Last month, on the same day that Paramount announced they picked the release date of June 29th, 2012 for the Star Trek sequel, Sony announced they were rebooting the Spider-man franchise for 2012. Today Sony announced they want to take on Trek by picking July 3rd, 2012 as their release date. They also announced the next Spider-man will be in 3D. Will Star Trek follow in the 3-D Trek?
Spidey takes on Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise — 4th of July week 2012
In 2012 the 4th of July holiday falls on a Wednesday. Last month Paramount picked Friday June 29th for the release date of the Star Trek sequel to take advantage of the holiday. Well Sony wants in on the action and so today announced Tuesday July 3rd to release their reboot of the Spider-man franchise. After talks broke down for a fourth Spidey film with director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire, Sony decided to reboot the franchise. Spider-man 3 was the #1 domestic box office earner in 2007, with $336 million. The previous two Spidey films were also mega-blockbusters, with all three bringing in a total of just under $2.5 billion worldwide.
However, according to The Hollywood Reporter, this new Spidey film is "very different from the big movies that went before it". The film is said to have a much smaller budget (around $80M) and will be "pared down to center on a high school kid who is dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though the teen had the power to stop it". The focus will be more in line with the recent "Ultimate Spider-Man" comics where "villain-fighting took a back seat to the high school angst."
Regardless, It is interesting that Sony has taken such a step. As of now there are quite a few open weekends in the Summer of 2012. In fact, before this announcement the only June or July date that had been set was for the Star Trek sequel. Sony could have picked plenty of open weekends, but instead chose to launch their Spider-man four days after Paramount’s second Star Trek. That being said, it is not unusual for multiple big movies to vie for that weekend. This year three big movies are opening on the July 4th weekend, with The Twilight Saga: Eclipse opening June 30th and the Tom Cruise film Knight & Day and The Last Airbender opening July 2nd.
Of course, headed into May 2009 there was lots of Talk about Trek not being able to take on Wolverine, Angels & Demons Night at the Museum 2, and Terminator Salvation, but in the end the new Star Trek beat all of those films at the domestic box office and all but Angels & Demons for total global box office.
Paramount now has a decision to make. Will they stick with the current plan and go head to head with Spider-man, or pick one of the other open weekends in June or July 2012.
Spidey goes 3-D, is Trek next?
Sony also announced the new Spider-man will be in 3D, and it is just the latest film that seems to be headed that way in the post-Avatar world. A number of other upcoming big movies will be in 3D, including the next entries from the Transformers and Harry Potter franchises. It is unknown if the Star Trek sequel will follow suit, but there is a distinct possibility. Producer JJ Abrams spoke about 3D Trek last October, at the Star Trek DVD press conference:
Question: Any chance of you shooting the next Star Trek film in 3-D?
JJ Abrams: It is funny. Paramount talked to me about doing the first one in 3-D and, having it only be my second film, I was petrified just at the addition–I thought it would be another dimension of pain-in-the-ass. I thought I would be like, "oh my god, I just want to make a decent 2-D movie.” I was so worried that, instead of being a decent 2-D movie, it would have been a bad 3-D one. So I’m open to looking at it because now I feel a little bit more comfortable and, if I, in fact, direct the sequel to our Star Trek film, 3-D could be really fun, so I’m open to it. What I’ve seen of Avatar makes me want to do it, because it’s so crazy-cool looking.
Interestingly, a recent poll here at TrekMovie showed that fans were split on the notion, but a plurality was against it. Here are the results
Should Star Trek sequel be in 3D?
* Yes (34%)
* Unsure (23%)
* No (43%)
My bet (not based on any sources) is that the next Trek will be 3D. If Abrams was talking positively about it three months ago, it can only be stronger now in the post-Avatar world. Plus if Paramount wanted the first Trek in 3D, they are likely to really want the second one to be 3D. Especially if they have to go head to head with a 3D Spidey.
I hate Sony
Trek in 3D would be awesome. I’ve never been a fan of the processes of the past, but the one used for Avatar was wonderful. The glasses were comfortable. The ViewMaster effect felt organic, not like Monster Chiller Horror Theatre’s ‘Dr. Tongue’s House of Wax in 3D.’
Done with care, 3D appears to be coming of age… and after only 60 years or so…
I suspect it will be in 3-D, its the natural progession.
Trek 3D would be great. The format has NO impact on the content of the movie AND you would still have the option of seeing it non-3D in theaters at the same time — just as is the case with Avatar now.
It would be…the best of both worlds.
Bring it. There’s not a single reason not to do it!
Forgot to say — they should call the next Spiderman — Spiderman R.I.P. because 3D or not I have zip zero nada interest in Spiderman without either Sam Raimi or James Cameron at the helm or the actors we’ve come to accept in these roles.
Arg! I totally dislike 3-D films. They give me migraines – I find it annoyingly distracting – and wearing the “all size fits all” glasses (which really don’t fit small heads like mine) over my own glasses is a pain (They slide down my nose constantly) – and tickets are more expensive so I won’t be going to see it more than once – and it increases the cost of filming so that other important things might get cut or shorted (like music, costumes, sets, etc.)
All so we can have more bells and whistles and “cool” effects… and more temptation just to put in additional “cool” effects that do nothing to improve the overall film.
Please, forget the “COOL” factor and focus on things that actually matter – like a great plot and characters we care about. Make a good film and you don’t NEED 3-D to get people into the theater….
I think the big wigs might be surprised to find out how many people really DO NOT LIKE 3-D and have trouble being able to watch films in which 3-D is a feature.
Don’t kid yourself. Spidey has the potential to be huge. A new take, for a younger demographic. This will be a HUGE holiday weekend if both these films make their debut.
To me there is a big difference in conventional 3D and what Cameron did with Avatar. I have a feeling that most of this 3D surge will be more the former and not the latter.
“Arg! I totally dislike 3-D films. They give me migraines – I find it annoyingly distracting – and wearing the “all size fits all” glasses”
Then don’t go to it…walk yourself to the theater room #3 (where they’d show it in 2D) instead of say, theater #2 (where they’d be showing in 3D).
Why is this concept so hard for people to understand? It’s the same as those opposed to Remastered Trek…if you don’t like it, don’t watch it! Watch your old DVDs or watch the old ones that are included in the Blu-Ray set…it’s not an either-or. ::rolls eyes::
Anyway, nobody would be forcing you to see Trek in 3D anymore than I’d be forced to see a Raimi-less Spiderman movie.
I would simply choose not to go see it — even if it broke Avatar’s record, I have no interest in a Raimi-less Spiderman. For one, I’m more of a Sam Raimi fan than a Spiderman fan and, two…I don’t like the way SONY Pictures treated a great director!
So, I don’t care if it makes ten dollars or ten billion…SONY won’t be getting my money.
You are going down Sony, Kirk is gonna punch your new whinny young Peter Parker back to grade school.
Seems like a silly gimmick to me. It probably helps something like Avatar, which is all style and no substance, but I can’t see what advantage it will bring to a movie with some depth- which hopefully Star Trek will continue to be.
Humans in real life perceive most of the world in 2D. We get most of our depth perception from cues like scaling; stereoscopic vision only comes into play at close quarters. I see little advantage to being given the illiusion that Spock’s head is twenty feet tall and three feet away, especially if, as it seems from #6, it’s going to trigger one of my migraines.
James, you may well prove to be right. Still, it’s too much fun to jeer at the prospect of “High School Spidermusical IV,” starring Zach and Cody.
I love Sony !!!
Okay, I’m pissed at Sony for dicking around with Raimi. And yeah…this is going to be serious competition for Trek.
I’d hate to see Spidey go down, but in this case, I hope Trek kicks his web-slingin’ @$$.
Meanwhile, I was not taken by Avatar’s 3-D. I don’t think I want more 3-D in movies…but it’s inevitable.
Now that films can be made 3-D post production and some older films like ghostbusters will be re-released 3-D, how about TWOK? I would love to see Enterprise come up from under Reliant in 3-D. For that matter First Contact would be excellent in 3-D.
I would love to see a substance movie like Star Trek go with 3D. The special effects of the ships and the consoles/planets would be so awesome. Just nothing gimicky where stuff starts flying off at you and you have to hide, as long as it is done to showcase the Enterprise and add depth, I am for it.
The only thing that may appeal to me in a 3-D Trek would be an epic space battle. But see…..J.J.’s style involves a lot of moving and shaking of the camera and would be hard to track in 3-D. I have the same fears about Transformers 3 being in 3-D.
I agree that I have the option to see it 2-D or 3-D in the theater, but I also agree that it would increase budget cost that can go into other places….like special effects.
I’d be pro-3D Trek except for one reason…the lens flares. To be 3D it would be shot on digital, not film with an anamorphic lens. So it would make a difference to 2D viewing.
Oh, and I’m not sold on post-production 3-D. Seems like they would make it look like 3-D cardboard cut outs than have true depth of field…..but I’ve yet to see a movie that was done that way, so I’ll hold off on my judgement.
“I’d be pro-3D Trek except for one reason…the lens flares. To be 3D it would be shot on digital, not film with an anamorphic lens. So it would make a difference to 2D viewing.”
VERY good point. J.J. loves realism…and not shooting conventional may take that away.
I think just as there has always been an audience for the various comics versions of Superman, Batman and Spiderman, etc., there will always be an audience for film versions of these characters. No doubt, the 3d aspect of Spiderman will be part of what, I imagine, the studio will use to lure the audience back to Spidey.
IMO, the first Spiderman film was pretty good, while 2 and 3 were just trying too hard. The problem, I think, is that it is too soon to re-do Spiderman. We have to go through the “how he became Spiderman” story all over again? I hope not, but that was the impression I got.
As for 3d, it’s pretty cool, but I honestly think it should be reserved for “specialty” kinds of shows, rather than just churn out one 3d film after another… and then 3d ceases to be “cool,” after it’s been done to death. I agree with #14 (Third R), it seems inevitable that more and more films will be done in 3d. I don’t have anything against 3d — or Star Trek being done in 3d — but it’s a gimmick I believe will get old, and then it will be back to the “retro” look of 2d films. How many audiophiles still prefer good ole fashioned vinyl?
One more thought……..not every movie theater is going to want to show a bunch of movies in BOTH 2-D and 3-D. Not enough screens. Especially if there are multiple movies out at the time.
I did not like the 3D of Avatar. Things I wanted to focus on were blurred by the process. I realize I can just go see the 2D version, but I am letting @boborci and crew know; don’t 3D for me.
Unless Jolene Blalock plays T’Pring. Then I want 3D.
If they only make one 3D Trek film as a novelty — explain how it can get old? I don’t think they should ALL be in 3D.
Spider Man without Rami will be a schumaker Batman level mistake!
#22 — They may not, but most towns have more than one theater. LOL!!!
See…I can justify 3D umpteen jillion ways! LOL!!!
I don’t know about anyone else, but “Avatar” in 3D gave me a headache that didn’t go away for two days. Never again 3D for me.
Spider-Man Re-Reboot will probably be big, but the combination of a third movie that nobody really loved and a messy change in cast and director will definitely give Star Trek 2012 a chance of beating it.
#23 — LMAO!! Yes, indeed! If Jolene is in the film — it’s a must that it be in 3D!
3D for the Double D! LOL!!!
They could call it Star Trek: 3D for Double D
#8, Good point. Cameron redefined 3D. I have never enjoyed the effect so much, which simply became another dimension of the film, like sound, color, and occasionally was used to good effect without pulling me out of the movie.
But I’ve no doubt Star Trek will be 3D (Avatar saw to that), and likely a little more conventional. As Avatar, Up and Night at the Museum (which beat Trek at the international box office BTW) showed us, audiences have overwhelmingly embraced 3D and are more than willing to pay top dollar if it is a good film (and even if it isn’t according to some critics).
Sadly for the few who can’t tolerate it, the profit offset will most likely make their attendance moot – though I do expect by 2012, 3D will be enough of the norm that the cost will be offset somewhat by sheer numbers. And there will always be a few 2D theaters playing it, or they can wait for the DVD.
Hope Abrams hires himself a good DP. At least this way the shakey camera and lens flares will likely go away (unless he figures out a revolutionary way to add them effectively to 3D LOL).
Even if it comes out in 3D I doubt I’d see it in that format. I’d probably opt for the cheaper, non-migraine-causing 2D format.
It’s up to you guys, Abrams and friends, but the most fabulous movies have been made without 3D. It’s okay. I won’t mind if it’s made in 2D!
And…I saw UP in 2D and it didn’t lose a thing! So, the film can be released in both formats for people to choose which version they want to see.
“Then don’t go to it…walk yourself to the theater room #3 (where they’d show it in 2D) instead of say, theater #2 (where they’d be showing in 3D).”
Except in my town, Avatar was ONLY shown in 3-D in our one theater. If I wanted to see it in 2-D I would have had to drive 45 minutes away… so it isn’t quite that simple.
And this still does not address the additional COST of 3-D production – cost that means something else gets shafted.
#21. “it’s a gimmick I believe will get old, and then it will be back to the “retro” look of 2d films. How many audiophiles still prefer good ole fashioned vinyl?”
No, 3D is an evolving dimension of film – it is an integral part of vision and it will just keep getting better and better. Just like Black & White photography still has a place in photography, so too will 2D films. But by and large the Summer popcorn films will likely all be told in 3D because of the added element with which to thrill audiences. And Star Trek is a Summer popcorn franchise now.
As for your vinyl analogy, yeah, those audiophiles and their vinyl are really driving the record business. Just look at Apple’s iVinyl store! That vinyl is really raking in the big bucks! LOL Yup, comparison DOA.
“Sadly for the few who can’t tolerate it, the profit offset will most likely make their attendance moot…”
I am not sure it is just ” a few”…. this discussion has come up in other forums before, and almost half the respondants had trouble viewing 3-D films… I suspect the numbers may be higher, but many people have yet to SEE a 3-D film.
Paramount should move Trek. Say all you want about how Trek XI did really well against some big movies, but none of those were even close to the juggernaut that the Spider-man franchise is. SM3 opened with $151 million over three days (the #2 movie that weekend made $5.8 million).
#32 — Oh…that sucks. You should have freedom of choice baybee yeah!
And so should I! Mwahahahaha!!!!
In the “overseas” market Terminator and Wolverine was much better than Star Trek. I think Spiderman will be even more attractive to people than those other films. So if Star Trek and Spiderman will also start shortly after each other outside of the USA, Star Trek will be only the second choice for most people.
And if both movies are in 3D, cinema operators must often decide which of those movies to show in 3D and which only in 2D. There are many cinemas with only one hall, which has 3D. And as Spider Man is in most countries more popular than Star Trek, Star Trek would be again at a disadvantage.
Star Trek is only on place 21 in the overseas total yearly box office list.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/weekend/yearly/
That is really bad for an expensive blockbuster. With Spider Man as a competitor, I don’t think they can improve those numbers much.
It would be kinda cool, but I don’t think star trek has to fall under that fad, but considering all the bloody media hype, Hollywood, Madison Ave….its inevitable. Great it was fun seeing Avatar in 3D but it was not a big deal. I am not going to every buy a 3D TV where I have to wear glasses to watch something….no thanks. I am happy with my Plasma, Blu-ray, and surround sound…Star Trek looks soooo great. I am looking forward to an OLED TV way before I would give a darn about 3D. 3D is quaint, thats about it.
I think some people are assuming they will be forced to see movies in 3D, Avatar is available in 2D. I suspect that if Star Trek sequel is in 3D, there will still be a 2D version available.
33-
Just like Black & White photography still has a place in photography, so too will 2D films.
The difference being, looking at a colour photograph never involved having to wear a silly pair of special glasses that make some peoples’ eyes go funny.
And, as I sort of said above, stereoscopy is a subtle effect people aren’t normally aware of. If the world around you suddenly went monochrome, you’d really notice. Now shut one of your eyes. Does the world look drastically different? No, it doesn’t. You treat your vision as a 2D panorama, and the stereoscopic effect is only really useful for interacting with it. It’s handy when you’re threading a needle. But it’s not something you experience; it’s at a lower level.
So to produce a 3D effect that’s worthwhile in a movie, you have to keep flinging things at the viewer to remind them the awesome effect is there. Which is fine if you’re making vapid eye candy like Avatar, but isn’t going to be any use in movies where you’re not trying to distract people from the inanity of the script.
#35 I’m kind of agreeing with you. I think moving Star Trek’s release date should at least be considered. And im sure some people here will disagree thinking that Trek can kick spidey’s butt. But think about this. Even if Trek can withstand Spidey’s release and remain #1 thourgh that weekend….there is NO doubt that Spiderman will cut into Trek’s box office take CONSIDERABLY!
So lets just move star trek away from spiderman and claim what is rightfully ours…another HUGE stay at the box office!!
Dirty Spider-Trash :-(
That should give the Star Trek writers an idea for the film’s antagonist. Kirk and Co. should go up against the Tholians. Smash the web before they smash the webslinger.
also…for the record…Avatar was only available in 3D at BOTH of my local theaters.
And so what if it was available in 3d AND 2d. The 3d version is going to get shown in the best room, with the best sound, the biggest screen and the best projector. if i want to see the 2d version…i’ll get to see it on one of the smaller screens in the house.
yay. sure…thats fair.
ooh.. Tholian web being wrapped around the ship in 3D. that would be cool!
#34. “I suspect the numbers may be higher, but many people have yet to SEE a 3-D film.”
Yes, I think it’s important that those who have a problem make their voices heard.
All I’m saying is given the fact that 3D films represent 1/3 of the top 12 domestic box office grossers (and 1/4 of the top 20 worldwide) of 2009, they did OK without you and others who have problems. Which says to me they don’t need you to make enormous profits. Do I think that’s right? No. But Hollywood is a business and they will always cater to the greatest common denominator to the exclusion of all others. It seems only laws force corporations to treat people with any kind disability as equals if they don’t make up a significant majority so as to otherwise cut into their profits. Sad but true.
I hope not. I hate how the process dims the picture by the necessity of having to wear those glasses. 3D has had revivals since the 50’s, but I think any lasting popularly will be the exception rather than the rule.
Oh man, Star Trek is going to get it’s ass handed to it if a Spider-man flick comes out at the same time. Yikes. :(
Not that Star Trek won’t be good, but Spider-Man has a much larger general audience I would think.
as Trek fans we have been used to sucking on below par acting and scripts and budgets and effects and story and it’s no wonder that we are a laughing stock!
now its up to Paramount to protect their golden goose by handing over the cash to address the situation!
We have no continuing series and this is our only entertainment.
Give TREK XII the right budget to kick SONY’s direct to DVD spiderman out of the park!
HOW IS WITH ME?
HOW was suppose to be WHO,
but I got caught up in the William Wallace moment lol