Trek XII to be pushed back a year?

[Graham Kennedy]

Source

Paramount still has a new “Star Trek” movie on its calendar set to premiere June 29, 2012, but it’s starting to look like Paramount is about to knock that back another year, maybe to June 28, 2013.

At Saturday’s Comic Con premiere of “Cowboys and Aliens” in San Diego, screenwriter-producer Roberto Orci told Cinepremiere that the next “Trek” would begin shooting “hopefullyyyyyy” in January.

A January 2012 start would not only make a June 2012 premiere nigh impossible, it would mean Bad Robot would have less than a year to get an effects-heavy spaceship action movie into cinemas by Christmas 2012.

Finishing a Star Trek movie in 11 months seems highly unlikely – but not impossible. I seem to remember that Fox managed to get “X-Men: First Class” – another big sci-fi movie swimming in effects – from greenlight to cinemas in the space of a year.

Still, “First Class” was more an exception than a rule and this is why summer 2013 seems by far the more likely release window.

[Teaos]

I dont mind waiting if they do it well, I"d rather wait for gold then get crap now.

[alexmann]

That's not good.

[Mikey]

Color me completely unsurprised.

[Tyyr]

I think this is perfectly fine. If they wanted to hit 2012 they needed to be shooting right now. If they aren't even going to start filming until MAYBE January they're better off delaying instead of pushing it out half baked.

[McAvoy]

Good. Then maybe they can make a story that makes more sense. Maybe have a story where the villian doesn't suck and the only good line he ever had was "Hello Christopher."

[Graham Kennedy]

If the extra time makes the film better, great. But then extra time may just as easily mean extra rewrites at the behest of studio execs, more fiddling with the script, etc. Hell, Superman Returns was in production in one form or another for about fifteen years, and that still came out rather mixed.

[I Am Spartacus]

I dont mind waiting if they do it well, I"d rather wait for gold then get crap now.

Then you're going to be waiting for all eternity, no matter when the next one is released.

J.J. Abrams and crew may as well just film themselves shitting all over Gene Roddenberry's grave for two hours. Same message.

[Captain Seafort]

J.J. Abrams and crew may as well just film themselves shitting all over Gene Roddenberry's grave for two hours. Same message.

Considering that the best of Star Trek tends to be the least Roddenberryish (TWoK, TUC, DS9), the fact that Abrams' approach isn't very Roddenberryish is a positive boon.

[Teaos]

He had a brilliant idea made better by others.

[I Am Spartacus]

J.J. Abrams and crew may as well just film themselves shitting all over Gene Roddenberry's grave for two hours. Same message.

Considering that the best of Star Trek tends to be the least Roddenberryish (TWoK, TUC, DS9), the fact that Abrams' approach isn't very Roddenberryish is a positive boon.

Well, your premise is false. Additionally, Abrams' "approach" (please elaborate on what you mean by this; I'm going to assume and reply as if you meant his filmmaking style) is awful, and this isn't really an opinion either. When you grade his work according to the metrics by which artistic endeavors in film are judged, you realize that he is an objectively awful filmmaker. I'd list reasons why the new "Star Trek" is trash, but at this point I'd be saying nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times over already. It rakes in the cash, but that's only evidence of 1) the power of marketing and 2) the general lack of sophistication among the buying public.

Or, as Mace Sowell (played by Patrick Stewart!) said in Safe House: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste or the brains of the [...] people."

[Mikey]

Oh, dear, please stop. My sides are killing me.

Additionally, Abrams' "approach" (please elaborate on what you mean by this; I'm going to assume and reply as if you meant his filmmaking style) is awful, and this isn't really an opinion either.

Wow. To say that a value judgement of an artist's approach to his medium isn't an opinion is pretty much like saying that water isn't wet. It can't be anything other than an opinion. You are entitled to yours, and it may be quite valid; but it is eminently and irremediably an opinion and nothing more or less.

When you grade his work according to the metrics by which artistic endeavors in film are judged, you realize that he is an objectively awful filmmaker.

"Metrics" used to "judge" artistic endeavors? How can you read your own words and not laugh at yourself, especially considering the fact that you - apparently not in a joking manner - called a judgement of an "artistic endeavor" objectively anything? Read the following statement and let me know how ludicrous it sounds:

I don't like Alexander Calder's sculpture - further, I can say as fact that his art is objectively bad, and a metric that some guy just made up proves that his art is bad.

[Graham Kennedy]

This discussion makes me think of this...

[Mikey]

This discussion makes me think of this...

I have to clean spit coffee from my keyboard now. Obviously that's not the case here, though; I Am Spartacus has officially declared that anyone with an opinion of the film differing from his is just wrong in an absolute sense, so there's patently no reason to discuss it further.

[Graham Kennedy]

By all means hate a film - 2001 and Blade Runner are widely considered the best science fiction films ever made, but there are plenty of people who hate them. But don't try to pretend that your opinion is an objectively proven fact and that people only disagree because they just don't get it. It just makes you look like an ass.