'Star Trek 2' moves out of summer 2012, and 'G.I. Joe 2' moves in
JJ Abrams gets closer to the director's chair as release date shuffle kicks in
'What do you mean you want to make a Jack Ryan film first?' 'I was just thinking...' 'Nerve pinch.' '... it would be a good way to reinforce my brand and...' 'NERVE PINCH! NERVE PINCH!'
Are you a fan of Star Trek?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
I sincerely hope that Mike Fleming's report is correct and that JJ Abrams is finally ready to commit to directing "Star Trek 2."
Now that Paramount has dealt with the reality that the film won't be ready for the June 29, 2012 date they originally claimed for it, Jon Chu's "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" (which is evidently not called "Cobra Strikes" as previously reported to my endless amusement) will be moving up into that spot. I have no idea what to expect from that sequel as they've basically thrown out most of what made me cackle about the first film, like Joseph Gordon Levitt as Cobra Commander or Chris Eccleston as Destro.
Now Paramount has exercised their option on the cast, and it looks like Abrams is hard at work with Damon Lindelof, Bob Orci, and Alex Kurtzman to nail down the final drafts of the script. I'm dying to see where they go with this one, since they have the entire history of "Trek" to play with, and they have said enough about their approach to make it seem like a safe bet that they're not just going to rehash what we've already seen from the voyages of the Enterprise in the past. So many fans were yelping about Khan from the moment they walked out of the theater that I hope we don't see any Khan at all. That's the safe way to go, and totally lacking in imagination.
So when will we see "Star Trek 2"? The easy choice would be to push it a full year for the summer of 2013, but with "Man Of Steel" having just moved out of the December 2012 spot, maybe we could stand a little science-fiction action for the holidays.
Whatever the case, I just want to see them take the time to get this right, and it sounds to me like it's more important for them to nail the script than nail a release date. That's a heck of a good start.
News From Our Partners
-
Fiery 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Scene Hurt The Most: Ouch!
How Far Will 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Boldly Go At Box Office?
'Star Trek Into Darkness': The Secret Behind The Mystery Villain
-
What to Watch This Weekend: The Season Finales of Nikita, Doctor Who, The Simpsons, and Family Guy
The Office Series Finale Review: That'll Do, Show. That'll Do.
Syfy Renews Warehouse 13 for a Fifth and Final Season
-
Kendall Schmidt of Big Time Rush Loses $7,000 Worth of Gifts for Fans [Video]
Kanye West to Drop New Album 'Yeezus' on June 18
Justin Bieber + Selena Gomez Will Sit Together at 2013 Billboard Music Awards
-
Beyonce Pregnant Again? Sources Confirm 'Epic' Star Is Carrying Baby No. 2
'Hangover 3' Red Band Trailer: Take a Walk Down a NSFW Memory Lane (VIDEO)
Why 'Man of Steel' Didn't Use 'Superman' in the Title
-
Weekly Ketchup: Will Smith to Star in Wild Bunch Remake?
Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Roundup: Star Trek Into Darkness Edition
-
The Wrap Up: Remember 'The Office' With the Ultimate Blooper Reel
The Sims 3: Island Paradise's Producer Walkthrough Shows Us the Finer Points of Tropical Life
'Man of Steel' Featurette: Reinventing Superman
-
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
-
The 'Doctors' Unite
'We Are Men' In 4 Words
MTV Legend Recalls Heavy Metal Frontman's Anti-Gay T-Shirt Controversy
Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured
Latest Posts
-
This is one you'll want to watch as soon as you've seen the movieFriday, May 17, 2013
-
Plus we look back at a more spirited encounter with the comic actorThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The Channing Tatum/Mila Kunis science-fiction action movie is shooting nowThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Hollywood's busiest alien spends a little more time with StarfleetThursday, May 16, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupJoe Coppola
July 27, 2011 at 8:11PM EST Reply to CommentJJ totally destroyed the Trek franchise from a Roddenberry point of view. JJ made Trek more like Junk Wars than Star Trek.
DAGOBAH Even Jar Jar Binks is cooler than you, sir.
July 27, 2011 at 8:18PM ESTMark Agreed. The script was dire. It's easily the worst Trek film. Yes, worse than 5. Check out the scene in 5 where Sybok makes McCoy and Spock face their fears, and then tries to do it with Kirk. It's like Shakespeare compared to JJ's attempt. And Wrath of Khan and First Contact look much better than the JJ film, on a tenth of the budget.
July 27, 2011 at 9:00PM ESTStill, it's not for me, I appreciate that. I have my Trek, and the Twilight/Harry Potter generation are getting the Trek they deserve. Sad to see such a great concept trashed for money though.
And if Super 8 had been one of the big blockbusters of the summer there's no way in hell JJ would have made Trek 2. That's why he was holding off on a decision.
Bob Nothing like 94% favorable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and a half-billion dollar box office to bring out the trolls. Have any of you people WATCHED an episode of, say, the 3rd season of the first Star Trek lately? JJ didn't destroy Roddenberry's concept. He made a movie that rocked. But if you prefer to see Captain Kirk read the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, hey, be my guest. Fire up your DVDs...
July 28, 2011 at 4:17PM ESTDAGOBAH
July 27, 2011 at 8:16PM EST Reply to CommentI think a perfect, fresh way to handle Khan would be to bring him in at the start of the film and kill him off before the title hits, much like Thor- sorry, Kirk's dad.
skeckyvegas
July 27, 2011 at 8:21PM EST Reply to CommentKhaaaaaaaaaan!!!
Mulderism
July 28, 2011 at 4:30AM EST Reply to CommentTerrible news. I don't want Abrams to be any more than a producer. Leave the directing to those who can direct without stupid gimmicks.
Why people gush over the last film is beyond me. This is the first Trek film I've actively disliked.
Mmcb105
July 28, 2011 at 8:32AM EST Reply to CommentWhat exactly is it that people dislike about Abrams star trek? It was a fun adventure movie with a great cast that had really great chemistry. Sure it's not perfect but c'mon it's miles ahead of trek 5 or trek 3. I think the reason some people are bitter is because its not the original cast but honestly guys they r too old to anchor an adventure movie these days.
Mulderism Well for me nothing really worked. Nothing against the cast but I don't think we needed to reboot the series with Kirk and the gang. I think that Star Trek is bigger than Kirk and Spock.
July 28, 2011 at 12:40PM ESTI would have preferred to either see a new TNG movie or else set the series another few centuries into the future. The TNG movies were getting stale though and it was probably getting hard to reunite the cast.
I was excited to see the new movie but it left me kind of flat. The second time I saw it I really noticed things that bothered me such as Abrams constant use of lens flares. He's not a very good action scene director either.
But that's me. One of my favourite Trek films was ST:TMP which had very little action but an intriguing story. Plus it was such a big step from the TV series.
mmcb105 I think you have an interesting idea of what the Trek Universe is and what makes something Star Trek. That’s not a dig, just an observation. However, I'd argue that the latest movie was way more Star Trek than the series Enterprise, or even Star Trek: Nemesis. Although a large part of what made the entire property popular were its high concept sci-fi ideas, it also grounded itself with the core relationship of Kirk and Spock. So much so that TNG even had an analogous relationship with Data and Picard...at least in the TNG movies.
July 28, 2011 at 3:35PM ESTAdmittedly, Abrams' Trek was a light on the hard sci-fi and it was a little jokey, but it capitalized on that Kirk/Spock relationship. That’s a smart idea. I think with this cast in place and their chemistry, there’s a chance this franchise could be really exciting. This movie, as I see it, was a good jumping off point.
I think the reality of the situation is that a Star Trek movie with a completely new cast of characters on a ship that nobody knows, or even a newer/older enterprise, would have been a losing proposition for Paramount. Most people would not have seen that movie. Then what? Goodbye, Star Trek. This way they get to have these older character dynamics that they know already work, while being able to create new adventures around them.
Mulderism Yes. From a business perspective on a valuable franchise they probably did what they thought was less risky. Still TNG showed that it is possible to do Star Trek with a different cast.
July 28, 2011 at 5:38PM ESTmmcb105 The TNG movies already had an established group of characters to work with. There has never been a Star Trek movie that hasn't used characters that already exist. There is a difference between being spineless about taking risk and being smart about your market chances. Movies are a business. Nothing gets made without the ability to sell it. It sucks, and is not always the best thing creatively but that’s the way it works.
July 29, 2011 at 9:54AM ESTWould the general public go see a Voyager movie, or an Enterprise movie, or even a DS9 movie? I'm betting not. They barely saw the later TNG movies and that show was a bona-fide phenomenon. With the TV shows tanking and getting worse as they went, and the movies doing poorly, the franchise needed to find a way to get back to its roots. Which was Kirk and Spock.
I’m not trying to convince you that the movie was good, that’s a matter of opinion and you have every right to disagree with me. But there is no denying that this was the only way a new Trek movie was going to be made, at least without having to wait ten-twenty years. I'm also not saying that it’s impossible to make a good Star Trek movie out of totally new characters, or even whether that is a bad thing or not, just that it wouldn’t sell. It might now that Abrams Trek has officially mainstreamed the Star Trek universe.
If I had to choose between this or no Star Trek at all, honestly I’d rather have this. And as long as we are being truthful this movie was way better than the TNG movies (excluding First Contact…maybe), Search for Spock, and The Final Frontier.
Mulderism Yeah. The problem with the TNG movies were that they were not much better than the TV show and there was not a big enough gap between the conclusion of the series and the films. Insurrection would have made a boring two-part episode if it had been done during the series run. The TNG movies could have been a lot better but I miss those characters.
July 30, 2011 at 4:01AM ESTI was not a fan of DS9, Voyager or Enterprise and those would have been a big gamble to make into movie franchises.
So maybe you're right - this was the only way to revitalize the franchise successfully. It's just too bad that this was the only way to do it for mainstream audiences. It really seems to limit Roddenberry's vision of the future to only certain characters.
Of all the ST movies from TMP to Insurrection I don't know where Abrams movie would rank for me but it would be near the bottom. I guess I'd say it was better than ST V but honestly I didn't care for Abram's movie at all. Having seen it twice I have no desire to see it again. It never made me think or care about any of the characters. I'll see the next one but my expectations will be low. Especially since Abrams is directing once more.
I know I'm in the minority here.
JoeK
July 28, 2011 at 9:45AM EST Reply to CommentPut me in the no Khan camp. Make your own movie.
And if you couldn't enjoy that last one even a little...geez.
DAGOBAH
July 28, 2011 at 11:55PM EST Reply to CommentWell said Bob and MMCB105.
Without getting too personal, is it that the original trekkies commenting on this post feel that their beloved sci-fi property (cos that's what it is, an entertainment science fiction property, not something more) is now excesible to more people through this more commercial film?
I would have said that JJ Abrams multiplying the trekker population by 10 with just one feature film was a positive, whether you liked the film or not... That is unless the reason you like Trek so much is because other people don't which is a clear case hipsterdom.
Yeah that's right, i just called these trekkies Hipsters. Deal with it.
Wars forever.
jakeb1138
July 29, 2011 at 7:26AM EST Reply to CommentI liked the cast just fine. I thought the story itself was a bit silly. Stay away from time travel, please...
mmcb105 Agreed, how many Star Trek movies is this now that deal with time travel? Four (Voyage Home, Generations, First Contact, Star Trek)? There are other sci-fi tropes fellas.
July 29, 2011 at 9:58AM ESTAlli Silly, maybe - but it was a smart answer to a problematic situation. How do you reboot an existing franchise by going back to the beginning without having to tell EXACTLY the same stories you've already told? (Like the upcoming "Amazing Spiderman" - I'm worried about how much of a retread that's going to be) This was a clever way to keep the characters largely the same and build a new universe with new storytelling opportunities without completely undermining the existing verse.
July 29, 2011 at 10:49AM ESTLook, I know that there are people - die hard Trekkers - that were never going to like this movie. When you love something - a show, a book, a movie franchise - it's hard to see it reshaped or remoulded into something you don't recognize, something that doesn't comfort you the way the original things you fell in love with do/did. BUT. I think it is harsh to say that JJ Abrams "ruined" Star Trek when what he really did was try to make it accessible for a whole new generation of people - even knowing he was going to face some really terrible backlash for having the audacity to infringe on a much-beloved 'verse of characters.
I'm eagerly anticipating the next installment - can't wait to hear what he's going to do this time! (But yeah, JJ, take it easy with the flare shots. They were all over "Super 8" too and are super-distracting and just not necessary.)
Mulderism I disagree. I wouldn't say I'm a hard core Trekkie but I was a fan and had seen all the movies. I didn't go in the Abram's movie ready to hate it - I was expecting to like it and the reviews were mostly positive across the board.
July 30, 2011 at 4:15AM ESTBut like I said above, it just didn't click for me. The cast didn't really work, the story was weak and it just didn't feel like a Star Trek movie to me.
But that's just me. Most people liked it and it made a lot of money. The franchise lives on.