Jump to content


Photo

Trek XII officially delayed by Paramount


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2011 - 04:07 AM

I was surprised that I didn't see this posted here, so here's a link to the source at Trekweb: Star Trek XII Delayed

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 Skot

Skot

    Action figure anonymous member

  • Members
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NC

Posted 13 September 2011 - 04:46 AM

argh! i now officially hate GI Joe.

#3 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 13 September 2011 - 05:30 AM

"...and there's a very good chance that it'll be on par with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier..." would be great compared to Star Trek XI, in my humble opinion...

#4 A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 13 September 2011 - 11:15 AM

Amen to Abrams and Paramount dropping the ball, but I think we can't put much emphasis on anniversary dates. Most moviegoers don't care, and it likely isn't going to help the box office gross one way or the other. TNG has absolutely nothing to do with AbramsTrek anyway, so I can't see how its 25th really can make a difference.

#5 richpit

richpit

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trinity, FL
  • Interests:Star Trek toys, Star Trek props, Star Trek stuff in general!

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:03 PM

I agree with most of what was said about the delay and the dropped ball.

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 WORF22

WORF22

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.J.

Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:42 AM

WHAT! so you are telling me that they are going to disgrace the name G.I. JOE with another craptacular movie sleep.gif . as far as the movie officially delayed ya saw that coming.

#7 Tomparis

Tomparis

    Newforce is my home page.

  • Members
  • 192 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh,NC

Posted 14 September 2011 - 11:52 AM

Well that sucks, Im one of the few people on the planet who actually liked the new movie. I just dont understand the out right blant hatred for the new one. Times have changed people. The mainstream wants action and adventure. I thought the 2009 Star Trek captured what TOS was about action and adventure. Even though I grew up with TNG I have to say that sometimes when I watch it I wish picard would just be like you know what fire phasers and lets get this over with. My only true complaint about star trek 2009 was how they made Kirk look like a wimp in some scenes but at the same time it showed that he was human and not the over the top I can fight anybody original kirk. Now before the flaming starts dont get me wrong the original Kirk is the best but come on we have to admit that sometimes that it was a little crazy that he could single handedly fight aliens 4 times his size with no support. The whole spock/uhura kiss im kinda ifish about but hey overall I thought it was a good movie. I cant wait for the next one because now we will see Kirk as the captain the whole time and in the command gold uniform.


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 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2011 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE (A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees @ Sep 13 2011, 11:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Amen to Abrams and Paramount dropping the ball, but I think we can't put much emphasis on anniversary dates. Most moviegoers don't care, and it likely isn't going to help the box office gross one way or the other. TNG has absolutely nothing to do with AbramsTrek anyway, so I can't see how its 25th really can make a difference.
I see where you're coming from AC&2T, but I have to partially disagree with you. Trek XI's released coincided with TMP's 30th anniversary, and CBS used TMP's coattails whenever they could to help promote Trek XI. A big anniversary is always helpful as a marketing tool, and given that Trek was coming out of a slump, CBS exploited that tool as often as they could to lock up as many licensees as possible and to drum up as much support as possible for Trek XI. Likewise, prior to Trek XI, the last time we saw Spock was on TNG in the episode Unification. Several Trek fans who convinced their non

#9 Tomparis

Tomparis

    Newforce is my home page.

  • Members
  • 192 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh,NC

Posted 14 September 2011 - 05:44 PM

I agree with having the new movie universe stay on the big screen and prime on tv. That way people dont get confused. Also now that you have done something on such a grand scale how do you translate to the small screen and make it have as much of an impact?


Has there been any hints as to what the next movie might be about?

#10 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:25 PM

You know, only Star Trek fans on forums and ones over 40, in general, seem not to have liked the last movie. The general population must have as many tickets as it sold. JJ is not making the movie for the first group as the first group is not large enough to make a movie a hit.

Sad but true.

#11 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:54 AM

QUOTE (Tomparis @ Sep 14 2011, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


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 Tomparis

Tomparis

    Newforce is my home page.

  • Members
  • 192 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh,NC

Posted 15 September 2011 - 11:37 AM

Well maybe the next movie wont be so heavy on the action and be lens flare the movie lol. I hope they nip whatever the deal is with spock and uhura in the bud. I didnt like that at all.

#13 TheHSBR

TheHSBR

    Mirror Universe Moderator

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Interests:This will be quite the list...Star Trek, Star Wars, wrestling, He-Man, comic books, GI Joe, video games, and most of all collecting action figures!

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:42 PM

I dont see how having less action will make the next film any better or worse. Dark Knight heralded by some as one of the greatest movies of all time (not me BTW) had about the same amount of action/explosions as any Michael Bay film. People get too hung up on "action" killing a movie when in fact a well written story can utilize tone of action and still be satisfying. Its when the story fails that action is always pointed to blame but it also happens to be a pretty large part of some of the best movies around.

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 Tomparis

Tomparis

    Newforce is my home page.

  • Members
  • 192 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh,NC

Posted 15 September 2011 - 06:49 PM

Hey, I loved the last Star Trek movie I thought ti was great. Im just saying that what a lot of people are saying is that it had too much action. So maybe to make them happen tone it down some idk. I thought the film was perfect for this generation.

#15 richpit

richpit

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trinity, FL
  • Interests:Star Trek toys, Star Trek props, Star Trek stuff in general!

Posted 15 September 2011 - 08:28 PM

I'm one of the "over 40" Trek fans, having been a fan since 1975-ish, and I loved the new movie. As I'm sure I've stated on some board someplace, I bought a Blu-Ray player for the specific purpose of buying Trek 2009 on Blu-Ray. It's still the only Blu-Ray disk that I own.

#16 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 16 September 2011 - 04:32 AM

QUOTE (FHC @ Sep 15 2011, 04:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You know, only Star Trek fans on forums and ones over 40, in general, seem not to have liked the last movie. The general population must have as many tickets as it sold. JJ is not making the movie for the first group as the first group is not large enough to make a movie a hit.

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 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 16 September 2011 - 04:56 AM

QUOTE (Daysleeper @ Sep 15 2011, 07:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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).


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.

QUOTE
Personally, I loved Pine as Kirk and Urban as Bones.


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.


QUOTE
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.


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.


QUOTE
Also, Uhura and Spock... cheesy.


In total agreement, but I could think up some greater adjectives for it than that - how about totally asinine? wink.gif

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 Daysleeper

Daysleeper

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Music, acting, theatre, film, arts in General

    Check out my band: www.facebook.com/eastportslackers

Posted 16 September 2011 - 06:47 AM

QUOTE (JulesLuvsShinzon @ Sep 16 2011, 05:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In total agreement, but I could think up some greater adjectives for it than that - how about totally asinine? wink.gif


LOL Well, all other adjectives I could think of aren't allowed in this forum... wink.gif

QUOTE (JulesLuvsShinzon @ Sep 16 2011, 05:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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?


Agreed.

#19 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2011 - 06:36 PM

QUOTE (JulesLuvsShinzon @ Sep 16 2011, 04:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


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 Commodore Kor'Tar

Commodore Kor'Tar

    The Great Tribble Hunter

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.S.S. Kahless NCC-76108 AKA Fort Worth TX
  • Interests:Playmates figures and ships (90s era), Art Asylum and DST figures and ships , Galoob figures and micro machines .

Posted 16 September 2011 - 07:07 PM

If this were facebook I'd be liking the hell outta that post!! biggrin.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users