Paramount Sets World War Z For December 2012 – Star Trek Sequel Date Still TBA |
jump to navigation

Paramount Sets World War Z For December 2012 – Star Trek Sequel Date Still TBA August 9, 2011

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

Ten days ago Paramount began to shuffle their schedule around, officially moving GI Joe 2 to the summer 2012 slot occupied by the Star Trek sequel. And today they have made another move, setting a holiday 2012 date for the zombie movie World War Z. A new date for the Star Trek sequel is still pending.   


World War Z set for holiday 2012 – awaiting decision on Star Trek

Paramount Pictures has been busy shuffling their schedule for the last couple of weeks. As expected, two weeks ago they moved G.I. Joe 2 (now called G.I. Joe: Retaliation) into the June 29, 2012 slot previously occupied by the (still untitled) Star Trek sequel. This left GI Joe’s previous August 10th date open. Conventional wisdom for some industry watchers (and suggested by Deadline) was that Paramount would put their yet-to-be-scheduled World War Z into GI Joe’s former August 10th spot, and move the Star Trek sequel to a holiday 2012 spot.

However, today Paramount picked December 21st, 2012 as the release date for World War Z, the zombie war film starring Brad Pitt. This makes December 21st very crowded with three other films set to open on that date (Life of Pie, Lone Ranger, and Hunter Killer), and all of these are coming one week after The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens on December 14th. Surprisingly there are still some open weekends in the holiday 2012 season, including the weekend before The Hobbit opens, December 7th.

World War Z concept art – film set to open December 21st, 2012

If one were to try and read into the situation it could be seen two ways vis a vis Star Trek. On one hand they have left open a couple of good potential holiday 2012 dates for the Star Trek sequel, and Paramount doesn’t have a problem opening multiple films in the same period. They have three films opening this December including Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol on December 21st and Tintin on December 23rd. On the other hand why not put World War Z (which was supposed to be a summer 2012 movie), onto GI Joe 2’s old slot of August 10th? As the zombie movie is already in production, it seems reasonable that it could be ready for release in a year. It could be that Paramount believes World War Z will do better on December 21st then on August 10th. On the other hand, Paramount could be trying to fill out their year as they have no other films in the fourth quarter of 2012. If so, that would indicate the Star Trek sequel is more likely headed for summer 2013.

Enough for the speculation and tea leaf reading. Star Trek sequel producer JJ Abrams promises we will know all "within the next month," so until then we will just have to wait for the real news. 

Spidey adding insult to injury

In other release date news, Spider-man appears to be lapping the USS Enterprise. Following Paramount’s 2010 announcement of a June 29, 2012 release date for the Star Trek sequel, Sony decided to get in on the 4th of July action by announcing a July 3, 2012 date for The Amazing Spider-man (only 5 days after Star Trek). That film is already in post-production and will now be going up against G.I. Joe: Retaliation. And Sony is so excited by their new Spidey, they just set May 2nd, 2014 for the sequel. Oh, and they have also just released a teaser trailer for The Amazing Spider-man.



1. rogerachong - August 9, 2011

2013 for sure.

2. Andrew - August 9, 2011

Whatever, Abrams has said news is coming within the next few weeks so hopefully we will know soon enough.

I really want to see World War Z as well and am a little surprised they’re releasing it at Christmas (zombie horror/war film is odd for a holiday release). I think it would have worked better in August, and could have been the Rise of the Planet of the Apes of next summer. Maybe Paramount felt going up against Total Recall and The Bourne Legacy (plus The Dark Knight Rises would still be new in theatres) was too much competition.

3. Dee - lvs moon' surface - August 9, 2011

Yeah …:-( :-(

4. dmduncan - August 9, 2011

Oh they are going to release World War Z on the very day that the dead come back to life for real and start chewing on the living. The needle just broke on the Awesomometer.

5. Craiger - August 9, 2011

Could they be having trouble coming up with a bad guy for the next film and that’s another reason for the delay? Could Paramount have lost faith in Trek? I don’t see why since the last one earned alot of money for them and I liked it.

6. StalwartUK - August 9, 2011

At the rate they’re going I wouldn’t be suprised if they cancelled the 3rd movie.

7. kmart - August 9, 2011

World War Z is Marc Forster, right? The guy definitely can use more time in postproduction, so he doesn’t have to rush and overcut his first pass, a la QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which would have been great (except for Craig being in it of course) if the ADD editing hadn’t held sway. Forster apparently does stuff a little like David Cronenberg used to, where he cuts too much out right away, then plugs filler in as he retouches stuff. Cronenberg did this on the first cut of VIDEODROME and audiences didn’t even know where the main character worked until 85minutes in… pretty big goof for preview audiences to have to point out to you.

I’m not saying WWZ is going to need a year of post like Nick Meyer had on TIME AFTER TIME, but a little more time, sure why not? Cuts down on the VFX overtime bill.

8. trekker 5 - August 9, 2011

Dear Lord God!! I would ask why all this is happening,but I already know.

9. Susan - August 9, 2011

How are we gonna watch it in 2013 if the world ends one year earlier? :))))

10. Robert H. - August 9, 2011

How about Christmas 2012? 4 years after it’s suppose to have been release date?

11. Punkspocker - August 9, 2011

7. Wow, a Videodrome reference! What an awesome flashback!

12. red dead ryan - August 9, 2011

One step closer to summer 2013…… the meantime, CBS should do an animated series. Oh crap! There’s a lot of legal hurdles to go through. Even a damn cartoon can take years to happen!

Oh well! At least we have the prior shows and movies on dvd/blu ray to watch. Almost 700 hours.

13. VZX - August 9, 2011

Is the Star Trek sequel even green-lighted yet? Who’s to say if Paramount even approves of the story yet?

At this rate, it looks like it’s going to be 2014. Time for another reboot already.

14. ctcraig - August 9, 2011

Very hard to care about a ST movie coming out in two years.

15. Vultan - August 9, 2011

Boy, that Spiderman movie seems awfully familiar… like something from way back in 2002… directed by… Sam Raimi.

What was the name of that again…?

16. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 9, 2011

What a horrible bunch of movies are being made at the moment. Really awful, sicko stuff with zombie war movies and the like.

Perhaps Paramount are wondering how a movie like Star Trek which hopefully deals with the adventures and experiences of ordinary decent beings, human and otherwise, can compete with such violent, visceral sicko stuff that it and other movie studios are busy producing. As in real life, creating something positive and good is harder to bring about destruction, I guess similar applies when it comes to making movies.

So sad, so very sad.

So, are JJ and Paramount having trouble believing that having a movie like Star Trek “boldly going where no one has gone before” (in the best sense of that statement) will bring in the audiences, given these negative, ignorant and cynical times? I wonder…

(DS9 was about as dark and mean as any Star Trek should go.)

17. CanadianShane - August 9, 2011

Yeah were gonna get a sequel every 4 yrs and 3 movies max…thanks paramount, you have a great franchise here and you just cant get your act together..

18. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 9, 2011

Edit: …is harder to bring about THAN destruction…

19. Craiger - August 9, 2011

If Star Trek is going to come out in 2013 it will loose all of its moementum it had in 2009. The new fans it got might forget about the sequel if its out in 2013.

20. CanadianShane - August 9, 2011

Its not about destruction…its about priorities…

21. David Stoeckel - August 9, 2011

This is RIDICULOUS. COME ON, PARAMOUNT!!! Get Your Act Together NOW!!!!!!!. It’s been almost 7 years since There’s been a New Series(I know that Johnathan Frakes has been using Facebook and other Social Media to make STAR TREK:TITAN the Next Series, which I Suppport 100%), It could be Another Two Years before Another Movie…Gene Roddenberry has to be Rolling Over in His Grave. I Love Star Trek(I have been a fan for 24 years, and I’m PROUD to be a Star Trek fan), And I Can’t Believe that Paramount is Treating it this way. Have they Forgotten How Good Star Trek has been to Paramount? We fans, just as we have done before, have to Stand Up for Star Trek. Get on Paramount Case, and Keep doing it Until they get their Act Together. Gene Roddenberry’s Son could help too.

22. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - August 9, 2011

Well. No choice now. Has to be Summer of 2013. To crowded for christmas of 2012. I still think that the court should write an epic 2 or 3 parter like the lord of the Rings. make this trek. A grand scale and Adventure with a Human hart.

23. SoonerDave - August 9, 2011

This is all very, very disappointing. Looks to me like Paramount has no clue when this thing will be ready, if ever, and they know now they can’t peg a release date for it because the production team doesn’t even have a script ready.

Can’t believe we had the great success of ST09, and all that great momentum is being squandered. As I’ve maintained all along, setting a release three years out told everyone where Trek was in Parmount’s pecking order, and here we are, no firm date, and only vague promises of Yet Another Announcement Coming Really, Really Soon.

Part of me would love to believe Abrams and crew are going to pull some double-secret rabbit out of their hat and stun everyone by doing two movies simultaneously, ala Back To The Future, but I know that’s just wishful thinking. It’s just depressing to see all the current sludge being made and knowing another iteration of Trek is *at least* two years away. It just sucks, plain and simple. I wish someone would at least apologize for the delay.

Very, very frustrating and disappointing.

I really, really, really want someone to blame. But I guess that doesn’t do any good, either.

24. DeShonn Steinblatt - August 9, 2011

You don’t get anything unless it makes money, dum-dums. This notion that there will always be Star Trek… where does it come from???????

25. MJ - August 9, 2011

@24 Thanks, now please finish your jar of Gerbers and put your pacifier back in your mouth.

26. MvRojo - August 9, 2011

#21 Why are you blaming Paramount? It’s not like their the ones holding up the production. They gave Star Trek 2 a prime spot in Summer 2012 and the writers/producers missed it.

27. dmduncan - August 9, 2011

24: “You don’t get anything unless it makes money, dum-dums. This notion that there will always be Star Trek… where does it come from???????”

James Cawley.

28. SoonerDave - August 9, 2011


While I agree the production team has seriously dropped the ball, I think Paramount has to accept some of the blame for setting the bar so far out that it made Trek look like a second-tier priority. IF the studio made it look back-burner, there was no urgency on the part of the production team to buck the trend, and by the time everyone realized things weren’t getting done, it was too late.

Blame to go around in my book.

29. The Unknown Poster - August 9, 2011

Why cant they just go in the Aug date vacated by GI Joe?

30. Devon - August 9, 2011

“If Star Trek is going to come out in 2013 it will loose all of its moementum it had in 2009. The new fans it got might forget about the sequel if its out in 2013.”


31. TheKeeper - August 9, 2011

Take your time JJ and Paamount, do the movie right, get the story as pefect as you can, make it with even greater gusto then the last one, lens flares and all and never mind the obsessed fans going thru with drawal pains, the wait is just what they need. As for a TV series, don’t bother, TV isn’t the same any more, the real money is in films and DVD/Blueray sales.

32. Barb - August 9, 2011

5, Craiger… the bad guy will be a mysterious Romulan whose face we never see behind his mask…

33. - August 9, 2011

Sony will be disappointed at the box office. Doing an origins story will put way too many people off with the last origin story done so well so recently.

34. - August 9, 2011

Emma Stone on the other hand may guarantee some bums on seats. At least one.

35. Jack - August 9, 2011

23.SoonerDave – “I really, really, really want someone to blame. But I guess that doesn’t do any good, either.”

Very true, but that’s not stopping nearly everybody else here. ;/

31.TheKeeper – “Take your time JJ and Paramount, do the movie right, get the story as perfect as you can, make it with even greater gusto than the last one, lens flares and all, and never mind the obsessed fans going thru withdrawal pains, the wait is just what they need…. ”


36. Bob Tompkins - August 9, 2011

40-40 Summer or Holiday 2013, 20% shot Summer 2014. It just gets worse and worse.

37. Bob Tompkins - August 9, 2011

31. And it will fall apart as badly as Trek 09 did with a moment it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief. Something always tickled the back of my mind about the movie, but for the longest time, I just went with it without really analyzing it.
Spock Prime would NEVER NEVER EVER have let Red Matter fall into Nero’s hands ; he’d have done what young Spock did at the end of the movie. I am surprised Mr. Nimoy didn’t have objections to it as written and filmed. It wasn’t addressed in an out-take or a deleted scene.

38. Will_H - August 9, 2011

Seems kind of insulting to the fans how little they care about making any sort of deadline with the next Star Trek. If the last one had taken a long time I could understand, but it didn’t.

39. Jamie - August 9, 2011

Just keep it away from The Hobbit. That movie is gonna make a TON of money, and really hurt all the ones that come out around it. If we want a third one, the second has to make money, after all.

40. MvRojo - August 9, 2011

#28. How is 3 years too far out? A lot of franchises do 2-3 years. Paramount gave them three years to write and produce a film, and they couldn’t even meet that. Do you honestly think that cutting it to two years would’ve helped anything. The writers’ plate has been incredibly full to the point where they couldn’t get a script DONE in over TWO YEARS. And seriously, second tier? It was the first movie they slotted for Summer 2012 and they gave it one of the best slots of the summer (the weekend before the 4th of July, guaranteeing a strong second weekend number)

41. Jack - August 9, 2011

33. I’m eagerly awaiting it. Heck, this one’s coming out 10 years after Raimi’s first Spider-Man (which got it all kind of wrong, in this fan’s opinion… well, except for J. Jonah Jameson).

42. thegermanmatthias - August 9, 2011

If they will not bring ST 12 at least in winter 2012, I will simply learn from this: I cannot count on one more ST movie in time. I will not count on any ST movie release date at all. The new people behind ST are creative, but maybe they will just always be too late at our meeting-point: In cinema.I do not like people, who – how brillant they may be – are unpunctual. That is – maybe – what I will learn about the new people behind ST. I will see…

43. rogerachong - August 9, 2011

New spidey is crap. Who needs another boring 80 million dollar movie where Spidey appears only near the end and the rest of the movie is some cheap Twilight romance wannabe. Star Trek would have kicked Spideys azz all the way back home to mommy. I am soo sorry that now this mmatch-up will never be. Sony just got a let-off and are now smiling gleefully with no ST on the horizon.

44. Harry Ballz - August 9, 2011

Hey, don’t forget, it was some Paramount exec (forget his name) who championed Star Trek to come back in a big way. That’s what relaunched the franchise. If that guy gets replaced, which happens every day in Hollywood, the franchise could stop right there.

Let’s get moving, folks!

45. Devon - August 10, 2011

#37 – “Spock Prime would NEVER NEVER EVER have let Red Matter fall into Nero’s hands ; ”

How do you know he let him?

“I am surprised Mr. Nimoy didn’t have objections to it as written and filmed. It wasn’t addressed in an out-take or a deleted scene.”

You only just came up with this yourself, an okay theory, but quickly resolved. One of the many “What Ifs” in all of Star Trek.

46. Devon - August 10, 2011

40 – “””And seriously, second tier? It was the first movie they slotted for Summer 2012 and they gave it one of the best slots of the summer (the weekend before the 4th of July, guaranteeing a strong second weekend number)””””

Summer 2013 has a weekend before July 4th too. All is fine :)

47. Basement Blogger - August 10, 2011

I’ve always said Star Trek should come out in 2013. Once they missed summer 2012, the holiday period was pretty full with Superman, James Bond and the Hobbit. LInk. As the above article points out the movie could be headed to the summer of 2013. That’s where Paramount could put its first tentpole for the year.

On the other hand, summer of of 2014 and summer of 2015 look good. :-)

48. AJ - August 10, 2011

I’m convinced someone dropped a ball here, and that the “make a great movie late vs. a crap one on time” is window dressing for whatever cock-up has occurred. We heard already that the writers were locked up in a hotel room with the Trek script, and that the actors were expecting to get to work in August, etc. What happened?

At this rate, they can do years 4 & 5 of the 5-year mission that Shatner & Co. never completed in TOS. 3 years down the drain…

49. Mel - August 10, 2011

I said it before on this site, the Star Trek sequel will never be ready for winter 2012. They haven’t even finished the script yet! So I guess summer or winter 2013.

At least Spider-Man looks good and there is no long wait for the sequel! :-)

50. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@37 Except that Spock Prime didn’t know what Nero was going to do with the red matter then.

51. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

June 28 was not a “second tier” slot.

Sony must be pleased. Trek would’ve beat Spiderman, just like it beat Wolverine, Terminator and Angels and Demons in the US.

52. weyoun_9 - August 10, 2011

Sigh…I totally get the impatience and frustration…but I also trust JJ and Co. when they say that they are taking the time to produce a great project. Also, I imagine so that two things can happen.

1) So that JJ will direct (I presume)
2) So that the 3rd film can hit around 2016, aka Star Trek’s 50th.

I’m guessing 2016 will include the 3rd installment of these films and the launch of a new TV series. That is my prediction and I’m fine with that.

53. Ivory - August 10, 2011

I said 2013 months ago.

54. Nick Cook - August 10, 2011

The trailer for Spiderman does not inspire me to go see it.

55. ensign joe - August 10, 2011

They can still make the movie now and use the extra time (yeah, right?) to really polish it up.. right? right?

I wonder how all this plays out in regards to a third film..

56. Danpaine - August 10, 2011

Yeah, but concerning “Spidey,” one big difference between that and Trek. “Spidey” will suck.

Still can’t believe there’s another re-boot on that.

57. Mel - August 10, 2011

I bet the next Spider-Man movie will make more money worldwide than the next Star Trek movie. Spider-Man is just much more popular than Star Trek. So I can understand, why Sony is so eager with Spider-Man and made it its main priority. Star Trek isn’t in the same financial league, so it doesn’t have the same high priority for Paramount. So it got pushed back to give its producers/writers time to make other movies/series.

58. John from Cincinnati - August 10, 2011

As I said before, just a couple more delays and the cast will be old enough to do Star Trek 2 in the same period as Star Trek The Motion Picture.

Vger returns!

59. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@57 More people have seen Trek than have read any comic book. Paramount just doesn’t promote Trek abroad properly.

Other projects like Cowboys and Aliens, which only opened to twice as much money as Nemesis did in 2002, despite costing more than twice as much to make.

Star Trek 2009’s North American opening weekend: $76m.

C & A: $36m.

Super 8: $36m.

Looks like Paramount would’ve made a lot more money with Star Trek 2. Probably $500m worldwide (which might also beat Spiderman -1).

60. John from Cincinnati - August 10, 2011

“It could be that Paramount believes World War Z will do better on December 21st then on August 10th. ”

Yes, the Christmas holidays always brings the image of shredded zombies to mind. What better way to celebrate the holidays!

61. John from Cincinnati - August 10, 2011

How many times have the Incredible Hulk and Spider Man been remade all within a few years of each other?

Totally ridiculous. I’ll be staying home.

62. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

Wow, Star Trek 2009 opened bigger than Super 8 and Cowboys and Aliens put together.

63. John from Cincinnati - August 10, 2011

Paramount must be thinking of they delay long enough, that the casual fans and new fans will forget it all takes place in an alternate universe.

64. JohnChicago - August 10, 2011

re: Star Trek – Above all, yes of couse I want the film to be good, rather than early. But PLEASE don’t make us wait FOUR YEARS between films!!!

re: Spiderman – WE JUST SAW THIS!!!

65. Driver - August 10, 2011

In an alternate universe between 1971 and 2011 there were 20 Star Trek movies made all with the original cast.

66. kmart - August 10, 2011


Doesn’t matter how long they wait, comparing the ‘product’ from these guys with what Gene Coon could turn out in a couple of days PROVES this must be some other lesser universe.

67. Vega - August 10, 2011

May/June/July 2013 is fine. Some people are acting like it’s 10 years from now instead of just 4 years which is nearly an average time for many sequels.

What’s done is done. We have to wait. But people will still see this movie and if it’s good, then word of mouth will work for it like it did 2009. Fans should want them to take this additional year to make it a great movie, not rush it off the assembly line to meet a ridiculous release date. I think that Paramount should not have posted a release date until pre-production actually started. They jumped the gun before they really knew anything for sure, imo.

68. Doctor Whom - August 10, 2011

I hate to burst anyone’s bubble here, but Star Trek is a second-tier franchise. By today’s standards, they don’t make that much money (expecially in the increasingly important overseas markets), relative to their production costs.

Star Trek 2009 pulled in a grand total of $385,680,446 during it’s intial release (on a production budget of approximately $150mm). Only about a third of the box office came from overseas markets. On the other hand, “The Dark Knight” (which is often held up by fans as the “model” for Star Trek 2 both in terms of quality and box office appeal) took in $1,001,921,825 on a production budget of about $185mm, of which nearly half came from overseas markets. Even “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, which was, to say the least, not very well received critically, nonetheless pulled in $786,636,033 (on a production budget of about $185mm), with almost 60 percent of its gross coming from overseas markets.

All of this, I’m sure, is weighing heavily on the studio and the production companies. Gone are the days when you could slap together a cheap, quickly-made movie like “Star Trek III” and expect much of a return. People expect more from summer blockbusters these days. And with numbers like those I just mentioned, the fact of the matter is this: Nobody’s anxious to do another Star Trek movie because, quite frankly, it’s not worth spending the money.

69. Vega - August 10, 2011

68. I disagree. Paramount was and is anxious to make this sequel. It’s not a super blockbuster, but Star Trek 2009 did revive interest in all Trek, so it’s worth it to Paramount/CBS to continue this franchise. The delay has nothing to with not wanting to make another film. It was the director/writers other committments plus Paramount being too eager to announce a release date.

70. MvRojo - August 10, 2011

#46. Yeah, I was just commenting on the poster who said Paramount was treating Trek like a second-tier or lower property, when they clearly haven’t.

71. Shannon Nutt - August 10, 2011

Well, there went the date I thought Star Trek would get for sure.

Yep, it’s Summer 2013 now. No doubt.

72. Doctor Whom - August 10, 2011

#69 – Perhaps i was too stark. I belive there are a number of reasons for this delay, some more prosaic than others:

Script problems. Since it was a reboot, the first film could get away with a lot. A fair amount of the entertainment value of “Star Trek” stemmed from watching someone else’s take on a well-worn tale. They won’t be able to get away with that so much this time. And remember, there are, what, 700-odd hours of Star Trek TV series episodes alone, along with eleven previous films, all of which have similar setups and character archetypes. It’s hard to come up with something really fresh at this point.

Lack of focus. Star Trek is not Bad Robot’s baby. It’s just natural that, given the success of “Star Trek” that you’d want to leverage that to launch your own projects. Who wants to spend all their time being a hired hand pulling weeds in someone else’s field?

Box office. Here’s where my previous message comes in. By current standards, “Star Trek” was a modest hit. But it didnn’tt do well overseas and it didn’t sell much merchandise (toy phaers and tricorders we on clearance before the movie even left theaters). The problem, then, is how do you make a typical summer blockbuster, and make it profitable, if the margin is fairly narrow? I suppose you could try to find a bankable star to appear in the movie, but I don’t know how the regular cast would react to being (eseentially) supporting players in their own movie. Or you could cut the budget and lower your sights.

In any event, I don’t envy these guys. This is tough.

73. SoonerDave - August 10, 2011


Since you ask the question, I will reiterate – yes, to Paramount, balanced against their other business objectives, Trek is second tier.

Paramount is not staffed by business imbeciles. They knew that the Abrams crew had their plate full when they staked Trek for the June ’12 release date. They hoped they could telegraph the idea of getting Trek out on time by putting the stake in the ground. We’ve seen from reports here that Paramount is, like it or not, right or wrong, *more* concerned about retaining Abrams and crew for the long term then they are putting out a second Trek movie.

Paramount put out a casual reminder to Abrams et al about “that June deadline,” and the response, quite obviously, was “we’re not going to get there.” So the “deadline” was washed away, and we have Trek as a “TBD” until Abrams and crew decide they can do it. Again, the business priority for Paramount is Abrams, not Trek. Paramount is betting long term on Abrams as a creative engine to produce revenue on budgets a lot lower than Trek’s, and they have evidence to support that bet – see Super 8’s gross versus its production budget.

I know its anathema to most here to say Trek isn’t the biggest priority on everyone’s plate, but Paramount’s actions – starting with waiting three years for a sequel in the first place – speak volumes.

It is what it is. We’ll get Abrams Trek sequel when he’s darned good and ready to deliver it, and not one microsecond sooner – and Paramount is just fine with that.

74. Mel - August 10, 2011

@ 59

Spider-Man is definitely more popular worldwide than Star Trek. Star Trek is nearly only popular in English speaking countries and there aren’t many of them in the world.

According to Box Office Mojo:

2002: Spider-Man (production budget $139 million)
Domestic: $403,706,375 – 49.1%
+ Foreign: $418,002,176 – 50.9%
= Worldwide: $821,708,551

2004: Spider-Man 2 (production budget $200 million)
Domestic: $373,585,825 – 47.7%
+ Foreign: $410,180,516 – 52.3%
= Worldwide: $783,766,341

2007: Spider-Man 3 (production budget $258 million)
Domestic: $336,530,303 – 37.8%
+ Foreign: $554,341,323 – 62.2%
= Worldwide: $890,871,626

Star Trek looks pathetic in comparison, although the ticket prizes have increased all the time.

2009: Star Trek (production budget $150 million)
Domestic: $257,730,019 – 66.8%
+ Foreign: $127,950,427 – 33.2%
= Worldwide: $385,680,446

The next Spider-Man movie will probably be a 3D movie, which means much higher ticket prizes. I bet it will make at least again around $800 million worldwide, maybe more. Star Trek is simply not in that league, even if the sequel will make your estimated $500 million. So I still think Spider-Man has a higher priority for Sony than Star Trek has for Paramount.

Unfortunately Star Trek has not even done extremely better than Super 8 and Cowboys and Aliens.

Super 8 (production budget: $50 million)
Domestic: $125,341,033 – 62.1%
+ Foreign: $76,500,000 – 37.9%
= Worldwide: $201,841,033

It has just started airing in some countries. So the income will get higher.

Cowboys & Aliens (production budget: $163 million)
Domestic: $69,095,130 – 100.0%
+ Foreign: n/a 0.0%
= Worldwide: $69,095,130

We don’t know yet, how much money it will make worldwide. It could make more than Star Trek.

Star Trek is just not in the same league as Harry Potter, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-Man. Tons of movies make $400 million. Star Trek is nothing special from a financial point of view for Paramount. Transformers, Kung Fu Panda 2 and Thor made already more than this for Paramount this year.

75. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@Doctor Whom In what universe is nearly $400m a “modest hit”?

Trek 1 did better than Batman Begins, so expect Trek 2 to do even better than Trek 1, just like The Dark Knight did better than BB.

TDK’s BO clearly benefited from Heath Ledger’s unfortunate death.

Thor made $60m more than Trek, and was outgrossed in the USA. Which franchise do you think is going be stronger long-term, Trek or Thor? I bet Paramount thinks Trek.

@SoonerDave Three year gaps are common between movies. It’s four between TDK and TDKR – is that “second tier” too?

@Mel I didn’t say the Trek movies were bigger than the Spiderman movies (yet); I said more people had seen Trek on TV (worldwide) than had ever read a Spiderman comic. Ditto any comic (or SF/fantasy book). All Paramount has to do is tap into that latent popularity.

Trek 1’s box office is almost double Super 8’s (so far).

The Amazing Spiderman will under-perform just like The Incredible Hulk reboot did. Talk about premature.

76. NuFan - August 10, 2011

Are there still people who think late 2012 is doable? C’mon. Accept reality. You’re just looking for something to whine about. Why does there have to be some sort of official announcement? The new date wouldn’t be any more set in stone than the June 29, 2012 date was. Look at how many times James Bond and Superman have already changed their release dates.

77. SoonerDave - August 10, 2011


TOS Trek movies were on a 2.5 year (average) release schedule – some even less. Couldn’t care less about the single data point of TDR and TDKR. I’m talking about *this* incarnation of Trek, and what Paramount has done to this point to demonstrate where it ranks in their pecking order. You disagree, that’s great.

Had Paramount wanted to, I believe they could have forced Abrams hand for the Trek sequel *had they wanted to*, and offered him the carte blanche they essentially gave him. They didn’t want to, because Abrams to them was more important than Trek. It was just a business decision…unfortunate for us, but c’est la vie.

78. Bob Tompkins - August 10, 2011

45- I go by what is onscreen. Spock looked tired but undamaged when he surrendered the jellyfish. Nero had no special control over the jellyfish at the end of the movie; what young Spock did, Spock Prime should have done. It makes everything that happens after that point in the movie moot and makes the movie completely unsatisfying to me.
I realize that getting from first base to home plate requires the touching of every base, being both a baseball fan and a writer of fan fic. The rules apply to both in equal measure.

79. Bob Tompkins - August 10, 2011

50- You don’t give the keys to the car to a teenager and not expect him to drive it. That weapon was almost as powerful as the Genesis device. Spock is nothing if not logical.

80. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@ SoonerDave You mean like Warners let Chris Nolan take three years between Batman Begins and TDK? And four years between TDK and TDKR? Same difference.

I guess Star Wars was second tier to George Lucas because there were three year gaps between movies too.

81. Bob Tompkins - August 10, 2011

74: Adjusting for inflation, Star Trek the Motion Picture and Star Trek 2009 and neck- and- neck in terms of US gross. In terms of profit, TMP is the clear victor as the most successful ever, grossing 3x its budget. In terms of gross percentage of profit, TWOK is tops. Without DVD sales, 2009 is very pale for Paramount and really is a second- tier project no matter what they say. Remeber, Paramount only keeps 50% of gross ticket sales in the US [no idea what the % is abroad, but it has to be similar]. It was not profitable at all in the domestic release. But not many movies are these days.

82. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@Bob Tompkins How would Spock Prime know that Nero was going to go around destroying planets with red matter? Based on what?

83. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@ Bob Tompkins Star Trek 2009 is the most successful film in the series. Only haters of the film come out with all this budget and inflation crap.

And if Trek is “second tier” to Paramount now, it must’ve been back in the 80s too.

84. Bob Tompkins - August 10, 2011

82- Logic and the official comic prequel ‘Countdown’ — Nero had sworn vengeance and began to keep that vow. You don’t give a madman free access to a superweapon and not expect him to use it; either that or forget everything we know about Spock as a logician.
I am cognizant that most people don’t pay attention to the details — ” check your brain at the theater door and just enjoy the movie” is a pretty good rule. But once this hit me it was too big to ignore.
Maybe I am just turning into a grumpy old man. :)

85. Vega - August 10, 2011


Well, I don’t disagree that Abrams & Co. are concerned with how to juggle making another Star Trek that appeals to both fans and general audiences. It was their concern for Star Trek 2009 as well.

But look, there’s clearly a certain way Abrams likes to run his ship so to speak. He’s a very creative guy with a lot of projects on the burner at any given moment. Orci, Kurtzman, etc. are the same as well. Their focus on other projects that they’ve been developing is NOT a slap in the face to Star Trek. I think they didn’t want to go right into scripting another story right away because they didn’t have the inspiration yet and didn’t want to rush it. But they were ready for the other projects.

As for Paramount and the box office, well, correct me if I’m wrong but Star Trek 2009 is the best performing Star Trek movie to date, right? No, it’s not the Dark Knight numbers, but as someone pointed out that’s not a fair comparison. Batman Begins is the comparison and Star Trek 2009 did better. The point is that it was one of the highest rated movies of 2009 by both critics and moviegoers. Paramount would be foolish to ignore the possibility of the next sequel being able to increase its numbers over its predecessor, just like The Dark Knight.

So, while your points are valid in your second post, I was mainly responding to the idea in your first post that Paramount/Abrams & Co. did not really want to make this sequel. I just don’t think that’s the case at all. The problems they are facing are no different then with any of the sequeled franchises we have today:

They’ve got to capture lightning in bottle all over again.

I think this team is good enough to do it, given a realistic time frame. That’s why I think Summer 2013 is the only choice at this point. Paramount is no doubt disappointed about have to scrap the date, but I think they are shrewd enough to realize that it’s better to have a year delay and a great film than to meet the deadline and have a mediocre one.

86. Doctor Whom - August 10, 2011


“Trek 1 did better than Batman Begins, so expect Trek 2 to do even better than Trek 1, just like The Dark Knight did better than BB.” — Not necessarily. I’d say Batman is more popular with general audiences than Star Trek. I actually think Star Trek 2 will gross less than Star Trek.

” @Mel I didn’t say the Trek movies were bigger than the Spiderman movies (yet); I said more people had seen Trek on TV (worldwide) than had ever read a Spiderman comic. Ditto any comic (or SF/fantasy book). All Paramount has to do is tap into that latent popularity.” – While it’s no doubt true that more people have watched Trek on TV than have ever picked up a Spider-Man comic book, so what? By your metric, Star Trek should be outgrossing not only Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and James Bond, since far more people have seen Star Trek on tv than have read any of those books.

“Trek 1’s box office is almost double Super 8’s (so far).” — True. But Super 8 production cost was a third of Star Trek’s.

“The Amazing Spiderman will under-perform just like The Incredible Hulk reboot did. Talk about premature” — Maybe. Can’t say for sure. They’re not spending nearly as much on this one, though, so that should help the bottom line.

Ultimately, my point is that Star Trek, all things considered, is not that big a deal compared to other film franchises. But so what. That doen’st mean it has no worth or is not good. It’s just not the most popular thing around. No big deal.

87. Bob Tompkins - August 10, 2011

83 Yes, it pretty much was. It never was budgeted as a blockbuster after TMP. Thr producers always grumbled about the budget but made do. The $60m budgets of First Contact and Insurrection sort of reflected more of a willingness to gamble on Paramounts part, but don’t forget much of that budget was Stewart [rumored $10- 12m] and Spiner’s [rumored $7 -10m] fees, even worse for the smaller budgeted Nemesis.

88. Bob Tompkins - August 10, 2011

@83 It always pleased me how they managed to do so much with so little.

89. kmart - August 10, 2011

Paramount NEVER spent good chunks on Trekflicks post TMP. FC was actually only 48mil, and INS only got up to 65 from 58 because they had to spend so much fixing the ending, necessitating roundtheclock miniature work on both coasts. NEM wound up coming in near 70, but on both INS and NEM they started officially downsizing the budget about 10 days after they hit theaters, to make the returns look better.

If you read the old CFQ coverage of TOS trekflicks, it is clear that Paramount’s plan with Trek was to spend as little as possible, and that was why TUC was originally cancelled at the start of 1991, because it was going to cost 30 mil instead of 27. Pretty cheap moronic attitude, given how much trek was already generating post-release with homevid, but there it is.

Above the line costs for the leads in both TOS and TNG films ate up a huge part of the budget, but even so, Paramount was willing to fund EVENT HORIZON for more than it ever spent on a trek film in the 20th century … and that was a pic where they eliminated a costly opening sequence (a huge mistake on their part, since it would have demonstrated the crew was actually competent, PLUS been a good visual start) to bring the budget down to 75mil.

90. Adolescent Nightmare - August 10, 2011


But that’s why we like it.

91. VOODOO - August 10, 2011


92. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@ Bob Tompkins Countdown was written after the movie. Judge the film on its own logic.

93. Gary Makin - August 10, 2011

@Doctor Whom If Batman is more popular, then why did Trek 09 outgross Batman Begins?

The point is Paramount has never really understood how potentially huge Trek movies could be, given the right treatment.

General audiences don’t know or care that Trek 09 cost more to make than Super 8. They went to see Trek in greater numbers.

The reaction to the Spiderman reboot trailer has been mostly negative. Expect half the box office of the other films.

94. SoonerDave - August 10, 2011


Good grief, Star Wars was Lucas’ own baby. He could take as much time as HE wanted. He WAS SW.

What is this incessant comparison with Batman? I couldn’t give less of a flip about Batman. Never saw it, no interest in it, couldn’t care less. Just out of curiosity, I did a little checking only to find out that after the first Nolan Batman blew away the box office in 2005, Warner announced Nolan *as director* for the sequel in July 2006. We’re heading for fall 2011, well over two years following ST09, and we have neither a release date nor a director.

Look, I’m really not trying to argue the point, all I’m doing is asking you to take off the Trek blinders and look honestly at the way *Paramount* is dealing with Trek and this production crew. Yes, Trek is still a valuable property for Paramount, but other elements are presently more valuable.

I guess I just don’t get why is it so hard to admit that Trek is, right now, given the money they know it can generate, a second-tier priority for Paramount right now? Considering Trek was dead-on-the-vine prior to the reboot, that it is still this high on Paramount’s totem pole is hardly an insult, but methinks its being taken that way..

95. Chingatchgook - August 10, 2011

Dear Paramount and CBS, I’m very disappointed in the both of you for taking us Star Trek Fans for granted. You Paramount, for your endless procrastination on the movie, and you CBS for your indifference towards a new TV series. Shame on both of you.

96. Mel - August 10, 2011

75. Gary Makin

“@Mel I didn’t say the Trek movies were bigger than the Spiderman movies (yet); I said more people had seen Trek on TV (worldwide) than had ever read a Spiderman comic. Ditto any comic (or SF/fantasy book). All Paramount has to do is tap into that latent popularity.”

There are also countless Spider-Man series, most of them cartoons. A lot of people grew up with them. So it is not only comic books.

And just because someone may have catched an episode of Star Trek on TV, doesn’t mean, that that person like Star Trek enough to go in the cinema.

Spider-Man is a well known classical superhero, which is kind of iconic worldwide. Star Trek is in a lot of countries just one of many science fiction series. It is not part of the cultural consciousness like it is in the USA.

“Trek 1’s box office is almost double Super 8’s (so far).”

Super 8 cost $100 million less than Star Trek. Star Trek made a plus of $235 million and Super 8 of $150 million so far. I think Super 8 will make a few millions more and $50 – $60 million is not a huge difference.

“The Amazing Spiderman will under-perform just like The Incredible Hulk reboot did. Talk about premature.”

Spider-Man has a much bigger name than Hulk, so I really doubt, that the Spider-Man movie will under-perform. I mean even The Incredible Hulk made a plus of $110 million. And it seems superhero movies are really popular among viewers. There were tons in the last few years and most of them did well.

The last Star Trek movie was of course a success. It did really well, much better than older Star Trek movies. I just don’t think it is one of those “super extreme successful, we will make 1 billion worldwide” kind of movie. And as long as Star Trek isn’t so successful, it will never be the most important thing for Paramount. It is important for Paramount, but not so important, that everything else is subordinate to it.

97. Kev-1 - August 10, 2011

The thing about Trek 2009s money is that it made about 385 mil, and it cost 150 mil, plus they must have spent 100 mil to market it (Enterprise project, Orion girl parties, International openings and promotion — Paramount did take a charge against earnings on promotional costs NYT) plus, they had that 31 mil back end payment to Bad Robot. Merchandising was tepid. They sold a lot of DVD but I’m sure they wanted more. The there’s all the grumbling that might cost them in long term fans. They might be thinking if the next one is made, it should be cheaper. And this version is tremendously dependent on SFX. In the old days you just got the old crew, dust off shopworn costumes and props, and go. Of course, I could be talking through my hat, too.

98. Sebastian S. - August 11, 2011

World War Z was such an awesome book (and audio book; both versions have their virtues), that my only fear is that an adaptation will bungle it somehow. But I honestly can’t wait to see this one. It’s NOT just another Zombie show; think AMC’s Walking Dead on a global, epic scale. Same attention to character and humanity as well.

As for ST 2.0? I’m thinking 2013… maybe later. If all concerned would just focus and get it done. Hell, give Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett a call; they’d pop it out by Christmas.


99. Jack - August 11, 2011

What’s the evidence for all this Paramount doesn’t care enough about Trek stuff?

How much is enough? They gave it a heck of a decent budget for the last one, and I’d suspect the budget for this one would be as high or higher.

The story from Orci and co. is that Paramount cares enough to let them get the story right. Bullsh@t? I don’t know…

Would you say Sony cares more about Spider-Man because they (I’m sure I’m getting the story wrong) gave up on Raimi (who wasn’t thrilled with the idea of a fourth) and (sort-of) fast-tracked a reboot? And, as many have pointed out here, if Paramount did that now (say, not a reboot, but a new creative team), or even six months ago… it would mean we wait as long or longer for the sequel.

The bulk of us alternate-universe-hating, continuity-obsessed, constantly griping fans aren’t who this is targeted to… and that’s a good thing. It should be targeted to fans of great movies. The Dark Knight, while overrated in some ways, was a good movie, period… and you don’t need to have any knowledge of Batman or the previous flick (really, the Rachel Dawson subplot in this works fine without having ever seen the Katie Holmes version of the character). I’d like to see Trek do this.

I wish more people like Adolescent Nightmare would speak up here. I hope that most of us don’t care about restoring the prime timeline because we get that it’s not real.

And how can working hard to get the story right be a bad thing? Are people here thinking that’s not actually what they’re doing?

I keep saying that I fear they will pander to the fans. Or the cast. Or try to. And that’s always been a disaster. Respect the source material (TOS, itself rife with continuity errors) as much as you can, sure. But enough easter eggs already, just make a good movie. I think that’s one of the reasons why TWK worked – they weren’t concerned with using TOS props or species/namedropping, heck, they created a bunch of character history that we’d never heard before, and it worked.

98. The WWZ audio book is worth checking out?

100. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 11, 2011

I have no desire to see the timeline restored, whatever that means. We are now in this alternate universe and who says that what happens to the people here is not just as relevant and meaningful as anything that might happen anywhere else.

101. kmart - August 12, 2011

It isn’t relevant and meaningful to me because they’re not written and performed in a fashion that engages, and the TREK backdrop they are acting out upon looks suspiciously like a playing field from a whole different franchise. I don’t think there was a single moment that worked for me in the whole long mess, outside of some exterior fx shots of the Kelvin.

102. Jack - August 12, 2011

100. Yep. I just don’t understand what stories would be left to tell if they returned everything to where it was. The desire for that (restoring the timeline) makes no sense to me, at all. It ain’t real. And, yep, it’s supposed to suck that Vulcan was destroyed by a crazed terrorist.

103. dmduncan - August 12, 2011

99: “What’s the evidence for all this Paramount doesn’t care enough about Trek stuff?”

Well in the past I think it was not so much that they didn’t care, but that they didn’t have confidence in Trek, and underfunded it like it appealed to a loyal but narrow audience.

That’s changed with the release of ST.09.

104. RICHARD OLDHAM - August 15, 2011

The world ends on 21 Dec 2012. We really need to see Star Trek before then. Just a thought….the aliens are coming back and will not care if we are waiting for any Star Trek Sequel

105. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - August 17, 2011

“Conventional wisdom for some industry watchers (and suggested by Deadline) was that Paramount would put their yet-to-be-scheduled World War Z into GI Joe’s former August 10th spot”
Ha Ha “Conventinal wisdom”? thats a joke, Brad Pitt movies will never open in a early to mid august slot he is to big of a star to dump into the end of summer movie wasteland.

106. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - August 17, 2011

83 star trek 09 while it was a great movie was not the most succesful trek film.
seriously the number of ppl who saw it in theatres is a lot less than those who saw TWOK, TMP or Voy or even FC in theatres.

has nothing to do with hating on the film, has to do with the number of tickets sold.

107. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - August 17, 2011

#16 are you even familar with the source material for world war Z?
maybe do a little research before bashing something you know nothing about.

108. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - August 17, 2011

Anthony not sure if you know it or not but the Lone Ranger you mention in the article for the dec 21 2012 date was canceled a few days by disney.

109. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 17, 2011

#107 I don’t like the idea of a zombie war movie. It may present an interesting premise and perspective but it is still another dark horror movie.

110. Daniel craigs my wookie bitch now - August 17, 2011

So let me get this straight, a movie thats not even done filming, hasnt been released yet havent seen any trailers for, and for which you are not familar with the source material is Horrible because you dont care for the genre?

There are lots of movies that i might not care for but iam the first to admit are well made films.

111. Keachick (rose pinenut) - August 17, 2011

Grief. It may be a very well made movie, but that does not mean I have to like the genre. So is Saving Private Ryan a very good movie, but I did not go and see it because I do not like war movies. We now have it on video tape and the male members of my family like to watch it I have also watched it but it is not my first choice of a go see movie. War is horrible and I do not really enjoy seeing its depiction, whether it is a non-fiction documentary and a fictional film.

By the way, there is an excellent BBC documentary called World War 2 in Colour screening at the moment on Prime here in NZ (with a PGR rating) and I do watch some of that.

112. 808guy - August 24, 2011

The last Star Trek movie STUNK! It was silly, shallow and had no merit as a Trek film. If this is the kind of films we can expect in the future, It would be better to never make another and let us remember the series and films as the great epics they were. I miss Star Trek, but nothing would be better than what we were exposed to last time around. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.