Kurtzman: Cumberbatch’s Villain is Scary + Star Trek Sequel Delayed To ‘Protect’ Franchise [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Kurtzman: Cumberbatch’s Villain is Scary + Star Trek Sequel Delayed To ‘Protect’ Franchise [UPDATED] June 15, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity,Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Alex Kurtzman’s directorial debut People Like Us hits theaters in two weeks, and while out promoting the movie he is also talking a little Star Trek. In a couple of new interviews the co-writer/producer of the sequel explains why the team chose to delay instead of rushing it out for a 2012 release. He also confirmed our earlier report about no Trek for next month’s San Diego Comic Con. [UPDATE 2: Also talks about Benedict Cumberbatch & 'connected' USS Enterprise sets]

 

Update 2: Kurtzman on Cumberbatch & ‘Connected’ USS Enterprise sets

Another People Like Us Interview has cropped up at CinemaBlend, where Alex talks about sequel villain Benedict Cumberbatch, saying:

There are certain actors who have the ability to take a line of dialogue and add a ring to it that you didn’t even know you put into the dialogue, into the line. And he’s one of those really brilliant actors…Sequels are about your bad guy. Because your first movie is always about the becoming of [the hero] and your bad guy has to test that hero in a very significant way. And he’s an incredibly formidable presence. He’s amazing. Are you going to be scared of him? Shit yeah!”

In a previous article we reported on how the USS Enterprise sets were "connected" for the sequel, allowing more shots of characters moving around the ship. Kurtzman spoke to Collider about how this new configuration opened things up for director JJ Abrams

J.J. was brilliant, in building the sets that way, because what he wanted to do was be able to play whole scenes without a cut, as you were literally moving through this huge, huge ship.

Original article

Kurtzman on why Star Trek sequel moved from 2012 to 2013 + Says no Trek at SDCC

The original plan for the sequel to JJ Abrams’ Star Trek was for it to be released on June 29, 2012 (which is in just two weeks). But when it came time to finalize the script and get pre-production started in the spring/early summer of 2011, other projects (especially Super 8 for JJ Abrams and Bryan Burk) were keeping the team from focusing on Trek. In a new interview (with Movies.com) co-writer/producer Alex Kurtzman explains how the team could have stuck with the original plan, but we may not have liked the results…

We collectively as the brain trust – J.J. [Abrams] and Damon [Lindelof] and me and Bob [Orci] and Bryan Burk – decided that in order to protect Trek, we had to delay it by one year. We just didn’t want to rush it. We felt that we had put so much love into the first movie, and we didn’t want a mandate to ruin the work that everyone had done. And I think the fans deserve to feel that their beloved franchise is being protected. So we delayed for a year to really work on the script, to have the time to shoot the movie correctly, and I’m really excited with what J.J. did. I think we all are.

Kurtzman also expressed a similar sentiment to ComingSoon.com about the Star Trek delay, saying

Here’s the thing about Trek. Part of why we delayed a year was because we didn’t want to rush it, just because we feel very beholden to the franchise and we feel very protective of it and the worst thing we can do is to put it out there before we felt like we were ready and we were still working on the story."

So while it is unfortunate that the team ended up overbooked for their time in 2010/2011, at least they recognized this and didn’t just phone it in on Star Trek. As fans, of course we all wish there was a new movie opening in two weeks (as per the original plan), but if the only way for that to happen was for it to be a rush job, then waiting another 11 months is worth it.


Alex Kurtzman directing "People Like Us" (Photo: Ralph Nelson/DreamWorks)

With regards to a panel for the Star Trek sequel at next month’s San Diego Comic Con Kurtzman confirmed our report from earlier this week, saying he doesn’t expect Trek to be there…

No, I don’t think so [for Star Trek at Comic Con]. We literally just wrapped, so I think it would be too hard to do that.

For more from Kurtzman on how he and Orci are sequeling The Amazing Spider-man and bringing Ender’s Game to the big screen, see the full interviews at ComingSoon.com and Movies.com.

Kurtzman’s People Like Us arrives in theaters on June 29.


Alex Kurtzman directing Chris Pine in "People Like Us"

Comments

1. andrew - June 15, 2012

the delay is a good thing!

2. Allen Williams - June 15, 2012

you could have done it without jj. I swear if Johnathan Franks had directed the 2009 script, it would have been a LOT better.

3. Christopher Roberts - June 15, 2012

I don’t know. If it’s all down to the editing and FX teams – and the story is sound with all footage needed shot…

Then Paramount find themselves in dire straits, films which were supposed to be out in 2012, now being juggled around because they’re not ready – They NEED something BIG and with a guaranteed audience, to mark 100 Years anniversary publicity.

Crunch time and we’ll be seeing this sooner perhaps?

4. Craiger - June 15, 2012

I don’t think it is because you loose all the momentum ST 2009 had. I wonder if any new Trek fans ST 2009 got they have already forgotten that their is a sequel? Or care about Trek anymore?

5. Capt. Caveman - June 15, 2012

They needed extra time to put in all the lense flares

6. dmduncan - June 15, 2012

A heartflet thanks to Bob and Alex for taking the time.

It’s so easy to produce crap, particularly in Trek, that a vision quest ought to be a mandatory exercise before a single letter is typed.

7. Dale D. - June 15, 2012

Personally I’m glad to see you guys taking your time and treating Trek with the attention it deserves. I only hope this will generate enough interest to put another Star Trek series on the small screen too

8. Craiger - June 15, 2012

I also agree that you shouldn’t rush things either and put out a great film but also waiting to long could be bad for a film also. Like I said before that waiting to long and you could loose momentum for the sequel.

9. Ryan P - June 15, 2012

I wonder if this next gen- wide theater release for the blu-ray episodes isn’t a “test” for audiences to see how much folks may want to see another next-gen film?

10. ados - June 15, 2012

Cumby’s gonna be scary…hhmmmmm

11. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 15, 2012

People are either interested or they are not. The publicity for the sequel is there for those who care to take notice. It’s just not in your face and thank goodness for that. Come January next year and I think it will be a different story and so it should be.

People Like Us is what needs promoting now and does need to do well at the Box Office so that Dreamworks SKG will be more inclined to seek distributors to give the movie international coverage. Not happy right now in that regard…

I am happy about how the Star Trek sequel appears to be coming together. Keep up the good work, guys!

12. Mickey MET - June 15, 2012

It took about a dozen years to get TOS to the big screen. . . . It took this group 1/3 of that time to get around to making their sequel. . . . I think they could have treated their fan base with a little more respect. Every 3 years is pushing the envelope (a la Star Wars), but 4 years (+?) to wait is above and beyond in my humble opinion.

13. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 15, 2012

To add to my previous comment – I do think some people are catastrophizing a bit re delay and lack of trailers and publicity. The fact is that people are being reminded of Star Trek in subtle, natural, “organic” (Far Strider used the word “organic” – good description).

As an example, Benedict Cumberbatch has received mention and an article in the local (NZ) TV Guide, which has a wide readership, re the Sherlock series, but in there was mention given to his being in the next Star Trek movie and giving its 2013 release date.

Margin Call, the movie, has been showing in cinemas here. Zachary Quinto, among others, has been mentioned, along with him playing Star Trek’s Spock…
Karl Urban has had some press re his house being on the market and mention was made of him playing Dr McCoy in the new Star Trek.

This is what appears in local magazines and newspapers, as well as on their websites just as a matter of fact to do with these actors.

14. J.C. England - June 15, 2012

They should have began thinking about
sequels and production as soon as Trek2009
came out & showed to be a success… but
writing didn’t begin until about a whole year
later…
I agree wholeheartedly with Mickey. They
should have treated the fan base with more
respect –
It’s obvious they want to please, but only
a little bit.

15. The Sky's The Limit - June 15, 2012

While the second movie appears to have taken all the necessary steps to be the movie the “brain trust” wants it to be, then I have significant confidence that we’ll get wait we’ve been waiting for.

Personally, I can’t wait, but I know better. These gentlemen want what’s best for the francise and I have no doubt that we won’t be disappointed.

CAN’T WAIT!!!!!! :)

16. Anthony Pascale - June 15, 2012

Having the same team turn to the Star Trek sequel right after the 2009 just wasn’t going to happen, and I dont think it is exactly fair to begrudge them of that.

The new era for Star Trek is that Paramount has assigned it to an “A Team” who are in demand on both the big and small screen. All of them wanted to do other projects before diving into another Star Trek. Paramount could have brought in a new team but chose to stick with the same team and everyone hoped that they could do other projects and return to Trek and get all that done in 3 years. It turns out that they couldn’t.

So the choices are, we could have got a Star Trek film with a new team in 2011, a rushed film from the same team in 2012 or a film where they took their time in 2013.

17. D-Rock - June 15, 2012

I don’t think anyone should be concerned with losing momentum. The last one was a cold start and it was pretty successful.

18. Thorny - June 15, 2012

17. Anthony… of course, we’ll have to see the finished product before we can really decide which was the correct course of action for Paramount. Not all of us agree that Trek 2009 was a great movie which demanded the same team do Trek 12. (I think Trek 2009 is only the third best Trek movie.) And I for one am very worried that if this movie is indeed Khan Redux, that Mr. Cumberbatch is all wrong for the part, and the movie will face blistering, negative comparisons to Ricardo Montalban’s iconic performance.

19. Anthony Pascale - June 15, 2012

From Paramount’s perspective, changing teams would be a clearly risky move. Their last two Trek features were disappointments, now they had their new favorite director create a clear hit with critics, general movie goers and the vast majority of fans. In 2005 the studio was talking about franchise fatigue and now they had a real hit on their hands. It would be crazy for them to say, no we cant wait 3 years, lets bring in a brand new team so we can do it in 2 (which still would have been a rush job with a new team getting up to speed).

Sure the proof will be in the film. But from the studio perspective, there really wasn’t a choice here. That being said if they were given the choice of new team/2years vs. same team/4 years it might have been a harder call, but the studio itself was part of the reason for the delay. Remember they also added Mission Impossible IV to Abrams/Burk’s production slate.

20. Thorny - June 15, 2012

I agree, that 2 years later with the same team would have been problematic, but 3 years later with a new team is a much tougher call. 2 1/2 years later with a new team is what Paramount got with “Wrath of Khan” (arguably the most profitable Trek movie to date, based on its tiny budget and big box office), and that could have been a powerful counter-argument against a not changing horses (Trek 2012 was critically much more successful than TMP, but financially not that different). 4 years later with the same team is exactly what we got with “Nemesis” and that didn’t work out too well for Paramount, something else that must be weighing heavily on certain Paramount managers. Paramount can be at least partially blamed for the delay, just as they can be partially blamed for the failure of Insurrection and Nemesis, two severely under-budgeted movies. But if Trek 2013 flops, few will actually blame Paramount. Just as Nemesis gets blamed mostly on Baird.

21. Anthony Pascale - June 15, 2012

the star trek II example is not relevent. The studio was not happy with TMP and they wanted to change teams. Plus STII was a smaller production. There really was never any discussion at Paramount about changing teams. It was more like, “hey JJ, we loved that one, can you make another?” and he said “sure, but I want to do something else first” and they were “OK” and that was that.

And if Paramount brought in a new team in 2009 instead of waiting for JJ, there would have been a huge uproar from the entertainment media and probably most of the fans as it would have been a clear craven move on Paramount to cash in as quickly as possible, instead of sticking with their A Team. Unless of course they brought in a huge name, but it isn’t likely that a huge name would want to come in and do it unless they could change everything to suit their vision (and that would be unlikely).

bottom line is Paramount made the only rational choice based on the infomration it had at the time.
In 2013 it will prove to be a smart call or not.

22. It's Paramount - June 15, 2012

I kind of like the long wait Anthony. It puts more age on the characters as the years go by and they can write that they have been on previous missions which have made them more experienced.

23. VZX - June 15, 2012

The Dark Knight came out in 2008. The Dark Knight Rises comes out next month. That is a four year gap and I have not heard anyone complain about that amount of time between those sequels, so why are you all complaining about the four-year-gap for Star Trek? I do not think there will be “loss of momentum” or anything. This movie will do well if it is marketed well and is a good movie that hits across many demographics, not because of the amount of time elapsed since the previous movie.

24. Red Dead Ryan - June 15, 2012

If the sequel ends up sucking balls, it’ll have more to do with the fact the writers wrote a crappy script above anything else. But, on the other hand, the extra year will be seen as a boon if the sequel is great. And if the sequel is great, no one will care that they had to wait an extra year to watch it.

If they had rushed the movie, and it came out in 2011 or even this year, and it sucked, then everyone would be crying out over that.

A new team would have changed things drastically, or they would have made a poorly imitated version of J.J Abrams’ film. A potential no-win situation right there.

So the delay was the best route possible. If it sucks, then it just comes down to a poor screenwriting performance by the writers/director. They’ll take the blame, not Paramount.

But judging by the fact they spent the last year working so hard on the film, I have to think the delay gave them more room to work with, to allow for more care to be taken with regards to the quality of the script, and the film itself.

25. Sebastian S. - June 15, 2012

I completely agree that Cumberbatch will be an amazing villain.
My wife and I just saw him last week in Danny Boyle’s “Frankenstein” play (via Fathom Events at our local AMC movie theatre). His interpretation of the monster was similar to John Hurt’s elephant man initially; a physically deformed man irrationally hated and feared, but clinging to his decency. By the end, he turns; a lifetime of rejection and fear literally (finally) making him into a monster. His performance (and the play itself) simply blew me away.

And of course, he is brilliant in BBC’s “Sherlock.” When I first heard he was in the ST sequel, all I could think was “this will be brilliant!” It was one of the most exciting casting coups in all of Star Trek history, IMO.

26. Paul - June 15, 2012

As long as they remember that Klingon ships are battlecruisers not warbirds and that the medical section is called sickbay I’ll be happy. Coming from an old school trekker who loved the new movie those were the only things that really ground my gears (budgineering notwithstanding). I’ve had way too much to drink and this has taken a pathetically long time to type out on my phone I will bid you nice folks a fond ado.

27. Thorny - June 15, 2012

25… Because the last time we had a four year gap between movies, the result was far, far from worth the wait. Just because Bad Robot has had an extra year to work with doesn’t mean this movie will be any better for it, especially if they still have their eyes on other properties and are just using Trek to get a paycheck while they go off to make Super 9 or Cowboys & Aliens 2 or whatever.

27. Mr. Cumberbatch is excellent in Sherlock, but that’s the only thing I’ve seen him in, the same can probably be said for most of us here. (Did anyone see “War Horse”? Hello? Anyone?) My only serious complaint about him is he’s just not right for Khan. That and we were told after Paramount wanted a big star to bring in international audiences and what we got is a great actor who has never been in what can remotely be considered a blockbuster on either side of the Atlantic.

28. TrekTech - June 15, 2012

As for the time it took to get the new Batman movie out well, Im pretty ‘meh’ on that one too so, at least for me, thats not a good example. My interest in the Nolan Batman has pretty much worn off at this point especially considering the success of Avengers…now THATS the super hero movie Ive been waiting for. Time will tell but I wasnt thrilled with JJ Trek to begin with and having to wait 4 years to give them a second chance didnt exactly inspire me.

29. Thorny - June 15, 2012

28. Me too, and like Trek 2013, part of it is casting. I just don’t see Anne Hathaway as Catwoman.

30. Sebastian S. - June 15, 2012

# 27

Thorny; he’s not playing Khan, remember? That rumor’s pretty much been put to bed already (by no less than Simon Pegg himself, and with no denial from the powers-that-be).

And yes, his role in “War Horse” was good, but I’d hardly call it his signature work. He was far more memorable in 2004′s “Hawking” as well (in addition to “Sherlock”). And as I’ve said, his “Frankenstein” was incredible. And even though it was a stage play (with he and Johnny Lee Miller alternating roles on different nights), I’d love to see it on DVD someday….

31. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 15, 2012

“Sequels are about your bad guy. Because your first movie is always about the becoming of [the hero] and your bad guy has to test that hero in a very significant way”

That just confirms it for me they just dont get what makes great Star TREK. the best stories in Star TREK is not about the Villian.
The best stories are about Kirk Spock, Bones,Scotty,Chekov,Uhura,and Sulu.

Even TWOK was not Khan’s story it was the story of Kirk,Spock,Bones and the rest of the crew.
TWOK,VOYH,TUC were not villian driven they were driven by the crew.
Yea Montalban, and Plummer, are incredbile in their performances but its not them that make those movies,

JJ and crew Trek is not star wars, quit trying to make it into star wars, its not. Trek has always been best when its about thoughtful and making a comment on the human condition or mirrors the current climate in society.

I know the JJ appologist will all be clammering over my comments, but I dare you to prove me wrong. (with more than anticdotal evidence)

Especially after revisiting the E.T. interview with Nick Meyer, Harve Bennet, and Deforest Kelly it just really reminds when coupled with the comments in this article that they(jj AND crew) just dont get it.
I know I will still enjoy the new movie, but iam afraid it will be a hollow enjoyment.

Please Orci, Kurtzman, and JJ please please please prove me wrong give us a great movie that tells a great story on the level of the best in classic TREK.

oh and just for the record i went to an advanced screening of People Like us and I really enjoyed it.

32. WallyWood - June 15, 2012

In the meantime, “The Avengers” was written, produced, released, and praised, AND put a jillion dollars in the bank – in half the time it’s taken these no-talent diletantes to jerk around and crap out what is certain to be another flashy, empty, mediocre disappointment.

33. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 15, 2012

sorry part of my message didnt get conveyed via y phone.

JJ and crew, Please remember Trek is not star wars, quit trying to make it into star wars, its not
. Trek has always been best when its about thoughtful story telling,
When it is making a comment on the human condition, or mirrors the current climate in society

34. claypool2011 - June 15, 2012

Eh, I don’t care anymore. once every 4 years isn’t often enough. No Trek on TV until these films are over, the franchise might as WELL be dead now.

“We’re lucky they delayed it so they won’t be split”

Or they could have been dedicated to it like at TV production crew would have been, and we’d get more than 2 hours of Trek every 4-5 years.

Star Trek was great while it lasted. Now it’s just an art project for some elite producer/director/writers that we get to see occasionally.

I don’t think I’m going to bother anymore.

Removing your site from my RSS feed now Anthony. There’s just no point anymore. I can’t get excited over something that is clearly a side project.

35. Legate Damar - June 15, 2012

They couldnt have delayed their other movies and spent that time to release Trek sooner?

36. Thorny - June 15, 2012

30. I hope you’re right about Khan, but I’m sticking with Anthony’s word until we get something official. I can just see someone in a few months confronting Pegg, “You said it wasn’t Khan. You lied!”. Pegg: “I exaggerated! When I said it was just a myth, I meant our Khan takes on mythical proportions.”

37. La Reyne D'Epee - June 15, 2012

Four years too long to wait…oh ye of short attention span.

31. I do agree with your points about what makes good Trek.

On the other hand…

Cumberbatch is scary!

*jumps up & down excitedly like a three-year old*

I can’t wait! I can’t wait!

38. Buzz Cagney - June 15, 2012

How is leaving the movie sitting in can’s for the best part of a year ‘rushing it’? I agree we don’t want to go back to the Berman conveyor belt but 4 years is too long.

39. Buzz Cagney - June 15, 2012

#9 Highly doubtful. That ship has sailed.

40. G - June 15, 2012

I will haunt them to their graves if this isn’t as good as they say it is.

41. G - June 15, 2012

@27 Treat yourself and watch “Tinker, Tailor” Cumby is in it and proves himself at par with British acting greats like Oldman, Hurt and Firth. Not to mention Bane’s in it!

42. Devon - June 15, 2012

#35 “They couldnt have delayed their other movies and spent that time to release Trek sooner?” It’s really a moot point now. It’s coming out, not any sooner and not any later. So the what-ifs are all irrelevant.

43. Devon - June 15, 2012

#32 – What’s been your contribution to anything has anyone enjoyed lately?

Figures.

44. trek - June 16, 2012

#31 totally agree – the best stories of ST are NOT about the bad guy – they are about the Trek Crew with the “bad guy of the day” merely being a vehicle around which the crew can explore issues of morality, ethics, philosophy etc This is the main reason why Trek proved to be so popular – it was a collection of moral fables. Simply put, Trek is not the “monster of the day” phenomenon that JJ and co seem intent on pursuing and while they do this, Nu Trek will never be on my favorites list. Yes, Trek 2009 was a nice space action movie but it had nothing to do with Star Trek.

45. WillH85 - June 16, 2012

I have to disagree with the delay being good. Not rushing it is good, don’t get me wrong, but there gets to a point where too much time has passed and the momentum the first movie built up is gone. I think this has happened. Of course us fans are still stoked, but the general public will have forgotten how much fun they had seeing the first movie. I had this very talk today with my cousin who grew up watching TOS but wasn’t much of a Trekkie and he agreed. Putting the movie out this year would have been the last chance to capture any of the enthusiasm of the first. Now they’re going to have to work extra hard promoting it to compensate.

46. Basement Blogger - June 16, 2012

@ 33

Daniel Craig is my .. whatever. ;-)

I agree with you points. Let’s hope Bad Robot was thinking about your points when they made the film. I think Star Trek can have big action but it should be about ideas. Philosophy. Science. Take for example the TOS episode “Arena.” Big action. But it had ideas. Was the Federation wrong? The trait of mercy. Great stuff.

47. JRT! - June 16, 2012

I’m just disappointed there’s nothing at SDCC for this movie,a really missed opportunity. Maybe NYCC in October? I’ll still see the movie next year of course,just not that excited about it…..yet. And if Khan IS the villain,I won’t be excited for this at all. I don’t want Khan,plain and simple,lol! And since I’m a Trekker and not a Trekkie,I guess I’m just on the fence for now,lol!

Have fun y’all! J-R!

48. Aurore - June 16, 2012

“… And he’s an incredibly formidable presence. He’s amazing. Are you going to be scared of him? Shit yeah!”
_________

Thank you in anticipation.

Love.

Aurore

49. LizardGirl - June 16, 2012

While my instinct is to rebel against it, I have to admit that this “organic” marketing technique probably does more good than harm at this point. It truly is too early for spoilers (I still don’t think a title is a spoiler though!).

I agree with DanielCraig about what Star Trek is about. Yet, if anyone remembers, the teaser slogan for Star Trek 2009 was “This ain’t your father’s Star Trek”. Keep in mind that we’re dealing with a different kind of machine, a hybrid animal, so to speak. Accepting it for what it is will give you more peace of mind.

Another thing: Alex expanded on ONE aspect of the movie: the villain. I love villains and anti-heroes so I’m very curious and excited to see Benedict in this. But I doubt that the movie centers around a hero/villain theme. Especially considering how much time and new talent they’re putting into this. We should feel flattered that Bad Robot has the wherewithal to know the kind of quality we expect. I, for one, am very excited to see what they’ve done! (^_^)

“Every fairy tale needs a good old-fashioned villain.”–Jim Moriarty, Sherlock BBC

50. Jim Nightshade - June 16, 2012

imho i am glad we have a team on trek that cares….a lot about trek…also think jj n team are one of the hottest movie talents out there…most trek stories were about something bigger than just a villin but more often than not they had villains,whether misunderstood alien kids or salt monsters..often the crew were villains bad kirk,drunk sulu,evil universe crew etc…its harder in an expensive action movie to fit in the nuances n depth of characters u can do over time on tv….understanding trek as the do i am sure they will try for more depth this time around now that they, the crew are together now t boldly go…,
comedy channel showed the shatner roast again the other day—remnds me of 1st watching it on a screen in one of the stores at the experence on sunday last nite of the 40th year of trek convention in vegas in 2006 my one n only convention so far…we were all really shocked at how rude n crude the roast was…

i got my deluxe tmp soundtrack today….anyone know why lala land sends an extra copy of the cd cover with it?

51. Kirk, James T. - June 16, 2012

boom! awesome

52. CmdrR - June 16, 2012

As always, just give us a good story with the characters we love.

53. Philip Dunlop - June 16, 2012

I’m all for the delay. I’d rather a piece of quality filmmaking over something rushed to make a bit of money. The Supreme Court’s handling in this area is to be admired, I feel. It shows respect to the fans. As does the secrecy. It has us all on the edges of our seats with anticipation but it just makes for a more fulfilling watch once the arses are on cinema seats in the end.

54. Calastir - June 16, 2012

That’s it, my brain can’t take anymore of these rationalized excuses. Goodbye everybody. *KA-BOOM!* So delay…not bad? Delay…good? Then…see next movie in 25 years m’kay? It be even more awesomer!

55. Landru's cousin, Dandru - June 16, 2012

#14: “More respect?”

{{{head shake}}}

So many people here have such an over-developed sense of entitlement.

It’s a MOVIE. Taking a year or two longer to make a movie is not an example of showing disrespect to fans. Sheesh.

56. P Technobabble - June 16, 2012

I’m with the “I don’t mind waiting for a quality film” crowd. It wouldn’t matter to me if we had to wait 5 more years for another Trek movie anyway, because my love of Star Trek goes on all the time– in-between series, in-between movies, after show cancellations, after reading a book… The new stuff is inevitable, and time is what it is. But my enjoyment of Star Trek is not totally based on just getting new stuff.

Probably most of us (if not all) wouldn’t know what to do with $150,000,000 if Paramount said, “Here, make a Star Trek movie.” It’s a cool fantasy, but if you’ve read anything about movie-making you know it is a tremendous undertaking. To start with, just writing a Trek story that not only the fans will like, but will appeal to a wider audience, is a risk. Even in this new form, Star Trek still carries a lot of baggage and you can only break away from that so far before it could no longer be called Star Trek. Next, try actually filming it…

So, while some people are yammering about having to wait for the next film, truth is there’s more of a chance the movie would suck by getting it out sooner rather than later. The one thing we can all agree on is that we don’t want a disappointing sequel. And it looks like Kurtzman and friends are doing everything they can to make sure we aren’t disappointed by taking their time. They shouldn’t be criticized for that.

57. Landru's cousin, Dandru - June 16, 2012

#43: Your point is entirely irrelevant. One does not need to be a famous person to comment on the works of famous people. Plus, you have NO idea who’s really behind the anonymous postings on this site.

58. Frosted Frakes - June 16, 2012

“Testing the hero”…….hmmm.

With Kirk’s rank of Captain still in its infancy, I think Benedict Cumberbatch’s character will be designed to directly challenge the young Kirk’s skill and resolve.

I think this new movie could be very much Captain Kirk’s story, which would delight me to no end.

59. CJS - June 16, 2012

The sequel is about the villian? Only because you lack the imagination to transcend Hollywood’s Good Guy/Bad Guy paradigm.

60. Janice - June 16, 2012

4 years? No matter—Pike’s there so I’m good !

61. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - June 16, 2012

I am happy with Star Trek having an A List Team of People. Bob Orci and the Court are very talented and gifted Writter’s and Director’s and better yet. They all Love Star Trek and want only the best for it. As a Hard Core Fan. I can live with the wait. If only to have a fantastic Movie.

62. Robert - June 16, 2012

I’ve been rewatching TOS on Netflix and one things it’s driven home for me was the concept of exploring new worlds and meeting new aliens. I know we’re probably not going to see that with Trek 2012 but I think Star Trek in general needs to get back to that concept. Get out there and find something new, something we haven’t seen before. That’s what I’d like to see.

63. BringBackKirkPrime - June 16, 2012

The mistake was making “Pooper 8″ a priority over Trek and causing delays to the project that was already a year or more behind what it should have been. We could have had Trek in 2011 and the third in 2013. Their priorities shifted and Trek suffered. Who even saw or remembers “Pooper 8″?

64. shpock - June 16, 2012

Four years? I’ll do it in three.

65. Sebastian S. - June 16, 2012

# 34
claypool~

Disagree 110% on that.

First, the idea of no new TV series on the horizon and only movies every few years was the state ST existed in and thrived on from about 1974 (post TAS) to about 1987 (the debut of TNG) and I personally remember that era as a very exciting one for fandom. And when the movies began coming in 1979, it was even better. They felt like a reward for our collective patience as ST fans (no matter one’s relative opinion on TMP, it was a great-looking Christmas present that year….).

Frankly, at this point with over 700 hours of ST out there? I’d prefer ST not to be bled to death as it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. That over-saturation was part of what killed it; after so many hours of TV it reached a kind of ‘zombification’ that became kind of hard to watch after awhile. The series’ all began to look and sound the same after awhile. It was a franchise on autopilot. Dramatically asleep, and rarely taking chances….

Then, ST09 came along and ST felt fresh again. With a nice, 7 year nap it had time for a new creative team to tackle it (not too unlike the situation with “The Wrath of Khan” back in 1982) and more importantly; the franchise properly recharged it’s batteries. The box office disparity between “Nemesis” and ST09 would seem to support that as well.

Personally? I’m in no hurry to see ST rushed back to a lower budget grind of a TV series. Or weekly stories about gaseous anomalies and temporal distortions and tachyon subspace inversion fields, blah, blah, blah. Been there, done that. And with 700 hours of it in the bag, there’s PLENTY to fall back on should I ever get sentimental. IMO, ST at it’s current stage of evolution, fits perfectly on the big screen as a rare event to be looked forward to and savored.

To paraphrase Harve Bennett; better to have a full Thanksgiving meal every few years than cold turkey sandwiches every week…

Just my two cents…

66. Vulcan Soul - June 16, 2012

“Sequels are about your bad guy. Because your first movie is always about the becoming of [the hero] and your bad guy has to test that hero in a very significant way. ”

Marvelous these guys have such a deep understanding of what science fiction is all about!

(Keep any sarcasm you may find in this…)

67. shpock - June 16, 2012

Amen!

68. VOODOO - June 16, 2012

Allen Williams #2

“you could have done it without jj. I swear if Johnathan Franks had directed the 2009 script, it would have been a LOT better.”

That is a truly amazing statement. Let me ask you did you ever see Jonathan Frakes “Insurrection”?

That’s a great idea that only a ST fanboy would come up with. Lets get rid of one of the hottest directors working in film today whose last ST film single handedly revived a franchise that was on life support and got the masses involved in ST for the first time in decades for an ok director of tv programs who hasn’t directed a major motion picture (thats assuming you want to call “Insurrection” a major motion picture) in 14 years.

There is a long list of films that had enormous potential, but were rushed into production for make money for the studio. I would much rather wait an extra year and have a creative team that is in great demand deliver a quality product than have a mediocre director pump out a half baked film.

It’s about time someone at Paramount decided to go with quality over quantity in regards to ST…Well done.

69. Paul - June 16, 2012

If Paramount really wanted to they could rush this now on post production & have it ready for end of 2012 but it would double the post pro budget as they would need ILM to do 24/7 shifts (its been done before) but the costs rise so much the film would not be profitable.

Summer 2013 gives enough time to tweak & enhance the footage otherwise you would see a lesser movie (which no-one wants). More often than not nowadays movies are rushed to make a release date & the onscreen results are always a letdown.

This is taking its time & rightly so.

70. Garret's Wang - June 16, 2012

# 2, who the hell is Johnathan Franks ?

71. Vger23 - June 16, 2012

#65- 100% agree with you. You beat me to the punch.

#68- 100% agree with you. You beat me to the punch.

:)

Well said, gents.

72. Captain Gorn - June 16, 2012

#65 Sebastian S.

Completely agree.

73. Sebastian S. - June 16, 2012

# 70- # 71

Thanks Gorn and Vger. (Love the names!) ;-)

Glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t relish the idea of a new ST series (at least for now). The movies are gifts. More TV episodes would begin to feel like groceries…

If ST ever DOES return to TV (and I’m not saying that it never should), I’d prefer that it came back when it actually had something new and significant to say (as TOS did back in the ’60s), and not just be a show about seven new officers aboard a new starship doing the same old thing. There are so many hours of ST out there to choose from that I really doubt a rushed-into-production TV series at the current time would really say anything we haven’t heard on the show already.

Let ST be an event, not a weekly chore.

74. guest - June 16, 2012

I feel sorry for the producers/writers on Star Trek. What a load of wingers posting on here. If you are indicative of what the trek fanbase is like its a thankless task being involved in these films.

I’m only going to see this film for Benedict but it certainly looks like I wont be dipping my toe in the trek fanbase thats for sure. I’ll stick to the much happier Sherlock/Cumberbatch sites thanks very much.

75. Enterprisingguy - June 16, 2012

73. guest – June 16, 2012

I feel sorry for the producers/writers on Star Trek. What a load of wingers posting on here. If you are indicative of what the trek fanbase is like its a thankless task being involved in these films.

———————————–

“Wingers”? What sort of ignorant reference is that? For your information the “wingers” here are simply voicing their opinions. If you don’t like them you are free to go elsewhere as you suggested.

People are entitled to their opinions even if they don’t agree with yours. Some of us want more Trek than a couple of hours every 4 years…some don’t. It’s that simple. No need to make it personal.

76. No Khan - June 16, 2012

@2 Yea Star Trek: Insurrection was a masterpiece! rolleyes.

77. Cevantes - June 16, 2012

@ #62 Robert – Yup, I reckon you’re absolutely right that there won’t be much of that in this sequel either, and that we definately need a lot more of that kind of thing moving forward with these movies.

‘Prometheus’ may have been a bit of a mess in many ways, but at least it had that kind of vibe about it which was pretty good at times.

78. No Khan - June 16, 2012

@31. I think ST movies are stuck with the Villain of the week theme. The power that be look at TMP & Khan & go Khan like. Almost all ST movie have had that Khan like character.

79. chrisfawkes.com - June 16, 2012

Prometheus wasn’t great. More spectacle that good story telling. I really hope the next Trek is more than that.

80. No Khan - June 16, 2012

I think I’m in the lot of no more tv show’s. I don’t want to see a continuation of the Berman era Trek even if they move it a 100 or 200 years in the future of TNG. Now if they re-boot TOS. I might be be ok with that.

81. VZX - June 16, 2012

26: Paul:

Yeah! Exactly! I hated it when they didn’t call it Sick Bay and instead referred to it as “medical.” Why? Why? Why?

The warbird thing didn’t bother me as much, though.

Scotty’s last line of the movie did bother me: “dilithium crystals at maximum.” Maximum what? That line made absolutely no sense. I liked to good old days of TNG technobabble when the writers made SOME attempt at having the tech make sense.

82. GarySeven - June 16, 2012

I think there is a very real third possibility. The first two, as discussed by Kurtzman, are:
1) a rushed, and therefore bad, sequel;
2) a non-rushed sequel that shows love and respect for the franchise;
and
3) which I feel is most likely, is waiting four years for another Star Trek movie which is more spectacle and “Star Wars like,” brought to us by the crew that dumbed down Trek, giving us Nero (the villian that is angry and blows up planets) and says nothing about the human condition but is full of fireworks.
Judging by Prometheus, and their Star Trek movie, I see little reason for #2, but lots of reasons to expect a long wait for mostly empty fluff, but might make the studio some bucks. Whoo-hoo.
I miss Star Trek.
And to those who say Trek must evolve, I agree. It must evolve. But “evolving” and “dumbing down” are not the same thing. Change can, and should be for the better. And by better I don’t mean it makes tons of money for studios. Maybe they do.

83. AJ - June 16, 2012

I still do not buy in to the ‘we needed the time to write the best story possible, blah, blah’ malarchy that is pitched to the media like a mantra by the Supreme Court.

Something is rotten upstairs when you look at the happenings at Paramount in the tentpole department:

ST09: Delayed over 1/2 year. Who knows why?
ST2012: Delayed 1 year for script issues
GI Joe: Retaliation: Delayed 1/2 year for plot changes and re-shoots
World War Z: Delayed 1/2 year for plot-changes and re-shoots
TMNT Reboot: Delayed ‘indefinitely.’ Pre-production halted, all fired.

Many corporations run on deadlines, but Paramount seems to like spending all its ‘Transformers’ profits on re-jigging tentpole films after completion of shooting. The new Michael Bay ‘Turtles’ film was stopped in pre-production, so someone must have put his thinking cap on just in time.

In that environment, it makes it easier to understand all the corporate double-speak coming from Supreme Court members while they’re out promoting other projects. Kurtzman here is admitting they had a shitty script which required massive re-writes, so the SC all went and focused on other projects until Abrams was free, following ‘Super 8.’

When JJ finally signed on, the script was center of focus once again. When they began shooting, Cumberbatch, having signed on days before, and after some high-profile hiring gaffes, ZQ admitted the teleplay is ‘still evolving,’

Put that all in the context of the major problems afflicting Paramount’s other breakout tentpoles, and it does not paint a pretty picture.

84. Elias Javalis - June 16, 2012

Well, i disagree with you guys. Star Trek 2009 was pure star trek. If anything had to do with the star wars feeling you mention was the sharpness of the special effects. Then again, this is a good thing. ILM has done more star trek movies than starwars..

85. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

80. VZX – June 16, 2012

Scotty’s last line of the movie did bother me: “dilithium crystals at maximum.” Maximum what? That line made absolutely no sense. I liked to good old days of TNG technobabble when the writers made SOME attempt at having the tech make sense.

***

In other words, you miss the TNG days when they wrote it so that you didn’t know they didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.

Technobabble isn’t even real science. Or at least very rarely is it in Star Trek. It’s crypto-nonsense.

86. Gradus - June 16, 2012

Wait, did Anthony just use “sequel” as a verb?

87. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

The movie as industrial product is produced in a semi mechanical fashion on a semi rigid timescale. Like everything else in the world of business, it’s about numbers. Documenting, counting, measuring, and making everyone behave according to some sequence of numbers, which they hope will eventually translate into spendable numbers that go into bank accounts so that all the folks involved who have them can continue to live stratospherically numerical existences.

But the exclusive focus on numbers is also what makes CRAP. Yes, you can paint by the numbers, and then you’ll have a paint-by-the-numbers painting.

The movie as art does not care about numbers. And artists function on a very different level than businessmen.

Commercial movies, such as Star Trek is, exist at a junction between art and commerce where there is a push-pull relationship between creators and financiers.

For people like Bob Orci, who swim in the whirlpool where art and commerce mix, resistance is not futile. Resistance to a speedily produced product that cannot meet the standard he wants to achieve for the integrity of the work he produces and for the sake of his own conscience in producing it, becomes feedback on the business side which lets the corporate heads know to let off pressure because the time is not right FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT IS. It doesn’t much matter from a quality standpoint whether the reason is that they have too much on their plate, if certain members are unavailable, if the script is not satisfactory, or a combination of all those and other things.

Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and JJ Abrams do not want to make crap, and Paramount wants those guys doing Star Trek right now. It’s as simple as that. And there isn’t a single alternative person for Paramount to go to who cares enough what the fans think to interact with them on a regular basis right here on Trekmovie. All by itself that is enough for me to want Bob and Co. to stay in charge of things, regardless of the time it takes to get sequels.

Now there is no guarantee that some of you WILL like what they’ve come up with — but rushing it through when they were uncomfortable for all the reasons they had to wait longer so that they didn’t feel that way anymore…would certainly have resulted in something even worse.

88. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

And BTW, on technobabble again: I actually prefer the minimalist days of TOS. Not only does TNG technobabble try to sell you a bridge that doesn’t exist — it’s also made of “latinum.”

I prefer stories get told without recourse to all that stuff. A bare mention of something is preferable to a full scale blathering con job.

89. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

BTW — no Bob Orci visible here for a while. I forget, how many times do you have to repeat his name to conjure him up? :-)

90. Adolescent Nightmare - June 16, 2012

I blame poor parenting.

91. Punkspocker - June 16, 2012

Alex K., its funny to read quotes like “shit yeah!” Coming from a sophisticated writer. So stokked! After seeing Frankenstein, i have no doubts about Cumberhunk. My fear and expectation is that he will steal the show-never to be seen again. Oh well…

92. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 16, 2012

I believe it’s fan hypocrisy that gets them ignored by TPTB. They will stop at no end to defend mindless action garbage like First Contact, but if you are in a new universe there is suddenly an entirely different set of standards for your movie.

Hell, I saw Basement Blogger attempt to defend a Borg comic book in the other thread and he is definitely one of the “new Trek needs to be a lot smarter than old Trek” liars.

Total hypocrisy. No credibility at all.

93. Sunfell - June 16, 2012

I’m more than willing to wait for something high quality than to get crap next week.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again- I trust Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, et.al. to do it right and well. Waiting is a pain, but there’s plenty to enjoy between now and then- including the comic series (yes, it’s quite good), other Trek releases and celebrations, and the upcoming game.

I’m really looking forward to seeing what they do with the uber-talented Cumberbatch.

94. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

85. dmduncan “It’s crypto-nonsense”

So, if Superman were to attack the Enterprise, the crew would use crypto-nite?

(runs and hides)

95. T'Cal - June 16, 2012

I’m starving for Trek!

96. T'Cal - June 16, 2012

Garret’s Wang – June 16, 2012: “# 2, who the hell is Johnathan Franks ?”

He’s the best Number One EVER!!! And, God willing, Paramount will put him in charge of TNG’s return to TV.

97. LizardGirl - June 16, 2012

@dmduncan
Bravo, well said, well said.

I myself am getting kind of exasperated with the gloom and doom. I’ve only expressed impatience with there not being a title or a teaser ( maybe a couple other things). I’m over that now. No amount of typing will move the release date up! But when you go back and read this thread, you do realize that it’s quite negative.

There’s little-to-no fan support behind this group of guys, which is sad because I think they’d really appreciate a few allies right now–especially from the fanbase. And like dmduncan said, there aren’t many other directors/writers who would give a crap about what we like/don’t like. If JJ wasn’t in charge we’d have a lot more to complain about than a delayed release.

@74 Guest: You are absolutely right. If I were to visit this site for the first time and read this thread I would be appalled by the whining and griping myself. Sherlock is a great show, and Mr. Cumberbatch is an excellent actor. I support his career as well and hope that you don’t hold anything against the Trek franchise because of some disgruntled “fans”.

98. Jack - June 16, 2012

This whole ‘they shouldn’t have done other projects/ they owed us a sequel sooner/they let Paramount down” stuff sounds insane.

Movie delays happen all the freakin’ time.

As for ‘they should have gotten Frakes’ –. Have you seen Insurrection? “From the director of Thunderbirds!” isn’t exactly going to reel ‘em in in 2012.

99. Ahmed - June 16, 2012

#98. Jack – June 16, 2012

“As for ‘they should have gotten Frakes’ –. Have you seen Insurrection? “From the director of Thunderbirds!” isn’t exactly going to reel ‘em in in 2012.”

Have you seen “First Contact” ?

100. Vultan - June 16, 2012

#92

Different people have different tastes. So TPTB are going to hear a variety of opinions on… anything and everything. Not hypocrisy, I think.

But that being said, it is best they ignore the fans to a greater extent. Whenever they try to make it just for the fans we get something like Nemesis. Yikes!

101. Jack - June 16, 2012

92. Agreed, absolutely. What bugs me about “Star Trek has always been about ideas!!” line is that it’s not strictly true. What “ideas” were in Trek II, other than (good) human bits about vengance, purpose, etc. The ideas that were there in episodes often were half-baked and clunkily presented. It’s like the folks calling Prometheus genius.

102. Jack - June 16, 2012

92. Agreed, absolutely. What bugs me about “Star Trek has always been about ideas!!” line is that it’s not strictly true. What “ideas” were in Trek II, other than (good) human bits about vengance, purpose, etc. The ideas that were there in episodes often were half-baked and clunkily presented. It’s like the folks calling Prometheus genius…

103. boborci - June 16, 2012

89. 3 times but usually in anger.

104. Ahmed - June 16, 2012

#103. boborci

lol, that is scary.
good to have you with us today

105. Bob Tompkins - June 16, 2012

I guess that expains why Nero was lame as a villain in the first movie, they concentrated everything on the heroes… riiiiiight…..
And the second movie was delayed because of all the important and great projects the keepers devoted their energies to instead of Trek. [Cowboys and Aliens anyone. Anyone?].
It doesn’t bother me that these guys are cramming as much as they can into their schedules while they are hot; I’d do the same thing.
What bothers me is they are so disingenuous about what really happened.
They had chances to make a lot of money somewhere besides Star Trek- partly because of Star Trek- and therefore Trek got shoved to a back burner.
I am just happy that Roddenberry, Bennett, Braga, Behr, Pillar, Moore, Berman, and all the others who kept the flame burning were honest about it and devoted their professional time to it. We deserved it then, we deserve at least that consideration now.
Hopefully Paramount will turn Trek over to someone more like the former keepers than the latter day keepers when this group runs their course; and unlike Rick Berman, I hope the next keepers figure out when they are running dry creatively and gracefully step aside.

106. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

Bob

how close are we to having a title for the sequel?

107. No Khan - June 16, 2012

Star Trek 2 – The Wrath of Khan 2

108. Boborci - June 16, 2012

106 we may have it!

109. Yorkie - June 16, 2012

capt caveman
I hope to hell they drop all the darn lens flares. It is really annoying. Good camera makers produce cameras with hoods etc to stop flares and good directors know when to re shoot because there is a bad flare so come on you guys drop the flares and concentrate on a good film!

110. LizardGirl - June 16, 2012

I like Cowboys and Aliens. Read the comic book before seeing the movie. The book sucked! It was so 1-Demensional! The movie was quite enjoyable though. If I hadn’t read some of the opinions here, I would’ve had no doubt that it was well-received.

111. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

101 if you honestly think that star trek II is only about Vengence, then I feel sorry for you.
At the core of the movie, Its about comming to terms with getting older, and realizing that even though you thought you were immortal when you were younger, you really arent, but that you can still make a difference. Its about family and about Sacrafice.

Its sad if you just see wrath of khan as a story of vengence then you really just dont get it.

112. LizardGirl - June 16, 2012

#103 Bob Orci
I will be going to The Amazing Spider Man probably opening night. It looks awesome! Also, very excited about Ender’s Game (read that book in high school). Curious about the mood you’ll be going for in Ender’s Game: darker, lighter, hard scifi, a little fantasy, realistic?

Also, will you be keeping true to the characters (personality, phsicality, age especially). I wonder if your story will start where the book starts…idk, just excited. You’ll probably release some info on that so no need to answer my question just now. But just wondering.

113. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

108 Boborci “we may have it!”

Well, Bob, if WE may HAVE it, what IS it? :>)

114. Ahmed - June 16, 2012

Boborci,

Would you please give us something, perhaps the title or when the teaser will be out

115. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

addition to my post 111
Those ideas are repeated through out the film, on numerous points, in particular
Spock’s birthday present to Jim, and the conversation that follows
Jim’s Birthday at his apartment in San Fran, and his conversation with Bones.
The scene between Bones and Jim after Carol Marcus comes into the picture.
the whole sequence after Khan first attacks the enterprise and kirks response that he did nothing but get caught with his pants down.
The whole Genesis cave sequence where Kirk comes to grips with the choices he made in his life both personal and proffesional.

And lets not forget the sacrafice that Spock makes for his crew
, and jim having to come to grips with it.
and The funeral and jims Eulogy for spock
and once more the main idea is repeated with jim when on the bridge talking to carol and bones, while looking at Genesis on the viewscreen.

and those are just the main parts where the core tennants of the story are present there are many more cleverly woven and hidden through out the story as well.

116. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

103. boborci – June 16, 2012

89. 3 times but usually in anger.

***

Bob! Duct taped to a chair at AICN where the sententially challenged were flicking boogers at you, I presume?

Glad you were able to escape! :-)

117. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

101
what makes star trek II so great, is that its a story that EVERYONE can relate to, We all arrive at that point in our life where we get old and realize we are not the immortal never say die types we thought we were in our youth, we all have to experience that point where you get your pride and ego handed to you on a platter, we all experince loss and sacrafice as we get older, and we ALL have to deal with and come to terms with death.

thats the beauty of TWOK, it really in its simplest form is a story of another part of the human condition

It was the perfect story choice with this group of characters and actors at that time in their life.
there is a reason why Khan and Kirk arent ever in the same room togeather in TWOK, its not KHAN’S story, the focus is not about KHAN, it never was no matter how some people want to try and reinterpret it.

118. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

AICN?

I always assumed that acronym stood for All Idiots Converge Now!

(kinda like “Avengers Assemble!”)

119. MJ - June 16, 2012

“So we delayed for a year to really work on the script…”

I was right after all. The script was not ready to support an earlier release, as I had said much of last year, while others here criticized me.

Cha-ching. Yep!

120. VZX - June 16, 2012

85. dmduncan

Good Point. Anyway, well if it’s all BS, at least make it sound plausible!

121. VZX - June 16, 2012

I really am anxious to learn the title. Every movie has to have a title, but I don’t think there is a perfect title for this one. Like someone stated earlier, the fact they used the title of “Star Trek” for the 2009 movie painted themselves into a corner.

It can’t be called 12, or XII, or II, or 2. It really should avoid “Star Trek: Something something” to distinguish it from the TNG films, and yet it should still have “Star Trek” in the title.

BUT: an imperfect title won’t hurt the box office or critiques, so whatevs. Just call it something!

122. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 16, 2012

#103. boborci…. LOL

Yesterday was the premiere of “People Like Us” at the LA Film Festival … I’ve seen very positive reviews about the movie … I can not wait to see the film, although I have no idea when it will debut on the moon .. LOL

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Chris+Pine/Film+Independent+2012+Los+Angeles+Film+Festival/m0PGLdxgetQ

123. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

121. VZX “an imprefect title won’t hurt the box office…just call it something!”

Ah, what an elegant solution!

Star Trek: Something

I like it!

124. guest - June 16, 2012

Mr Orci can we have a still from the film. Preferably involving Cumberbatch so fans on tumblr can freak out over it for the next few months.You cant please old trek fans based on whats being said on here so why not entice the new fans. We at least are excited and looking forward to the film.

125. Alison - June 16, 2012

Even though I’m anxious to see at least a teaser for the new movie I can wait a little longer. I only hope that the new movie is as brilliant as the last one! I loved Star Trek 2009! Mr Orci and everyone else involved thank you for your great work!

126. Basement Blogger - June 16, 2012

Bob Orci,

AJ found the latest Triumph the Comic Insult Dog from Conan. Triumph comes on in the video towards the end as a ringer. That”s one of heck of a hot dog stand. Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33zPlnhymCU&feature=player_embedded

127. Christopher Roberts - June 16, 2012

108. Boborci – - “we may have it!”

—- STAR TREK ———–
T O B O L D L Y G O
———————————

;))

128. Ameraka - June 16, 2012

When I heard ‘scary’, the first thing that popped into mind was Gary Mitchell, perhaps because of those startling silver eyes, and his creepy godlike powers. It could be interesting- seeing someone who was good initially, tried to use his powers for good, and then succumbed to the seduction of too much power.

129. david - June 16, 2012

#66

Completely agree. this is just going to be more good guy versus bad guy Holllywood junk – that much has been confirmed now. on that note, I am off. I am not going to waste any more time on what will be formulaic, Hollywood action film junk. good luck Benedict – I am sure you did a great job but this film will be so far beneath you.

It is apity as the Trek premise does have real potential to be so much better than this.

130. Aurore - June 16, 2012

127. Christopher Roberts – June 16, 2012
108. Boborci – – “we may have it!”

—- STAR TREK ———–
T O B O L D L Y G O
———————————

;))

__________

…Time for one of my personal favourites, then…

T.R.E.K : To Boldly Go Big Or Pitifully Go Home

:)

131. Christopher Roberts - June 16, 2012

STAR TREK ————
T O   B O L D L Y   G O
——————————

*curses* Letter spacing changes in final post, than what it does typed into the message box.

:)

132. Christopher Roberts - June 16, 2012

^^^^^^
THAT’S IT! I’ve finally got it right…

Absolutely no idea how I did it. But whatever I did, it left my screen and stayed the same.

:)

133. Christopher Roberts - June 16, 2012

130. Aurore – - “…Time for one of my personal favourites, then…

T.R.E.K : To Boldly Go Big Or Pitifully Go Home”

Sounds like a title Q would give it. ;)

“Maybe you’d better go home and hide under your bed. It’s not safe out here.”

134. VZX - June 16, 2012

130. Aurore:

How about the will.i.am (w/ J Lo and Mick Jager) re-mix: Star Trek: To Boldly Go Hard or Boldly Go Home.

135. Aurore - June 16, 2012

“Sounds like a title Q would give it. ;)

‘Maybe you’d better go home and hide under your bed. It’s not safe out here.’ ”
________

‘Love it!

But, here you go again with the references I don’t get.

First, there was that Bob O you mentioned on another thread.
Now, this.

Not cool, Christopher. Not cool, at all.

:)

136. Chris Roberts - June 16, 2012

You can’t really give a story a title without knowing what it’s about.

Then again the first reboot went just with Star Trek. So it’s more an observation this series could just the catchphrases for the subtitle.

The split infinitive is the most well known. Even if publicising it to reviewers opens up to the obvious hairloss or toilet jokes. But by then, you got their attention and you keep them with the plot, how well the actors got on, and the others who were scary, and never broke character during their lunchbreaks.

137. Vultan - June 16, 2012

I hope they call it “To Boldly Go” just to tick off all those certain English teachers out there. You know the type.

138. Aurore - June 16, 2012

34. VZX – June 16, 2012
130. Aurore:

How about the will.i.am (w/ J Lo and Mick Jager) re-mix: Star Trek: To Boldly Go Hard or Boldly Go Home.
_________

I’m not sure about that one….
A little too… suggestive…maybe…

The villain will be scary, does the title need to be, as well?
I don’t know, man…
:)

139. Red Dead Ryan - June 16, 2012

#101.

“Agreed, absolutely. What bugs me about “Star Trek has always been about ideas!!” is that it’s not strictly true. What “ideas” were in Trek II, other than (good) human bits about vengance, purpose, etc. The ideas that were there in episodes were often half-baked and clunkily presented. It’s like the folks calling Prometheus genius.”

Dude, TWOK had a lot of depth to it. It wasn’t just about Khan. Sure some of the focus was obviously on him, and his desire to get revenge on Kirk, but the film also touched on aging, life and death. As well as reconnecting to and resolving the past (Admiral Kirk encountering his son David, and Carol Marcus). All of those threads were interwoven brilliantly by Nick Meyer.

Just for that, Jack, you have no credibility at all when it comes to “Prometheus”.

140. DeShonn Steinblatt - June 16, 2012

There’s just one title every fan can get behind…

Star Trek: Only What I Want Matters

141. Red Dead Ryan - June 16, 2012

#119.

Yes, folks, MJ was right on the money!

:-)

142. Christopher Roberts - June 16, 2012

137. Vultan — ” I hope they call it ‘To Boldly Go’ just to tick off all those certain English teachers out there. You know the type. ”

They’ve not been happy since a law was passed to not smack the kiddos.

143. Vultan - June 16, 2012

#140

I think that sums up fans all of types. Some sports and political fanatics I’ve known make Trekkies look tame.

So it would be a very mainstream title. ;)

144. Bill Peters - June 16, 2012

:) Bob, You and the Others Rock, Can’t wait to see what you will give us!

145. Aurore - June 16, 2012

“Q: If you can’t take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It’s not safe out here. It’s wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it’s not for the timid.”
_________

Thank you for piquing my curiosity, Christopher.

The full quote is delicious.

I might have liked that Q character, after all ( had I been a fan of Star Trek : The Next generation ).

:)

146. MJ - June 16, 2012

@141. Thanks RDR. This also confirms the “original version” of Richard Verrier’s LA Time’s 13 January 2012 article where he had said that “script problems” had caused delays in production. Verrier corrected this afterwards — one might conjecture that one of the writing team asked for a correction. But it is now clear that Verrier’s original story was correct after all, as was my take on this. I appreciate Kurtzman coming clean on this.

I’m not saying here that JJ’s schedule/commitments weren’t also a part of the delay — of course they were. What I am saying is that now we have a conclusive statement one of the Supreme Court writing team who is now telling as that PART OF THE REASON for the delay was that the script was not ready…just as Verrier and I were saying way back when.

147. Aurore - June 16, 2012

140. DeShonn Steinblatt – June 16, 2012
“There’s just one title every fan can get behind…
Star Trek: Only What I Want Matters”
_________

I am personally partial to :

Star Trek : You Owe Me

(Seriously, “they” owe me an outstanding sequel!)

:)

148. Christopher Roberts - June 16, 2012

145. Aurore — “Au contraire mon capitan! Heeeeee’s Baaaaaack!”

:p

149. lostrod - June 16, 2012

#103 – BobOrci

So the title is “Star Trek: We May Have It!” ?

Regards.

150. danielcraigsmywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

Red Dead thank you for reiterating and touching upon what I was talking about in post 111, 115, and 117.

151. MJ - June 16, 2012

This just in — the new title is: “Star Trek – The Discovered Country”

152. Red Dead Ryan - June 16, 2012

#150.

You’re most welcome!

153. MJ - June 16, 2012

@139 “Just for that, Jack, you have no credibility at all when it comes to “Prometheus”.

Agreed. This is the exact opposite of Jack’s criticisms of Prometheus. Good catch RDR on calling him out on that point.

154. MJ - June 16, 2012

You know, with all the dorky illegal pourn Trek tie ins….errrr, I mean, with all the legal “adult parody’s” of Trek, it is amazing that one of the the titles didn’t use “The Undiscovered Country,” as a title, with the “o” in “Country” being left out. LOL

155. Red Dead Ryan - June 16, 2012

#154.

HA HA HA HA!!!!

156. danielcraigsmywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

MJ HA HA Thats great, of course you realize now that you have said it online, the next trek adult parody will end up being titled that right?

157. Red Dead Ryan - June 16, 2012

Not sure if anyone’s used “The Next Penetration”, or “The Voyeur’s Home” yet.

158. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

My favourite Trek pourn title is still…………………….

For My Third Leg Is Hollow And I Have Touched Your Thigh

159. fubamushu - June 16, 2012

I’d feel like my beloved franchise was being protected if this creative team had been given the ax and the 2009 film declared spurious.

160. Devon - June 16, 2012

#159 – It’s not your beloved franchise thank god.

161. Jack - June 16, 2012

Yep. TWOK had depth like crazy. And it had heart. It was about people. It was great. One of my favourite films. But it wasn’t an obvious comment on modern day issues (although, tha dangers of technology….), or a clunky moral parable — which a bunch of people here say Trek has to be and always was.

162. Sebastian S. - June 16, 2012

# 158

Harry~

That is hilarious! ;-D

163. Devon - June 16, 2012

105 – “I am just happy that Roddenberry, Bennett, Braga, Behr, Pillar, Moore, Berman, and all the others who kept the flame burning were honest about it and devoted their professional time to it.”

Other than Moore who went on to later success, it’s not like the other guys were highly sought after by movie studios and turned them all down to work just with Trek.

“We deserved it then, we deserve at least that consideration now.”

No ‘we’ don’t.

164. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

162.

Thanks, Sebastian! I aim to please!

165. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

163 Harve Bennett was actually a succesfull television producer long before his association with star trek, as was pillar who produced a number of very succesful shows before Trek and two more succesful shows after trek until his death in 2005 as for Braga , Trek was where he started his career, Bragga has moved on as a writer and producer several show since trek including Terra Nova with Steven Spielberg, he created flash forward which was actually just as good any tv show that Abrams has created. and he wrote some great episodes of 24 as well.

But I am sure you dont care about any of that.

166. Jack - June 16, 2012

he created flash forward which was actually just as good any tv show that Abrams has created”

Respectfully disagree. I watched the whole thing, it had promise like crazy but ultimately didn’t work.

167. MJ - June 16, 2012

@165. Agree totally. Harve Bennett pretty much did a bunch of stuff just like JJ is doing. He did a TV series after TWOK, and a TV move after TSFP. This Bob Tomkins guy (post @105) should get his facts straight before taking potshots like that. He is completely off base here.

168. MJ - June 16, 2012

@166 “he created flash forward which was actually just as good any tv show that Abrams has created”

WTF ???

169. Vultan - June 16, 2012

Just watched Trek ’09 on FX a couple hours ago. While the things that bugged me about still bug me a little, I do like the energy the movies has—enough to power a small country!

At the very least, I’m looking forward to some more of that. The next one may be good. It may be bad. It may be something in between. But there’s a new one on the horizon, and that’s reason enough to celebrate.

Because then we can nitpick it to death!
Because we’re Trekkies! Dammit Jim, that’s what we do! ;)

170. Sebastian S. - June 16, 2012

# 169

That’s right! ;-D

Reminds me of McCoy and Scotty from “I, Mudd”;

“Suffering and torment and pain. Laboring without end….”
“Dying and crying and lamenting over our burdens… ”
“Only this way can we be HAPPY!” ;-)

171. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

Flash Forward had a strong pilot.

172. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2012

I just watched the Sherlock Holmes sequel, Game Of Shadows.

It was really weak compared to the first film. It didn’t have any “heart”.

More action scenes were added, much to the film’s detriment.

Let’s hope Orci and team don’t make the same mistake.

173. Ahmed - June 16, 2012

Watching “Star Trek” on ShowCase right now here in Canada. Didn’t realize how much I missed the movie, the soundtrack is amazing.

Star Trek 12, please come fast

174. Gary S. - June 16, 2012

Not sure if it was Braga,
But I remember reading an article where somebody associated with Flash Forward proimised the season finale would wrap things up if the ratings were low .
Well, the finale didnt answer anything conclusively.
That always made me mad .

175. Ahmed - June 16, 2012

#174. Gary S.

FlashForward finale didn’t give us any resolutions, in fact it gave us more questions. Too bad that they didn’t get a second season or at least a TV movie to wrap up things.

btw, the site still not remembering the sign-in info, anyone else having this problem or just me

176. dmduncan - June 16, 2012

139. Red Dead Ryan – June 16, 2012

Hey remember the “half a billion miles” comment Vickers made in Prometheus and how critics attacked the movie because that was obviously some huge scientific gaffe that the stupid writers let get by?

Remember that Neil de Grasse Tyson tweeted the error?

Well maybe Prometheus is smarter than its critics, because what they evidently don’t remember is that at the beginning of the space sequence when we are introduced to the Prometheus, we see words being typed across the screen that EXPLAIN STUFF. FACTual stuff about Prometheus. Remember that?

And one of the things those words lay out is Prometheus’ “DISTANCE FROM EARTH.”

And whatduhyaknow — it isn’t given as “half a billion miles.”

It is given as: 3.47×10^14 miles!

Vickers’ loose remark was nothing but words from a corporate head who knew nothing about space.

The gaffe was HERS, not the writers’ or director’s. The people who made Prometheus were smart enough not to make every character a purveyor of accurate information. Just as in life, people exaggerate and speak loosely, and it’s cool that they made her say that.

177. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 16, 2012

MJ what exactly in my comment are you taking issue with in my coment about flashforward? lol

178. Hugh Hoyland - June 16, 2012

# 176 dmduncan

lol Good catch.

I have’t seen as much nerd rage over a movie as Prometheus in quite a long time. IMO if someone doesnt like the movie thats fine, heck say so. But some of these people who go on chat boards and actually root for a box office flop are just over board the top to me lol. Some of the critics are weird to.

I love it man, in fact I havent liked a movie this much since Star Trek 09. I cant wait to see where Scott takes it.

179. MJ - June 17, 2012

@177. Dude, no offense, but Flashforward was the most boring attempt at an sf series in recent years. Terra Nova was better by comparison.

180. Jack - June 17, 2012

101 “At the core of the movie, Its about comming to terms with getting older, and realizing that even though you thought you were immortal when you were younger, you really arent, but that you can still make a difference. Its about family and about Sacrafice.”

Of course, it’s about people, and relationships and about the human condition (and regret and sacrifice and loyalty and purpose and lots and lots of stuff). It’s about these characters and it doesn’t treat them as legends but as people. That’s what’s so good about it. And tehre are intelligent discussions that aren’t merely exposition or hammy “this is the moral!” (although it does get close a couple of times, but pulls back) signals to the audience. My only point was that it wasn’t a preachy, creaky “Look this is a Big Smart Idea!” movie. People here say that Star Trek 2009 was about nothing, and well, it was indeed about some of those things as well. There have been people here who have said that JJ doesn’t get Star Trek after he said that he thought Trek was about family…

Sometimes, I think people need the characters to say “we’re asking big questions here!” and to liberally quote the bible and Shakespeare to convince them that it’s about something. And they have to be told exactly what it’s about.

My beefs with Prometheus are that the characters aren’t people, they’re characters (except Shaw) with a function in a script that you can see whirring away around you. The dialogue is mostly words on a page and the characters do what they do because the script requires it. This happens in a lot of movies. The ideas are interesting in and of themselves (where did we come from? if somebody made us, who made them? what if the answer is disappointing and doesn’t make any difference? why would they not only want to destroy us but make hell on earth? are there really consequences to good and evil and this is what they are? what’s the meaning of life if you’re only an experiment, or if you’re only the result of a random combination of chemicals/ Does intent make a difference?) but not as they’re presented in Prometheus, I’d argue. It doesn’t do anything with them, other than say a few them out loud — like the synposis on the back of a novel. It’s not a thoughtful movie, but, maybe people are thinking about those ideas because of it — so, maybe I’m wrong…

It’s a fine, gross-out, thrilling, action movie with some cool sci-fi elements, and it looks amazing — but it’s still a blockbuster summer pic, and that’s okay. They can’t all be Tree of Life (which some have called pretentious and simplistic).

181. Iowagirl - June 17, 2012

I’m devastated.

182. Smike - June 17, 2012

These people seem to have no idea how to “protect” a franchise…Certainly NOT by delaying sequels. I’ve said it before. There has hardly been a major franchise that profited from a hiatus of more than three years, at least no financially…

Most franchise take a regular three year break. That’s okay, standard… But those that release sequels in shorter intervals are likely to be more successful… Just look at Harry Potter, Twilight, the Avengers, Transformers…

On the other hand, those that take too long to release a sequel are normally NOT successful enough anymore… It didn’t work for Terminator, nor for the Alien franchise, nor for Jurassic Park…

The sad thing is: it’s even not about quality! You simply have to stay part of public awareness…That’s all… If you’ve got a hit, release a sequel 18 months later… no matter how bad it will be, it’ll make A LOT more money than the most marvellous masterpiece brought out five years later…

It’s an urban myth that long hiati (?) / hiatuses serve any purpose in increasing interest in a franchise.

183. MJ - June 17, 2012

@182 “There has hardly been a major franchise that profited from a hiatus of more than three years, at least no financially…”

What a load of uniformed crap!

Godfather Part II (1974) = $47M
Godfather Part III (1990) = $137M

Mad Max (1980) = $9M
The Road Warrior (1985) =

Alien (1980) = $104 M
Aliens (1986) = $133M

Terminator (1984) = $78M
Terminator 2 (1991 = $519 M

Return of the Jedi (1983) = $476 M
The Phanton Menace (1999) = $ 1 Billion

CASE CLOSED !

Next time please check your facts and movie history first…..

184. MJ - June 17, 2012

Correction: Road Warrior did not qualify — meant to delete that example.

185. La Reyne d'Epee - June 17, 2012

183. A very well-expressed point there. I simply do not get how anyone who saw ST09, who was not an uber-fan but who enjoyed it, is somehow going to magically forget they saw it and not want to see the sequel simply because a mere four years have elapsed.

186. Danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

MJ you are right there are plenty of films that have done great even after a hiatus including some you didnt mention such as Tron Legacy, Goldeneye, Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls especially Kingdom of the crystal skulls with its 18 year hiatus from last crusade.

I just have to note that your gross for godfather part 2 is the domestic gross while your gross for part 3 is the worldwide gross.

187. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - June 17, 2012

@50. The cd cover has a spelling error on it hence why you (and I) got a second.

Check the booklet too as it may be frayed on the corner and if you’re ripping the disks to your iPhone/ iPod disk 2 may skip.

188. captainkirk - June 17, 2012

My version of how a poster for the movie could look:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/groovaciousposter.jpg/

Boborci, am I close with the title?

189. Anthony Thompson - June 17, 2012

188.

Looks too gay. The same could be said for the title. : )

190. Anthony Thompson - June 17, 2012

172. Harry

Agreed. But, in truth, *both* films had too much action and not enough detecting or character moments. Which is a pity because Downey and Law have great chemistry. I hope that someone else directs a third installment and treats the material properly.

191. Bugs nixon - June 17, 2012

@187 Runcorn Trekkie?

Now i’m imagining Star Trek 4 set in Widnes and that Bird of Prey at the end crashing into the Mersey under the silver jubille bridge.

192. V'Ger23 - June 17, 2012

I love when the fans get all spun up about what “we’re owed” and “what Star Trek is supposed to be about.” Please, get over it folks.

If most of these buffoons had the money and green light to produce a Trek movie of their own, it would be the biggest pile of fanwank crapola in the history of science fiction.

And, since every fan has their own personal little fantasy about what Star Trek ultimately should be, once again…you can’t please everybody. I like how JJ and Bob and Paramount have recognized and accepted that fact and not TRIED to please the fans…because they know that’s impossible. So, they’re out to make a story that is universally entertaining…not just some crappy nerdgasm aimed at the fan base. And then hey, if a bunch of the fans like it too by coincidence…then that’s a great thing! If not, oh well….can’t please all of them anyway. Too splintered. Too elitist. Too bogged down in what “MY STAR TREK” is supposed to be. Not open minded.

I APPRECIATE that the creative team wants to challenge us with something different for a change. Can’t wait to see what Bob and the crew have done with the new film to challenge us this time. I’d much rather be challenged than slapped with another tired, limp noodle like the TNG movies turned out to be.

193. VZX - June 17, 2012

192. Good points. We fans are not “owed” anything. People really need to get over themselves.

I would rather wait for a good Star Trek movie than see a crappy Trek movie sooner.

194. captainkirk - June 17, 2012

189. Well I couldn’t leave Kirk and Spock out of it, now could I? I’m still hoping that they will have a poster at Comic Con even if they don’t have a big panel. Or perhaps announce the title in the trailer. What worries me is that Bob said that the teaser will be “super soon”, but is this their version of soon or ours?

195. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

180: “The ideas are interesting in and of themselves…but not as they’re presented in Prometheus, I’d argue. It doesn’t do anything with them,”

Not to derail the thread into Prometheus territory, but it wasn’t that kind of movie, Jack. Even Blade Runner wasn’t that kind of movie, and the same or similar criticisms can be applied to Blade Runner as well. I don’t know about you, but unless it’s a documentary, I don’t go to movies for explanations, I go for illustrations of an idea that entertain me. Art HAS philosophy in it, but art does not replicate the exact function of philosophy. For explanations I read or, better yet, go sit in the woods and think.

I mean, I don’t actually BELIEVE in the ancient astronaut theory of life on earth — but it makes a good story in the movies for me to enjoy.

Prometheus wasn’t genius, but it was more clever than its detractors understood. As the “half a billion miles” thing proves, some of the “plot holes” actually come from its detractors quickly forgetting what they were shown.

178. Hugh Hoyland – June 16, 2012

I feel the same way! And I didn’t have that expectation going in, so it was a nice surprise.

BTW, Prometheus actually looks best in REAL 3D on the smaller screen, believe it or not.

The IMAX 3D version is too dark and the larger screen really pushes the image magnification of the cameras the movie was shot with beyond where they can go without revealing the digital origins of the capture medium.

196. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

So glad JJ is shooting on FILM, and with some of that film loaded in IMAX cameras.

197. Gary S. - June 17, 2012

The thing that gets me abouthe nerd rage overPrometheus is that Ridley Scott never really promised all the answers to the mysteries surrounding the Alien Saga ,
But, that is exactly what fans were expecting .

198. Aurore - June 17, 2012

193. VZX – June 17, 2012
“… We fans are not ‘owed’ anything. People really need to get over themselves.”
_________

Speaking for myself though, and as stated upthread, I am owed a blindingly brilliant sequel .

I also expect it to have “face melting” capabilities.

Reasonable or not, I want what I want!!! And, I want it……well… when it is… available….2013, 2014, 2015(?)….Fine!

BUT NOT A SECOND LATER!!!

:)

199. AJ - June 17, 2012

I dunno: ‘Star Trek 2: As Yet Untitled Sequel” is starting to grow on me.

200. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

198. Aurore – June 17, 2012

Speaking for myself though, and as stated upthread, I am owed a blindingly brilliant sequel .

***

Haha. Yes, you do deserve a blindingly brilliant sequel, Aurore. And I hope you get it. :-)

199. AJ – June 17, 2012

I am partial to (and all in caps just the way you see it here):

STAR TREK: THE BIGGEST DAMN SPACE MOVIE EVER!

201. Aurore - June 17, 2012

Star Trek 2: Guess What’s Coming To A Theater Near You… Soon

202. Aurore - June 17, 2012

200. dmduncan – June 17, 2012
198. Aurore – June 17, 2012

Speaking for myself though, and as stated upthread, I am owed a blindingly brilliant sequel .

***

Haha. Yes, you do deserve a blindingly brilliant sequel, Aurore. And I hope you get it. :-)
__________

Thank you, dmduncan.
We all do, in my opinion.

203. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

201. Aurore – June 17, 2012

Whatever it’s called, I can already see the teaser poster:

The title of the movie in giant 3 dimensional letters. The only part visible is STAR TRE…

…the “K” is only partially exposed, and the rest of the title is hidden under a white blanket.

204. Aurore - June 17, 2012

…We all deserve a blindingly brilliant sequel, in my opinion. And, I like to think that is exactly what we are going to get.

:)

205. Aurore - June 17, 2012

@203 dmduncan

“…the “K” is only partially exposed, and the rest of the title is hidden under a white blanket.”
________

:))

206. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

Well I am looking forward to whatever electromagnetic radiation the Star Trek sequel exposes me to so long as if doesn’t burn anything. Permanently.

207. BiggestTOSfanever - June 17, 2012

@108
Hi Bob if you have a list of name we can help pick one for you.

208. Jack - June 17, 2012

It’s not about explanations or answers. I don’t want them. It just bugged me that some were saying how profound Prometheus is, and I just don’t agree. It diesn’t have to be profound, and you’re right, it’s not that kind of movie…

My only point is that I worry that the “Trek is about profundity and moral allegories” people would prefer a preachy, faux-profound, clunky Trek filled with greeting card wisdom. They seem to have something against fun, great characters, emotion and a hell of an adventure.

209. Vultan - June 17, 2012

#208

Nonsense. You can have both intelligence AND fun in a movie.
Those things don’t live on separate planets!

210. boborci - June 17, 2012

207. almost got me there

211. boborci - June 17, 2012

198 LOL

Yes, face melter indeed.

212. boborci - June 17, 2012

188 Not bad!

Though I would try to find a way to show Spock’s ear.

213. shpock - June 17, 2012

I love that you come by, bob, but part of me wishes you didn’t read through all this bs.

You’ve got a tough job. Keep up the good work!

214. boborci - June 17, 2012

213. Thanks! It’s fun to see all opinions.

215. Ahmed - June 17, 2012

209. Vultan

“Nonsense. You can have both intelligence AND fun in a movie.
Those things don’t live on separate planets!”

Totally agree with you, case in point “Inception” “Moon” & “The Matrix” among others

216. MJ - June 17, 2012

Bob will never admit it, but the term “face melter” that he has been using has a secondary meaning as a clue from him to us on why Khan will look different. Khan is going to have his appearance altered in the movie….possibly by Weller’s character.

217. Ivory - June 17, 2012

MJ # 183

You may want to consider inflation when posting those numbers.

When inflation is taken into account Godfather II was a much bigger hit than Godfather III…Return of the Jedi made more money ($744 million) than the inferior Star Wars prequel The Phantom Menace ($715 million)

Also, when adjusted for inflation Alien made $249 million and it’s sequel Aliens made $181 million.

218. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

Why are peoples opinions that differ from yours B.S.?
seriously, one of the great things about a free society is that people can have differing opinions on anything any topic big or small.

If everyone liked everything or never spoke up about when something pops up they don’t enjoy or like, it would be a pretty boring place to live.

Seriously there are a number of movies that I love that the mainstream public don’t really like or get, but I don’t get up in arms when talking to people online or in person about those films, if they point out what they feel are the faults of the film. cause I respect their opinions, and even if they go contrary to my like or love of a film, it doesn’t change my personal opinion on them.Great example is I really got a kick out of cow boys and aliens last summer, but I know I am in the minority of having liked that film, it doesn’t change my opinon of it to read or hear people point out what flaws they feel are in the film.

further more you can enjoy a movie, scratch you can be really entertained by a movie, but still and see that there are some pretty big flaws in it.
It doesn’t make you less of a fan to point out things that you don’t like about it or potential problems you are afraid of when you read comments made by the film makers in interviews.

FILM LIKE ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE, ITS NOT GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE ALL OF THE TIME. Even the most popular film ever made is going to have to people who just don’t like it and it is their right to have that opinion and its their right to be able to express that opinion.

.

219. Hugh Hoyland - June 17, 2012

#217 Ivory

I think thats on the kind of like what would the movie make if released today.

Alien would be very impressive with an almost a 250$ mil. draw.

I was kinda suprised that Aliens would wind up with around a 181$ mil. take, because while thats still a respectable numbers thats a rather steep drop in BO compared to its predecessor.

In fact every Alien sequel released has had a pretty big corresponding drop in BO returns compared to its predecessor with the exception of (uh oh) Alien vs Predator! lol

But Prometheus is doing pretty good so it may reverse that trend.

220. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

217,
Inflation has nothing to do with what MJ was posting. Box office rankings are not adjusted for inflation.
any adjusted for inflation charts are merely to give context for number of tickets sold. If they were anything more than that. Avatar Titanic, Avengers, and Dark Knight would not be listed as the top 4 grossing movies of all time.

MJ is right in what he posted in the context of what he is talking about.
the only thing that I made note of earlier was that his gross for part II was only the domestic gross where as the part III was the world wide gross.
but there is no edit button on here so he cant edit to make a notation about that. my guess is he used boxoffice mojo as his guide and on box office mojo for GF part II they only have domestic where as part III they have worldwide and domestic.

But the point MJ was getting at is correct.

221. Hugh Hoyland - June 17, 2012

As far as the name of the sequel goes:

Star Trek: Lone gun man my a&*!

222. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

oh and my post 218 is directed to post 213 and his comments about BS.

really wish there was an edit button.

223. Vultan - June 17, 2012

#215

Agreed. With Inception, the thing I liked about it was the puzzle of the plot, so to speak. Of course, there are some profound messages there if you want to look for them, but on the surface it’s a nothing more than a fun maze, I think. And it doesn’t hold your hand all the way through. It expects the audience to pay attention and keep up.

Same goes for the others you mentioned.

224. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

219 that’s what it would make today if all things aside from the ticket price were there same.
You have to remember the movie industry today is much different than it was even just 15 years ago let alone 30 40 years ago.
a movie that was very successful then under todays circumstances might either perform better or worse.
also you have to keep in mind there are more screens and more venues than there were as well. all of these factors come into play.
the adjusted for inflation should never really be considered anything more than interesting comparison nothing more.

225. Vultan - June 17, 2012

#215

But did you think maybe Inception may have been a bit over-plotted, at the expense of its characters? Seems a valid criticism. But it’s been so long since I saw it I can’t say for sure one way or another.

226. MJ - June 17, 2012

@225. Inception is not the kind of movie where you need great characters. The overall concept, and the story delivering the concept, were the supreme focus. In movies like that, workmanlike performances and characterization are all you need. See 2001, District 9. Metropolis and Moon as examples.

227. MJ - June 17, 2012

@220 “my guess is he used boxoffice mojo as his guide and on box office mojo for GF part II they only have domestic where as part III they have worldwide and domestic.”

Yep, no worldwide data available in Box Office Mojo for G-II.

228. Vultan - June 17, 2012

#226

Good point. But I would argue District 9 had at least one great character.
The lead guy who turns into an alien.

What was his name? ;)

229. Aurore - June 17, 2012

211. boborci – June 17, 2012
198 LOL

Yes, face melter indeed.
_________

Sh*t yeah!!!

:)

230. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 17, 2012

“…the “K” is only partially exposed, and the rest of the title is hidden under a white blanket.”

The “K” is of course my Captain James Kirk crafting a most artful penetration…

231. MJ - June 17, 2012

Ivory, sorry, but your numbers are for DOMESTIC GROSS only. I can’t find a chart on the internet that has rankings for TOTAL World wide gross, so lets instead take your example where you claim that Return of the Jedi made more money, adjusted for inflation, than The Phantom Menace.

In this case, Jedi only made $166M in 1983 ticket dollars in foreign distribution, while Phantom Menace made $553 million in 1999 ticket dollars in foreign distribution. So, if I apply the same ticket inflation factors that Box Office Mojo used to bring both movies up to domestic adjusted 2012 ticket dollars (i.e, 2.4 for Jedi and 1.5 for Menace), we get adjusted in 2012 ticket dollars for these movies for the foreign distribution amounts as:

– ROTJ Foreign – inflated to 2012 = $389M

– TPM Foreign – inflated to 2012 = $830M

So then, if we go back and add these to the “domestic totals adjusted for inflation” that Ivory referenced, we get the following Worldwide Totals Adjusted for Inflation as:

– ROTJ = $745M (domestic)+ $389M (foreign) = $1.13 B

– TPM = $715M (domestic)+ $830M (foreign) = $1.55 B

….thus, DEMONSTRATIVELY proving my case that long hiatus’s in franchise products to not mean much to the bottom line.

232. MJ - June 17, 2012

FYI, I meant to say above that I “I can’t find a chart on the internet that has rankings for TOTAL World wide gross ADJUSTED FOR TICKET INFLATION.”

233. AJ - June 17, 2012

Box Office Mojo still lists “Gone with the Wind” as the most successful film, at $1.6 billion (domestic) gross adjusted for inflation. Double it to include foreign revenues. One 1939 US dollar is worth $16.53 today.

Whereas inflation evens the paying field, the movie industry has changed drastically in the last few decades. When I was born in 1964, there were far fewer cinemas in urban centers, and even fewer in rural areas, where people went to drive-ins, or some hole-in-the-wall craphouse on Main Street. Popular films would play for at least a year, and there was no home theater market to speak of until the early 1980s.

Now, it’s multiplexes everywhere, and three-format launches, Blu-Ray and cable, etc., with a major international push to open modern cinemas. Apples-to-apples comparisons are almost ridiculous when one simply looks at gross revenue adjusted for inflation.

234. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

inflation doesn’t level the playing field for movies though AJ, only if all other things are equal would it. And it the case of the movie industry as I stated and you stated as well. There are many more screens today than there were going back even just 10 years ago.

235. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

*adjusting for inflation
that was supposed to say,
edit button edit button edit button please please please lol

236. MJ - June 17, 2012

@233. That being said, less people are going to the theaters today, and you hardly ever see movies lasting beyond a month at your cinema, given so many more movies are being made. So there are negative trends as well.

237. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

further more a successful movie from 30 years ago, in todays market might perform horribly compared to how it did 30 years ago.
or a less successful movie from 30 years ago might perform better than it did 30 years ago, cause todays audiences have different tastes than 30 years ago or 40 years ago or even just 15 years ago.

238. MJ - June 17, 2012

@234. Many more screens, but many more movies to show and much less patience to keep a movie on-screen beyond 3 -4 weeks.

239. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

My local AMC did a total revamp. They now serve alcoholic drinks at a separate bar section, and the concession stand is now offering cheesecake, shakes, fries, sandwiches, pizza, among other things. It’s cool. Looks like they are trying to give people more reasons to come to a theater. But maybe they don’t think big enough.

I’ve had a personal dream to operate a film school/movie studio/historical film museum whose public face (that is, the actual ENTRANCE to the compound) would be a movie palace that showed not only current movies, but showcased the work being done deeper in the property by students and yes, even professionals.

Dioramas of storyteling throughout the ages, artifacts from the early days of moviemaking, displays on techniques and processes no longer used, educational facts related to the movies that people may not know, such as how the gorgeous Hedy Lamarr’s SCIENTIFIC EXPLOITS changed the world! A place where the public, the professionals, and the students could all rub elbows together for a unique experience.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

I do love movies.

240. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

And of course, with ME in charge of the place, there would be a HUGE section devoted to Trek!

241. MJ - June 17, 2012

@237. In some cases, that it true, but in many cases I don’t think so. Look at how successful the throwback movies like True Grit, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, Moneyball, The Social Network, The Kings Speech, and I can name many more….these “throwback” movies (excepting of the spcific content) are the types that could have been shot in any decade and done well.

242. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

exactly MJ, everything is made and marketed to be extremely front loaded now. And as someone who has worked in the Exhibition end of the industry for a number of years now it saddens me that you see that now.

A lot of it has to do with the studios being for the most part merely a part of larger corporations, now and having to answer to stock holders of the larger company that the studio is merely a subsidiary of, that studios execs are less likely to take risks or let the movie grow its legs and play out.

take Cleopatra(the most expensive movie produced in its day) for example it took ten years for it to finally break even, it almost bankrupted the studio, but Fox was willing to take that risk, because it was a great movie audiences and critics both loved. And there are lots of examples like that from the days when the studios were not just subsidiaries

Today you see stuff like John Carter, which is a lot better than the marketing implied it would be, being written off as a flop after just a few weeks.

243. MJ - June 17, 2012

@242 “Today you see stuff like John Carter, which is a lot better than the marketing implied it would be, being written off as a flop after just a few weeks.”

Exactly — that is the perfect example!

244. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

MJ your right in your comment 241 that there are certain film that are tieless and would do very well no matter what period they are in. but there are a number of films that would be reacted to very differently by the public both positively and negatively.

245. Vultan - June 17, 2012

I read an article a couple weeks ago that said TV is now more profitable for the big media companies than movies—by quite a large margin. The exact opposite from the way it used to be.

This probably explains 3D and IMAX trying to lure people back to the theaters. Smell-O-Vision can’t be far behind!

246. Sebastian S. - June 17, 2012

# 245 Vultan~

It would give a whole new literal meaning when we say “that movie STINKS!”

;-D

# 242

Agreed with danielcraig~

John Carter was much better than the sabotage campaign against it would have you believe. IMO, it was a good movie killed my movie politics (the bitter feud between Disney/Pixar and Andrew Stanton).
That’s a damn shame, too. I really like that movie…

247. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

MJ And its sad that it was written off like that, cause if they would have marketed it differently and or allowed time play out that film could have had a much wider theatrical audience than it did. Now after the fact people discovering it on home video are realizing wow this is a good movie.

And don’t even get me started on the politics of the movie exhibition industry, there are great theatres sitting blocks away from each other that are prevented from getting movies, because the other theatre hogs everything even though the theatre not getting the release is just as good if not a better in terms of on screen presentation.

One local theatre actually had to file a lawsuit against such a theatre 2 miles away,hogging everything, in order to start getting their fair share of films. the court sided with them, now both venues are able to get the films and both do great business.

248. Jo - June 17, 2012

I was annoyed with the latest press release which was rude in leaving off Cumberbatch’s name. It just said Alice Eve and Peter Weller were now part of the franchise.

I hope this doesnt mean he’ll be snubbed during all the pr.

249. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

246 Rich Ross did the same thing to Winnie The Pooh last year, its obvious him ditching the movie into theatres opposite the opening weekend of the final Harry Potter Film was nothing more than him trying to snuff out 2D animation at Disney once and for all.

I am looking forward to seeing the Alan Horn years play out at Disney, he is a great studio exec and loves and appreciates both the film industry and and film in general. He is responsible for a lot of a great films during his time at WB. one of the few execs that actually will give films room to stretch their legs and give them a chance to prove themselves.
I like to imagine what we would see from him in an environment where there was no answering to parent companies.

250. Aurore - June 17, 2012

“…such as how the gorgeous Hedy Lamarr’s SCIENTIFIC EXPLOITS changed the world!”
______

Indeed.

I recently read for the first time a little bit about her life (and invention), after watching Boom Town….Anyway, a place such as the one you’re dreaming of would be something!

251. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

245. Vultan – June 17, 2012

World is changing fast. Now we have “smart” TVs. TVs are becoming computer-like.

What’s clear is that as the TV screens get bigger, people forget reasons why they left the house to see movies.

Monsters was a movie that premiered as a streaming release, and that’s how I saw it. I think the same thing happened to Troll.

That practice might well become the rule rather than the exception.

252. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

250. Aurore – June 17, 2012

“a place such as the one you’re dreaming of would be something!”

***

Wouldn’t it though? :-)

Movies in your home all the time? Meh. SO introverted.

253. Danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

251, not everyone forgot though.
even though I have a 3D 1080p HD DLP projector and a giant 12 foot wide screen to project on, and have a vast catalog of over 1500 movies on bluray, nothing to me beats going out and watching a brand new movie on the giant screens of the movie palaces here in L.A., with a audience.
I cant tell you how many movies that play out so much better with an audience as opposed to sitting and watching them at home even with the set up I have.

254. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

253. Danielcraigismywookiebitch – June 17, 2012

I haven’t forgotten either. I prefer going to the movies. I would say that in 10 years we’re going to be the crabby dudes yelling at kids to get off our lawns, but the kids will all be IN their i-nfotainmentPods, made by Apple, a full surround 3D sensory experience, and likely won’t be running across ANY lawns.

And not too long after that, there probably won’t be any kids being made at all.

And not too long after THAT is when the American Indians come out, look around, and say, “Well it took long enough, but we finally got our land back.”

255. Vultan - June 17, 2012

#254

Nope. Sorry to say here in OK, “Land of the Red Man,” the Indians are just as tech crazy as everyone else.

My design teacher in college was Creek, and an Apple fanatic.

256. Jason - June 17, 2012

Every new information about the movie makes me more excited!

257. Locke for President - June 17, 2012

Hi Bob Orci!

Any truth to the rumor that the title of the new movie illustrates that this one is more like the original series, and is simply being called “Starrier Trekkier”?

258. Red Dead Ryan - June 17, 2012

#253.

You have a twelve foot movie screen in your home? HOT DAMN!! Must be nice when you have guests over. Like Daniel Craig. ;-)

As for “John Carter”, Disney screwed up by dropping “of Mars” from the title, thinking it would be recieved like “Mars Needs Moms” which was a bomb at the box office.

The irony is, by dropping “of Mars” from the title, all that was left was a non-descript title that people ignored. So that fact that it bombed in theatres was a self-fulfilled prophecy made by Disney itself.

259. AJ - June 17, 2012

Every time someone types “Hedy Lamarr,” I keep thinking of the knee-jerk response, “That’s ‘Hedley!’ ”

Because Mel Brooks sticks in the brain forever.

260. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

253,
yeah I am very proud of my home theatre, and my screen is actually cut from a real commercial theatre screen, that was being changed out and discarded and so they cut me off the size I wanted for home, and gave it to me. I have made masking to adjust to different aspect ratios, and purchased curtains, D-Box Motion code chairs. the whole 9 yards.
I am not married yet, haven’t met that perfect girl I want to raise a family with so I spend my disposable money on things that bring me enjoyment. cause hopefully one day in the not to distant future I wont be able to because their will be other more important priorities in my life, but till that day.

261. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

They should have kept the Peter Gabriel song in for all the John Carter trailers. They should have even included it in the movie with that wonderful orchestral arrangement they had in the first trailer.

My Body is a Cage. It was perfect for the story.

262. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

And here is the song of which I speak for ye all who do not remember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ve4i4iy-ag

263. Tim - June 17, 2012

#2 is bang on. Maybe delay it for 50 years so no chance JJ will ruin…er direct the next one.

264. Devon - June 17, 2012

#263 – Fail.

265. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2012

yo.

266. Vultan - June 17, 2012

Hey everyone, check out this nifty little animation of the TOS main title sequence. I think you’ll like it. Definitely gets you in the mood for some classic Trekking.

http://io9.com/5919079/watch-an-animated-reinterpretation-of-the-orignal-star-trek-intro

267. Red Dead Ryan - June 17, 2012

#265.

YO! YO! YO! Whaddup?…..hope its all good in the ‘hood, dawg!

268. dmduncan - June 17, 2012

266. Vultan – June 17, 2012

That was really cool. It actually got me in the mood for a new Trek ANIMATED series.

269. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2012

267.

Ryan, I simply typed the word “yo” because a previous comment I made didn’t post, so I was testing the water. Sure enough, THAT one went through!

Sheesh!

270. Jack - June 17, 2012

209. “you can have both intelligence and fun”

Of course you can. That’s what I’d like Trek to be.

271. BillyBoy - June 17, 2012

>>>
a rushed film from the same team in 2012
<<<

Star Trek III and Star Trek: First Contact were "rush jobs" from the same creative team that had done the previous movie, coming out almost exactly 2 years after their predecessor films.

Seems to me those films turned out fine and they didn't need four years to "take the time to do it right"

272. Vultan - June 17, 2012

#268

Me too! Hopefully CBS will one day get the message.

273. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 17, 2012

Look what I found. Chris Pine talks about the sequel – no spoilers.

http://collider.com/chris-pine-star-trek-2-sequel-imax/173659/

274. Red Dead Ryan - June 17, 2012

#269.

Ah.

275. bytesaber - June 17, 2012

After the 2009 Trek, which was not a bad movie, I’ve decided it satisfied zero cravings to see a star trek movie. It’s just a reboot of some other universe and adds nothing to “Star Trek”. I have no excitement for a sequel.

276. Aurore - June 17, 2012

252. dmduncan – June 17, 2012
250. Aurore – June 17, 2012

“a place such as the one you’re dreaming of would be something!”

***

“Wouldn’t it though? :-)

Movies in your home all the time? Meh. SO introverted.”
________

….Well I am SO introverted!

:))

Maybe I wouldn’t be if places such as your film school/movie studio/historical film museum existed!

Moreover, I’d probably visit it frequently if its concession stand offered Chinese, Japanese, Caribbean, Indian, Mexican, and, Italian food…

Think about it, dmduncan…

277. danielcraigismywookiebitch - June 17, 2012

239 sounds like you have the vision to be the next Sid Grauman

278. Anthony Thompson - June 17, 2012

275. bytesaver

Then why are you hanging around a site called ‘trekmovie.com’? ; )

279. BiggestTOSfanever - June 18, 2012

What about “Star Trek: To Boldy Go” for a title?

280. VZX - June 18, 2012

How cool would it be to have the fans choose the title? The Powers That Be could list a bunch and we could just vote on it. That’d be swell!

281. captain_neill - June 18, 2012

I prefer them taking their time than doing a rushed script, a la Transformers Revenge of the Fallen.

I appreciate that

282. Picard's Fish - June 18, 2012

my bet on the title is that it will feature the words Star Trek, and that it will be something original.. ie not a spin on traditional Trek lingo, ala “To Boldly Go”

something like:

Star Trek – Infinity’s Gamble

Star Trek – The Android Complex

283. Scotty - June 18, 2012

But Star Trek 2009 was so SHALLOW even though it was done extremely well & fun..the root of the story was retarded with huge gaping plot holes. Why can’t they see that when they are writing the script???!?!?!??

284. Scotty - June 18, 2012

280: No, the fans would name it something like ‘Captain Neckbeards fantastic voyage’ or something like that…No.

285. Jipeman - June 18, 2012

Star Trek: Split Infinitive

286. MJ - June 18, 2012

Just learned of the title from a friend of mine at Paramount:

( warning – spoiler)

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

James T. Kirk: Vampire Hunter

287. Vultan - June 18, 2012

#286

Would that be the Salt Vampire?

288. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 18, 2012

#283 – Because those gaping plot holes exist only in your mind…

289. Dee - lvs moon' surface - June 18, 2012

Chris Pine said more things about the villain… Ok a bit… ;-) :-)

here:

http://eonli.ne/NaRrwB

290. MJ - June 18, 2012

@289. Outstanding quote. Can’t help feeling that this is going to be an awesome sequel. All of the great trilogies and series of movies have one thing in common — the second movie is the best, and cements the series as classic. Think Empire Strikes, Back, The Wrath of Khan, Lethal Weapon II, Aliens, Toy Story II, Terminator II, The Road Warrior, The Dark Knight, LOTR – The Two Towers, The Gofather – Part II, First Blook Part II

By contrast, look at most series where the 2nd movie faltered, and you get mixed opinion about whether the series are all that great: Transformers 2, Iron Man II, Pirates of the Caribbean II, Die Hard 2, Staying Alive, Highlander 2, and Speed 2.

291. Red Dead Ryan - June 18, 2012

#290.

Yeah, a lot of film series that have a great second movie are highly revered. Let’s not forget “Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan”.

I would say that for “Lord Of The Rings” and “Toy Story”, it was the third movie in each series that was the best one, in my opinion.

The first two “Transformers” movies were crap, but the third one was pretty good.

292. Red Dead Ryan - June 18, 2012

Oops, you mentioned TWOK.

I should learn how to read properly :-)

293. dmduncan - June 18, 2012

276: “Moreover, I’d probably visit it frequently if its concession stand offered Chinese, Japanese, Caribbean, Indian, Mexican, and, Italian food…

Think about it, dmduncan…”

***

I have already! There would be plenty of non traditional concession stand food as well as the expected stuff.

And I won’t go into detail about the Popcorn Robots. Some things you just have to be inside my head to appreciate properly. :-)

Oh, the public part of this thing would be a fairly spectacular place to go even if there’s no movie playing you really wanted to see. Something I would have designed in part with the aim to inspire children to dream, and to inspire the more grown-up children to DO.

Instead of only trailers, a student short film made on the property could premiere after the trailers and before the main attraction in each of the theaters.

Each theater would have a poster of the movie playing in that theater, and a smaller poster, which students would be required to make for their short films, would appear next to the main attraction, as a bonus feature. Just so that they feel like they are making and showing real movies.

Of course, students would also have their own dedicated theater, and perhaps a series of projection rooms so that they could do peer review on each other’s work — and they would actually do peer review work like that in the PUBLIC space, so that students in the post-postproduction phase and the public being entertained mixed with each other in the same space vs. everyone being in their own little universe.

Movies wouldn’t get made if it wasn’t for audiences.

I think audiences should feel like they are connected to the process as well.

294. P Technobabble - June 18, 2012

And Happy 70th Sir Paul… (by now everyone knows McCartney’s “Trek connection” hm?)

295. Aurore - June 18, 2012

“And I won’t go into detail about the Popcorn Robots. Some things you just have to be inside my head to appreciate properly. :-)”
________

Mmmkay…

:)

“Oh, the public part of this thing would be a fairly spectacular place to go even if there’s no movie playing you really wanted to see. Something I would have designed in part with the aim to inspire children to dream, and to inspire the more grown-up children to DO.”

Damn you; again, one of those things I just would have to be inside your head to appreciate properly! Nevermind. I forgive you…Since I can always imagine what a place such as the one you’re referring to would look like.

(….Well…. YES, dmduncan; I CAN dream too!!!)
:)

“Movies wouldn’t get made if it wasn’t for audiences.

I think audiences should feel like they are connected to the process as well.”

I do agree with you….up to a point.

I personally wouldn’t want to feel too connected to the process.

To me, it would be akin to finding out the secrets behind a magician’s famous tricks. which is not very good, in my opinion, when you enjoy surprises as much as I do.

296. dmduncan - June 18, 2012

295. Aurore – June 18, 2012

I do agree with you….up to a point.

I personally wouldn’t want to feel too connected to the process.

To me, it would be akin to finding out the secrets behind a magician’s famous tricks. which is not very good, in my opinion, when you enjoy surprises as much as I do.

***

My dear Aurore, I agree with you too!

That is why this magnificent place has a public and a PRIVATE aspect.

The curtain remains drawn on the magic happening elsewhere on the same premises.

297. Disinvited - June 18, 2012

Recall Khan saying “Buried alive. Buried alive.” Now imagine an announcer reminiscent of that saying “STAR TREK…STAR TREK.”

Recursion (Ok, maybe repetition is the edition but poetic licence, etc.) is the version that I’m advocating for the next title.

If there’s any kernel of truth to the postulate “Any delay to a Star Trek release makes it better.” then I’m forced to consider making my next Trek view reservation at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Let’s see…I know where my towel is. Now if I can just find that TARDIS signaling beacon…well, no hurry because I know that that one is the one that’s gonna blow my universe away!

298. Ted C - June 18, 2012

By the time they get the new movie released my great great great great great grandchildren can see opening night in a holodeck.

299. daniel craigs my wookie bitch - June 18, 2012

296, did my response in 277 go over your head please tell me you know who it is I was referring to.

300. dmduncan - June 18, 2012

299. daniel craigs my wookie bitch – June 18, 2012

No, I know who Sid Grauman was. But I’m an outsider looking in. Wasn’t Grauman in the biz from a young age? My vision is big enough, but it is very very rare when somebody believes in an outsider enough to back him.

301. Jim Nightshade - June 18, 2012

294 p technobabble…i am a huge sir paul n beatles fan…what trek connection does macca have?

302. Aurore - June 19, 2012

“That is why this magnificent place has a public and a PRIVATE aspect.

The curtain remains drawn on the magic happening elsewhere on the same premises”
_________

Right.

Your mentioning of a public aspect to that place did imply that some of its parts would not be accessible to everyone…

I can therefore raise my metaphorical glass of orange juice to dreams, and…magic…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzH0o3X0oB0&feature=related

303. P Technobabble - June 19, 2012

301 Jim

He wanted to make a sci-fi/musical film about aliens using their music to take over the world. He approached Gene Roddenberry about doing it, but I seem to recall it was at the same time Gene was putting TMP together. McCartney also approached Speilberg and, I think, Scorsese. The project got scrapped.

304. Ctrl-Opt-Del - June 19, 2012

I’m not surprised Cumberbatch’s villain is scary; his interpretation of Sherlock Holmes is imposing & intimidating, and he’s a good guy!

305. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 19, 2012

At an award ceremony in January 2010, Sir Paul McCartney was there as a nominee with his then-fiancee (now married). Someone told him and the new Star Trek cast sitting together that both were at the awards dinner. There is video of Paul McCartney meeting the cast and talk about real and wonderful fanboy stuff going on, especially with Chris Pine and Paul McCartney. The delight for those two, in particular, was so tangible. Truly wonderful and delightfully funny.

Who knew…:) I suspect that Paul McCartney may be a (longtime?) trekkie…

306. BiggestTOSfanever - June 19, 2012

@ 303
I would totally watch that.
The Preservers have a written language of musical notes. Wasn’t there a Star Trek book where the Preservers had multiple voice boxes and communicated with chords?

307. Indranee - June 19, 2012

All I can say to this is that it had better be damn good.

308. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

302. Aurore – June 19, 2012

Great song!

309. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - June 20, 2012

@191 191. Bugs nixon

haha.. yeah! I know what you mean… I assume you know where I am based then… I put Runcorn Trekkie in the hope someone says: “WHERE THE HELL IS THAT!?”

I added this to my Twitter account: JUST FOR YOU! :-)

https://twitter.com/EvilMonkey1701/status/215365198326931457

310. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 20, 2012

The Color of Money wasn’t negatively impacted at the box-office even though it came out 25 years after the movie it was a sequel to, The Hustler came out.
Just another example that the number of years between films don’t matter in terms of how the movie will perform.

311. DanielCraigismywookiebitch - June 20, 2012

300 All it takes is Hard work, and time.
If you set your mind to it, especially in this day and age you can reach it.

312. Xplodin_Nacelle - June 21, 2012

I’m still holding out hope for Cumby-Khan!!!

313. Commander K - June 22, 2012

Exclusive…before it gets deleted…it will be called The Darkest Dawn

314. DMar - June 26, 2012

ll the griping about the long wait comes from that special sector of Trek fan who always pull out the “respect for the fan base” garbage. People think that Trek is their personal property and if Paramount doesn’t do it exactly the way those select fans think they should than Paramount is crapping on the fan base.

Forget that the last film was hugely successful without the fans. The movie made big box office from the general movie going public. Trek fans helped but they alone would not have made the film a success.

Paramount is in business to make money. They will do what they think is best regardless of the constant whining of the entitled fans. People will see this film whether the “entitled” Trek fans show up or not.

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