Star Trek Sequel To Be Released May 17, 2013 – In 3D | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek Sequel To Be Released May 17, 2013 – In 3D November 23, 2011

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

According to a new report (confirmed by TrekMovie), JJ Abrams Star Trek sequel finally has a release date. The new Trek crew returns to the big screen on May 17, 2013. Not only that, but they will be in 3D. More details below.

 

 

Star Trek sequel in 3D – May 17, 2013

TrekMovie has confirmed a report at Deadline that Paramount Pictures has officially picked Friday May 17th, 2013 as a release date for JJ Abrams Star Trek sequel. The choice is to take advantage of Sony recently moving Roland Emmerich’s Singularity away from that date to to Nov 1, 2013. The May date gives Star Trek a prime spot in the pre-Memorial Day Weekend. This date falls four years and nine days after the May 8, 2009 release date of JJ Abrams Star Trek. This will be the longest gap between Star Trek films with the same crew, beating the previous record of four years and two days between the TNG films Star Trek: Insurrection (Dec. 11, 1998) and Star Trek Nemesis (Dec. 13, 2002).

TrekMovie has also confirmed that the Star Trek sequel will be released in 3D (and 2D of course). A trusted source tells TrekMovie that the studio feels the 3D version will be helpful in overseas sales for the film. Star Trek films have traditionally not done as well overseas as other tentpoles and while 3D has lost some favor in the US, it is still proving popular in international markets.

It has also been confirmed that the Star Trek sequel will again have a co-financing partner. This time Skydance Productions will be chipping in. The 2009 Star Trek film was co-financed by Spyglass Entertainment. It has become very common with big budget tentpoles to have co-financing partners.


The new "Star Trek" crew will be back on May 17, 2013

Delayed but finally moving along

TrekMovie recently broke the news that the Star Trek sequel will kick off production on January 15, 2012. And last week co-writer/producer Bob Orci confirmed that the team were already on their 3rd draft of the script.  Pre-production for the film has been underway for months and some effects shots are already being worked on by ILM. A source tells TrekMovie that the Abrams team would have been able to deliver the film for a Holiday 2012 release, but Paramount preferred a Summer release date (like they did with the 2009 Star Trek film).

The May 2013 date is the second official release date for this twelfth entry in the Star Trek franchise. In early 2010 Paramount set June 29, 2012 as a release date, but in June of this year the studio officially put the GI Joe 2 film into that slot – leaving the Star Trek release date into limbo. While there are a number of factors that led to that decision, the biggest was director/producer JJ Abrams lack of availability in early 2011. Post-production on Super 8 ended up taking up so much of Abrams’ (and producing partner Bryan Burk’s) time, that team could not move forward on finalizing the Star Trek script and starting pre-production in enough time to deliver a film by Summer 2012.


JJ Abrams directing "Star Trek" – he is back in the chair for production kicking off in January

A look at early Summer 2013

The May 17th date puts the Star Trek sequel in a gap between two other big genre movies: Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel (the Superman reboot).

Here is how the early summer of 2013 is shaping up so far:
• Iron Man 3 (BV) – 5/3
• Mommy and Me (Sony) – 5/10
• Pacific Rim (WB) – 5/10
• Pixels (Sony) – 5/17
• Star Trek sequel (Paramount) – 5/17
• Fast & Furious 6 (Uni.) – 5/24
• Leafmen (Fox) – 5/24
• Lone Ranger (BV) – 5/31
• 1000 A.E. (Sony) – 6/7
• Man of Steel (WB) – 6/14
• Monsters University (BV) – 6/21
 

Poll: To 3D or not to 3D

How many dimensions are in your Star Trek future?

Are you a Star Wars fan?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Stay tuned to TrekMovie for all the news about the Star Trek sequel.

 

Comments

1. dmduncan - November 23, 2011

3D. There’s one nobody saw coming.

2. Nemesis4909 - November 23, 2011

Finally some news, I take it they have a script then?

Wonder what it’s about.

Also, first?

3. Lukas - November 23, 2011

Great!

4. thandrahan - November 23, 2011

Another year and a half (sigh!)

5. Artrek - November 23, 2011

As long as Shatner is not in it. The world could not handle Shatner in 3D.

6. Ahmed Abdo - November 23, 2011

Hopefully they will stick to that date & not delayed it again. As for 3D, I don’t really care about that aspect, just make a good & decent movie with a strong story & not just CGI.

7. Quark - November 23, 2011

What do lens flares look like in 3D?

8. Anthony Thompson - November 23, 2011

3D. The suits had their way. Yuck.

9. trekmaster - November 23, 2011

I want Shatner in 3D!!! LOL

10. MvRojo - November 23, 2011

Not big into non-animated 3-D (I even thought Avatar looked way better in 2-D), but I hope they film it in 3-D. 3-D conversion seem to be getting worse, not better

11. Drew - November 23, 2011

Cue the complaining in 3….2…..1….

12. rm10019 - November 23, 2011

After seeing Hugo last week, I approve of Trek in 3D, but they have to shoot it in Real 3D not convert

13. Anthony Thompson - November 23, 2011

5. Shatner’s paunch in 3D would better be utilized in a horror flick.

14. Vultan - November 23, 2011

You know what sells even better than 3D?
A good story.

15. OverlordSpock - November 23, 2011

It can be in 3D all the studio wants. I don’t really care as I will be seeing the plain-jane 2D version. Simple as that.

16. Doom - November 23, 2011

Star Trek in 3D? Lets hope my theater will offer in normal 2D. 3D is the biggest ripoff and does nothing to help story. So I guess there is no script, just effects

17. sooner Dave - November 23, 2011

3d Crapola. Year delay. Studio won. Probably won’t even fix the engine room. Sigh.

18. freezejeans - November 23, 2011

1,000 comments or bust!

19. Jeff - November 23, 2011

Darn. I was hoping to see this movie. Don’t they know that the Mayan calendar ends in December 2012 and therefore the world? Oh well.

20. NuFan - November 23, 2011

May 2013 = confirmed

3D = confirmed

Khan = wait a few more weeks

21. Geek_Girl - November 23, 2011

Nooooooooo.

22. Phobos - November 23, 2011

see, told you the writers were procrastinating. This is it where its gets you.

23. 3D is 3 times as DUMB - November 23, 2011

Star Trek 3D —- I think I just threw up in my mouth. If it’s not in 2D, I will pass on seeing it. Nicely screwed up, Paramount.

24. Sunfell - November 23, 2011

No, no, no! 3D is a cinematic abomination, and a frickin’ cheap gimmick whose time is gone.

Plus, I cannot see 3D, and get migraines from it.

Please do not screw up Star Trek with 3D.

25. Phobos - November 23, 2011

anyway, Im happy there is a date.
WAY too long between movies, and 3D will be annoying.

This better be in IMAX. I dont watch old movie screens.

26. James - November 23, 2011

Just think of those big brewery kettles and fermentation tanks coming right at you!

27. Scott - November 23, 2011

If the December 21, 2012 event happens, kiss star trek 12 goodbye! But at least we will see it, in the afterlife. LOL

28. Phobos - November 23, 2011

@26 rotfl
I hope to God they make a decent engineering this time. No more breweries!

29. MJ - November 23, 2011

I will only pay for 3D if the actually film it is 3D. If they really want to make the 3D a success, they should think hard about adopting the new 48 FPS 3D technology that they are using on the Hobbit films and upcoming Avatar sequels.

If I were JJ, I’d be on a plane to New Zealand next week to see how Peter Jackson is successfully using the 48FPS 3D on the Hobbit films. See:
http://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ#!/photo.php?v=10150451523596807&set=vb.141884481557&type=2&theater

I’ll say one thing more here — THIS HAD BETTER NOT BE SOME 3D POST PROCESSING SCAM — THAT WOULD SUCK!!!

Bob Orci, you should be taking notes here from my comments and reporting my recommendations to JJ. No, I am not kidding!

30. Phil - November 23, 2011

That’s my anniversary. I think I’ll be busy that weekend.

31. Ensign RedShirt - November 23, 2011

So much for J.J.’s “I don’t like 3D” stance.

Once again, Paramount is going to sit on a negative for an unusually long time.

32. Desstruxion - November 23, 2011

I’ll wait for the dvd…….unless Shatner’s in it.

33. Blake Powers - November 23, 2011

What I love about 3D is it will force JJ and co to play nice with the cinematography. While I loved Star Trek, my only peeve was the “shakiness”. Hopefully they will be respectful of what makes a 3D movie magical e.g. like they did with Avatar.

34. Matt from Bradford Uk - November 23, 2011

Here we go again. Can’t wait to get all the information from Trekmovie.com. My official Star Trek site. Hope they’ll film it in 3d. With the timescale they have I think it will be. Hope JJ can still do his filming style in 3d. Maybe a few less lense flares.

35. jesustrek - November 23, 2011

Ok no more…please :) reday to May 17 2013.

36. Ahmed Abdo - November 23, 2011

I want to see more of the federation, the major players in that new timeline, not just the Klingon . And if they brought Shatner back, I’d be more happy.

37. Rico - November 23, 2011

Holy crap what a dumb idea. 3D?!? Why?!?!

38. Vultan - November 23, 2011

Why 3D is nonsense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08FK7WghHSc&feature=relmfu

39. Cygnus-X1 - November 23, 2011

May 2013. I called it a year ago, thank you very much.

They did May last time around and the results were superbly lucrative.

They weren’t gonna change a winning formula the second time around.

I haven’t seen any of the new 3D movies, so I can’t have too much of an opinion on whether it’s a good idea. I hope the 3D glasses aren’t annoying over my prescriptive glasses. My gut reaction is to be a little worried that they’re going to put in a lot 3D-eye-candy-shots and there will be an even greater imbalance than last time between drama and action time on screen. And if it’s cut together at the breakneck ADHD pace of the last one, the 3D effect might be overkill. Though, I got the impression from the last one that thoughtful science-fiction fans over age 24 are ultimately not the target audience, so the concerns of myself and those of like mind may be irrelevant. And if the aforementioned are true, Abrams’ appropriation and selling-out of the Star Trek franchise will bear out to have been more than mere suspicion. But maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised by the integrity, fidelity and substance of the sequel over the first one. Maybe having proven themselves commercially successful with the first one, they’ll aim for substance more with the sequel. Here’s hoping…

40. Devon - November 23, 2011

I hope those of you worrying about 3-D realize that there will be 2-D options, obviously. Stop worrying.

41. John Gill - November 23, 2011

As I am not a big fan of 3-D, thank goodness I live in a small town, with a small cinema that gets 2-D prints of the 3-D releases.

42. Valenti - November 23, 2011

3D after all. Huh. OK.
Despite my literal blindness to 3D effects, I don’t really mind, tho.

43. Obsidian - November 23, 2011

Wow, what a wait!

How about a TV series then? One in the new timeline. Or the prime timeline, or the TNG era. Anything as long as the writing is good! Get Ronald D. Moore on the phone STAT!

44. He's Dead Jim - November 23, 2011

I thought for a long time it would be 2013 so they could have the 3rd one lined up for 2016 Star Treks 50th anniversary.

45. Neumann - November 23, 2011

Lens flares in 3D just make it look like there’s glass against the screen (as seen in Transformers 3)

Considering that they could barely get the first film finished on time for its intended Christmas day release, how are we supposed to believe they’ll get the conversion done in time?

46. Dab - November 23, 2011

3D usually means a much darker lighting scheme than I like (necessary for effective 3D with current technology). And that makes me sad. :(

47. Trek Lady - November 23, 2011

3D? Oh crap. Well, I won’t be seeing it on the big screen. I live in a small community, and it is a 3D film, they will only show it locally on the 3D screens – not in 2D anywhere.

3D gives me massive migraines.

I guess the audience can now enjoy watching Scotty throw things at the screen…in vivid 3D!

48. ety3 - November 23, 2011

What a bunch of whining bastards. Geez.

My only concern was that it be filmed in 3D and not post-converted. Another article I’ve found says it will be filmed in 3D.

Concern assuaged.

49. Trek Lady - November 23, 2011

Every had a migraine ety3? A good reason to whine, belive me.

50. Cygnus-X1 - November 23, 2011

20. NuFan – November 23, 2011

—-Khan = wait a few more weeks—-

Oh, God. Maybe Abrams with his limited Trek experience might think that resurrecting the most effective and brilliantly acted Trek villain of all time would be a good idea, but I have to believe that wiser heads would prevail.

Ricardo Montalban’s Khan has become a cinematic icon, and it’s all but impossible to imagine any actor living up to Montalban’s unique performance, even Benicio del Toro, whom I love. Can you imagine any other actor doing justice to Brando’s Don Corleone? Or Bogart’s Rick Blaine? Or DeNiro’s Travis Bickle? Never mind the fact that ripping off past Trek at this early stage in the franchise re-boot would signal an alarmingly disturbing dearth of creative energy on the part of the writing team.

There are certain things you should just know not to do.

51. Karen Brown - November 23, 2011

Can’t see the 3D, so really, as long as they put out a 2D version (what’s the point of paying extra for an effect I literally can’t see, strabismus) I will be able to see it in the theater. Better than some, who get headaches and nauseous.But hate the idea that this will change how the shots are framed, the sorts of scenes they do, to cater to the special effect rather than focus on the story.

52. Live long and die hard! - November 23, 2011

I thought JJ had more class than that.
3D my ass….

What a sellout.

53. Corinthian7 - November 23, 2011

2013?! I know this was inevitable but frankly I’m still gutted. Never mind redoing Space Seed/Wrath of Khan, if production gets pushed back any further the cast will be getting too old for a remake of The Undiscovered Country.

54. TonyD - November 23, 2011

To me this is great news. I’ve always been a 3D fan and something like Star Trek would lend itself beautifully to the medium. I can just imagine alien worlds, majestic shots of the USS Enterprise and some intense phaser battles all rendered in 3D.

I only hope that the powers that be take the time to do it right. Shoot it natively in 3D (please, please, please, no post-conversion); block out the scenes so that they take advantage of stereoscopy and above all else, stay away from overly dark cinematography.

55. Maxwell Everett - November 23, 2011

So, Bob Orci…

Which one is it? 35mm Anamorphic with 3D conversion in post… or Red Epic 3D/Arri Alexa Pace 3D?

56. Slick - November 23, 2011

Ugh………… I hate Abrams

57. cleverclogs - November 23, 2011

I will likely ONLY watch this in 2D. Wearing hideous 3D glasses prevents you from being engrosed in the movie. I’ll probably end up seeing it in 3D though just “to see what it’s like”.

58. Lostrod - November 23, 2011

3D will be fine. I’ll prepare by digging out my old Star Trek Viewmaster reels …

Regards.

59. MJ - November 23, 2011

@36 “And if they brought Shatner back, I’d be more happy.”

Oh my god, can you imagine seeing the Shat’s gut in IMAX 3D, with 3D len’s flares bouncing off of it? I.e. imagine seeing this in 3D IMAX:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1237637/Boldly-growing-William-Shatner-reveals-expanding-waistline-beach.html

Now that would be scary! LOL

60. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

I have always voted for 3D and 2D awesome news, can see the enterprise and space shots in glorious 3D. Lets see how epic this sequel will be.

61. On Vacation With Landru - November 23, 2011

I just hope my mom is around to see it at this point.

62. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

Im guessing the budget will be $200-250million :)

63. SciFiGuy - November 23, 2011

I don’t normally go to 3D versions of films…last one was Tron Legacy. But, I’d have to see a Trek film in 3D just because it’s never been done before…

64. Anthony Thompson - November 23, 2011

19, 27

I’d thought that only intelligent folks liked Star Trek. Oh, was I wrong!

65. trekker 5 - November 23, 2011

OH MY GOD!!!!!! I AM SO FREAKING OUT HAPPY RIGHT NOW!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Will I see the thing in 3D? You better believe I will!! And in 2D too!! And if they could play 3D an 2D side-by-side,I’d watch it that way too!! May 17th,2013,I am waiting for you!! :) :)

66. Mateo - November 23, 2011

just hope making it in 3d does restricts any sort of storytelling. But maybe it will facilitate it.

67. Joe - November 23, 2011

These new Star Trek movies are horrible.

68. Robert Paulson - November 23, 2011

Won’t even bother seeing it. DOCTOR WHO is wayy!! bettter.

69. JKP - November 23, 2011

I can’t stand this stupid 3d gimmick. It’ll be dead before trek is ever released anyway.

70. Red Dead Ryan - November 23, 2011

Well, well, well!

What do we have here……..ah yes, an announcement that the “Star Trek” sequel will be coming out in May 2013! And in 3D!

I WAS CORRECT ON BOTH COUNTS!

P.S, technically May is in spring, and the sequel would really be a “spring” tentpole* film, but in the movie world, it’s considered a summer film!

So I’m still right!

71. Charles Pratt, Jr. - November 23, 2011

Well, damn! I hate that its so far off but at least it’s coming and its a heck of a lot more news than the non-news we’ve been feeding on for months and months. I hope that the wide gap between movies doesn’t take too much steam away from the franchise. Hell, if there’s a 3rd Star Trek the actors will be old enough to pass the torch to another set of fresh faces. Sure didn’t get to see much of the five year mission…Another thing that ticks me off is why is it necessary for IDW to regurgitate the prime timeline for the rebooted trek? Isn’t the purpose of all of this rebooting to be fresh and vital and relevant? How is reliving shattered events in a new timeline fresh? Seems to me we just keep boldly going where we’ve already gone time and time before.

I’m so depressed…Im gonna drink a gallon of romulan ale. 2013 will never get here.

72. CaptainDonovin - November 23, 2011

While I could care less about 3D I’m glad the release date is official.

73. Trekboi - November 23, 2011

Maybe they can re-release the original film in 3D to fill the gap left by the delay & remeind people about the first film all thoes years ago?

also it will mean both are in 3D for dvd sales.

I wish they would film 2 fims back to back for release in 2014 to get us up to speed, scared we will have to wait another 4 years between films…

74. Driver - November 23, 2011

I’ll see it in 3D, then in 2D. Then I’ll buy the 3D Blu-ray. Then Paramount will re-release all the ST films on Blu in 3D and I’ll buy those. Thanks Paramount. I know now how some of my future earnings will be spent.

75. Prologic9 - November 23, 2011

Financially, it looks like a pretty damned good release date considering the titles opening around it.

76. John in Canada, eh? - November 23, 2011

Interesting that the gap between these two films is longer than the gap between Insurrection and Nemesis – which seemed to be forever.

And interesting that the first Iron Man came out just a year before the rebooted Star Trek, and they’ll be lapping us with a third movie even before the second new Trek is out.

If ST:12 is a big hit – which I’m sure it will – I bet Paramount won’t stand for another 4 year gap, and will likely bring in a newer team to work on the next flick without waiting for JJ to take another 3-4 years to make ST:13.

77. Red Dead Ryan - November 23, 2011

#76.

If “Star Trek 12″ is a big hit Paramount will NOT replace J.J Abrams, and instead will allow him to take all the time needed to make the (potential) third movie.

If the movie bombs, J.J Abrams will still be offered the director’s chair for the third, but whether he’d return would be up to him. I think Paramount really likes the guy, because his movies have done well at the box office and they’d like him to continue.

78. VOODOO - November 23, 2011

Good move placing the film in the summer of 2013. ST will own that summer as opposed to being just another big film next summer.

I hope that they have a timetable for the third film planned out already. They are really running the risk of losing the good will from the 09 film. It’s been too long for the general public.

79. Dr. Cheis - November 23, 2011

I’m glad that the next movie like the last one will be right in time for my birthday! And for my part, I know I’ll be seeing it at least twice, once in 3D once in 2D. Good move, Paramount. I’ve only seen a small number of 3D movies, but I’m sold on it. Star Trek in 3D will really help with the scope in ways special effects never could.

80. Odkin - November 23, 2011

Jeezus, whiners. Just go to a 2D show and be happy.

I will go to the version playing at the most convenient time at the most convenient theater. And not lose any sleep about which version that is.

That said, if I do end up paying to see it in 3D, I want it SHOT in 3D, not converted.

“Foreign markets” is kind of a silly rationale, since the excitment and newness of 3D will be played out EVERYWHERE by 2013.

81. Red Dead Ryan - November 23, 2011

“Iron Man 3″, “Fast and the Furious 6″, “Monsters University”, and “The Man Of Steel”. I also believe a sixth “Pirates Of The Carribbean” is tentatively scheduled for a similar time frame.

That’s some mighty tough competition. But the right call, I have to think. If you want your film to be a blockbuster, it has to stand tough against other blockbusters.

82. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 23, 2011

Star Trek will probably be the first movie I will go to see in 3D. I don’t know if I can persuade my kids to see it in 3D, because they have already seen 3D movies and have since avoided them. If they do scenes which show the colour and expansiveness of space and/or incredible, unique looking planet in 3D, then it could be quite an experience, but if not, why bother.

I am happy that both options will be available for audiences and I hope JJ Abrams goes down the Peter Jackson route. Kiwis aren’t just flightless birds…:)

83. crazydaystrom - November 23, 2011

First, it’s great to finally be getting some actual Trek movie news!

But 3D…hmmm. I’d hoped not. But it’s happening, so we’ll see. Maybe, just maybe, we’ll get something special here. The new Martin Scorsese film, Hugo, is getting VERY good reviews and it’s said the 3D is extraordinary. Also Ridley Scott’s Prometheus and Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity are a couple of high profile science fiction films being released next year that are being shot in 3D. Both those guys are fine film makers, so we’ll hopefully be seeing some quality sci fi in 2012.

And (fingers crossed) in 2013.

84. alt-Spock - November 23, 2011

I for one will be happy if this 3D fad fades. I’m in that ~10% of the population that can’t see it.

85. njdss4 - November 23, 2011

I hate 3D (Avatar is the only movie I’ve seen in 3D and I regret it because I had to wear glasses over my glasses) but part of me wants to see Trek in 3D just to support the franchise. I’ll definitely see it in 2D first, and then again in 3D if I feel the movie was good enough to want to see again.

86. Commodore Adams - November 23, 2011

Im not big on 3D, it does add depth, and I do enjoy watching 3D movies in the theatre, but in the living room, nah. As long as trek is in IMAX, I have no need for 3D.

19 months away…….FU@K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

87. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

3D chess will now be shown in it’s true glory har har har :)

88. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

ppl can stfu about the whole 3D thing, don’t like it? watch it in 2D duh…

89. dr beckett - November 23, 2011

3D?!? THIS IS A DISASTER!!

(Hey, someone had to say it ;)

90. Aurore - November 23, 2011

“That’s my anniversary. I think I’ll be busy that weekend.”

See…
All this time, the studio was striving to please you…

Did I hear a “Thank you?”

91. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 23, 2011

#86 – “19 months away…….FU@K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Well, if you really must!

Actually it is 17 months and 3 weeks away!

92. Harry Ballz - November 23, 2011

I assume 3D stands for……………………..

D as in Delinquent….May 17, 2013. 4 years between movies? Sad for a franchise.

D as in Dull…….again with a villain? Yawn! How about a dramatic circumstance instead?

D as in Didn’t catch on, never will! 3D is a fad/gimmick that nobody wants.

93. Charla - November 23, 2011

Now we have a date, what to wear… lol

94. Buzz Cagney - November 23, 2011

The trouble with seeing a 3D film in 2D is that you can see all the parts where the 3D was most used. Its distracting.
I knew they’d be going with the 3D but I wish they hadn’t bothered.

95. Harry Ballz - November 23, 2011

Buzz, you ol’ horse thief!! How goes it? Car sales good?

96. Sebi - November 23, 2011

Shaky camera in 3D? Lens flares in 3D?

No thank you…. hope my theater offers it in 2D also…

97. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - November 23, 2011

So when I win this contest, you can see my big head in 3D. Suckas!

98. Rusty0918 - November 23, 2011

Well, look at it this way. Lens flares wouldn’t be too well in 3-D. I can live with it.

#81 – After all the expectations of the last movie were defied, I wouldn’t go making that speculation.

99. Fubamushu - November 23, 2011

Plain and simple, 3D sucks. I wear corrective lenses (AKA glasses) and the 3D glasses are uncomfortbale and the additional eye strain causes me headaches. That and the fact the 3D elements are an annoying distraction most of the time.

3D is a sad little gimmick and like Roger Ebert I wish it would go away.

100. Chasco - November 23, 2011

I thought the £-D gimmick had run its course.
I’ll be watching the 2-D version, thanks all the same

101. Chris M - November 23, 2011

I have mixed feelings about 3D, I like it as a novelty and for a very small number of Movies it actually adds to the expereince however it seems there are an increasing number of Movies coming out in 3D just for the sake of it. And oh yeah the fact that the studio can make more money by charging higher prices for 3D movies which really irritates me when I have no choice but to see a movie in 3D that I would rather just see in 2D.

Anyway I actually like this as a novelty, I for one will be seeing Star Trek (2013) multiple times. I will watch it for the first time in 3D to see what it looks like but will then just watch it in 2D for subsequent viewings…..

I’m just glad we finally have a date to mark down on the calender!! :-)

102. Fubamushu - November 23, 2011

#92. Amen!

103. TrekTech - November 23, 2011

3D…yawn. Imagine how bad the last one would have looked in 3D. If we’re still around in 2013 I’ll watch it in 2D. 3D+shakey cam+lens flair = barfing in popcorn container. No thanks.

104. somethoughts - November 23, 2011

I will watch it in 3D IMAX first, then 3D, then 2D, then buy a 3D TV for the 3D blu ray and we can start this process over for Star Trek 2016 – -

105. jkimgant - November 24, 2011

I love, love, LOVE Star Trek…I REALLY wish I didn’t feel so pissy about how long they took to get around to it. I don’t want to be a hater and I admire these guys so much. But I can’t help it…I’m f@#$ing mad.

106. Thorny - November 24, 2011

Not at all surprised about May 17, 2013. Only a little surprised about 3D.
Glad to finally see some progress.

107. Trekkiesincebirth - November 24, 2011

After all I am happy, they just want to begin. They have to be the most relaxed people in the world. There is so much expectation, so much hope, the movie will come as early as possible, but they seem not to care at all about that! Meanwhile I am beginning to admire that buddhistic, relaxed way to deal with … stress. Or maybe they just really do not listen to the fans… well, so or so – the movie will come into our cinemas, after the end of the world. I will be there. Hope so… ;)

108. xTheCanadianx - November 24, 2011

allow me to answer the 3d question like this

HELL YEAH

109. Aurore - November 24, 2011

97. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney – November 23, 2011
So when I win this contest, you can see my big head in 3D. Suckas!

***

Remember the words that were spoken to you by a wise man, once :

“Seymour, you are a man of deep feelings. Stay away from bold coffee.”

Yes. I know you knew I would etc, etc…

:))

110. ety3 - November 24, 2011

49. – Every had a migraine ety3? A good reason to whine, belive me.

THEN DON’T SEE IT IN 3D!

Seriously, people. This modern incarnation of 3D has been around for a few years now and it’s like some of you have never realized that EVERY 3D film that comes out is ALSO released in 2D.

Barring you paying attention to what’s going on in the cineplex, you could buy these glasses, just in case you walk into the wrong theater: http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/

111. Groucho - November 24, 2011

By all the accounts I’ve read, Scorcese’s ‘Hugo’ is the best use of 3D yet. While I haven’t been a fan of it so far. and would much rather see sequences filmed in IMAX (I believe the IMAX sequences in the new ‘Mission: Impossible’ movie are amazing), filming Trek 12 in 3D, using the latest tech could make for something special. However, there is nothing more immersive in cinema than a good story and interesting characters. Get that right first and foremost and make sure the 3D draws us in all the more and doesn’t become an annoying distraction that takes us out of the experience.

112. Mark Lynch - November 24, 2011

You are always given a choice in the cinema of watching the film in 2D or 3D. If you do not have that choice then blame your cinema not the film makers.

You don’t like 3D, fine watch it in 2D. But stop bitching about the fact the film is going to have a 3D version. Some of us do enjoy it you know.

You don’t see me moaning about the fact the film will be available in 2D… I’m happy we have a choice. Remember that word, choice.

However, I do hope they film it in 3D and do not do a post conversion, as those nearly always fall flat. Pun intended.

I for one, would love to see the Enterprise fly out of the screen at us.

But I do appreciate that 3D is not for everyone. Some can’t see the effect due to a medical condition, some people get headaches.
Which is why there should always be a 2D version available for those that cannot tolerate, notice or just don’t plain like the 3D effect.

Bob? If it is going to be 3D, please, please make sure they film it with 3D cameras…

113. Peewee - November 24, 2011

This is too long to wait, we need a new series on TV, don’t care what era it is set in just want to see 22 new episodes before the release of the film.

114. Aurore - November 24, 2011

65. trekker 5 – November 23, 2011
OH MY GOD!!!!!! I AM SO FREAKING OUT HAPPY RIGHT NOW!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Will I see the thing in 3D? You better believe I will!! And in 2D too!! And if they could play 3D an 2D side-by-side,I’d watch it that way too!! May 17th,2013,I am waiting for you!! :) :)

****
I may be mistaken, but… you seem… happy…

:)

115. CardassiaPrimera - November 24, 2011

Aleluyaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Finaly.

116. ProtoVulcan - November 24, 2011

Why not May 10, 2013?

117. Kirk, James T. - November 24, 2011

I think, basically, 3D was inevitable. Its not as if you don’t have a choice – I know I’ll watch it in 3D and standard digital.

Lens flare is going to look amazing in 3D!!!!!

CAN NOT WAIT :D :D :D :D :D :D

118. Clinton - November 24, 2011

If the 3D version helps Trek in some overseas markets, I say “bring it on.” We need to keep bringing new fans into the fold. As long as we also have a 2D version we can see, no harm done.

119. VZX - November 24, 2011

Lens flares in 3D? Whatever….but I bet having Khan in it will suck even more in 3D.

Good release date though. I just hope they can release the next one by 2016, the 50th anniversary.

120. NCC-73515 - November 24, 2011

3D might still be popular now, but not in two years.

(It’s actually at least 9D)

121. Cervantes - November 24, 2011

As a long-time fan of the 3D ‘immersive’ effect, this is the best news I could have hoped for to do with the sequel!

I just hope that it’s filmed with ‘dedicated’ 3D cameras to BEGIN with, rather than ‘converted’ afterwards, but I’ll even settle for that. And ‘conversions’ are getting BETTER in a lot of cases, not worse. Every 3D Blu-ray I’ve seen at home so far, has looked terrific. In fact, I hope that the first movie gets ‘converted’ one day too! Considering all the other big 3D movies that are coming over the next few years, this technology ‘aint to fade away this time around.

122. Cervantes - November 24, 2011

Typo alert – that should have said ‘…this technology ‘aint gonna fade away this time around.’

123. Ed - November 24, 2011

Wow this is so weird. I had a dream last night that they were going to shot this in 3D and I wouldn’t get to see it(I’m half blind) and got pretty bummed. Then I read this. Thankfully it will be released in 2D as well. Everyone I have talked to regarding 3D has seemed less than impressed with it. I’m not sure why they still bother.

124. Aurore - November 24, 2011

“Lens flare is going to look amazing in 3D!!!!!”
______

:))

125. Cervantes - November 24, 2011

Me and mine would have told you different Ed. ;)

…of course, the extra ‘premium’ on the ticket prices is still a big bugbear to us and everyone else! Ho hum.

126. trekker 5 - November 24, 2011

#114,Aurore,I am!!:) :) And I would love to tell you Happy Thanksgiving,even though you don’t have Thanksgiving in France. :) :)

127. Aurore - November 24, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving to you, Olivia!

128. cultspider - November 24, 2011

Start the countdown clock!

129. Trek Lady - November 24, 2011

@110 “THEN DON’T SEE IT IN 3D!”

I guess you missed the part where I mentioned that in my area, if a film is in 3D they show it on the 3D screens, and reserve the 2D screens for other movies…

And sure, I can blame the “movie theater” for not showing the 2D version – but the result is the same – I can’t see the film on the big screen unless I drive a couple hours to the closest big city. Or wait for it to come to our local dive – the dollar cinema.

I am also concerned about them being more interested in the visuals than the plot and characters due to wanting to take advantage of the 3D effect. Too many 3D movies are more flash than substance, and Trek 2009 already was leaning in that direction IMO.

I guess I will wait and see… but I really didn’t want them to go that route.

130. Nony - November 24, 2011

I’ll see it in 3D if the cast all walk around shirtless for my realistic viewing pleasure. It gives me a terrible headache but Karl Urban’s magnificent lensflared pecs would be worth it.

Does anybody know what happened to TrekCore, by the way? It appears to not exist anymore…..

131. Mark Lynch - November 24, 2011

The domain name expired yesterday. Perhaps he has not renewed?

132. StelArian - November 24, 2011

Oh no…. I hope this 3D report to be proved false!!!

133. Captain Hackett - November 24, 2011

It is great to see this site pick up and publish more and more Star trek movies and related articled lately here. :)

3D?! Oh no! I got several Trekkie friends who are prone to motion sickness. :( I do not want to see them barf in movie theatre!

134. Sebastian S. - November 24, 2011

Most likely I’d see it in 3D at the theatre and 2D for the video version. If it’s shot in 3D, it’ll be great (as long as story and character come first). I just hate 3D when it’s tacked on as an afterthought (and winds up looking like some 1970s Viewmaster crap). At any rate, I wouldn’t buy the 3D version for home viewing.

Nothing against 3D (I loved Avatar, and recently enjoyed the latest Harold & Kumar 3D movie), but I’d prefer not to have to wear special specs when I’m zoning out at home in front of the flat screen.

My subwoofer gives me enough ’3D’ effect with just sound, anyway. And although I don’t need glasses, it might give me need for a hearing aid one day …

;-D

135. Bob Tompkins - November 24, 2011

#1 Just lift 2 words and you are 100% correct….
3D- No one’s coming…
The only good thing is it will change the style of the movie, not as much hand held and shaking and the lights won’t be so intrusive.

136. Mike - November 24, 2011

I hope they use 3D cameras as opposed to post conversion. But I’m actually looking beyond this movie. You know there will be a 3rd movie so what can they do to speed up production so that we don’t have to wait 4 years for the next movie? Back in the day, Trek movies came out every 2.5 to 3 years. Star Wars (the original trilogy) – every 3 years.

By the way, does anyone remember they were going to do a 3D IMAX Star Trek movie – I think back in the 90′s? I believe it was only going to be a short one due to IMAX limitations, so it would only last around 45 minutes. And I think it was going to be a new cast. That never made it off the gound for some reason…probably budget issues.

137. Sebastian S. - November 24, 2011

136.

Yeah, I remember the rumors of that. They were also working on an IMAX Godzilla movie at roughly the same time.

Would’ve been an interesting experiment. I saw 2009 Star Trek in IMAX and honestly, it did feel a bit more ‘enveloping’ than on the smaller screen.

138. Dee - lvs moon' surface - November 24, 2011

Yes – 2D & 3D… or… 3D & 2D… YEAH!!!! … :-) :-)

139. Anthony Thompson - November 24, 2011

130. Nony

Dude, what are you talking about? TrekCore comes up just fine for me!

140. Let Them Eat Plomeek Soup - November 24, 2011

jdhasgknds;ajfewa;klnvsda

Sorry–that was my head smashing onto my keyboard.

Well, at least there’s a release date. I guess June 29 went out the window, but oh well.

141. chrisfawkes.com - November 24, 2011

Personally i think 3D is a bad gimmick that will blow over as it has every time they have tried to thrust it onto the public. I suspect it may be pretty much dead by 2013.

But i do understand that decisions need to be made that effect the bottom line and those with better stats than my speculation are doing just that.

Glad a date has been set but i really hope there is not 4 years between this and the following trek. 2 years would be nice.

142. MDSHiPMN - November 24, 2011

Oh, boy.

First Red Matter, now 3D.

A cheap trick doesn’t make for good Star Trek.

I want my Trek to stand the test of time, not be some gimmick movie I spend $20 dollars to see but cant stand to see again because of the plot holes.

As long as butts are in the seats I guess.

143. Wes - November 24, 2011

Why not may of 2068? or the more lucrative date of 2089? It will be too long between films and an entire generation of film goers will be 4 years older and will not care, this will be the last one for a while….

144. denny cranium - November 24, 2011

another year and a half?
I hope the casual fans remember.
I bet par is too. Thus the 3D decision.
OT hey boborci- packers or lions today?

145. somethoughts - November 24, 2011

Space boobs in glorious 3D look at tf3 with bays opening upskirt shot :))

146. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - November 24, 2011

109. Aurore, So good of you to remember. I see these threads have quite a long memory. If one were so inclined, one might find all the advice I have received over the great vastness of posts. And thusly, find all the advice I have, in turn, um, advised. …Oh dear.
Are you familiar of the age-old tale of redemption?

147. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - November 24, 2011

I didn’t realize so many people got car-sick. No holo-deck in your futures.

148. Aurore - November 24, 2011

“Are you familiar of the age-old tale of redemption?”

Asbolutely…NOT.
I shall atone for this by keeping quiet, from now on…if I can…

149. Aurore - November 24, 2011

…I can’t….

:)

150. Aurore - November 24, 2011

….He he he….

151. Aurore - November 24, 2011

“…I can’t….”

Too bad.

:)

152. Tomi_SI - November 24, 2011

If they shoot the film in 3d then it’s ok whit me. But if it is a post conwersion then it will look like sh.t.

If they would just take the efford like Peter Jackson on The Hobit: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150442868286558.415422.141884481557&type=3

Preproduction in 3D!

and look in the video section for 45min of behind the scenes

153. Red Dead Ryan - November 24, 2011

3D is here to stay. There’s nothing we can do about it.

Anyway, most of you complaining about it would still go see the movie in 3D, even if it’s the only option, and even if it’s converted in post production. That is, if the movie is good.

154. Aurore - November 24, 2011

………..So, seymour…as I said…..speaking of “age-old tale of redemption”…I’m not ……familiar with …um…any such tale….seriously…I am not. You believe me, don’t you?

:)

Which is why I wanted to ask…did you change your mind regarding the tale of the “evil ways” of your past?
You once said that your “evil” had only been on display here, for all to see, but, that was then…

Is there anything you’d like to…share, today?

:))

155. Nony - November 24, 2011

139. Anthony -

Weird, now it’s back. I tried to get on for a while this morning and it looked like its domain name had lapsed or something. There was one of those generic advertising pages there instead.

156. enat - November 24, 2011

For crying out loud, what’s the big deal with “OMG OMG it’s in 3D, I won’t see because it’s 3D”? You can still watch 3D movies in 2D. What’s your problem?

157. Nony - November 24, 2011

156. enat -

Some places you *can’t* get the 2D, though, or you’ll only get it for a week, which is inconvenient. They’ll show the movie in 3D because they assume more people want to see it that way, and fill up all the other theatres with other things.

Two weeks after its release I couldn’t find a showing of Toy Story 3 near me in 2D, for example, but it played in 3D for ages.

158. TrekMessiah - November 24, 2011

@156
most cinemas don’t show 2D anymore when they can show it in 3D and earn 5€ more per ticket.
I would’ve liked to see Thor or Cap in 2D, but guess what? NO F***ING CINEMA IN THE WHOLE CITY showed them in 2D!

159. Rastaman - November 24, 2011

It’s hard for me to imagine them keeping the shaky-cam action style from the last movie. In 3D I think that would be utterly nauseating. Unfortunately, assuming they tone down the shaky-cam style than I think the film loses a lot of visual consistency with the first film. So either way, 3D seems like a no-win scenario.

Hopefully, JJ’s lack of enthusiasm for 3D means he won’t sacrifice real creativity for the gimmicky stuff. He does seem like a man of good taste. I am curious to see a Klingon warship rendered in 3D. That does sound awesome.

160. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

#130 I am with you here. In fact, I want to see the abs and pecs of all three – Kirk, Spock and McCoy and not some brief glimpse in dim light either. That’s CHEATING! I mean, what is the point of having 3D otherwise? I know that people here have their favourite character – mine is Pine/Kirk (lotsa of film shots, thank you), another poster mentioned it being Quinto/Spock and now you, Nony, with Urban/McCoy. All three actors are very acceptable looking people and really shouldn’t hide their manly beauty!

Bob – Are you getting this? Make it so!
Good man.

Gosh, if I am prepared to give 3D a go to see this new Star Trek (even though I get thumping headaches from even wearing a hat/cap for a short time to prevent scalp sunburn), just to see one of my two favourite men, then so be it. Migraines – be damned!

Maybe 3D is a gimmick or has been. Peter Jackson, with his careful rendering of JRR Tolkien stories, does not appear to be into gimmicks. I think for Peter Jackson, this is serious state-of-the-art film making. Peter Jackson has always loved Tolkien’s work and it has been his lifelong ambition to bring these stories to film in the best possible way.

The technique required for making a proper 3D movie by cameramen and directors is different from techniques used in making 2D movies. I am assuming that JJ Abrams will be using different film making techniques from the one we saw presented in the first Star Trek movie. I do hope that he will be using the same system that does seem to be working for Peter Jackson and his Hobbit movie. Time will tell.

@ JJ Abrams/Bad Robot team –

Peter Jackson or James Cameron are just a phone call away, Mr Abrams. This is no time for pride. This is about making the best damned Star Trek you can make and making the best use of the budget given by those financing this project.

Good story and characterization always win out over FX, film techniques etc etc. Ponder – why are live theatre productions still reasonably popular with people? Not a lot of special effects etc can be done there on stage, compared with what can be done on film, just the actors pulling out all the stops to be believable and entertaining. They need a pretty good story to work with in order to do that.

Fortunately, the two lead actors, Pine and Quinto, both have good live theatre experience.

161. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

I agree with those who say that it is difficult to see some movies in 2D when there is a 3D version. I had the same problem not so long ago here and it was a movie my nine year old daughter wanted to see. She actually preferred to fore go seeing the movie in our local cinema rather than endure having to wear those glasses. The same movie was showing in 2D across town but not every day or at the same time, so that a plan could be made. This is NOT customer service. Then they wonder why box office takings are down…duh!

On the other hand, Cars 2 could be seen in both 3D and 2D at our local cinema. Little girl very happy – two tickets sold, two bums on seats. Her Dad took her. It really is a no brainer!

There needs to be real choice for audiences and it needs to be done on an international basis. If these film companies and cinemas want to attract as many people as possible to see their films around the world, then they need to make sure that every cinema provides a proper choice for film goers.

So ready to take, but never so keen to give a little, it seems…:(

162. NCC-73515 - November 24, 2011

After Avatar, the worst movies have been 3D movies (mostly).
Now Star Trek will join this category just for the sake of using an old effect?!

163. Starbase Britain - November 24, 2011

Shame its not out til 2013 but im excited about it being in 3D.

Greg
UK

164. Aurore - November 24, 2011

@ Roberto Orci.

Thus, the sequel will be released in 2013.
This, in itself, gives you ample time to send me an invitation for the North American premiere of the movie.

I would love to see it in its original version…so much can be lost in translation..even good translations….You know that, don’t you?

165. captain_neill - November 24, 2011

No actor could live up to Ricardo Montalban and any new take on Khan would be inferior to the original in my opinion.

Better to go for something new.

Khan is a fav villain of mine but I dont want him redone.

166. Basement Blogger - November 24, 2011

For those who question 3-D and the Supreme Court, go see Martin Scorsese’s Hugo in 3-D. It’s a masterpiece. Scorsese frames every shot with idea of 3-D. The result? Spectacular. It was better than Avatar. And I’ve complained about 3-D cinema.

The disadvantages? J.J. Abrams loses the quick cuts, the swirling camera hots and handheld camrea shots. Good. I hate those because they induce nausea. Tha advantages? The more money Star Trek makes the more Star Trek. And of course, since Scorsese has brought the medium to a high art level, Star Trek 2013 in 3D could be mind blowing. By the way, Hugo’s screenplay was written by John (Star Trek: Nemesis) Logan.

But please FILM IN 3-D. No conversions. Even Michael Bay filmed in 3-D most of the time for Transformers: Dark of the Moon. And it looked great. Think of the cool things in 3-D. Strange new life forms. Stars, nebulas, and planets. Scotty in space exporing the ample nacelles of the Enterprise in 3-D. I keed. I keed.

167. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

“@ Roberto Orci.

Thus, the sequel will be released in 2013.
This, in itself, gives you ample time to send me an invitation for the North American premiere of the movie.”

Ditto. I look forward to meeting you there at the North American premiere, Aurore. Of course, we might also get the opportunity to meet our favourite actors and the man himself, Roberto Orci.

Sounds like an excellent plan, Aurore.

168. moauvian waoul- aka: seymour hiney - November 24, 2011

Now Aurore, if you’re going to use the truth against me…well that’s just unfair.

169. Commodore Adams - November 24, 2011

@64. Anthony Thompson. Zing!
——————————————————————————————–
Oh and the movie would do fine in the winter if it were ready by then. Those of us who get snow, the movie theatres are a popular destination during the cold winter months. But w/e money money money, release it in the summer.

170. David Jones/790 - November 24, 2011

I won’t be seeing this in 3D or at all. Not a fan of subliminal programming or how jj continues to sell out the franchise.

You watch if this next Trek doesn’t break records they’re gonna try some thing drastic and radicle like change the name. That’s about how much creativity they’ve got goin on.

Boldly going in circles.

171. Matt - November 24, 2011

release date sounds awesome, cant wait to see the next great adventure these characters have, as for my fellow artists JJ, Zoe, Zachary, Chris, Anton, Karl, John, Simon, Bryan, ILM, Scott C, Bob and Alex, everyone invovled in Star Trek 12 break legs much <3

172. Captain Karl - November 24, 2011

won’t be seeing it in 3D…just really wish that Hollywood would get over that gimmick…now, if they could come up with a 3D projection system that didn’t require wearing those awful glasses, maybe I’d give it a shot, but I, in no way, can ever justify schilling out more $ to see upscaled, blurry, mirky effects. Just because it is the hot thing for the past few years, doesn’t mean we have to have it forced down our throats for blockbuster movies.

May 17, 2013? Gee, that’s catching fire for non-fans to remember…what was that Star Trek about again? Attention span of movie goers (heck the general public today) will nearly guarantee they won’t make it to the end of my comment….tl;dr

173. SciFiGuy - November 24, 2011

#166 — Could NOT agree more!!! Poor conversions of 2D films to 3D is giving 3D films a bad name. ONLY shooting the film in 3D will make the experience worth the cost of the ticket! There’s a distinct difference — and a lot of folks don’t realize that. They think 3D is 3D…it’s not all the same, folks!

Avatar and Tron Legacy are examples of films shot in 3D. Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland are examples of conversion…i.e., NOT shot in 3D…

174. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 24, 2011

#171 Oh Matt – please don’t say “Break a leg” even as a joke. Nobody needs to break anything at this point in the proceedings or for the next few months!!! I don’t think it would be such a good look to see Kirk on crutches, although you never know what these writers might have “cooked up”…:) Of course, this would mean that our James Kirk is going to get his ass royally kicked again…

Remember now, Bob. Kirk needs to win at least one hand-to-hand combat wrestling match and have him look stunned because of it.

#172 – How do people know what the attention span of other movie goers is? Presumably most of these movie goers are students and/or have jobs, raise families and generally do much the same stuff that people here do. I am really get sick of reading these clicheed put-downs about mainstream public having little or no attention span, having ADD or ADHD or are the MTV generation. I feel when I read this that the writers of this stuff are just smearing their horrible snot all over my screen. Leave off the insulting generalizations about mainstream audiences, just because some may like something you don’t or not like something you do like.

175. captainkirk - November 24, 2011

3D will be awesome! But waiting for 2013 won’t be.

176. Red Dead Ryan - November 24, 2011

#170.

I think you need to return the crack that you’ve been snorting to the dealer you got it from and demand a full refund. I think you got a bad batch, and its made you go crazy with delusions of self-importance!

177. Anthony Thompson - November 24, 2011

164 and 167.

Bob has only invited me to the premiere so far. But he did it with a wink so I think it’s far from official. : ) I need to win that Super 8 contest to be in the film; then I’ll probably get a legit invite.

178. Will_H - November 24, 2011

3D, fail, 2013, fail. I just hope they don’t add Khan to the mix, that would make me lose all faith in these guys.

179. Cygnus-X1 - November 25, 2011

174. Keachick – rose pinenut – November 24, 2011

—-I am really get sick of reading these clicheed put-downs about mainstream public having little or no attention span, having ADD or ADHD or are the MTV generation. I feel when I read this that the writers of this stuff are just smearing their horrible snot all over my screen. Leave off the insulting generalizations about mainstream audiences, just because some may like something you don’t or not like something you do like.—-

You may feel insulted by those descriptions, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not appropriate descriptions. If you compare the lengths of shots in action films from the 90s and before to those of today, you’ll see that it’s true.

Inception is the exemplar of this cut-cut-cut style of film-making. But ST’09 was not that much less extreme in its pacing. If you don’t much appreciate pacing in films and establishing shots that are as much for aesthetic and dynamic value as for plot value, and dramatic interactions between characters that don’t involve frenetic action, then obviously that’s your taste and your right and there’s no accounting for it. But a fair-minded comparison between the cut-cut-cut style of today and the style of the 90s and before cannot but find that the former is more aimed at holding the attention of people who, it is feared, might otherwise lose interest.

180. NEWTMAN 93 - November 25, 2011

They should start making a few films as soon as they can. Time is ticking and the actors aren’t getting any younger. That’s why as an off budget thing that they should of did an new star trek animated series based on the ongoing comic stories would of been better in my mind.

181. Jim Nightshade - November 25, 2011

3d would be awesome if done right–i agree hope they use the faster frame rate n improvements eta and cameron are working on like peter jackson–reminds me of trumballs showscan technique decades ahead of its time–he wanted to use it for brainstorm..natalie woods last movie parts were going to be in 65mm showscan at 60 frames per second to make those sequences stand out from the regular parts of film–but mgm wouldnt pay for it n theatres would have needed equipment as well–i think he did use showscan for the attaction he made for the luxor casino–his showscan frame rate is 2.5 times normal speed–if used a faster frame rate would add clarity n brightness both needed for good 3d–also must film in 3d with 3d cameras as others have said–less headaches that way too im sure…

182. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 25, 2011

#179 “If you don’t much appreciate pacing in films and establishing shots that are as much for aesthetic and dynamic value as for plot value, and dramatic interactions between characters that don’t involve frenetic action, then obviously that’s your taste and your right and there’s no accounting for it. But a fair-minded comparison between the cut-cut-cut style of today and the style of the 90s and before cannot but find that the former is more aimed at holding the attention of people who, it is feared, might otherwise lose interest.”

I can appreciate the different pacings that various films and television series have, just fine. My attention span can cope with slower paced films as well as faster paced ones and I do not lose interest, unless the story is boring and that can happen, irrespective of whether it is a film going at a slower or faster pace.

Curiously, I actually think the reality is the OPPOSITE of what you and others have been saying. It is those with a smaller attention span who are more likely to lose interest in a fast paced movie because they cannot keep up and take in information given to them at a greater speed. Following a fast paced movie like *Inception requires greater concentration, ie the viewer being able to give their full and undivided attention. A person cannot do this if their mind wanders all over the place and is easily distracted, as you seem to suggest. Movies like Inception are harder to watch if you are tired, because then you are not as mentally alert as you would be if you are rested. I know.

However, people do “dumb themselves down” by taking in cellphones and then text while the movie plays. What the hell is that about? I wonder how many of those texting then complain later that the movie was dumb or boring or stink or whatever other expletive is the flavour of the week…sheesh.

I needed to see Star Trek a second time, not only because I enjoyed it but also to take in what I had missed or may have misunderstood. I am not as fast or as mentally attentive as my two boys are, who only needed to see it once to understand what it was about. They corrected their mum and dad on a wee misunderstanding we had about what took place in the film, with an “Oh mum. Duh!”

*Some movies, however, have too much in the way of fighting and explosions etc. (my biggest problem with Transformers 2). I tend to switch off, even fall asleep, because I am bored and irritated by how longwinded a lot of these scenes are. Watching destruction of property and life is not fun or particularly exciting for me. I hope that there are not a lot of big starship battle scenes, phasers firing off all the time etc etc in the next Star Trek movie…I am sighing and almost drifting off at the thought of it. Those scenes appear often to be so insanely repetitive and boring, yet so many people want to see that, even among Trekkies, which is why the film companies keep making films with that kind of stuff in them.

We consider ourselves ordinary mainstream people (whatever the hell “ordinary, mainstream” means), members of the general public – so yes, the comments are a little insulting. It is the constant “pigeon-holing” that gets up my nose, frankly.

183. be flat - November 25, 2011

I wonder if back in the 50s/60s (?) color movies were also called a “stupid gimmick”

184. CmdrR - November 25, 2011

Fast & Furious 6

**sigh** Movies used to be special.

185. captainkirk - November 25, 2011

I just saw a 3-D tv with a racing game being played on it and while the effect wasn’t spectacular with this particular game it was very high quality and it didn’t hurt my eyes in the slightest.

186. the unreal Nichelle - November 25, 2011

F**** 3D! A stupid gimmick for the moronic masses that kills cinema as we know it.

187. denny cranium - November 25, 2011

Its show biz people- all about the box office.
We may end up thankful for the delay when/if the next Trek exceeds our expectations.
Everyone will be gushing on this board about “i’m glad they waited and took their time” etc etc
If it tanks?
This board will light up in 3D me thinks

188. Thomas Jensen - November 25, 2011

I can’t get excited by a movie that’s not coming up until the year after the next one. This movie has taken so long to come together that the producers should do a three movie arc where the cast retires out during the last contracted movie.

They can just skip to the equivalent story of a Star Trek VI.

189. DeShonn Steinblatt - November 25, 2011

Star Trek XII

**sigh** Movies used to be special.

190. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 25, 2011

Why such nonsense? A cast member can’t just “retire out during the contracted movie”. They are under contract – get it. They have to have one hell of a good reason to “retire out” before they complete the movie and fulfill their contracts, like serious injury, illness or death. Besides, none of the actors seemed to have aged much, if at all, and in this competitive industry, work is work and income is income.

191. Red Dead Ryan - November 25, 2011

Cannot wait for May 2013! “Star Trek 12″, “Iron Man 3″, and “Fast And The Furious 6″ are all what I want to see!

And I hope the next Trek movie has lots of explosions, phaser battles, and people getting killed. Space is a dangerous place, and we need to see that. Not three guys sitting in a hot tub!

192. BiggestTOSfanever - November 25, 2011

Oh my gosh, this is killing me!
2013 is so far away.
They will probably change the deadline again, anyway.

193. Mutant Child - November 25, 2011

@ all the people working on this movie:
I hope for you guys that this is gonna be really breathtaking. I’m not very excited about the 3D. I find it pretty distracting. And no 3D-Movie I’ve seen so far was worth the effort. If the drama doesn’t work, the technique won’t save anything.

194. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 25, 2011

#191 – “Space is a dangerous place, and we need to see that.”

You know this for a fact, do you? Earth is pretty damned dangerous as well, but it doesn’t stop “three men sitting in a hot tub”.

Anyway, there is nothing like a hot tub to relax sore, achy muscles and tired, frazzled minds after these three guys (and others) have battled other starships, engaged in phaser battles, had the sh*t kicked out of them by a *big bad Klingon or two and watching good people die in the medical bay from shocking phaser blasts!…

My “hot tub scene” would take place after the Enterprise has narrowly won a victory against Del Toro’s villain character (whoever he may be). The Enterprise goes to pick up essential equipment for the new space station awaiting them on another station much closer to Earth and then delivers said equipment to the new station and then the crew take some much needed R&R, in the guise of testing out all the new recreational facilities, including the spa pools. There Kirk and Spock meet a nuli…

It could be unfortunate of course if Del Toro’s character goes off to lick his wounds, then regroups and tracks down the Enterprise and then turns up near the space station and the Menosian system which has, as yet, not been discovered. All are seen are just those strange space faring organic pod like lifeforms that seem to come and go, appear then disappear. They intensely irritate Del Toro’s character because, being a villain, he’s basically a nasty bastard and so he suddenly decides to fire on one of the nuli vessels… just to show the audience and the innocent Menosians and nulis that space is indeed a dangerous place!

Howzat, people? What you say, Bob Orci?

195. denny cranium - November 25, 2011

@192- I dont think we will see a revised release date. There is ample time to get this movie out.
Unless another tentpole franchise pops up -I’d count on a countdown clock real soon.

196. Cygnus-X1 - November 25, 2011

182. Keachick – rose pinenut – November 25, 2011

—-We consider ourselves ordinary mainstream people (whatever the hell “ordinary, mainstream” means), members of the general public – so yes, the comments are a little insulting. It is the constant “pigeon-holing” that gets up my nose, frankly.—-

Whenever I’ve used the “ADHD” metaphor it hasn’t necessarily been as a representation of “mainstream” people, though that style has now become mainstream. The film industry did just fine in the 90s and before, so obviously “mainstream” people appreciate movies that are not in the ADHD style.

As for your thought that people with short attention spans can’t pay attention to all of the fast action of the ADHD film style, I’ve never heard any complaints like that from anyone. I had a great time watching Inception, though I was keenly aware that the pacing of the film was absurdly fast for the deliberate purpose of trying to make the film seem bewildering and thereby the far-fetched premise of the film just out of intellectual reach and thus legitimize it. In other words, the hope was that the audience would think, “There’s so much going on here; it’s all kind of confusing, but it’s also intriguing.” The breakneck pace was also meant to keep the audience emotionally on-edge and unsettled. Even the music that played throughout the entire film was the kind of music that is usually used for a movie trailer.

I did, however, fall asleep in the theater during Rise of the Planet of the Apes, for the very reason that it was in the ADHD style, but with very little in the way of substance going on amidst the endless action. Where Inception presented us with things to think about during its frenetic action, Apes did not. And a bunch of CGI Apes running around being chased by people just wasn’t interesting enough after an hour or so to win out over my lack of sleep the night before.

But my premise in all of this criticism is that, if such films slowed the pace down in certain areas and spent a bit more time on dramatic development, added more substance (more things to think about), and balanced out the dynamics, i.e. gave us some calm, relaxing, aesthetically pleasing long shots to make the subsequent cut-cut-cut action scenes more intense and exciting by contrast, you would enjoy the film as much or more, even if you don’t have a problem right now with the ADHD style.

197. somethoughts - November 25, 2011

Anti gravity kung fu talosian dream sequence, fighting upside down sideways floating in the hallways and outside on the nacelles and in observation deck with huge windows showing the coolness of space, lotta pretty colours that makes on trip out.

198. The Original Spock's Brain - November 25, 2011

I’ll get excited when the trailer comes out…

199. somethoughts - November 25, 2011

Kirks phasers jams, Kors phasers jams, both stare at each other as epic opera music blares. Kor takes out his energy twin blades bathelith and both Kirk and Kor charge each other. Sulu tosses kirk his lightsabre type fencing sword, with Kirks shirt ripped open and Kors armor off, both are engaged at epic sword vs twin blades bathlith combat, the music peaks and gravity kicks off as both float in epic slow motion upside down sideways hand to hand combat.

With Spock and Uhura dead, the enraged kirk glows and becomes the super human as he was infected by the spores, his energy level is now off the charts and now is equal in strenght to Kor. Kor activates his cloaking cape and continues to beat up on Kirk, phasing in and out of sight, causing Kirk great harm.

200. somethoughts - November 25, 2011

Thats my star wars/matrix/ipman fight sequence :) everything I loved about a good fight scene.

201. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - November 25, 2011

As long as it is fimled in 3d and not redone.

202. Cervantes - November 25, 2011

Hell, I’d even like the ‘powers-that-be’ to go the whole hog and do a world’s first too – by making ‘TOS:Remastered’ the first ever tv show to be ‘converted’ to 3D in it’s entirety for a 3D Blu-ray release one day! (and give some of it’s more rushed/incomplete moments an extra spruce up while they’re at it)

Alas, I’ll have to put this in the ‘wishful thinking’ box alongside my hoped-for TOS ‘lego’ computer game…

203. chrisfawkes.com - November 25, 2011

Oh great, the world ends in 2012.

204. Adolescent Nightmare - November 25, 2011

I don’t know anyone my age with ADHD. But the snide remarks about my generation don’t annoy me. It’s just old guys being cranky. I can take comfort in the fact that the next 30 years of Star Trek will be made for us not them.

205. Red Dead Ryan - November 25, 2011

#194.

Three men sitting in a hot tub wouldn’t be very interesting to watch. Plus I doubt Spock would not allow himself to be caught dead taking a bath in a hot tub as recreation. The whole thing would reek of homoeroticism.

Also, can you do us a favor and keep your Menosian crap to yourself?

206. Fowler - November 26, 2011

• The Orion Syndicate as the villains
• Large all-star cast as well as many cameos
• More planets
• Larger space battles with more starships
• Kirk having better fighting skills
• Kirk having several human love interests played by Hollywood’s most beautiful young actresses
• The Star Trek theme music from the Insurrection end credits used at the end

207. trina - November 26, 2011

Got into 3D but hacked off with 2D treatment being sold on as 3D. So far the only convincing 3D I’ve seen is in animations. Also hacked off with the quality of storyline in so-called 3D films. Just because its 3D you don’t have to have hammers, fists, sharks’ faces coming at it unless (and it never is) a development of the visual storyline.

Hollywood just isn’t being honest about 3D and having just shelled out £18 for blu-ray 3D I expect something for my money.

And its IMAX for me if I see it in public because the last Trek I sat at the back of the theatre watching a gazzillion mobile/cell phones flashing on and off all through the performance – annoying and distracting brats the lot of them.

208. skyjedi - November 26, 2011

And here i thought the gap of 3 years between the star wars pictures was long, 2013,lol.

Any longer and JJ anc Comany would have gotten close to the gap between License to Kill and Goldeneye in the Bond series.

209. Thomas Jensen - November 26, 2011

190. rose pinenut
“Why such nonsense? A cast member can’t just “retire out during the contracted movie”.

You really didn’t get it, did you? I was saying that the “cast” or perhaps for you I should have spelled it out and said the crew of the Starship Enterprise could retire during the last movie since it looks like that might many years from now, assuming the same exact schedule for release.

“They are under contract – get it”.

Yeah, I get it: you are unable to read between the lines. I don’t need a lecture about the obvious…what happens in the movie industry.

Let me be clear for you since you like to lecture…. These movies are taking so long that the last story could be the same as Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, because the last movie will be a long time from the second one if they happen to occur as with the first movie and the second.

Oh, and that post is just generally a way to show my displeasure with having to wait so long between movies.

So now you can understand.

Sheesh.

210. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

#209 – “You really didn’t get it, did you? I was saying that the “cast” or perhaps for you I should have spelled it out and said the crew of the Starship Enterprise could retire during the last movie since it looks like that might many years from now, assuming the same exact schedule for release.”

In this context, the words “cast” and “crew” have different meanings and no, you were not at all clear at what you meant. I thought you meant the cast, as in actors. Generally we refer to “the CREW of the Enterprise”, not the “cast of the Enterprise”.

A little more clarity would be in order.

211. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

#205 – “Three men sitting in a hot tub wouldn’t be very interesting to watch. Plus I doubt Spock would not allow himself to be caught dead taking a bath in a hot tub as recreation. The whole thing would reek of homoeroticism.”

Holy shit! Homoeroticism? Frankly, that just did not occur to me! If you say so.

Guys sitting around in spas and saunas together has been going for millenia, (think Scandinavia as just one example) without people necessarily thinking that the guys are “getting it on”. Why should Spock be anymore concerned than anyone else about it “reeking of homoeroticism”?

I was giving an example only of a possible scene and it would not be a long scene at that. It depends on what conversation the three might have which could make the scene (more) interesting and relevant to the overall story.

In the actual story, Spock is the acting captain on the Enterprise while Kirk is on R&R at the space station.

“Also, can you do us a favor and keep your Menosian crap to yourself?”

Who is “us”? Do ME a favour and stop being such an arrogant twat. If I didn’t know any better, I could think that you were trolling. As far as I know, I am not doing anything wrong. Thank you.

212. Red Dead Ryan - November 26, 2011

#211.

Look, nobody wants to see men sitting together in a spa during a movie set in outerspace. And rightly or wrongly, most audiences would feel they are watching subliminal homoeroticism. BTW, not being homophobic, I’m just telling it as it is. A lot of people would be uncomfortable with it. And it would become a joke, and fodder for slash fiction.

“Who is “us”?”

Everyone that is not you!

“As far as I know, I am not doing anything wrong. Thank you.”

Oh geez, do I have to spell it out for you? You’re spreading your damned fantasies into all of our faces! And you have the audacity to call me “arrogant”??

I really think you need to be sent to a mental institute, in a straightjacket surrounded by pink padded walls!

213. PJays - November 26, 2011

I just hope they use the 3D for depth and not throwing things at the screen to get the audience to react. This might work in the theatres but Star Trek has great rewatch value and that effect gets really anoying when transfered to 2D.

I am surprised that JJ has gone the 3D route. Apparently, directors can’t get the same shots and angles with 3D. That is what Sly Stalone said about directing the Expendables and was one of the reasons he shot in 2D.

214. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 26, 2011

The way “TPTB” handle the 3D question will indicate, to me, their vision of franchise. If they use the latest and greatest the technology has to offer, it would demonstrate a greater appreciation and a long term investment in the brand. If not, then maybe not so much. The first movie was so different in style and had such a long “to do” list it’s hard to judge them solely on the single, albeit successful effort. IMHO.

215. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 26, 2011

“Guys sitting around in spas and saunas together has been going for millenia.”

Absolutely. Think of Greece, or Rome. Oh, wait a minute…. ;)

216. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

RDR – You are a real “piece of work”, presumptuous, rude and abusive.

217. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

I had well thought out arguments written to counter RDR’s post at #212, but the post did not go through.

Maybe I do need to be in a padded cell, but if that is the case, it would be because there are too many people like RDR in the world who presume to speak for “us” and who angrily tells me to go away (when it is not their place or right). He also manages to turn the fact that some guys spending time in a spa pool and/or sauna into some form of homoerotic indulgence. Well, it might be for a minority (so?), but that is not the case for everyone and never has been.

218. somethoughts - November 26, 2011

The sauna scene could be pretty funny :) I can see Kirk blowing bubbles and Mccoy chuckling while Spock is deadpan. This of course after defeating the Klingons and Khan with the help of the menosians to rid themselves of the spores.

Hey be nice to our keachick :)

219. Damian - November 26, 2011

Like others mentioned, 3D is fine as long as it is filmed that way. I think everyone agrees a post-film conversion almost always doesn’t work out. But since we are in the early stages of the film, I imagine JJ Abrams will film accordingly. I think he will have to sacrifice the lens flares, as I don’t really see how that would work in 3-D.

I also think we can rule out a William Shatner appearance. It seems everyone involved, including Shatner, has indicated it will not happen.

Finally, I’d like to see an original story. I’d be really dissappointed if they redo Khan. That would just seem to me to be lazy storytelling. As if the writers are saying to themselves, hey Khan was popular, lets just do that again. I know Bob Orci and co. are better than that. Khan was done perfectly. You can’t outdo perfection.

220. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 26, 2011

Thank you, somethoughts. Wouldn’t that be the spa pool scene though, with the spa’s own bubble makers turned off? Kirk has his hand near the bubble maker and quickly turns it onto full, therefore dispersing any sound and possible smell. Unfortunately, in a sauna that option would not be available…;)

Anyway, what would or could space station recreation decks have on them? Ships not only dock there to pick up or drop off supplies or even passengers or do necessary maintenance or repairs on ships, they also use these stations for leave.

221. somethoughts - November 26, 2011

#220

I think they have tribble football/soccer/baseball/tennis

A few escaped and grew hunger for revenge :)

222. somethoughts - November 26, 2011

#219

I think anything they make will be a original story.

They often said they are not interested in remakes.

I wish I can read the outline and script and give my thoughts then they red light me and forgot all :)

223. Jovan - November 27, 2011

GI Joe 2… did anyone actually like the first one? What a waste of money.

224. somethoughts - November 27, 2011

#223

It is, what it is, a movie based on toys like tranformers is not going to be competing for movie of the year.

These kinds of films is good for hiring avg actors that help the popcorn and soda go down, while sitting back and not having to think and to enjoy explosions like watching fireworks on night sky.

225. Damian - November 27, 2011

222–I hope you are right. I really do want something original. There are too many remakes of stories and characters out there today. I want a story that I don’t expect.

I really think the Abrams crew is good enough to do just that. I’m probably worried about nothing.

226. Bugs Nixon - November 27, 2011

If I can’t walk around it – it ain’t 3D.

When Hollywood develops 3D like in Back to the Future 2, then I’ll sign up.

Until then, this is nonsense – you’re better off waiting for a state of the art 4k screen than a HD 3D TV.

227. Jack - November 27, 2011

Although, the terrible Immortals actually used 3D pretty effectively. For films that aren’t all bluster, though, 3D still hasn’t worked well. Most 3D films still look better in 2D. Although, folks are raving about Hugo.

I hope it ain’t in 3D. I’d actually pay more to see it in 2D (if it ever comes to that, which it might).

228. Stephen - November 27, 2011

Wow, 4 years between movies? Too long

229. Jack - November 27, 2011

Incidentally, was having a chat with friends (German, Turkish, French, British) in Berlin and Star Trek came up. Some of (their) comments to Trek films generally: they’re too darned American (with gunboat diplomacy and the superior federation), they’re too darned formulaic and predictable, and they’re filled with cheesy dialogue with little else happening (remember, everything gets dubbed here, so technobabble is especially ridiculous), they’re neither great dramas nor great scifi/action flicks, and the incentive of nostalgia isn’t the same (they’re based on old American TV shows, so what?). They’re not particularly great looking or great film/cinema. And they’re too boring for most kids/families. We should be thrilled because the characters merely appear, like Fonzie coming on stage to all these cheers, but there’s nothing intreinsically great about the films the selves, orher than familiarity. Again, just the voice of a few, but yeah,
interesting. Thoughts?

Thoughts,

230. somethoughts - November 27, 2011

#229

Sounds like they only watched, TMP, TFF, Insurrection, Nemesis, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise in that order.

Let them watch ST09, TWOK, VH, TUC

City on the edge of forever
Best of both worlds
All good things…

231. charles charles - November 27, 2011

film makers should just do 3d everytime it seems safe just to contribute ot the learning curve of filmaking. after what JJ did to the 2009 film i think he has solid ground to work on when it comes to 3d. might as well go for it. its abrams we’re talking about….. like… cmon it has to be done

232. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 27, 2011

#229 Interesting. I wonder if that is how Star Trek is seen by a lot of people within our own English speaking cultures as well – USA, Canada, UK, Australia and NZ. Is there a similar reaction to other US made sci-fi shows?

Of course, the very British Dr Who could be seen in a similar way in that it is too darned British. I mean, here’s this alien timelord from some place far, far away and yet he is someone who is always turning up on British soil and getting himself English female companions. Dr Who is all for the Queen and country… Perhaps the only difference between this and other shows like Star Trek (“too darned American”) is that you always feel that somehow Dr Who is “taking the piss” a bit, whereas other sci-fi shows tend to take themselves a little more, maybe even too, seriously at times.

Perhaps that is what these people living in continental Europe detect when they watch American sci-fi – too much “flag waving with a big US aircraft carrier loaded with all kinds of powerful weaponry cruising in behind”. While Americans may feel OK and safe about this, others do not necessarily share those same feelings. Sometimes it feels more like intimidation.

I don’t agree that Star Trek movies have lacked drama, don’t look good on the screen, not necessarily good family entertainment. Some are better than others, but I have found something to enjoy/relish in every single movie I have watched. My kids also enjoy watching the various incarnations of Star Trek, both the movies and the TV series, especially the oldest one.

233. Cervantes (M) - November 27, 2011

Having just seen the teaser trailer for PROMETHEUS that’s just been leaked online in very poor quality, I reckon this 3D ‘space-bound’ epic from Ridley is gonna be raising the bar pretty high when it comes to the visuals and storytelling…

I’ll certainly be checking out how this particular ‘planet exploring’ movie turns out next year, especially as Ridley Scott has filmed it using ‘proper’ 3D cameras – his first time using this technology. I read somewhere that he had such a good time with the process, that he will never film anything in 2D again, but only in 3D from now on! (…which means that his next project, the BLADERUNNER sequel, should look equally impressive)

I hope J.J. and co. can bring something half as compelling to the table a year later.

234. Cervantes (M) - November 27, 2011

Oh, and I’m a Brit, and absolutely loved whatever ‘American’-leaning aspects there naturally were to the original TOS when it was made. You guy have led the world in many good ways over the years as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve no problem whatsoever with how the ‘Trek’ universe may be rightly slanted towards your own cultural preferences, and beliefs. (and our ‘Doc’ rocks also, by the way…)

And thanks for giving us ‘Trek’ in the first place too, of course! :)

235. merrick - November 27, 2011

No No 3D…why is every movie coming out is in 3D…..3D sucks … i love Star Trek but if it going to be in 3D …this will be one fan that will not go ….if you have to do 3D atleast make 2D for the fans who dont like 3D

236. Cervantes (M) - November 27, 2011

…you’ll be glad to know merrick that every movie that’s filmed in 3D *can* be seen in 2D also, and that applies to both the theatrical release and the dvd/or blu-ray release.

Whether certain directors have the talent to utilise the latest 3D technology to a high standard still remains to be seen with a lot of them, however.

237. RenderedToast - November 27, 2011

I love how everyone involved has treated this movie like a chore rather than something to put their attention on.

Oh wait, I mean I think it stinks and demonstrates that despite the massive box office success that Star Trek 2009 was, NO ONE CARED and still treated Star Trek like an also-ran franchise. Seriously – 4 YEARS LATER we finally get another movie? Way to burn out the goodwill.

238. MC1701B - November 27, 2011

1. I will not pay to see this piece of crap. Furthermore, even though I get free passes at two different multiplexes, I probably will not even see it for free. If J.J. Abrams thinks garbage like “Undercovers” is more worthy of his attention than taking less than four years to produce a sequel which already has standing sets and a signed principal cast, then I’m sure I will find something more worthy of MY attention, a year and a half from now. A year and a half, Abrams lovers!

2. If the script were any good, it would not be made in 3-D, because the spectacle would not be necessary to distract us from it. Of course, Orci could come on and prove me wrong, by giving us a page or so of non-spoiler script. But he won’t.

Because I’m right.

239. Spock/Uhura Fan - November 28, 2011

I wouldn’t have a problem with seeing Spock, Kirk, and McCoy soaking in a hot tub after work. I’d of course wouldn’t mind seeing Spock and Uhura in a hot tub too. She could talk him onto relaxing a bit. :-)

240. Damian - November 28, 2011

229–I’d probably say since Star Trek was created and made in America, it obviously was going to reflect American values. However, Star Trek through the ages has tried to encompass a wide range of views. Star Trek fans do tend to be rather fickle. They think there are not enough battles in Star Trek so they come up with the Dominion War in DS9, then a lot of those same fans say that Star Trek is not about battles and war.

The Federation was designed by Gene Roddenberry to be the best possible government. One heavy on forming alliances, and at the same time allowing members great freedom in running their own affairs. But I would tell your European friends that there are plenty of instances where we see a Federation that is still imperfect. I think there are plenty of instances of that in Deep Space Nine.

Regarding gunboat diplomacy, I’m not seeing it. The movies, maybe. Motion Pictures have to be heavy on action these days. However In the original series, The Next Generation and Enterprise we see plenty of times where Starfleet officers try to find the peaceful solution. That is certainly true of Captain Picard, who would rather try diplomacy than war. And Captain Archer works very hard to earn the Xindi’s trust when his attempt to destroy their weapon fails. Here was a species intent on destroying Earth and he not only changes their mind but forms an alliance with some of the Xindi and the Enterprise risks its own destruction to stop the so-called Guardians, thereby saving the Xindi.

I would venture to say the United States politicians could learn a lot from the ideals set forth from Star Trek. I’m frankly surprised our European friends would not find more in common with the Federation.

241. NuFan - November 28, 2011

Gosh, I wonder if 237 & 238 are the same person.

242. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 28, 2011

@237, 238

Once again, more stupid bitching and blaming –

Something I had suspected has been confirmed by this article and may answer some questions as to the real reason for the delays. Super 8 is a Warner Bros. production and Welcome to People is a Dreamworks production (not Paramount). This may also help explain the hold up with making the new Jack Ryan movie with Chris Pine.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/08/david-ellison-raises-350-million-to-cofund-movies-with-paramount.html

His production company is the one helping make the Star Trek sequel.

243. Red Dead Ryan - November 28, 2011

“Super 8″ was a Paramount/Bad Robot production.

244. Adolescent Nightmare - November 28, 2011

241
Only I can do sarcasm around here.

245. NuFan - November 28, 2011

Yes, My Lord.

246. dmduncan - November 28, 2011

237: “Oh wait, I mean I think it stinks and demonstrates that despite the massive box office success that Star Trek 2009 was, NO ONE CARED and still treated Star Trek like an also-ran franchise. Seriously – 4 YEARS LATER we finally get another movie?”

Dude, frustrated though you might be, along with many other fans, I think you got it 100% bass ackwards. Sturgeon’s Law. 90% of everything is crap. And one of the ways you make crap is to rush things.

One of the things I learned while being on this site is that many Trek fans like crap. Heck, they demand it with a vengeance.

They want their crap now. No, that’s not fast enough. They want it yesterday, and they want lots of it yesterday, too.

Not me.

Anybody who just cares about the $$$ can rush a sequel through production to capitalize on the brand made popular by the previous movie while it’s still fresh in people’s minds. That they didn’t do that shows to me that they are NOT concerned primarily about the money and that they are confident in Star Trek’s ability to recapture it’s audience moreso than many fans who have such little faith in the franchise that they think it’s doomed merely because the sequel is taking too long to get made.

The fact, and it IS a fact, that they deliberated long about the movie before settling on the story they wanted to do means that they care more than the fans who complain do, who apparently want anything, no matter how bad it turns out to be.

While the deliberation will not guarantee the sequel will be great, rushing a sequel into production without confidence in the material, which they probably would not have had, is a sure way to guarantee it will be crap.

Which, as I said, would still please many Trekkies. But not me.

247. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

229. Jack. Interesting conversation there. I would have enjoyed being part of it. (it sounded like it bordered on the political, and I enjoy that subject, especially with non-Americans). It seems to me their opinion, in short, is Trek is not very good at any one thing. It’s second rate at almost everything. Huh. While I agree that their criticisms are true for Hollywood in general, it is hard for me to be objective when it comes to Star Trek. I mean I can find things to bitch about like any other Treker, and I hated Star Trek 9 and 10, but I was rasied on TOS and I long ago accepted the certain style of that series. I am curious though what movies or better yet, which franchises do they enjoy. That would provide more insight as to where they are coming from.

248. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

Should read, …which franchises they do enjoy.

249. dmduncan - November 28, 2011

The only gunboat diplomacy I remember in TOS was in Mirror Mirror, on the part of the Terran Empire.

Perhaps Jack’s foreign friends sympathized with the conspiratorial Klingons who saw the Federation as a “homo-sapiens only club.”

As far as the quality of the movies, I would have to agree. As a fan of Star Trek I loved all the TOS movies, but as a fan of cinema I did not love any of them — the only exception being ST.09 which I thought was both great Star Trek and a great movie.

I think that is the mark to shoot for, as well. I think they should all be concerned about making a great movie that happens to be Star Trek.

Seeing it as Star Trek FIRST has been, I think, part of the reason why Star Trek has never been able to transcend its small TV box roots and the provincialism of its fans. It should be approached as great material for a great movie first, and as Star Trek second.

250. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

“As far as the quality of the movies, I would have to agree. As a fan of Star Trek I loved all the TOS movies, but as a fan of cinema I did not love any of them …”

Hmmm yeah, I have to reluctantly agree. Not that I didn’t enjoy them. I most certainly did. But I also felt they should be …better. I’d see Alien or Aliens or Blade Runner or even The Empire Strikes Back, the original Terminator and think why can’t Trek be more…more cutting edge, more adult, or intriguing, …lead Sci-Fi, not wallow in it. Then you read these postings and you realize that if you put all the Trekkers in a room and a fight would break out in ten minutes. Lots of us like the “G” rating, others want a truly “R” version. It tries to be all things but winds up waterdowned, which I think some of Jack’s friends were alluding to, among other things.

251. Red Dead Ryan - November 28, 2011

“Star Wars” will forever be considered by non-Trekkies as the far superior franchise worldwide. It’ll never change. In fact, I predict that there will be a huge “Star Wars” resurgence in a few years, whether it be a new trilogy, or a blockbuster-quality live action show.

In fact, “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” is on the verge of beating “Star Trek” at it’s own game: on television. That show has explored moral issues while developing strong characters and interesting plots. There’s even exploration!

BTW, I just watched “Revenge Of The Sith” and “A New Hope” on Blu Ray on my brand new 40″ television. WOW!

252. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

Should read, “if you put all the Trekkers in a room, a fight would break out in ten minutes.”
You’d think I’d have gotten the hang of this by now.

253. Red Dead Ryan - November 28, 2011

Speaking of “The Terminator”, I thought the second film in particular had an almost “Roddenberry-esque” message: That if a machine can learn the value of human life, then so can we. That was spoken by Sarah Connor at the end of the movie.

254. Red Dead Ryan - November 28, 2011

Also, while so many Trekkies regard “The Wrath Of Khan” as the holy grail of Trek films, it’s usually not even considered by mainstream audiences as being a great movie, never mind a sci-fi classic.

In the recent issue of “Entertainment Weekly”, J.J Abrams revealed his top ten list of science fiction movies. “Aliens” and “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind” were on it, but not one Trek film. Not even TWOK.

Now I know J.J Abrams does like TWOK a lot, but not nearly as much as Trekkies do. He’s more able to see the flaws in it than most Trekkies.

255. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

For starters, you won’t hear Star Wars fans bitching about 3D or effects taking away from the story or the message. Hell, they didn’t even bitch about the last three movies.

You know I didn’t like the second and more popular Terminator. I felt they took what worked in the first movie and turned it up to eleven. Something many franchises do these days; then turned a frightening villain into a good guy. A la Return of the Jedi. Yuck. Damn Hollywood! And another Death Star to boot!

256. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 28, 2011

Right. I ommited Close Encounters. And Planet of the Apes. I know, different type of story but…

257. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 29, 2011

#243 Correct.
“Production Co: Paramount Pictures, Amblin Entertainment, Bad Robot” IMDb

I must have been thinking of Cowboys & Aliens, which is from Warner Bros.

However, Super 8′s budget was only $50 million, whereas the Star Trek sequel budget will probably be almost three times the Super 8 budget. Given what the article I posted said, this could very likely be one of the major reasons for the delay experienced with doing of the ST sequel.

Star Trek, unfortunately, has never been a massive money maker for the studio the way other movies are, so in lean financial times, there has to be greater hesitancy on the part of Paramount when it comes to risk doing movies like Star Trek.

Whether people here like it or not, Transformers movies are liked by a great many more people than Star Trek is, hence these movies are much more of a guaranteed money maker. There is no use continually making jibes against the Transformers movies and the people who enjoy them. That just comes off as petty, sour, intellectual/sci-fi snobbery.

258. somethoughts - November 29, 2011

#246

Yes, I rather they take their time to make a awesome epic movie than to rush it to satisfy a corporate deadline.

#250

Closest they got I guess was First Contact, you had cyborg monsters in space, time traveling to alter earths past. First Contact should have been much much better imo, great opportunity here to make a truly awesome sci fi movie.

#253

T2 was awesome and will always be one of my favorites.

#254

I only watched TOS series and movies only after watching The Undiscovered Country, I think that was the best Star Trek TOS era movie. The opening score was dark and fantastic, the special effects was good, you had a murder mystery and secret assassination plot and of course it dealt with racism.

#255

Exactly, I don’t really understand why Trekkies/Trekkers don’t want 3D, it is almost like they are afraid of sharing their favorite secret cake with anyone. If 3D can make the movie better like awesome space and ship shots with planets, I say GO FOR IT.

#257

That is because they had bean counters like Rick Berman convincing the execs that x money can get you y returns, bloody idiot.

More Fantasy in space with adventure and less politics! shoot for LOTR, Indiana Jones(classic ones) and Empire Strikes Back, more awesome and less cheese, thanks!

259. somethoughts - November 29, 2011

#257

“Whether people here like it or not, Transformers movies are liked by a great many more people than Star Trek is, hence these movies are much more of a guaranteed money maker. There is no use continually making jibes against the Transformers movies and the people who enjoy them. That just comes off as petty, sour, intellectual/sci-fi snobbery.”

Yes, I think given the chance the average person would rather party in a cool restaurant that offers up exciting and delicious dishes and drinks versus the physics club where they talk about saving the planet, developing the unified field theory, drinking flat beer and wine and only being offered cheese and crackers.

Let’s be honest most of the Star Trek movies was so boring and only caters to like 1% of the population.

260. Damian - November 29, 2011

Unfortunately the Star Trek brand has a certain stygma attached to it by not Trekkies. My wife thinks it’s a kids show (I wouldn’t let my 6 year old daughter watch a lot of the episodes or movies until she is older, so I don’t know where she got that from). A lot of people think it’s for nerds, despite the fan base including people of all stripes.

It’s very frustrating as a Trekkie myself. I love it all, original series, TNG, DS9, Voyager (admittedly the weakest of the 5 series), and Enterprise, along with all 11 movies. There is a lot there. Sci-fi certainly, action, adventure, drama, comedy. There are episodes that almost bring you to tears, “The Tholian Web” when Spock and McCoy listen to Kirk’s message, TNG “Family” when Picard breaks down to his brother about his experience with the Borg, DS9 “The Visitor” when young Jake breaks down after seeing his father reappear, ENT “Similitude” when Sim tells Phlox he was a great father and Phlox, barely able to control his emotions tells Sim he was a great son, Nemesis when Troi starts crying about Data’s sacrifice, and Star Trek (2009) when George Kirk sacrifices himself to save his wife, son and the rest of the Kelvin crew. All of those were great Star Trek moments that transcend Star Trek. And those are just a few things.

261. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

“Closest they got I guess was First Contact, you had cyborg monsters in space, time traveling to alter earths past. First Contact should have been much much better imo, great opportunity here to make a truly awesome sci fi movie.”
BAM! I got the feeling they were on the verge of something great. They got so…so…close.

“I don’t really understand why Trekkies/Trekkers don’t want 3D, it is almost like they are afraid of sharing their favorite secret cake with anyone.”

It certainly does. :)) Then you read these posts and they act as if it won’t be in 2D. I mean, I drove 100 miles each way, (and yes, up hill both ways) to see the last movie in IMAX in Denver. Who cares? What a decrepit bunch. Swollen feet, varicose veins, car sickness…. They should listen to themselves. Wonder why we’re mocked? (Sorry, I’m ranting). Hey, Gene’s future’s so bright, I gotta wear 3D glasses.

262. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

“Yes, I think given the chance the average person would rather party in a cool restaurant that offers up exciting and delicious dishes and drinks…”

True. But in this case that restaurant is McDonalds.

263. Lt. Bailey - November 29, 2011

I am not too excited about it being int 3D… Shakey cameras and lens flares will be annoying. Then we buy (you know we will) the DVD/Blu ray in 2D… Oh well.

264. Ryan Spooner - November 29, 2011

@23 Speaking of 3 times as dumb….. Nobody is forcing you to watch the 3D version. There’s never been a big film that hasn’t also been released in 2D, I don’t seem them going 3D only any time soon… that would exclude many smaller cinemas that don’t have 3D projection capability.

Don’t ruin it for the rest of us who would like to see starships in 3D on the big screen.

265. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

I do love TWOK, and TUC, but Nicholas Meyer is not a groundbreaking director of cutting edge narrative cinema. He’s competent, but JJ understands the medium better.

266. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

My objection to 3D is more philosophical, because trendspotting makes me distrust where the technology is going and how it will eventually be used. 3D goggles that isolate the viewer/gamer in front of a private screen are improving, and I expect the technology to move toward an experience that is ever more immersive, which I expect will disconnect a disconnected people even further from that which they need to remain connected to, which is to each other — and not to each other through the filter of virtual reality.

267. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

“I expect the technology to move toward an experience that is ever more immersive, which I expect will disconnect a disconnected people even further …”

Do agree. We are, and will continue to become more so. And that is not as innocuous as it sounds.

268. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

Add to that a culture obssessed with the pursuit of money, to the exculsion of all else and well… you get the picture.

269. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

267. moauvian waoul – aka: seymour hiney – November 29, 2011

No, it’s not. It concerns me. You combine that tech with TV which is already largely a pressure relief valve for the public, giving people tours in fictitious people’s lives more interesting than their own which they are kept locked within by debt and inertia, and you will eventually get something that makes the couch potato look like an exercise fanatic.

You can expect eventual interfaces with the brain through microchip implants to take the “3D” experience / menace to a whole other level.

270. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

Now you’re scaring me. …Very insightful.

271. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

“…kept locked within by debt …”
I especially agree with this because it is so often seen as an unrelated issue, its own issue, but here you connect the two and reveal the dangerous combination that they are.

272. somethoughts - November 29, 2011

#269

Yes, like the matrix we get to connect to the internet via wi fi brain waves and get to view everything in a virtua world or infront of our eyes. Being able to login into someones brain and take all their memories and secrets would be scary. Telepath thieves/memory voyeurs.

273. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

But I like dancing cats and sleeping pandas.

274. Keachick - rose pinenut - November 29, 2011

Isn’t this what William Shatner’s “Tekwar” series was about? People hooked onto experiencing themselves within a virtual reality framework through the use of special glasses and needing more of it like addicts need drugs at the moment. Their entire lives revolved around getting the next Tek fix. Eventually, *Tek* was outlawed, but still very hard to stop/police. The other problem was how a criminal element could get control of some Tek and plant subliminal messages in the Tek game that caused the user to sometimes act out of character and commit crimes for the benefit of the real criminal.

Interestingly, if I remember correctly, smoking was also illegal but Tekwar games were OK, until the real danger was realized. It turned out to be a bigger problem than both illicit drug use and/or smoking to people’s overall general health, especially their psychological health and wellbeing.

(It has been a while since I read a Tekwar book or watched the television series made in Canada, but I am pretty sure that was how the basic scenario went.)

275. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

271. moauvian waoul – aka: seymour hiney – November 29, 2011

Yeah, it’s all related, how it works, how we are encouraged into debt by a thousand sources, from education to medical bills to auto repair to the dentist to every store that we shop at, and then, once accepted, the pace of our lives is driven and maintained in a rhythm, fast food restaurants being the grease that keeps everything running smoothly. And then recovering from that whole demeaning process we have little time left over to penetrate the causes why, so we look to entertainment for release, for relaxation. If you can afford to go on a real vacation, great, but what awaits you once it is over but more of the same? And this is the growth medium in the Petri dish we are all accustomed to living in until we retire (oh, the “fortunate” ones get to do that, not anybody else). And then if you do get to retire and you manage to stay uncommitted to a home for the aged by your children — you die.

(And then we get Europeans who think all this is great telling us to stop complaining! Oh, no, sorry sir! I am not going to not complain. I am alive, and you are the green leaf cut off the plant which has a while to go before it turns brown, but which is dead just the same.)

And on top of that will each new technological innovation be built to draw power from that rhythm. The free and open society becomes like a fish in a barrel, the target of technocrats who really run things. So long as the people are kept entertained, why WILL they be curious? What is to rouse them to consciousness from unconscious comfort with how they are? And what, they will ask, is the benefit of democracy again? And that’s on a good day when you find someone willing to think up such a question to ask in the first place.

I keep wondering if TV can be used as a medium to wake people up. I’ve been approaching it as a problem in the way that I typically approach a problem to be solved, the question to answer being is it possible to raise consciousness through TV while people are looking for a quick recharge before hopping back on the conveyer belt the next day?

Can you startle them with something that actually makes them questioning why things are the way they are more likely, and more likely to take small steps as a result?

And if you can, and such a TV show became popular, would it be permitted to continue?

To get those answers I think you have to experiment. You have to do shows that encourage those things and then see what the effect is. If you get a massive hit with one of them, then it becomes really interesting to see what happens.

Oops! I ranted! Sowwy!

276. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

TV is a form of passive entertainment, which is at the core of the problem. Passivity.

277. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

It was a good rant though. I do enjoy a good rant.

One question. The Europeans? My experience is they think we’re crazy living like we do when they have a similar standard of living with less stress, better education and healtcare. Were you saying the opposite? Just wondering.

278. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

Hey dmducan, I know we’re running a bit wide of the topic. I guess Trekkers are a 3 dimensional group. Whoops! Anyway I was reading an article on PRI about American culture and where it’s headed. A poster had something to say and I know you’re somewhat of the thoughtful type, along with some others here. I am curious as to your take, being that you are also an American. Warning: some might find it offensive. So here it goes:

“Since you do not actually have a culture, I’d advise you to forget about any lasting effect from your grotesque behavior as a society.

Why not instead spend the day counting your money, and praying to your God that none of the poor get a hold of it.

Save a few pennies for your eyes, you apparently aren’t even using them to see, anyway.

We’ll be robbing your graves for a long while, and strewing your overpriced furniture in your overgrown yards.

Way to go America, you bought austerity from behind a gated fence.

Now, lie down in it.”

279. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

277. moauvian waoul – aka: seymour hiney – November 29, 2011

No, I was thinking of something somebody said elsewhere, a criticism of Americans (and of one in particular) for complaining about TSA-type security at airports, which was in a vein of things I’ve heard before and which, in fact, is related to things I am reading right now in an HG Wells non-fiction book called The Open Conspiracy which is an advocacy of a future which the EU currently closely mirrors.

In the book Wells lays down the philosophical support of his theory, and it’s not just naive, it’s chuckle-out-loud funny, and yet there are no doubt very many people, from the powerful to the peons (a term not derived from pee-on, as in “to be peed on,” but which should be), who believe exactly like Wells does. In fact, I find it hard to distinguish which world he is talking about — the world of 1935, when the book was written, or of 2011, because the two sound exactly alike.

“TV is a form of passive entertainment, which is at the core of the problem. Passivity.”

Yes, that is true. Most of the time, I hasten to add. My own experience with Star Trek, for example was one of awakening, and I’m sure there must be many others for whom it was the same thing.

Star Trek was my gateway SF. From there it escalated to Dune, the books of Larry Niven, and Harlan Ellison. After that it was Asimov, Frederick Pohl, Poul Anderson — and then anything, man. It got so bad that for a while I was doing old black and white episodes of Lost in Space and Mr. Ed The Talking Horse.

And of course there was The X Files and Firefly — which latter show was brilliantly and subtly subversive, which I only discovered long after it was off the air.

So yes, I think most TV is passive, but my experience is that it does not have to be. It is that way by design rather than necessity.

I think.

280. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

America doesn’t have a culture. It has thousands of them. And the most powerful reason to me to fight the corporate state is to help keep different and diverse forms of life alive, since they have been under ceaseless attack for hundreds of years.

Certainly the corporate state tries to homogenize every community into looking the same, and that only comes about by the destruction of local differences and of local forms of life. So to the extent that corporatism is successful, you get fewer differences and America ends up tasting like an unsalted cracker no matter where you go. And that can be seen as cultureless.

Some people think that’s a good thing. I don’t. I prefer a rainforest of possibilities. Which the EU doesn’t strike me as being either.

I don’t know what the guy is talking about as far as the rest of that stuff.

281. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

What “overpriced furniture” is he talking about? That cheap IKEA crap some American idiots camp out in line for at new store openings to buy, imported from — where is it — Denmark?

282. somethoughts - November 29, 2011

Ikea, 50cent hotdogs, 50cent icecream, takes 2hrs to build and falls apart in 2months.

283. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - November 29, 2011

280. Yeah, not much to add. You pretty much nailed it. As for the poster commenting on our pursuit of wealth, creating our present state of affairs; I think your remark about debt was not that disimilar, though said quite differently. IMHO, of course.

And above all else remember, “The revolution will not be televised.” At least that’s what I saw on tv.

284. dmduncan - November 29, 2011

283: “And above all else remember, ‘The revolution will not be televised.’ At least that’s what I saw on tv.”

I dunno, man. I’m kinda hopin’ that Bob Orci, being a TV man, will try to televise it a little bit. ;-)

285. Basement Blogger - November 29, 2011

Director Martin Scorsese has elevated 3D to an art form. His Hugo will change your mind as to how you see 3D. Scorsese obviously loves the technique because of the care he frames every scene in the film. Objects like shoes, fish and flying sketches reach out to you. The scene below is one of my favorites from the movie. A box of sketches of fantastic worlds comes alive as they fly in the air. Link.

Now think about a mind blowing Star Trek filmed in 3D.

Magical scene from Hugo.
http://youtu.be/CX35WGxTQrQ

286. Red Dead Ryan - November 29, 2011

Yeah, we can all look forward to the day when the high ranking technocrats manange to activate a global cyber-human network through which the rest of us will be connected with the proclamation:

“WE ARE THE BORG…..RESISTENCE IS FUTILE!”

287. somethoughts - November 29, 2011

#286

As long as Jeri Ryan is still around with those nice cough cough outfits and twins :)

http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/11645-bigthumbnail.jpg

288. ToMaHaKeR - November 30, 2011

Personally, I will NEVER understand 3D movies… As for 2013, they better make it spectacular since they got enough time now.

289. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - November 30, 2011

I HATE 3D

290. SemperExploro - December 1, 2011

Will lens flares hurt in 3-D?

291. Hat Rick - December 2, 2011

Yes, they will surely hurt in GLORIOUS! 3-D.

Gloriously, though, let’s keep that in mind.

292. Captain_Conrad - December 11, 2011

I have to wait…. ANOTHER YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

293. Admiral Janeway - April 26, 2012

please bring back Jeri Ryan (7of9) for the 3D :-)))

294. Dragonetti - May 10, 2012

I would rather see a movie with a higher resolution/quality and higher frame rates then 3D.
Because imho 3D is just a few good scene’s and the rest is mostly 2D converted to 3D, witch looks like you are looking in a shoebox you made in kinder-garden with carton figure in them
Not even worth while to go to the cinema for and lets face it to pay more at the box office for!!

295. D.A. - May 18, 2012

what is this douchebaggary

296. Joyce Martinez - May 22, 2012

I’ve loved Star Trek since the 60′s, I loved the original crew movies. I’m saddened by the deaths of “Bones and Scotty” RIP. I like Star Trek next Generation and there sequels, I never really cared for the other shows. So far I loved this first movie and am egearly awaiting the sequel. I’d love to see William Shatner, Leonord Nemoy and the other remaining original case members in camios. Whether it be in 3D or 2D.

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