Star Trek Revitalization (and JJ Abrams) Cited As Part Of Paramount Success Story

2009 has been a good year for Paramount Pictures. Thanks to winners like Star Trek, Transformers 2, Paranormal Activity and GI Joe the studio is ranked #2 with $1.5 B for the year, but with fewer films than any of its rivals. Today the New York Times takes a closer look at the studio and its chief Brad Grey, who gives an update on plans for JJ Abrams’ and Star Trek’s future.


Star Trek seen as part of Paramount success story
After lots of cost-cutting, and with the summer movies all coming out on home video (including Star Trek), the NY Times reports that Paramount’s fourth quarter is looking good. According to Paramount chairman Brad Grey it will be "the biggest" for the studio ever. The NY Times quotes media analyst Richard Greenfield, saying of the studio (and Trek):

"They’re now gaining some momentum in finding their own franchises,” said Mr. Greenfield, who pointed to the revitalization of the longstanding “Star Trek” series as an achievement akin to Warner’s rebooting of the “Batman” films.

Grey says that Paramount is now looking to do about a dozen of its own films per year, and he is looking to JJ Abrams to be a big part of that. Here is another except:

As for J. J. Abrams, a producer and the director of “Star Trek,” Mr. Grey is looking for “Star Trek 2.” And “Mission: Impossible IV.” And possibly before either, what he called another “tentpole” film to be directed by Mr. Abrams, and yet to be announced.

Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone, JJ Abrams and Paramount CEO Brad Grey at the Hollywood Star Trek premiere in April

Abrams other movie?
Although some other sites are picking up on this article as big news about a ‘secret JJ Abrams project’, JJ has spoken about the film before, including during his Star Trek DVD press conference and recent interview with Abrams is writing the film, but there are no details on what that film is about. Abrams did tell TrekMovie that this other film would preclude him from directing MI4 (which goes into production in 2010), but he could still be available to direct the second Star Trek film (if he chooses to do so), which goes into production (probably) in 2011. In another recent TrekMovie interview, Abrams stated he expects the Star Trek sequel to be released in the summer of 2012.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Let the countdown to 2012 begin!

3 years between movies being released is too long. Not because we can’t wait for it, but simply because it is tremendously unappealing to see the actors age at 3 years a pop between visits with them as our beloved crew. There should be a new Trek film every 2 years, tops. With no other Star Trek being produced, there’s no threat of overexposure. This is what happens when a producer spreads themselves too thin with too many projects on the go. Hollywood gets it wrong as usual!

i agre three year is to long after all a lot of the set or built the team been put together, the hard work has been done

Seeing as how 2011 will be a crowded summer, waiting till 2012 is a good idea. Even though the sequel would make money, it would also have a smaller piece of the pie with “Transformers 2”, “Spider-Man 4”, “Pirates of The Carribean 4” and “The Avengers” taking big slices themselves. 2012 would mean a bigger piece of the pie for a franchise that still mainly relies on support from the die-hard fans, something that the aformentioned movies aren’t burdened with. But hopefully, CBS and or Paramount makes a direct-to-dvd movie or t.v miniseries featuring the cast of “Enterprise” set during the Romulan Wars. But I don’t think it will happpen though. At least not without a vigorous write-in campaign.

Stop calling the next one Star Trek 2, As I keep saying there is already a Star Trek II its called The Wrath of Khan

Please call it Star Trek XII

However, this is great that Trek will continue to be strong.

Yes I hate a lot of the changes that Abrams made to my fav show but he did make a good movie . Roll on Trek XII

I am more concenrned about Trek staying popular and new fans watching the stuff that came before.

The ‘three years is too long’ crowd evidently hasn’t come near movie production, EVER…

Nemesis- 3 years= too long, TNG lost steam and appeal so long after


Nonsense. Look at the James Bond franchise. From 1962-1989 the producers faithfully cranked out a new Bond film every two years on average. And that’s with changing the lead actor three times along the way. Let’s put it this way…..if Hollywood HAD to make a new Trek film once every two years, they COULD do it, and it would be good. They simply elect NOT to…..fat cats like to stroll, not moving quickly unless they HAVE to!

Are you going to admit that the talent in Hollywood, over twenty years ago, could do something that the current “genius” crowd can’t?

Nah, 3 years is not too long to wait! the crow that says this forgets we waited 6 years for a good Trek Movie and we got it. now I know 3 years is a long time but the crowds will be back and so will the fans.
A Director and Actors Don’t want to get type-cast, if you do it every 2 years they run the risk of burn out sooner rather then later. look what back to back DS9,VOY,ENT did to Trek on TV. We don’t want JJ to burn people out, because Trek needs new blood to Survive and Thrive in the 21st Century!

All this and they still won’t spend the money to provide decent packaging for their DVDs and BluRays.

@10 Jeyl:

Never judge a book by its cover, good person.

#7- tng became unpopular before nemesis. crank out a movie like insurrection combined with the downward slope of the franchise and there you have it.
#8- um dude, there are so many crappy/half-assed james bond movies compared to the good ones. i pray star trek never goes that route (granted it almost did). james bond went the same way the batman franchise did before its reboot. 3yrs isnt too long as long as the next movie is good.

I think three years between films is acceptable, if they really pushed they could do it in two but do we want a movie that’s rushed into production or do we want the best Trek movie possible?!

#5 I agree it annoys me when the next film is refferred to as Star Trek 2, ít’s Star Trek XII and below is a teaser trailer:

I know it’s old but it makes me laugh every time! ROFL

star trek 2 the wrath of the conned.

Three years between movies? If they had not shut down ST the Experience, we could at leats meet there. The Experience was making more money than the floor space is now!

Thank goodness Phase II and other fan projects are working hard to keep ST alive. Phase II have three completed episodes that are in post production now.

@11: “Never judge a book by its cover, good person.”

You don’t want me to judge this book. You do not. Cause then I wouldn’t be a good person.

I’d rather have really good Trek films every 3 years than mediocre ones every 2.

Viacom/Paramount made a boneheaded decision in 2008 to start its own pay movie channel, Epix, rather than re-sign with Showtime. Instead of receiving income from CBS/Showtime, Viacom sank millions into a white elephant cable channel with limited coverage; as of now, Epix is available only on Verizon FiOS TV. Plus, Epix is one channel, for about $10 a month. HBO has seven or eight channels, Showtime has eight, and Starz/Encore has about 14 channels. Making Epix’s pricing a definite rip-off.

Hey..that is great.

Now get Les Moonves and CBS to get on the ball and get a new Star Trek TV series from Abrams/Bad Robotgoing and tie it into the MMO

Speaking as a filmmaker, I can say that comparing Bond to Trek is like apples and oranges. Yes, Bond films have a lot of special effects (explosions, gunfire, rockets, missles…) but a lot of these are called practical effects, meaning they actually take place on-set during principal photography. (Then you have films like DESPERADO, which put all the bullets in later…)

Trek has always utilized more optical effects, which take much longer to produce. And that’s going to be the main reason why you have three years between films. You’re not going to be able to use much (or any) of the shots from JJTrek for the second JJTrek because they were all too specific to the story. Unless you figure out a reason for them to hide near Saturn again…

Abrhams DESTROYED Star Trek and turned it into a Homer Simpson mentality, CGI-laden fireworks display. Abrahms is a Star Wars fan. Star Wars was and is not Star Trek. He’d succeeded on bringing Star Trek DOWN to the level of Star Wars, to satisfy HIS interests. Star WArs was ACTION. Star Trek is DRAMA.
Anyone who liked the new Star Trek is one of the HOMER SIMPSON MENTALITY, majority.
The fact that the majority of the USA is letting President Obama go against everything he promised prior to election such as escalating the “war on terrorism”, and buddying up with the Bankers, and pushing the New World Order agenda closer to completion (listen to Alex Jones) proves it all. Homer Simpson would be too dumb to even know that he is too dumb to know. THIS IS THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. A POPULATION THAT LIKED THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE AND STILL THINKS OBAMA IS TRYING TO DO GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE. Hate to mix the two but they are inescapable.

inescapable = inseparateble – TYPO

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t they have to start filming in late 2010 to have the film out by summer 2012?

#20 – Give me a break. Could you be any more wrong?

ST:09 was great. Period. It was what I, as a life long Star Trek fan, and a life long Star Wars fan (you can be both), basically a fan of good, entertaining sci fi, have been praying and begging for.

For far too long Star Trek was a low budget franchise with movies that were barely more than a 1 1/2 tv episode shown on a movie screen. There was very little that was done in the movie that hadn’t been done in the tv show, or couldn’t. The effects were often re-used, or were barely above tv standards. The stories might have been good, but the production quality made the whole thing feel like it was not worth the price of admission.

I have been wishing for years that someone would bring Star Trek into the blockbuster category. That someone would not only write a great story, but spend the money to make it an epic event worthy of the big screen.

When I saw Matrix I was blown away. Loved it. and the first thought in my mind was “man i wish someone would make Star Trek that cool.” Because Star Trek was always my main love, but I always envisioned what it could be if someone really put some backing/money into it.

And they finally did. ST:09 is what i’ve been waiting sine ST:II for. I real Star Trek movie, not a tv show on a movie screen. An event. Something I wanted to watch over and over. Something the blew me away.


Now I can’t wait for the next one!

3 years is the standard traditional timeframe between big budget movies and sequels. Star Wars is the prime example, and I am sure they will always want to emulate Star Wars. >;>}. If they had it all planned out already scriptwise, they could shorten that time potentially, but it sounds like they are not ready with a script yet, so at least 3 years.
And #20 – duh. >;>}

#22 – I don’t think so. Remember ST:09 was actually completed around November 2008. I think they started pre-production the year before, but principle photography didn’t start until around January 2008 I believe.

There will be some new sets to build and such, but alot of the Enterprise sets, the ship model, costumes, props, etc. are already there, so pre-production should be shorter. But I think principle photography for ST:09 was something like 8 months.

22. They have should have a script by 2010, along with casting and pre production done by sometime that year. But they can start filming early or mid 2011 and still make a 2012 release date. It just depends on if the movie will be released in the summer or winter of 2012. Hopefully summer of 2012. Because if the world ends on 12/12/ 2012 and I dont get to see the new Star Trek movie, I will be pissed.

If the story is great, I will wait 3 years to see the next film. I would much rather have them take there time on creating a really good story then something that is rushed into production. The next film has gotten to be has good has this last or better. The first movie was important in showing that Star Trek is back and can be bankable again. But the next film has to show that it was just not a one time thing.

2012 is acceptable to me. It’s not like we will not have anything Trek related between now and then. STO comes out next year, we’ll have new books, comics, and who knows what else between now and then. If Star Trek really is part of Paramounts new success, they will not let it go flat between now and 2012.

27. Serenity

And there’ll be plenty of bickering in here to keep us all enthused. ;-)

#20-uhmmmmmmmmmm, what?

Great for Paramount keep rolling out good star trek movies and you will be fine.

To anyone who thinks that three years is too long… from a production sense, no it isn’t. It’s frankly amazing that Star Trek III and IV were as good as they were (how good is the subject of debate) with only two years between them. But the results were ILM running into the very last months–even weeks–for everything to come together. Deadlines are effectively what killed TMP. I would rather wait another year for a better product than have a half-assed movie.

(Also, to whoever was talking about their age… really, the characters would only be aging about 2 years, given the lag between wrapping up photography, then postproduction, editing and release).

while 3 year gaps between films insures no franchise fatigue like in the past it’s too long & you loose momentum- JJ is being selfish & irresponsible – just like rick berman before him who held onto trek long after he had run out of steam- JJ if ur not committed to a sequel give it to someone else who can get it done in time instead of putting it off while u spread urself thinly over different projects.

I will gladly wait until 2012 for a quality film. The reboot was well done. Yes, there were some plot wholes, but they got the characters right and made Star Trek fun again. (Nemesis was not fun.)

The real challenge with Star Trek movies is making them feel like movies. Too many Trek films felt like two-parter episodes. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Insurrection just fine, but it would have worked just as well on the small screen.

If JJ and company can make a Trek epic every three or four years, I’ll take it.

In the mean time, I would like to see a cutting-edge animated series. I think that is the best way to bring Trek back to TV w/o watering down the brand. Animation doesn’t need a huge special effects budget to work.

plot holes, not plot wholes

Oh, and number 20, are you mad because a dingo ate your baby?

#8 Harry Balz: “We’ve got to get up to the control room”!

If the quality is there, 3 years is fine. Frankly, aging the cast 3 years is fine so long as we are catching them a few years down the road.

#20 Proof that free speech is a mistake, because I felt I was owed at least $20 to read that rambling post of yours.

to 20: Spinxx

I disagree with you.
I remember siting in the theatre saying to myself: “please don’t suck! cause if it does, this will be the last trek EVER”
Trek 2009 definitely didnt suck. It ranks up there with TWOK.
I’ve watched it multiple times at home and I notice things I didn’t notice from the previous viewings.
My friends and family who are Trek fans LOVED the film. My friends and family who are casual fans LOVED the film. My friends and family who called previous Treks a “DorkFest” LOVED the film
Yes its true I didn’t like the engineering sets and that little troll who hung out with Scotty but Trek has been REVIVED again.
Thanks to the Supreme Court.
Spinxx, I would suggest you watch the film again.
It gets better with repeated viewings

I like the film but it is by no means the best

TWOK, FC and TUC are much much better films

I just dont like people forgetting about what came before.

20 It has not been dumbed down to Homer Simpson mentality but I do agree that this is Trek dumbed down from the way I like it. However I still think its a great fun movie.

Please just don’t forget what came before

Shatner and the originals will always be the best versions.

I hope Star Trek 2.0 is slated for the summer of 2012. I’d like to see it before the end of the world in December 2012. :)

As for the three year window between films….it didn’t seem to hurt the interest and appeal of another famed series of movies with “Star” in the title.

However, I hope after the first sequel Paramount will be open to producing other Trek-related material to fill in the gaps between the “flagship” series featuring the Enterprise and crew. I’d love to learn more about the adventures of the USS Kelvin before the Narada attack. I’m sure a story about Vulcan refugees and Spock Prime would be riviting. Admiral Pike’s next story could be a stand alone film…perhaps taking him to Talos IV? Hmmmmmmm? If the Marvel Universe can spring from Iron Man on to Captian American, Thor and the Avengers and be seen as a conhesive whole, why not the Star Trek Universe?


I agree with you about Obama, but with your comments about the new movie….you’re completely wrong and you just need to go away.

@ 7

I have to disagree with you. ST:TNG movies lost steam and appeal because they weren’t “event” movies. They were bloated two part TV episodes at best. And I’m sorry to say that. I seem to be a rare Trek fan that likes it in all of various incaranations.

I dragged people from work early to see the first showing of Insurrection. I was a bit embarrassed afterwards because of their tepid reaction to a bland movie. One that I’d been building up all week.

And Nemesis was practically a franchise-killer. It had nothing to do with the wait between movies…IMHO. If the quality of production and storytelling is there, people will want to see come and see it…no matter how long they have to wait. (Sometimes they’ll go despite a long wait even without the above…i.e. The Phantom Menace and Indiana Jones and The Crystal Skull.)

well, spider man on average has 3 years between fims and it still does extremely well (you know, breaking world records for the time and all)


For some odd reason, the opening shots of the Enterprise in The Cage, with the original effects, are presented in black and white. To my knowledge, these were always presented in full color on the other editions. The titles and bridge inside the ship was in color, but the ship itself was in black and white. Somebody call the management!

As I said before I would rather wait for a good quality trek movie then one madeof waste made in haste. As for the crew aging it happens to all of us

As long as the next movie comes before the end of the world in December in 2012!

Long waits are usually a sign of a troubled production history (see Indiana Jones 4). Such delays merely raise expectations to unrealistic levels. And they are rarely justified. All three Lord of the Ring movies were shot simultaneously. That trilogy turned out really well despite the hectic shooting schedule.

Sorry, folks, but waiting three years for a movie from your supposed flagship franchise just doesn’t make sense.

It’s not about ‘rushing’ a movie to production, its about which franchise has the studio’s priority. No franchise sitting at the end of a three-year production queue can be said to be a priority.

Dunno what kind of dynamics are going on at Paramount, but I *hate* to see this kind of delay after so much effort was rolled up into brining new life back to Trek. Consummately disappointing.