bashing Transformers. Besides there are others who do a far better job of bashing Transformers, especially ROTF.

It is a particular style of movie where there are long drawn out chase scenes, whether they be people chasing people, car chases, lots of fighting – fist fights, punch ups, kung fu etc etc. Rarely is the protagonist even slightly injured…The battle/aggression scenes seem to last as if forever, along with the attendant audio effects. It’s like, “Wow. Look what we can do, CGI wise etc, and listen to all the great, realistic and loud sound effects!” Many of these scenes are very skilfully executed, but just overdone and frankly tend to spoil the overall feel and enjoyment of the movie.

I’m always thinking “OK, you guys have *crapped* on one another. We see it. We get it. Get on with the story!” Finally the story continues, only to be taken out by yet more overly drawn out aggression scenes. Note: there is very rarely ever a long drawn out really nice romantic love/sex scene – God forbid. Of course, though, there is some (sleazy) sexual innuendo to be had at times.

I don’t want the sequel to be something akin to what seems to be the current fad among many movie makers and audiences alike. Star Trek 09 managed to get a reasonable balance. If the sequel was going to have something that ST09 did not have and that would be a really nice romantic love/sex scene between James Kirk and the new love of his life, Jasmia…

189. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 29, 2011

@186, 187 You have also repeated exactly the same content on another thread in this site. Propoganda – much.

190. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

#188

Michael Bay is like a kid living out his teenage boy fantasies.

I agree some of the shots are filled with hormone kid wowser shots.
Bay did start off his career shooting men magazine videos believe it or not.

In regards to sex scenes that are drawn out, check out, lust caution, period piece about love, betrayal and espionage, think you would like.

191. somethoughts - July 29, 2011

Here you go keachick

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lust_caution/

192. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 29, 2011

30
I find it really funny people who try to compare JJ abrams with Christopher Nolan.
Chistopher Nolan has earned that respect that he can negotiate another film in between.
Last i checked JJ hasnt directed a movie thats grossed over 500 million dollars domesticly.
heck he has only directed one movie thats done over 200 million domesticly.

WB knows what they get with Nolan, its always quality and it always brings in the money.

And quite often an award buzz as well.
heck even comparing JJ to spielberg is a joke, as much as JJ might want to think of himself as this generations Spielberg he isnt and never will be

193. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

81 I actually have worked on quite a few, and my current boss has produced over 80 movies in the last 2 decades.

194. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

81 and the office I work at is on the Paramount Lot.

195. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

one last post on this thread for tonight,
I am going to laugh if by the time we get to star trek XIII the cast is the same age as Shatner in Crew in star trek II or III lol

Oh and if they dont get shooting come Jan 2012 they might have to wait even longer since Avatar 2 starts shooting in late winter early spring 2012
I dont think Zoe will put Trek as a priority over the sequel to the biggest motion picture of all time.

196. somethoughts - July 30, 2011

JJ and company deserves their credit as they have succeeded in doing the impossible, making a star trek film accessible and one that made top 60 in all time domestic grosses. JJ is still young and one day may surpass nolans box office successes, mi3, cloverfield, star trek, super8 isnt a shabby way to start ones directorial carreer, lets see what happens with star trek 2.

197. Devon - July 30, 2011

#192 – “And quite often an award buzz as well.
heck even comparing JJ to spielberg is a joke, as much as JJ might want to think of himself as this generations Spielberg he isnt and never will be”

Nor has he even said that the thought that he was, so your point is moot.

“I am going to laugh if by the time we get to star trek XIII”

No.

“Oh and if they dont get shooting come Jan 2012 they might have to wait even longer since Avatar 2 starts shooting in late winter early spring 2012″

Shoot Zoe’s parts early in Trek, later in Avatar. Boom. Problem solved.

“I dont think Zoe will put Trek as a priority over the sequel to the biggest motion picture of all time.”

You’re thinking 2-Dimensional.

198. Devon - July 30, 2011

“81 and the office I work at is on the Paramount Lot.”

Sure it is.

199. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 30, 2011

Who is comparing Christopher Nolan with JJ Abrams?

The only thing they seem to have in common is their apparent reluctance to do a movie in the 3D format.

So what if JJ Abrams has not brought in as many bucks as Christopher Nolan?

As Anthony Pascale noted, it is not just the returns, it is about return on investment. The greater the financial investment put into a movie, the greater the financial returns need to be. The budget for The Dark Knight Rises is about $250 million, so the movie will need to get AT LEAST that much back from box office and other sales receipts.

If the Star Trek sequel budget is about $150 million (what it was last time), then that is the MINIMUM amount that the Star Trek will need to get back in sales.

Which movie is the better or the more preferred film – well, only time will tell. They will, of course, be telling quite different stories…

200. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

198 d
believe whatever you want, alot of production co lease out offices on the studio lots.
maybe if your nice ill invite you to take tour of the offices if your ever in socal.

201. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

Zoe is the female lead in Avatar, and shooting for avatar is alot more intensive and demanding than that of Trek, so yeah i dont think Camerons going to rework his schedule so his lead actress can be in a movie that cant even get its self pulled togeather

My comment about the comparisons between him and spielberg was to the poster who i responding to, of course if you would have actually read it you would have figured that out.

i love how you cut and paste things out of context from the entire body of my post.
and with that iam done with you, say whatever else you like about me or my posts, just know i will ignore you.

202. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 30, 2011

So you are just renting office space? I am not even going to ask what you actually do in this office on the Paramount lot, no less.

I used to work in a building owned by Air NZ – doesn’t mean I know how to fly a plane.

203. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

Zoe is the female lead in Avatar, and shooting for avatar is alot more intensive and demanding than that of Trek, so yeah i dont think Camerons going to rework his schedule so his lead actress can be in a movie that cant even get its self pulled togeather

My comment about the comparisons between him and spielberg was to the poster who i responding to, who was comparing him to spielberg.
of course if you would have actually read it you would have figured that out.

i love how you cut and paste things out of context from the entire body of my post.
and with that iam done with you, say whatever else you like about me or my posts, just know i will ignore you.

204. Keachick (rose pinenut) - July 30, 2011

Gosh, The 76th Distillation of Blue – No need to get snooty with Devon.

“Oh and if they dont get shooting come Jan 2012 they might have to wait even longer since Avatar 2 starts shooting in late winter early spring 2012″

There is no reason to believe, at this stage, that they won’t start shooting the sequel in January, especially when the writers have commented that it may be possible to start filming before January.

When is it officially spring in LA? I don’t live in California but I believe that late winter in LA is around March, I believe. That gives the Star Trek film makers two months to film all of Zoe’s scenes. Surely that would be enough time, given that she is not one of the three main characters.

Another aspect is that, even though Zoe is the one of the main characters in Avatar, she won’t be in every scene (she wasn’t in the first Avatar movie), so there will no doubt be a lot of work that Cameron can do without needing to have Zoe on set. As you said yourself, filming Avatar is a lot more intensive and demanding (and presumably time consuming). That would also surely apply to the scenes that Zoe is not in. She’ll just finish her part in Star Trek and then move onto Avatar.

Incidentally Avatar 2 is not due for release until December 2014.

205. fanfaron - July 30, 2011

Abrams czlowieku wez te swoje glodne kawalki, mam gdzies twoje Super 8 i twoje marudzenie na temat tego gnusnego filmu, ty i parowkarze zawaliliscie sprawe, bedzie wam to zapamietane

206. Devon - July 30, 2011

I’m trying to get info on where Avatar’s principal photography is starting in January though. There is no info on when shooting is supposed to start that I can see.

207. Devon - July 30, 2011

#203 – “My comment about the comparisons between him and spielberg was to the poster who i responding to, who was comparing him to spielberg.
of course if you would have actually read it you would have figured that out.”

Except Anthony was not “comparing” in the way you’re saying, not even close. He was discussing attitudes toward franchises and sequels and you twisted that around and implied that J.J. thinks of himself as this generations Spielberg, which you know has never been said, and only implied maybe in the media or by fans. It was just said so that you could take yet *another* shot at J.J. Abrams is all.

208. sean - July 30, 2011

#149

“@145. Chris Nolan NEVER publicly committed to a release date within 3 years, so that point is not viable. Paramount and the Supreme court had committed to a June 29, 2012 release date.”

So? It’s been changed. As I said, a lot of movies announce one release date and end up with another. My point about the Batman films is that 4 years between sequels is unimportant, and not unheard of. People are acting like a Star Trek sequel released 4 years later instead of 3 years later will somehow DESTROY THE FRANCHISE. It won’t.

“Another non-viable point — the movie was done in time for an earlier release, but the studio decided to hold it for a summer release. That is not the case here — they are really behind here!”

Trek 09 had an announced and committed-to date, which they later changed. Trek 12 had an announced and committed-to date, which they’ve now changed. You’re right, it’s like apples and oranges! :)

I’m sorry, but I just cannot understand your point of view, at all. You seem to feel this is some kind of personal affront to fans, when in actuality it’s just typical show business shuffling.

209. Bill Peters - July 30, 2011

Fan need to learn to live with-in the Reality that people who do Trek in the Future need to have other Films in between, and the Current team will give us what we need for Trek, but if it wasn’t for JJ and the others we would have no New Trek to speak of what so Ever.

210. gingerly - July 30, 2011

@122

“You stand corrected.”

What I saw when you said that:

http://th76.photobucket.com/albums/j30/caramelcod/th_the-comic-book-guy-pondering.jpg

You really don’t want to be that guy, seriously.

One more time, you only know what they’ve been kind enough to share with you.

To believe that you know anything more, what they are focused on or not, is presumptuous.

Only thing we do know for sure is that they are not allowing the studios to pressure them into rushing to a deadline, which is excellent.

It’s okay to not be a nerd stereotype and not give into cynicism, sometimes.

211. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

anthony while i see your point dont forget how many years spielberg lobbied to try and get the chance to get to direct a bond film after he became an A list director.

I also see your point in the other things you mentioned but the thing here is this had JJ said flat out yes i am going to direct trek XII, but i want to do this project first most people would have been fine ok, but JJ has from the start been wishy washy on his commitment to direct the next film.
if he doesnt end up directing trek XII after all of this and merely produces its a big slap in the face to fans, because another really talented director could have allready had a new trek film well into filming or maybe even post by now.

If he had flat out said yes i am directing trek XII, then i would have been A ok and even understanding with the most likely year delay we are now getting.
but he still has yet to even commit to it and this is from a guy who is supposedly the head of the so called supreme court.

212. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

i agree with the poster above,
nolan never agreed to getting DKR out by certain date. along with the quality of ALL of nolans cinematic endevors is why most fans are ok with waiting four years for the final chapter of his Dark Knight saga

213. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

sorry for so many individual post, i just keep thinking after i posted.
(edit button would be great lol)
depending on how Trek XII does, I think paramount and SpyGlass might have serious thoughts about having Bad Robot produce Trek XIII

214. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

207 thank you so much for twisting my words around.
never once said that JJ has said he considers himself this generations spielberg.
I said posters on here seem to think he is. but he never will be.
not saying he isnt a good director, when it comes to TV hes pretty good movies well ive like 2 out of his 3 movies so that not bad.

215. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

Devon i never said january i said late winter early spring.
and that comes from a printed article in the L.A. times about a month or so back talking about the manhatan beach studios where Avatar 3D is booked for its shoot for late spring early winter 2012

216. The 76th Distillation of Blue - July 30, 2011

i stand corrected i did say that jj does see himself as this generations spielberg, and yes while he has never come out and said that from his press invterviews its implied as much.

but alot of the jj advocates on here do imply that hes the next spielberg

217. Kevin M. - July 31, 2011

Amen on the more resources given !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

218. dmduncan - July 31, 2011

JJ is the heir to the Lucas/Spielberg style of movie making, with an emphasis on the Spielberg. Super 8 shows that. That’s the comparison, not whether he’s the blockbuster wunderkind that Spielberg was/is.

219. red dead ryan - July 31, 2011

I see that the “76th Distillation of Blue” likes to spam and reply to his own comments, just like Captain Neill. Not only that, but his bickering with Devon reminds me of the Neill/Trekprincess feud!

Looks like Captain Neill has a “twin” on this site!

220. VZX - July 31, 2011

30: Hear, Hear! I totally agree with Pascale on this. Why do you people get so upset over this? We will get some great Trek! Be patient! Everything comes to he who waits!

221. Cygnus-X1 - July 31, 2011

Well, then everything should be coming to us.

Because by the time ST2 is done, it’ll be set in the present.

You keep set’em up. And I’ll keep knock’em outta the park.

222. jortio - July 31, 2011

please direct star trek 2 JJ!

223. Vega - July 31, 2011

Sure, it’s disappointing, but I just don’t see the point of the blame game. I saw this coming a few months ago, but I believe it’s like Anthony said: They thought they could get it done and Paramount waited a little longer than they should have to finally announce it officially.

I’m in the minority, but I think May 2013 (I thought the 10th was available), is better than December 2012. Not just because of the Hobbit, etc., but because I think movies should maintain their release times of year from movie to movie. Star Trek 2009 established itself as a summer movie and should stay that way. Remember Disney’s faux pas with Narnia: Prince Caspian, moving it from TLTWTW’s December release to a summer release.

As far as Abrams & Co. are concerned: I’ve got no problem with them completing projects that they were probably developing just before or as Star Trek released in 2009. Those are obligations that they couldn’t just abandon. Doesn’t mean they don’t care about Trek.

And I would not want a regime change at this point. Abrams and co. did revive Trek even if some hardcore fans had/have issues, Paramount can’t ignore the success of 1st film in the mainstream. That’s why they’re allowing them more leeway than they have with directors/writers in the past. And I want to see Abrams’ vision play out fully.

And I don’t think 4 years is ridiculous, people seem to have really short attention spans these days, jeez. Just make a great film J.J. and that will make it all worth it.

224. MJ - August 1, 2011

@210. Sorry Gingerly, but that link is not working? Not sure what you are talking about here either?

225. MJ - August 1, 2011

@210. Got it to work finally. Ah, I see, it was an inferred personal attack on me. Hey, it that rocks you boat then go for it. I refuse to reciprocate.

226. gingerly - August 1, 2011

#225

:) …Read that in his voice.

227. Losira - August 2, 2011

As others on this thread said and I agree…rather wait for a superior Trek then haste giving us WASTE.

228. David Pease - August 2, 2011

I have been a HUGE tos fan. The new movie was lukewarm at best. If they’d kept the ending with William Shatner’s voice over then maybe it’d been a little better and sellable to real trek fans, but I have a feeling this new one will be “lost in space” revisited. Hopefully not, but JJ needs to get off his ass and decide if he’s onboard or not. Not showing loyalty to it shows a lot in my opinion. Be the director or piss off.

229. The 76th Distillation of Blue - August 2, 2011

219
If my being rather vocal on my postion on things comes across as spam to you then I apologize. And i dont go out of my way to “Bicker” with anyone.
I have never told any other poster they are wrong or resorted to name calling or anything like that.
Even in instances like Devon, who iam sure is a great person in the real world, inspite of the comments he has made to me.
everyones entitled to their opinon even if no one agrees with it, but its our given right to have an opinon on anything and everything.
I have never started any confrontations with anyone very rarely do i ever even mention other posters in my responses,

And finally heres the main thing dont like what me or another poster says then ignore the comment when you see the name, its pretty simple.
now can we get back to real discussion.

230. Verspoochie - August 3, 2011

All bad aside, “THERE IS GOING TO BE A NEW TREK MOVIE”!!!!!!!!! Quit picking it apart “Purists” and enjoy the ride. It has the TREK name on it. Even “Deep sleep nine” had a draw. This director will not disappoint. And the new time line will be “WOW”!!!

231. Mortos Der Soul Stealer - August 4, 2011

I’m a “PURIST” and damn proud of it. I’m a loyal, die hard, 25+ year TOS fan and I HATE JJ-TREK WITH A PASSION THE LIKES OF WHICH THE UNIVERSE HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED!!!!!!!!! Abrams ruined Star Trek in my opinion. Just because it has the Trek name on it doesn’t make it good. Nor does it make it Star Trek. JJ-trek is the furthest thing from Star Trek that I’ve ever seen. JJ-trek sucked! The jj-prise sucked! Budgineering sucked donkey puke! The iBridge sucked! Destruction of Alderaan…er…Vulcan sucked!!!!! NuDeltaHoth sucked!!!!! NuKirk-The-Jerk sucked!!!!!!!! Keesner seriously sucked monkeys!!!!! The NuSpock/NuUhura romance sucked!!!!!!!!!!! Four-Years-Older-Than-He-Should-Be-Chekov SUCKED!!!!!!!!!Amanda’s death Sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NuScotty the comic relief Sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Starbase Death Star sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact, the only thing about jj-trek that didn’t suck like a frakkin’ Hoover was Karl Urban’s portrayal of Dr. McCoy. It was absolutely brilliant! He nailed it! He WAS Bones!! As for the rest? Pfffttt!

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