Trek XII officially delayed by Paramount
#1
Posted 13 September 2011 - 04:07 AM
G.I. Joe Retaliation has been moved from 08/10/2012 to 06/29/2012, which was the release date initially reserved for Trek XII; Paramount also shuffled MI: Ghost Protocol's release so that it wouldn't compete directly with Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.
To put things bluntly, don't expect to see Trek XII in 2012; not if it's going to begin filming in January 2012. If you do expect to see Trek XII in 2012, I'd advise you to go in with your expectations set very, very low. If Trek XII does show up in 2012, that means that it was rushed through production, and there's a very good chance that it'll be on par with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier in terms of overall quality as a result of being rushed.
A more realistic release date would be the summer of 2013, which would give the production crew the time needed to properly complete this film without rushing it and leading to the scenario described above. Granted, Paramount has yet to announce a new release date for Trek XII, so we really don't know just how long the film's release date has been delayed yet. We do know that they're planning to start production in January of 2012 though, so that should give you an idea of what will need to be done once pre
#2
Posted 13 September 2011 - 04:46 AM
#3
Posted 13 September 2011 - 05:30 AM
#4
Posted 13 September 2011 - 11:15 AM
#5
Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:03 PM
I disagree that we need another Trek TV series based in the 24th century or later. The tech in the Berman / Braga 24th century had already become so close to magic that it could do literally anything. Moving farther into the future would make the tech ridiculously magical, to the point where there would be no drama. Actually, we already had that with Voyager...God knows we don't need more. (IMO, of course)
I might be able to get behind a new series based in the JJ alternate universe in the 23rd century, of course with a different crew and ship.
Either way, I'm not surprised at the delay, but I am upset about it. Now they have no choice but to push it out to summer 2013.
#6
Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:42 AM
#7
Posted 14 September 2011 - 11:52 AM
PS Now matter how much you hate the new movie, Im sure there one thing we can all agree on and thats Karl Urban really captured Defroest Kelly's Dr. McCoy and added a little of himself to it. I thought it was a perfect McCoy.
#8
Posted 14 September 2011 - 03:28 PM
#9
Posted 14 September 2011 - 05:44 PM
Has there been any hints as to what the next movie might be about?
#10
Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:25 PM
Sad but true.
#11
Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:54 AM
Oh, I agree. And more, I'd even say that all the new actors could have been pretty good as the iconic figures we love so much (except for Quinto who couldn't act if his life depended on it). Personally, I loved Pine as Kirk and Urban as Bones. What I didn't like about the movie was that the story was utter nonsense, that it was far too FX-heavy, that some characters were merely portrayed as caricatures of the originals (Scotty, Chekov anyone?) and that it seemed like a loose sequence of action scenes with the attempt to put in some pseudo-depth into a silly plot. Also, Uhura and Spock... cheesy.
There were a couple of things I did in fact like. The first scene was cool, but it was so bombastic that it couldn't be topped. And Kirk eating an apple during his Kobayashi Maru test was a very nice reminder of the scene in the Genesis cave is TWOK. But overall, the movie was a huge disappointment to me. And I'm not over 40 (-> 31) and this is the first Trek-forum I'm posting in...
I don't mind if people like the film. Personally, I liked STV a lot and I know, that most people consider it weak. I understand why this is so, but I also believe that unlike STXI it captured the soul and spirit of TOS and its characters really well. There were a lot of non-trekkies who enjoyed STXI, mostly for all the reasons it wasn't a Star Trek film for me. Fine. I might give Star Trek XII a chance, if it will ever make it to the big screen, or I might not. We'll see.
#12
Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:37 AM
#13
Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:42 PM
Would Star Wars be a better movie just by deleteing action? Would TWOK? How about Dark Knight?
My point is action isnt to blame here and simply decreasing it wont make one lick of difference.
#14
Posted 15 September 2011 - 06:49 PM
#15
Posted 15 September 2011 - 08:28 PM
#16
Posted 16 September 2011 - 04:32 AM
Sad but true.
Is there a reliable source you can quote that says that is definitively the case? It seems too reductive and assumptive to me because my own experience says that, in fact, a lot of the over 40 fans not only saw the movie (even the sceptical ones like me) and a lot enjoyed it even if they had some reservations about the junking of the Prime Universe. My thinking is that the kids wouldn't have gone to see this movie - even with JJ Abrams chop on it - without being taken by their parents. A lot of kids went to this because their trekking parents wanted to give it a go. That's a part of the new audience alongside the young people who went of their own accord because it was simply a new blockbuster.
The other issuse is that when you talk about how successful a movie is, you have to separate the fiscal from the what people who paid their money really thought about it in the end. The movie made money and a lot of people paid to see it, and some out of curiosity or perhaps a desire to see Abrams crash and burn! A lot of people turning out to see the first Abrams Trek does not necessarily guarantee that the hordes will turn out for a sequel. Basically, the movie did well but it wasn't the hit movie of 2009, or anywhere near it, and perhaps we shouldn't be so amazed if I posit another "sad but true" scenario and suggest that Abrams was happy to drop the ball on Star Trek quite simply because there are bigger projects perhaps leading to bigger hits to be made, and I don't think I'm the first one here to have reached that conclusion.
#17
Posted 16 September 2011 - 04:56 AM
My thoughts about Quinto were the same until I actually saw him as Spock in the movie, and then I thought he was nigh-on perfect hitting the right notes on the bridge. He had that same vibe that Nimoy had in his relationship with Kirk and his possesiveness over the chair for example allowed us a peek of Spock's humanity in the same way as Nimoy woudl occasionally give some sappy, quasi-sympathetic look at Kirk and McCoy in TOS when he thought the pair of them were totally beyond the pale. The only bum note with Spock was the stupid Uhura romance angle and that wasn't Quinto's fault.
Urban was the hit of the movie - I think we can all be agreed upon the fact that he nailed a facet of McCoy that we only really felt rather than saw glimpses of in Deforest's original version. He's kind of McCoy for the New Age of Trek and with Pegg, the only cast members to really refresh their iconic characters and make them their own.
I have said this before, but while Pine was winsome and looked the part, and made the very best of the one or two "Kirk moments" handed to him in the script, I think he has a way to go before he nails the part and makes it his own. The potential is there, but I think it will take at least another movie before I stop thinking about him trying to fill Shatner's shoes.
I agree that the story had bigger plot holes in it than Star Trek Nemesis and First Contact and had some nonsensical elements in it, but I'm not blaming the plot so much as the writing which relied far too heavily on a portion of the audience (the existing franchise fans) having read the Countdown comics to make up for the defecit of coherent backstory. The rest of the audience - the young crowd that drift in and out of the cinema for all the big movies like they're on a pub crawl - are in the main so lacking in imagination or thought processes after a constant diet of dumbed-down action movies, that a dumb plot slides by them and they don't think to question it. It's only utter nerds like me and thee that would question whether the explanation offered in the movie for Nero's 25 year wait to kill Spock would actually stack up!
On the other hand, I disagree with your assertion that Scotty and Chekov were mere charicatures of the originals - which is probably what I was dreading more than anything. I think Pegg played his Scotty ironic and more authentically "Scottish" than Doohan ever managed (given that neither actor is in fact Scots) and Yelchin actually managed to render Chekov (my least favourite crewmember from TOS) actually likeable.
In total agreement, but I could think up some greater adjectives for it than that - how about totally asinine?
And may I make a case for the Corvette sequence, Kirk's birth, and the clunky Nokia brand placement being classified in the same bracket?
#18
Posted 16 September 2011 - 06:47 AM
LOL Well, all other adjectives I could think of aren't allowed in this forum...
Agreed.
#19
Posted 16 September 2011 - 06:36 PM
The other issuse is that when you talk about how successful a movie is, you have to separate the fiscal from the what people who paid their money really thought about it in the end. The movie made money and a lot of people paid to see it, and some out of curiosity or perhaps a desire to see Abrams crash and burn! A lot of people turning out to see the first Abrams Trek does not necessarily guarantee that the hordes will turn out for a sequel. Basically, the movie did well but it wasn't the hit movie of 2009, or anywhere near it, and perhaps we shouldn't be so amazed if I posit another "sad but true" scenario and suggest that Abrams was happy to drop the ball on Star Trek quite simply because there are bigger projects perhaps leading to bigger hits to be made, and I don't think I'm the first one here to have reached that conclusion.
And is there a source that proves me wrong? You say "from your experience" I can tell you what I have witnessed first hand. I set up a donation for Autism during the release of ST XI in one of the largest theaters in this entire area. I was there for 3 days. I saw some children over the weekend with their parents. What I mostly saw were people in the 20's and 30's show up. At least more then I had ever seen at a Trek Movie and I have been part of opening night festivities for every Trek movie since Generations where we premiered it at ParaCon. Since I had a huge prop collection set up, a great many wandered over and looked and some donated. Most of the 20 year old ones that I spoke with had never even seen the first TOS yet they all seemed to like this movie. We had my Kirk Chair there and for a donation, you could have your photo in the chair and then photo shopped onto the bridge. No one under 20 or so (we had some props there you could hold in the photo) even knew which way to hold a communicator or what a tribble was. My son is 21 and he went with all his friends and they had a DVD party at my house when it came out. 14 20 year olds, rowdy 20 year olds, in my house watching Star Trek which before that, they thought that it was the geekest thing that had ever happened and were forthright with telling me so. My son even asked to watch all the old TOS discs due to his interest in the last movie.
Test shot from the ST XI Premier.
I have been to 10 conventions over a 5 state area (so I guess that my experiences are only truly middle America) since this movie came out and talked to huge amounts of convention goers (as the Deputy Fleet Commander for Starfleet Command) and you can just about draw the line at 40 as to, yes they watched it, some more then once, but didn't care for it. 30 and under loved it more. There was kind of a dead area in the mid 30's which really depended on how much Trek they had watched. You can read what you like, you can say what you like, but I have set at a table and talked with real people all day and this is what I know. Yeah they saw the flaws in the movie, but they said it was fun and it had been a long time since there was a Trek movie that was fun.
As to if fans will go to a second one, who knows. Movie goers are fickle and no one knows what they will like in the end. As many great movies flop as make huge money. Even Citizen Kane was not a hit when it came out yet Adam Sandler makes a killing.
#20
Posted 16 September 2011 - 07:07 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users