Star Trek Into Darkness Post-Production Completed Today – Film Now ‘Locked’ |
jump to navigation

Star Trek Into Darkness Post-Production Completed Today – Film Now ‘Locked’ April 17, 2013

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

Today marks another big milestone for Star Trek Into Darkness. 11 months, 1 week and 2 days after wrapping principal photography, director JJ Abrams has finished the new Trek feature. See below for more details on the wrapping up of the movie along with looks back at the road to get here and the road ahead.     


Star Trek Into Done-ness

TrekMovie has confirmed that today (Wednesday April 17) producer/director J.J. Abrams "locked" Star Trek Into Darkness – his second Trek feature and fourth film as a director. Abrams actually hinted he was close on Monday with a tweet via the @bad_robot account.

Abrams hinted he was close on Monday

According to sources the final work on the film was dropping in all the sound effects and the sound mix. Once again some of the sounds designed for the movie were done by Oscar-winner Benn Burtt. ILM finished most of their visual effects work around two weeks ago but have been doing some "stereo fixes" for the 3D version of the film over the last week. Composer Michael Giacchino finished recording the score for the film earlier this month and dropping his "over 100 minutes" of music into the movie has also been one of the last things done for post-production.

Giacchino tweeted photo of final "piano addition" from April 5th just 12 days before the movie was finalized

One thing that wasn’t done during these last weeks of post-productions were any test screenings. While Abrams has been showing sequences to press and industry people, and there were some changes made to the opening of the movie after the IMAX previews in December, the team chose not to do actual test screenings which are often used to make final tweaks to films.

Next up: Global Promo Blitz

The next step for the movie is to get its official MPAA rating, which is expected to be PG-13 (like the 2009 Star Trek film). And course for prints of the film to be made and distributed.

The first public showing of Star Trek Into Darkness will be in Sydney Australia with a gala premiere on April 23rd. This will be followed by star-studded international premieres (and/or press conferences) in Moscow, Paris, Berlin, London, and Mexico City. The film opens to the general public first in some international markets (including Australia, UK, Germany and Mexico) on May 9th and 10th. The Hollywood gala premiere is on May 14th followed by US and Canada ‘fan sneaks’ on May 15th, with the main domestic release on May 17th.

And of course during that entire time there will be a flurry of activity from around the world. Expect Abrams and the Star Trek stars to be doing lots and lots interviews and television appearances. And of course Paramount is planning more marketing of the movie, with more TV commercials and clips to be revealed in the coming weeks.

The long road to Into Darkness

It has been almost four years since the release of the 2009 Star Trek film, but it wouldn’t be accurate to say it took four years to make the movie. Paramount first approached the Star Trek team of J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk about making a sequel almost a year before their 2009 film debuted. The team were all signed up for the sequel by March 2009 (the main cast had all signed options for three movies when they were first cast).

In March 2009 the Star Trek Court signed on for another Trek

Originally there was talk of the sequel targeting summer 2011, but in January 2010 Paramount set the release date for June 29, 2012. The three-year gap was due to the Star Trek "Supreme Court" focusing on other projects such as Cowboys & Aliens (for Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman) and Super 8 and MI:4 (for Abrams and Burk), Prometheus (for Lindelof) along with other TV projects (especially finishing up on Lost for Lindelof).

Abrams on the set of "Super 8" – October 2010

While the team did have preliminary discussions about Star Trek in 2009 and early 2010 they didn’t really start developing the story until the summer of 2010, but by the spring of 2011 writers were still only working off of a 70-page outline. While there was "soft prep" going on, the film hadn’t yet gone into actual pre-production which was the original plan. The main issue was Abrams availability being more limited than expected during the post-production for Super 8. Actual scripting began in June 2011, and in July Paramount made official what all expected and announced the film was delayed.

Lindelof and Orci tweet pic of "planking" during Trek writing break in June 2011

The release date of May 17th 2013 was later announced in November, 2011, by which time the film was in full pre-production. The biggest news during that period was regarding the casting of the villain for the film – with Oscar-winner Benicio Del Toro in talks for the role in November, but by early December he dropped out. This lead Abrams to scramble to find a new bad guy – looking at a number of other actors in December before
picking Benedict Cumberbatch right around New Year’s 2012 – less than two weeks before shooting started on January 12th.

Production on the movie was mostly conducted at Sony Studios in Culver City, CA – the break in tradition from shooting on the Hollywood Paramount lot is said to have been mostly due to availability of the types (and sizes) of sets needed for the film. Additional filming was done at the Raleigh Studio in Playa Vista, including some done outdoors due to Abrams preferring natural light (and some of the sets were too big to do indoors). Unfortunately some of these outdoor shots got leaked, which later prompted Abrams to have a wall of containers erected next to where they were shooting.

Spy photo from production in February 2012

Being an Abrams production, there was also quite a lot of location shooting. While there was some discussion of taking the crew to Hawaii and even Iceland, in the end most of the locations were done in around the Los Angeles area, except for the final week of shooting which was done at the Lawrence Livermore Labs in Livermore, CA. While in the Bay area, members of the cast made news by sharing shots of themselves out on the town on Twitter (including visiting a Hooters restaurant). Filming on the Star Trek sequel wrapped on May 8, 2012. Four months later "Star Trek Into Darkness" was chosen as the title.

A lucky fan gets a pic with Cumberbatch, Quinto and Pine at Hooters on Cinco de Mayo 2012

The total post-production time at a little over 11 months. Even though this film had more effects shots, more music and the extra complication of an intricate 3D conversion – the total time spent finishing the movie was shorter than the post-production for the 2009 Star Trek movie – which was a bit over 13 months.

Abrams appearing on MTV during post-production on Trek in June 2012 (dropping a Klingons hint with image behind him)

Now onto the threquel

After the movie is released next month, fans will again starting looking more to the future. We have already done some reporting on the follow-up film to Star Trek Into Darkness. The entire cast is already signed up for a third film. Paramount has confirmed that Abrams, Burk and their Bad Robot production company is lined up to deliver the movie and writer/producers Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof are also expected to be on board again.

There are some indications that the film will be delivered in 2016 – which also happens to be the 50th anniversary of the franchise. While Abrams is set to produce the movie, it seems doubtful he could return as director as well due to his commitment to deliver Star Wars Episode VII to Disney by 2015. 

But there will be plenty of time to talk directors, actors, plot and more after Into Darkness hits theaters in May.



1. jmhoward88 - April 17, 2013

Perhaps too early to think about the threequel, but I do hope 2016 is a special Star Trek year!

2. Locutus - April 17, 2013

Sector 001

3. crucifixion - April 17, 2013

You mean first public showing April 23 right?

4. Anthony Pascale - April 17, 2013

sorry, yes first public is Sydney April 23 – TrekMovie will be reporting from that event. Also we will try to have people on all the other red carpet events but that is still being sorted out.

5. Curious Cadet - April 17, 2013

Anthony, I don’t mean to question your reporting, but is this confirmed that Benecio Del Toro was on board until December, and Abrams had to scramble to cast Cumberbatch with only two weeks to spare? Or is this simply when the announcements were made?

6. thomoz - April 17, 2013

Because of all the overseas premieres, all the spoilers will be online weeks before the film opens in the US – bummer!

7. Curious Cadet - April 17, 2013

@4 Anthony,

So will TrekMovie be reporting the spoilers assuming other media outlets do so as well?

8. Sewanee - April 17, 2013

It’s about damn time!

9. Smike - April 17, 2013

“Australia, London, Germany and Mexico”…So London is a country now :-)

10. - April 17, 2013

I’m thinking of flying to Sydney to get some pics even if I don’t win a ticket to the premier.

So soon now.

11. Anthony Pascale - April 17, 2013

perhaps scramble is a loaded word but they spent most of December trying to find a villain and the decision wasnt made until around New Years Day. I know they went through even more peopel than were reported pubically. We broke the Cumberbatch news on Jan 4th I think.

12. Anthony Pascale - April 17, 2013

RE: Spoilers
we will be doing red carpet reporting from Sydney. We will not be reporting spoiler/review until closer to actual release date. Not sure if that will be based on UK or US release as so many readers are from overseas and the movie comes out in the 9th or 10th for them.

But even in TrekMovie spoiler review – all will not be revealed. I may also do an early non-spoiler review around May 1st. Depends on when I see the movie. I havent seen it yet.

13. Do You Wanna Dance - April 17, 2013

Now that we’ve seen the trailers, it’s a bit hard to picture Benecio as Harrison.

Did the script get a rewrite when it went to Cumberbatch? I’m sure speculation will coincide with the idea that Harrison was initially Khan, but with the mild backlash, TPTB could have tweaked the script before passing the torch to a replacement actor.

Nice to see those leaked shots turned into actual scenes in the movie.

14. Kieran O'Connor - April 17, 2013

50th anniversary = bring back Kirk Shatner style :)

15. Basement Blogger - April 18, 2013

Anthony, thanks for the story as it captures the production history and we don’t have to construct it ourselves. Hey, we may need to refer to this one piece when we write about the film.

Second, I know we can wait to guess about the third director but this is like judging your NFL team’s draft. Why wait for three years? Have fun and let’s put out some guesses for a director. Here’s my choice. I like to kid about it but it does have advantages.

Get Oscar winner Quentin Tarantino to direct the third film. First, he’s got some relation to Bad Robot. He was in Alias. Second, Star Trek 2009 was his film of the year. Third, he’s got a following that may not be Trek fans. More fans, more money, more Trek. And hopefully a TV series.

And what about a cast? QT could probably get Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Olivia Newton John. I keeeed. I keeeeeed about Olivia Newton John. But what about Christoph Waltz? Okay, QT would have to curb the cussing and I think his movies are a little violent. :-)

What do you say J.J.? Quentin Tarantino’s Star Trek. As Captain Kirk would say, “Sounds like fun.”

16. Scott Um - April 18, 2013

So all of this secrecy was for naught….early release in some markets means the rest of us will know all of the plot points (If we chose) before we see the movie.

17. sean - April 18, 2013


Nah, let’s keep QT far away. He’s great at his niche, but I think sci-fi is outside his wheelhouse.

I’m really crossing my fingers for Brad Bird. He’s already part of the Bad Robot family and has proven skills with genre pics. Depending on when he finishes up post on Tomorrowland, he might very well be free.

18. Anthony Pascale - April 18, 2013

Knock yourself out on director speculation. However, I assume that being this is a Bad Robot production and the third film in a series with a certain look and feel – JJ isn’t likely to hand it over to someone with an entirely different sensibility. I think QT is great. I would love to see his vision of Star Trek, but someone like him or even a Guillermo Del Toro, probably isn’t the right person to step in and direct the third film after two JJ Abrams movies.

19. one of nine - April 18, 2013

I’m Puerto Rican and I’ can’t believe that i—-t pro independence actor did not jump at the chance to play maybe the same roll that great MX actor once played, maybe afraid of people saying he was not as good and so on, I wish I’ could act and been offered that roll…maybe he does play Khan in the 3rd one, but he is still pro indep. and I’m pro statehood.

20. one of nine - April 18, 2013

I’ will not come back to this site or yahoo or anywhere or read anything regarding ST after the 23rd of this month, it will take Homer Simpson to tell me it’s Khan’ so no Simpson episodes till the 16th of May also.

21. Red Dead Ryan - April 18, 2013

I hear George Lucas is available. :-)

22. one of nine - April 18, 2013

please Paramount let JJ pick the next director, please, please!

let start a campaign people as of now, we want JJ to pick the director….

also no word yet as to how long in this installment?
please let it be as long as 2012

23. DavenetSoo - April 18, 2013

I’m assuming the next Star Wars will be out sometime Summer 2015, with JJ finished promotion by the latest end of that summer…and if you go by January 12th 2012 as the start date for filming Star Trek Into Darkness then it took about 16 months from shooting until release…if Star Trek III were to start filming July-August 2015 then couldn’t it conceivably make a holiday 2016 release with JJ able to direct it??? That way it would still make it’s anniversary

24. The Professor - April 18, 2013

Awesome! Shall we begin?

25. LordOfTheArchons - April 18, 2013

Anybody know what happened to “The Drex Files” website? It’s no longer there.

It was a great site for behind the scenes Star Trek info.

26. Theatre Historian - April 18, 2013

Those of you saying that we will be seeing spoilers following the red carpet premieres, typically those who are in the audience at the premieres are not the people who go online and spoil info.

All media screenings and test screenings sure, but premiere audiences typically not.

Once the All media screenings begin though, thats when your going to start seeing the spoilers fly.

27. Bucky - April 18, 2013

I’d much rather have Bad Robot & the Supreme Court produce a new TV series for 2016. That seems more fitting for the 50th anniversary of the TOS TV series. Then we can get in Abrams for another Trek flick. In 2017! With a full two seasons of the BR Trek TV show leading up to it!

28. Simon - April 18, 2013

#19 – Do Puerto Rican rolls have butter? Or are they made with honey like a tasty Mexican Bolillo?

As far as Del Toro not taking the *role* sometimes actor’s just don’t feel the part is right for them.

29. Theatre Historian - April 18, 2013

17) How would you know its outside his wheel house?
Just because he hasn’t made a sci fi movie before doesnt mean, he wouldn’t have the chops for it.

I will say this he is a huge Trek Fan, I Remember talking to him while he was waiting in the lobby on the opening night of the regular engagement of Star Trek Nemesis at the Chinese back in 02, and he knows his Trek.

Having said that Anthony is right, your not going to see someone as artisticly different from JJ as QT and GDT taking over for the next film I would wager.

30. Buzz Cagney - April 18, 2013

Remember, when you pick the cans up for delivery this is the one where the bad guy has a big ship, Kirk does a space jump and Uhura and Spock suck face. Wouldn’t want you getting confused with the previous one. Hope that helps!!

31. Cant Wait Fer ST:ID - April 18, 2013

For 2016, let’s get the cast and crew of Twilight to do the 3rd movie. That way we get a bare-chested captain again, aliens that twinkle and females that just pout and whine their lines.

32. Theatre Historian - April 18, 2013

Just curious is anyone else in SO Cal planning on going to the Star Trek 09 screening at the Graumans Egyptian theatre on May 6th as part of the EW Capetown film festival?

EW’s Geoff Boucher will be moderating a Q&A with Nimoy after the film.
great way to get ready for Into Darkness.

33. Jack - April 18, 2013

Personally, I’m hoping this site (and others) avoids spoilers until after the North Am release weekend. What’s the point of posting spoilers, anyway? Most reviewers — and the mainstream press — respect the idea that moviegoers should be able to discover these things for themselves.

34. Jack - April 18, 2013

Sorry, that sounded harsher than I intended. But I really don’t understand the news value, or even the entertainment value, in posting spoilers. Sites like AV Club post spoiler-free reviews (includes comments) of shows based on books, like Game of Thrones. And that info has been out for years. Even their spoiler reviews are filled with warnings and ask posters to keep things on the relative QT.

35. Theatre Historian - April 18, 2013

I am really begining to think its entirely possible that Khan is in the movie, but he is not cumberbatch and he is going to be introduced in the same manner the villian of another franchise movie coming out at the end of may is introducing its villian for its sequel coming out next july.

36. ObsessiveStarTrekFan - April 18, 2013

@30. Buzz Cagney

I don’t agree with your cynical sentiment. However, I found the way you expressed it absolutely hilarious ;-)

37. NuWisdom - April 18, 2013

Two words for Director for 3rd Film: Joss. Whedon.

38. Karl - April 18, 2013

@25 LordoftheArchons

Drexler has closed the site. I read somewhere that he was getting hassle from other people involved in the projects that they didn’t like their works and contributions going online as though it was entirely his work – which I meet though he did. He always gave credit where it was due.

Must’ve been some amount of hassle from people though, to make him close down the site! :-(

39. RoadSiren21 - April 18, 2013

Hey Anthony, now that the movie is locked down, any idea how long the running time is? if I remember correctly ST2009 is around 206 minutes. Will the movie be that long as well?

can’t wait to see this movie! less than a month to go! :)

40. Calastir - April 18, 2013

God, I hope you’re right!

BTW: I hate those Klingon helmets in the bottom picture!

41. Aix - April 18, 2013

From Benicio to Benedict… Ha! Very nice.

I wonder how much Benicio wanted. I mean, hell. I know he’s an Oscar-winner but he’s not necessarily buzz-worthy these days. And it’s more like he needed Trek rather than Trek needing him. His career needed a revival after “The Wolfman”.

42. RoadSiren21 - April 18, 2013

sorry that’s 2hours 6 minutes. :)

43. Christopher Roberts - April 18, 2013

Awww… too late to throw in a cameo from Scott Bakula as Admiral Archer now, I suppose?


44. one of nine - April 18, 2013

So true!

45. one of nine - April 18, 2013

I rather see Captain Janeway or Picard as newborns or children as cameos but Archer would be ok too, plus maybe my years between this federation officers are off, have not done the math.

46. one of nine - April 18, 2013


47. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

For the threequel 50th anniversary movie (ST’s Skyfall) maybe they should do something that will tie JJ Trek in to the original timeline like the new XMen thats being made – a ‘Star Trek Days of Futures Past’ – maybe working in some of the original cast (obviously Nimoy again, and maybe even Shatner finally), perhaps it could be something about having to return old Spock to the Prime timeline for some reason (maybe something to do with the Borg?). So it would be like part 1 (2009) breaking from the original Star Trek timeline to create the new timeline with the aid of a major original series actor (like the way Generations kicked off the TNG movies with the help of Shatner to pass the flame)….part 2 (2013) an original tale involving the nuCrew (as STID looks to be – like First Contact was the first solo movie adventure for TNG)….part 3 (2016) going back to part 1 (and ‘Countdown’) tying everything up (like TDKR sort of went back to Batman Begins and tied it all up)….mending/converging the timelines – without wiping out the JJ timeline of course

itd be kind of left field – no would would see it coming espeically after the Timeline wasnt reset to normal at the end of the first movie thus making out that its a complete reboot from now on – only to sort of do it at the end of the 3rd one. (plus itd prevent any further films/tv shows ‘screwing’ with what could be a perfect standalone trilogy as itd be a universe unto itself – like Nolans Bat trilogy)

also set a good few years after ST09/STID to work in some Trek II-VI era ships, Trek III mushroom spacedock, TWOK style uniforms/phasers etc for the nuCrew (i.e. Starfleet would be moving more toward those type of designs as the years go on as in the original timeline)and maybe even a nod to TNG (Patrick Stewart cameo for the end scene set in the 24th century?) – perhaps even going so far as converging the JJ crew with the TNG crew somehow (either Prime or nuFuture TNG) sort of like how XM DOFP is doing with merging the First Class and X1-3 casts and like the way everyone kind of thought Generations would do a Yesterdays Enterprise. It will have been over 25 years since Yesterdays Ent by 2016 and the YE two crews thing hasn’t been done on the big screen yet (like the way elements of certain episodes have been redone as movies – TMP with Changeling/Doomsday Machine/Immunity Syndrome, TVH – Tomorrow is Yesterday/Assignment Earth/City on the Edge, TFF – Way to Eden/Who Mourns Adonis, & even FC – BOBW ). And if the film featured Kirk and Co dealing with the borg (building on the hint of borg in ST09) then even more reason to involve TNG in some way as a kind of all encompassing Trek film for the anniversary…(funnily enough 2016 will be FCs 20th anniversary)

just thinking out loud anyway – whatever happens it will have to be a special event thing for the 50th – like Skyfall/Dr Who anniversary episode

48. Classy M - April 18, 2013

Thanks for the retrospective, Anthony. When you read it like that it all seems to have gone by so quickly. Funny, it didn’t feel that way at the time! LOL

49. loghaD - April 18, 2013

Run time:

IMDb says 129 minutes. –

Swedish theater company SF says 132 minutes (, as does the distributor, United International Pictures Sweden (

I don’t know if they’re counting minutes differently, or if the content may actually vary slightly from region to region (which is not too unusual in cinema). Would be interesting to hear what theaters in other countries are saying.

50. Albie Roberts - April 18, 2013

I think either Neill Blomkamp or Drew Goddard would make an excellent director for the third BR Star Trek film.

51. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

and as for director it has to be SINGER (he would be ideal for an anniversary picture that harks back to the originals – i.e. Superman)

52. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013


director – Bryan Singer
producers – JJ Abrams, Damon L, Bryan B, Bob Orci, A Kurtzman
writers – Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon L and Nicolas Meyer,
executive consultant – Leonard Nimoy

53. Aix - April 18, 2013

Neill Blomkamp
Duncan Jones
Bryan Singer

But deep down, I still want JJ to finish it.

54. Albie Roberts - April 18, 2013

Forget all these amateurs that I and others have named above I just realized that McG is the auteur that should helm this project.

55. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

someone mentioned Kenneth Branagh in a previous thread and yes hed be obviously would Frakes or Meyer (but i doubt theyd be called up – dont see why though if Marvel gives yesterdays directors a shot)

but id still like a Singer there if possible

56. Mad Mann - April 18, 2013

Anthony: great article. I love following the production history of a film.

So, director speculation….I suggest Brad Bird, Bryan Singer, or Mad Mann.

Although, dare I say it: Steven Speilberg?

57. RoobyDoo - April 18, 2013

One point that may not be clear…in Canada/U.S. the fan sneak is Wednesday May 15th but there is also a 3D IMAX showing on Thursday May 16th, then the full release in all formats on Friday.

58. frederick - April 18, 2013

Looking forward to it, but I will have to keep away from the web for a few days after it comes out to avoid the spoilers.

I just can’t figure out why JJ is being so coy about the Klingons. All we see of them is in their face-covering helments. Why is he avoiding showing their faces at all? I don’t get it, is he avoiding the “ridge/no ridge” question till he addresses it later?

59. RoobyDoo - April 18, 2013

Apologies, I missed TM’s latest article which mentions the Thursday shows.

60. DangerousDac - April 18, 2013

Joseph Kosinski. Out of all the directors around at the moment, I think he has the best visual style to go along with Trek. QT would never do a film that wasn’t “his”, likewise Guillermo would want to go balls to the wall crazy beyond what the studio would want. Kosinski seems to have the chops to handle a big studio pic and he has that creative spark to him that matches JJ imo.

61. Magic_Al - April 18, 2013

Back in the day, Star Trek and (Star Wars) films informally alternated: (1977), 1979, (1980), 1982, (1983), 1984.

Now DIsney has announced that Star Wars will alternate with itself: Episode VII (2015), character standalone (2016), Episode VII (2017), character standalone (2018), Episode VIII (2019). Star Trek won’t have any year to itself.

The only year that saw both a Star Trek and a Star Wars movie was 2002. Nemesis might have ended the series’ run anyway, but part of the problem was it didn’t open strongly, and the proximity of Star Wars didn’t lessen any space-opera fatigue the broader audience may have felt.

62. Magic_Al - April 18, 2013

VII, VIII, IX. Ugh. Shouldn’t try to do Roman numerals before coffee.

63. EM - April 18, 2013

After seeing the latest trailer for “Man of Steel”, I’d be inclined to advocate on behalf of Zach Snyder to direct the next Star Trek! But, maybe I’ll wait until I see what he’s actually done with “Man of Steel”!
I know his name was thrown out there for “Star Wars : Episode 7″, but I think that his style is a little too gritty for the Skywalker universe. It might fit this new Star Trek style, though.

64. msn1701 - April 18, 2013

The tension is building… the excitement… and it will only get more intense. I cannot wait.

I love the carbonite pic!

65. The Sinfonian - April 18, 2013

The threequel would be best set in 2265, and at the end, somehow ‘morph’ into the beginning of the Original Series. Thus, “completing a loop” of sorts, with the universe somewhat “restoring” itself. I figure there’s a role for John Delancie to play in that sort of threequel ending.

I’m actually slightly annoyed with Bob for having the comics start revisiting TOS worlds way too soon, but it’s understandable: gotta sell books. No reason that a parallel 5YM might not revisit each of those worlds for some reason around the same time.

As for a director…. isn’t the “third” movie or so always directed by the executive officer actor? Nimoy, Frakes…. Quinto? :)

66. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

@65 id prefer it if the sequel was set a good few years later – approaching WOK era. Pine could dye his hair dark brown and get a perm

67. Anthony Pascale - April 18, 2013

RE: Runtime
I am trying to confirm. I know it is a bit over two hours but dont have exact numbers.

68. Disinvited - April 18, 2013


Now, it’s done. ;-)

69. Curious Cadet - April 18, 2013

@33. Jack,
“Personally, I’m hoping this site (and others) avoids spoilers until after the North Am release weekend.”

While you make good points, Trekmovie is a business and competes with other sites for news. If the other sites report spoilers (and you know they will), Anthony will certainly feel pressured to do it as well.

Of course the problem is that even with disclaimers as you and I well know, sometimes you glance at a spoiler inadvertently, or worse cannot control yourself from reading them, despite your best intentions.

Some of this Abrams has brought on himself due to the extreme secrecy and provocative guessing games he’s engaged in as a marketing tactic. Imagine if Harrison turns out to be Khan, there will be a few sites which will proclaim in 90-point type: “He’s KHAAAAAAAAAAN!” the day it is confirmed. You won’t be able to Google which local theaters its playing at without seeing that headline.

And then there are the Wikipedia contributors. These guys do nothing but wait to post the full synopsis of a film the day it opens (per Wiki’s long standing convention not to post before). Since this film opens in two English speaking countries a week before it does here, you can bet the English Wiki page will be updated on opening night. But the reality is, which I learned the hard way, is that someone will update the page after the first public showing. The summary will be deleted, but Wiki keeps a record of every edit, reverted or otherwise. I could not resist the temptation to read the archived summary before ST09 opened. And I wasn’t the only one. Soon Trek discussion boards filled up with debates over the newly revealed plot, with little more than “spoilers” appearing in the title. Frankly I’m not sure I’m strong enough to resist the temptation to look this time.

But I have a feeling I won’t have to now that there will be so many advance public showings worldwide starting next week, followed by an entire week jump over the US wide release. I hate to paint such a grim picture, but there’s absolutely no way to avoid the major spoilers, unless you hide under a rock.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Paramount is obviously gambling that an international release will help stoke the numbers over ST09’s dismal international showing. And doing so may help fuel the buzz in the US driving the box office higher than ever, or the advance spoilers may dent the domestic box office until the media frenzy subsides and people forget they know what the movie is about. I know once I know what a movie is about, I may put it on the back burner to see other fresh movies first, and sometimes miss it completely at the theaters. Obviously this won’t happen with most fans, but the fans are not the largest component of the box office anymore.

My guess is Paramount is hoping to build a buzz to counter the IronMan 3 opening here, an opening which could well extend into and threaten Trek’s opening weekend. Let’s just hope this movie is as exciting and as good as it has the appearance to be, because with so many spoilers sure to circulate after next week, the outright spectacle and Oscar calibre performances may be the only thing that keeps the boil roiling once the mystery has evaporated.

70. Mr. opinionated - April 18, 2013


I’ like your thinking as to how to proceed in Trek, but all they care about is money and not what makes ST awesome to Trekkers, so change the time line and now anything is possible with establish characters.
What a way to make money, right just redo and redo and redo; Would not be surprise to see the organians as a war like species in the future…

We are getting the same planets with awesome special effects and we call Star Trek, yea right…and @58 do you have an idea as to the amount of money it would cost for Klingon make-up?
again just an opinion, no need for nobody to get bent out of shape cuz of it…

71. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

@70 – if XM DOFP is a huge hit (i mean even bigger than normal for XMen which it could be) i could see Paramount wanting to do something similar with Trek….

72. E.T. - April 18, 2013

Hopefully no more JJ Abrams (in any capacity) in the future when it comes to Star Trek. Let’s drink to that.

73. Tom - April 18, 2013

If indeed 2016 is the release date for the threequel then i would like the survivng Original Cast to have something to do in the movie. Not sure Orci/Kurtzman would agree but just think it would be nice if it fit well in their story

74. Anthony Pascale - April 18, 2013

RE: Abrams timing
Yes in theory Abrams could go into production on a third Star Trek movie in the summer of 2015 and have it ready for Holiday 2016. However that would require him to be doing Star Wars post-production simultaneously with Star Trek pre-production (on top of all his other stuff). And it was that kind of overlap with Super 8 that got Into Darkness delayed. Imagine how much more complex Star Wars post production would be vs. Super 8. How much time would JJ have to deal with Trek pre-production. It is possible, it is just very tight. A lot of the decisions in pre-production would possibly have to handed off to the other producers. In my previous article talking about this I noted Holiday 2016 is the only possible way Abrams could still direct and have them make the 50th anniv. but it would be tough.

75. Adam Bomb 1701 - April 18, 2013

#67 – IMDB lists run time as 129 minutes. It’s been listed as such for a while. Maybe that’s the contracted run time, by agreement with the studio. Back in 1979, “TMP” was to have a run time of no more than 130 minutes; that was the agreement between Paramount amd Messrs. Roddenberry and Wise. According to the “Director’s Edition” commentary, that was so the film could have five runs per day. With the overture, the film’s actual time was 132 minutes; the “Director’s Edition” DVD is four minutes longer than that. (Manhattan theaters ran “TMP” up to eight times daily during the first weeks of its run).

76. Dr. Cheis - April 18, 2013

In related news, it is now possible for a completed copy to leak onto the Internet.


77. Chris Hinchley - April 18, 2013

I love this site. Cheers Anthony!

78. Keachick - April 18, 2013

At my local Events cinema in Manukau, Auckland, NZ, the running time is 129 minutes. Hope that helps.

Wouldn’t there be an embargo placed on all those who attend these premieres from writing or speaking about the movie they watched for a specified length of time? I know that happened when the first premier of the Hobbit took place. It was placed on attendees by the studio.

What’s with the “suck face” slang? It is almost as bad as men calling their genitalia “junk”. Dehumanizing, rude and YUK

79. The Sinfonian - April 18, 2013

@76 Doubtful. Heck, they still haven’t gotten around to whatever they were planning to do with

80. Trekbilly - April 18, 2013

Still say Alex Proyas would be a fine choice to direct Star Trek 3.
If I were JJ, he would be my pick.

81. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

now id given it some deep and serious thought, Brett Ratner makes all kinds of sense to me

82. Rob Beckman - April 18, 2013

I didn’t see it mentioned, but does anyone know the official running time for STID?

83. Khan 2.0 - April 18, 2013

Paramount Pictures presents…..

A Brett Ratner Film……

Star Trek Into Destruction

84. Adam - April 18, 2013

Could Kenneth Branagh be tempted? He did a good job with Thor and has worked with Chris Pine

85. MC1 Doug - April 18, 2013

William Shatner is probably available to direct (ducking for cover).

86. Ted C - April 18, 2013

Good lord, Bad Robot is using that stupid red equal sign. Quinto probably talked them into it.

87. Trekbilly - April 18, 2013

Have any If you even seen an Alex Proyas film?

Just curious…lol

88. Keachick - April 18, 2013

I love that planking picture, especially with their backs to whatshisname Hans Solo…:)

(I believe that lying straight out on one stomach can aid the release of gases from the orifice)

I am still stunned, even mortified, at how seriously and angry many posters contributing here became at seeing this picture way back when…LOL!

(not sure whether to laugh or cry at the reaction).

89. Dswynne - April 18, 2013

For the last time, there are two timelines, and the stories of the previous timeline are DONE. Let’s explore the new timeline based on the JJ-Trek.

90. Phil - April 18, 2013

@88. People tend to react negatively when lied to….

Suliban, and it’s best to forget they ever existed….

91. Phil - April 18, 2013

@74. Well, to top it off Disney announced a SW movie a year, every year, starting in 2015, with Ep. in 2017. Not sure how many of these BR is going to be involved in, but I really don’t see this as a one and done deal on JJ’s part….

92. Keachick - April 18, 2013

Lied to? What – seeing a picture of Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman planking? People did over-react. Chances are that, no doubt being the average human males, they would spend more time each day on the toilet, than they would have planking. Sheesh.

I live with two, sometimes three, adult males. What’s more, I am the ONLY one who cleans…:( I doubt I am the exception.

93. Phil - April 18, 2013

@92. That selective amnesia you suffer from is really annoying. Yeah, lied to. No one would give a shit about stupid stunts, except for the fact these guys, when asked, kept insisting the story/script was about done when, in fact, they were working on it here and there between other projects. Considering how judgmental you get, if you are saying people over reacted, I’d surmise the response was appropriate.

94. Keachick - April 18, 2013

I am no more judgmental than anybody else, including you.

“kept insisting the story/script was about done when, in fact, they were working on it here and there between other projects.”

How were they lying? You mean to say that the two – (a) having a story/script about done and (b) working on it between doing other projects, are mutually exclusive. You mean, the story/script could not have been “about done” because they were “working on it here and there between other projects”? Do you realize just how stupid your argument is?

Of course, the story/script could have been “about done”, irrespective of how many other projects they worked on in between times.

If you are going to call Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman liars, at least, show a sound, logical reason for doing so. You have not done that.

95. Phil - April 18, 2013

@94. Please, enlighten us. What does ‘almost done’ mean to you? Most normal people understand this to mean a project or task is almost complete.

Well, I can show you articles spanning about a year and a half where one or the other of them were contending that the script was almost done. What part of that don’t you understand?

96. Red Dead Ryan - April 19, 2013

These guys kept procrastinating on the script for over a year. There were multiple times when they said they were almost done, when it turned out that they had actually only begun, but stopped for awhile because J.J Abrams was making “Super 8″.

So yeah, Keachick, you are in the wrong here.

97. Anthony Pascale - April 19, 2013

I cannot recall any time that Orci or Lindelof said they were done with the script. Here is what happened, they had completed an extensive outline but they didnt want to start drafting the script until they had input from Abrams, but he wasn’t able to dedicate the required time until he was done with Super 8. It was bad planning on Paramount and Bad Robot’s end. They (wrongfully) thought that between 2009 and 20012 they would be able to produce 3 feature films for Paramount (2 directed by JJ)- Super 8, MI4 and Star Trek Into Darkness. In the end it took four years.

98. Phil - April 19, 2013

In Feb 2011 Orci said that the first draft script was going to be ready in about six week for Paramount. In May 2011 that became the 70 page draft. It was about that time that industry news started to speculate that the 2012 release date was iffy, which turned out to be correct.

Look, these guys got to be the masters of oblique answers to those script/story/scheduling questions and they got away with it. Call it lying, procrastinating, obfuscation or whatever, people at some point came to understand they were not getting the whole story, and responded negatively. Entertainment news throughout 2011 reported on, contrary to the assertion from the lady from NZ that I’m making this all up, nor was this an overreaction, which is probably my point of contention. I agree, it was handled poorly by all parties, and a lot of those ill feelings could simply have been avoided if the BR people had been a bit more forthcoming in assessing their schedule. It is what it is at this point, and it seems that buzz is building for the next installment, so hopefully the wait was worth it.

99. "Streaming" Consciousness - April 19, 2013

Just sitting her watching Netflix, awesomely cheesy movie called Top Secret just showed up in their streaming library, noticed about halfway through that the evil german general was played by the same dude who played Captain Picard’s brother in the TNG ep Family.

Then I started watching Family in TNG and realized that one of my hopes for the new timeline is that Picard will not lose his family to a fire, which could well prevent him from being blinded to Soran’s intentions, and prevent the ignoble fall of Enterprise D and the death of James Kirk.

100. flake - April 19, 2013

Rebooted TNG will probably end up with a new ship that does not resemble the E-D or even the E-E !

101. flake - April 19, 2013

Doubt they would rehash the plot of Generations anyway, it would be epic fail if they tried.

102. Keachick - April 19, 2013

Phil – you accused me of having selective amnesia. I have never SELECTED to have amnesia. I have a mother who does have some amnesia because she is in the beginning stages of what is most likely alzheimers. It is f*cking horrible not to be able to remember things. Why would I want to “selectively” forget anything? Speak for yourself, not for me.

Since your memory appears to be so much clearer and better than mine, I quoted you and challenged what it was that you wrote, which I assume, was not due to your own “selective” memory. What you wrote and the conclusions you came to did not make sense and were not logical and I wrote accordingly.

On this thread, I wrote that I recalled the over-reaction to the picture of the writers planking, not about whether one of them said they had the story/script “about done”. It was you, Phil, who called the two writers out as liars…

103. Khan 2.0 - April 19, 2013

@61 so it will go down something like thus:

2013 – STID
2015 – SW Ep VII
2016 – ST3, Star Wars Origins: Han Solo
2017 – SW Ep VIII
2018 – Yoda movie
2019 – ST4, SW Ep IX
2020 – Boba Fett movie

104. Phil - April 19, 2013

@102. You selectively pick and choose your facts to serve whatever point you are trying to make, then launch into faux outrage over some non-related issue to deflect attention from the inadequacies of your point.

You are asserting that people overreacted to the delays in the script, which is flat out wrong. You refuse to answer the question, how do you define ‘almost done’. Then you attack anyone who dares to question your position. I’ve supported my position, and I’m done – no more pointless debating this with you. Either support your argument, or shut up.

105. Unwanted - April 19, 2013

@104. According to Professor Steve Mathewman from the University of Auckland, talking about the ridiculous overreaction by people in NZ over the 1 single solitary line of dialogue in the movie Argo that mentions NZ, quote.

“The strong reaction in New Zealand indicates the country remains insecure about its own culture, said Steve Matthewman, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Auckland. People are prone to bouts of unwarranted outrage when somebody from abroad says something bad about the country, he said, and simpering enjoyment when they say something good.”

This explains a lot I think. Link to article for proof the quote is real

106. Keachick - April 19, 2013

NB to all – one of the photos shown on this thread article was of the two writers doing what is called planking.

It was that photo that I was commenting on and what I recalled at the time when the photo was first published here.

It was Phil who went on about the writers lying etc. I don’t need to explain his own words “about done” or anything. He chose to segue from my comments about the planking picture into the time it took to write the script, not me. Since he called me for my “selective amnesia”, I chose to defer to him. I let him tell the story. What he wrote did not make sense and I said so.

No, you, Phil, “either support your argument (and it is YOUR argument), or shut up.”

107. Keachick - April 19, 2013

An article written by USA Today no less – an American publication/site.

All people of all nations can over-react to what others may see as minutiae. Curiously, apart from when the movie Argo first came to our attention and people rightly called it out, it got to become my guinea pigs bum paper quite some weeks back. I’m not sure who is still at this point upset about how the film actually *lied* about NZ, apart from Steve Mathewman perhaps.

If you are trying to use this piece of journalism to explain me, then don’t! It does not pay to try to cower me or *explain* me to other posters here by using generalizations made about people in general, whether it be in a sociological context or one where a diagnosis of some kind of para-social pathology or whatever is hinted at. It is out of line and in neither cases, is particularly relevant to me, as an individual.

*Now that this issue has been raised (not by me, I might add) – It would have been better to said nothing about NZ than to lie about the country, in saying that the NZ Embassy refused to help at all, which was patently untrue. Why did Ben Affleck (et al) feel the need to actually lie about a country?

108. Disinvited - April 19, 2013

#107. Keachick – April 19, 2013

I’ve never much cared for it, but it is a very common Hollywood practice to juice the dramatic tension in films based on “true” stories by introducing factual inaccuracies. The excuse often given is that there are only so many minutes of screen time and it is impossible to include all the facts anyway and therefore it is okay to “fudge” them to make the drama more palpable.

109. Unwanted - April 19, 2013

Firstly, the article might be from a us publication, but the person being quoted is a NZ citizen. Secondly, he is not talking about people in general, but NZ citizens specifically. Thirdly, your poorly written rant just proves my point as you could not refrain from jumping on the bandwagon to complain about 1 5 word line in one movie and acting like its actually something important, pathetic.

110. Unwanted - April 19, 2013

PS- Fourthly, I have seen posts from you including links to wikipedia articles about fictional characters that you claim explain the behavior of other posters here.

You did it to a guy who went by Azrael a while back, with alink to an article about a DC comics character with the same name.

If it is ok for you to post links to articles that you claim explain other posters, and it must be since you havent been banned, then it is ok for others to return the favor like I just did. The only difference is the article I linked to is actually composed of factual information, rather than works of fiction.

111. Anthony Pascale - April 19, 2013

the simple fact is that in the Spring of 2011 the writers were still being optimistic because they genuinely hoped they could get things going and get the movie made by summer 2012. They had done everything they could do…they were not procrastinating. They were waiting. Big difference.

Look at what they said in June of 2011

Damon and Bob were clear
Lindelof: our attitude for the sequel in order for it to be successful is that we sort of have to form that [group of all of us together] again. So we were kind of waiting and now the moment is upon us where JJ has done Super 8.

Orci: JJ and Bryan’s little side-project is over and now we can have their attention.

They had their massive script/outline thing that they tinkered with but not until JJ could focus could they really produce the first draft and go into pre-production. They could have done that any time in the spring of 2011 and the movie would have come out on time, but JJ simply couldn’t give them the time. But they weren’t going to publicly say ‘we arent going to make it’ until it past the point of no return, which was by June/July.

The delay of the movie was all about Super 8 and MI4, not the writers.

112. Phil - April 20, 2013

@106. Your comment was that you didn’t understand the negative reaction to the picture, then proceeded to attack those people.

I explained it to you. It was that point you started bloviating, again, in your usual fashion. AP even offered up commentary, which was a hellva lot more precise then anything you said. Looking over what he posted, and comments from others, generally, they are in agreement, except to what extent the writers and producers other projects contributed to the delay. To that end, we are free to disagree.

You, on the other hand, offered nothing but judgments and insults, and your words stand on their own lack of merit. My argument has been supported, and I’m done…on to the next topic.

113. Keachick - April 20, 2013

Your argument has not been supported at all. What you wrote was this –

Post #90 – “@88. People tend to react negatively when lied to….”

I queried about the lying (your word, not mine), given that I was referring to the picture about planking.

Your reply –
Post #93 – “That selective amnesia you suffer from is really annoying. Yeah, lied to. No one would give a shit about stupid stunts, except for the fact these guys, when asked, kept insisting the story/script was *ABOUT DONE when, in fact, they were working on it here and there between other projects.”

As I wrote before, I deferred to your obviously fully operative memory (mine being what you described as “selective”) and pointed out the error of your reasoning, to the post quoted above.

Your own vapidity does not allow you to understand the silliness of your own reasoning and conclusions you made and make about the *facts* that you yourself presented.

As for Professor Mathewman, the reality is that he could have easily been referring to almost any country’s citizenry. He chose to discuss attitudes of people within his own country who, by no means, represent all of the NZ citizenry. Actually, most people here were not perturbed at all. If memory serves, it was the actual people who risked their lives to rescue the hostages who call out this movie for its lies and why the hell shouldn’t they?

Because I do offer an opinion on a topic I did NOT raise and actually had little bearing whatsoever on this discussion, I get called out again.


114. Phil - April 20, 2013

@113. I know what I wrote. Reference post 98, argument supported. If you take exception to the word lying that’s your choice. Others did as well, and supported it much more elegantly then you. You pointed out nothing, other then that your capacity to run your mouth without saying anything intelligent seems to know no bounds. Again, I’m done. Feel free to share what ‘almost done’ actually means, as it’s definition in your mind seems to differ from everyone elses….

115. Ted C - April 20, 2013

Ok, this movie looks good, anxious so see it but for the next one, should there be one, can we please PLEASE leave Earth. You know, five year mission, strange new worlds, seek out new life…remember? Love ya J.J. but come on… the first one formed the crew and launched the ship, that worked….. but let’s do Star Trek next time.

116. Trek Fan - April 20, 2013

115. Ted C

Umm. In this movie we know that they visit Nibiru and Kronos. So… ummm… that IS leaving Earth.

In 2009 they were on Vulcan and Delta Vega.

The only movie that was mostly based on Earth was TVH. Although they were on Vulcan at the beginning.

117. Keachick - April 20, 2013

Perhaps it is better to ask Bob Orci or Alex Kurtzman what your description of what “almost done” means, since that is how you described where they were at with the story/script, in the same time period as when their notorious planking took place.

Phil – it seems that constantly insulting another person’s intelligence is about the only way you can “prove” your own silly posts. Read this as you wish.

Please do not speak to me again. You are on ignore. God, if only…:(

118. Phil - April 20, 2013

@117. Apparently you are not insulted, as nothing you have said is intelligent.

Wanna bet? You are incapable of not taking shots at those who don’t gree with you…


119. Keachick - April 20, 2013

It was your term “about done”. You explain it.

I guess it takes someone who is intelligent to know another. Clearly, you have proved yourself not to be one of those people.

I told you not to speak to me. Now, be gone.

120. Phil - April 20, 2013

I have. Your turn.

121. Hakka - April 22, 2013

Yeah. May 13. Don’t make me start. I’m Italian and here hits screen in middle June…

122. Mr. Zoom - April 25, 2013

In case no one has noticed …. if you click “Film Credits” at the bottom of, the pop-up box, along with the film credits, confirms that Into Darkness has indeed received a rating of PG-13. The rating description says it is for “Intense Sequences of Sci-Fi Action and Violence”. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.