Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date

[Buck]

I'm not sure if its Star Trek 12 or Star Trek 2, but the release date is June 29, 2012.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/01/11...-nothing-else/

UPDATE: Paramount has confirmed to MTV that the projected release date for the "Star Trek" sequel is indeed June 29, 2012.

This counts as news, but there's not much to it. We all know there's a "Star Trek" sequel coming. Hell, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, writers/producers of the May reboot, were talking about sequel possibilities as far back as the week after the first movie came out. Now we have a date to pin our hopes to: June 29, 2012.

Nothing else is known or announced, so don't ask. Maybe director J.J. Abrams will return to helm the sequel, maybe he won't. Maybe Khan will be the villain, maybe not. For all we know, the plan is to give us an epic "Star Trek Meets Star Wars" crossover. Could happen, right?

The news comes from a variety of sources, including Ain't It Cool News and Box Office Mojo, but there's no Paramount-issued press release that I can find. The information ran through some trustworthy sources, but we've yet to receive comment from the studio directly.

Regardless, there really hasn't ever been any doubt that we'd be seeing more "Star Trek." Abrams' take on the series made it friendly to an entirely new, much wider audience than its ever known before.

Were you anything less than certain that a "Star Trek" sequel was coming eventually? Where would you like the story to go from where it is now? Any specific hopes for the sequel?

[bevischief]

This why I wait and buy the DVD.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

so i'm going to offer a bit of a mea culpa to the fanbois...

i spent some time discussing the film with a friend, a fan with fairly encyclopedic knowledge of the series, who really laid out how bad he thought they misused Kahn's storyline...

i still found the movie highly entertaining (and I'm generally averse to 'just' being entertained), but i can now see why people are disappointed in it...

I've seen every episode of every series not named "voyager" and multiple times for TOS, TNG and DS9. While I've never done cosplay, I have owned tech manuals, the Science of Star Trek, built models, played games, read expanded universe novels (mostly in the 90s), so on and so forth. The problem with most fanboys (and that goes for comics in general, as much as for trek) is that they often lack imagination where "canon" is concerned. They want slavish devotion the story they know. And they really have a hard time dealing with a rebooted universe where things don't occur exactly the way they're used to. Kahn in the movie was not the Kahn from Space Seed. He was discovered 5 or 6 years before Kirk found the Botany Bay in the original timeline, there was no McGivers, there was only Admiral Marcus (or whoever was involved with Section 31). Meaning he was found by a military vessel and not an exploratory craft. He was woken alone and his companions were used as leverage to gain his cooperation. So there are some reasons for thinking his behavior might differ under the individual circumstances. Kahn prior to his exile was a warlord responsible for subjugating and/or killing millions. In the 90s (heh, note the movie didn't mention the Eugenics Wars or its dates). So I don't think it was a stretch having Marcus trying to use his "savagery" as they put it in the movie.

Not that there weren't some issues. Magic space blood? Really?

I liked Trek into Darkness primarily because to me it actually did embody many of the original themes of Star Trek. Exploration versus militarism. Spock continuing to seek the balance between logic and emotion. Kirk growing up. Beyond that there are modern day parallels to the events in the movie, for all the talk about it being a "remake of WoK". Which it was not really. If anything I thought it was truer to the franchise than just about anything from the 2009 film.

Just one fanboy's opinion...

[RealSNR]

Saw it last night. Here are my thoughts:

Spoiler!

What I liked:

-The acting in general. All of the characters put forward fairly strong performances (terrible script and writing notwithstanding). I actually think Simon Pegg is brilliant as Scotty. Yeah, he's very nearly a different character entirely than the James Doohan-inspired Scotty, but like it or not, the original Scott is full of funny bits in both the movies and the episodes. Pegg's acting was the only thing I enjoyed at all about the shitty ****ing Kirk/Spock death reversal. Huge props to Benedict Cumberbatch, too. I knew he'd be good in this.

-It was fun. I was entertained.

-Getting a glimpse of the Klingons for the next films was great. I'm excited by the possibilities there, provided the producers don't take a massive shit on them like they did everything else.

What I didn't like:

-I love Star Trek. That being said, **** tribbles. **** everything about them. They're not funny, they're not charming, and Trouble With Tribbles is a mediocre episode. It's boring. ****, I can't believe that geezers point to that episode has one of the hallmarks of the franchise. I can explain that McCoy probably altered the tribble in Into Darkness so it wouldn't reproduce, but still. They threw a ****ing tribble in there to save the day in the end just to appease stupid ****ing blowhards who want more Trek references. It was like Abrams was saying, "Okay, look, I ****ing hate Star Trek, so you people want a re-imagining of it? Here you go! There's some tribbles! Happy now? Good, let's move on." And he did that kind of shit MULTIPLE times, including with the entire character of McCoy. Karl Urban was fine, but the writing for his character was ****ing awful. A trainwreck.

-Spock is a huge ****ing pussy. Being half human half Vulcan doesn't mean you selectively choose when to be human and when to be Vulcan when it's the appropriate circumstance.

-Kirk is an innovator. A genius. A rabble-rouser, even. A guy who thinks outside the box. Somebody who gets the job done. He's not supposed to be a raging ****ing psychopath with unchecked emotions. Same goes for Spock. Evolution of humanity my ****ing ass.

-The ending. It doesn't die. It doesn't ****ing die. Jesus Christ. Pick a climax and stick with it for ****'s sake. At times this movie felt like just one long extended megalopic chase sequence. It reminded me a lot of Pirates of the Carribbean Dead Man's Chest, except Jerry Bruckheimer wasn't writing a movie within an established framework of characters. There's nothing wrong with lots of action, and I don't even think there's such a thing as TOO much action provided the plot and the surroundings actually call for it. A run from the Nibiruians followed by a run from the Klingons followed by a run from Wallace's crew, yeah, you get my point. It's along the same line that many people have been making: Your actions should have MEANING.

-I agree with Clayton here. Abrams was endowed with the task of re-imagining Kirk's Enterprise crew in a set of new Star Trek movies. That means you can use elements from prior episodes and movies (including Kahn), concepts, settings, and even famous lines. I think he did that okay in Star Trek (2009). In this movie he said, "I want Kahn, but I can't just remake Wrath of Kahn... umm, I'll add a bunch of other shit to it... **** I'm still writing the same movie basically... uhh... I KNOW! Kirk can die instead of Spock in the radiation! Yeah! Now it's different! Oh, and tribbles! Brilliant!" That shit is lazy as all ****. JJ Abrams with this script shouldn't have made it into a piece of online fanfiction much less a $190 million movie.

That being said...

It was entertaining. There were some good parts. I have a couple of other friends who want to see this movie, and I'll likely go see it with them. Multiple times.

I was pretty high on Star Trek (2009). I liked that movie. This one gets a final grade of "meh". Too much lazy shit that got slapped together with JJ Abrams' own diarrhea.

Star Wars is his first love? Yeah, it probably is. ****ing moron. At least that body has already been raped by Lucas, so whatever "revival" he does of it will be hard to disappoint fans of Star Wars. They've already seen the worst.

[Hammock Parties]

Agree about Spock. I can't stand Quinto's portrayal. It's completely different than Nimoy's Spock to be honest.

Spock seems like a high strung lil bitch in this.

SNR's review is on point. This film is pissing off a lot of hard core Trekkies.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I've seen every episode of every series not named "voyager" and multiple times for TOS, TNG and DS9. While I've never done cosplay, I have owned tech manuals, the Science of Star Trek, built models, played games, read expanded universe novels (mostly in the 90s), so on and so forth. The problem with most fanboys (and that goes for comics in general, as much as for trek) is that they often lack imagination where "canon" is concerned. They want slavish devotion the story they know. And they really have a hard time dealing with a rebooted universe where things don't occur exactly the way they're used to. Kahn in the movie was not the Kahn from Space Seed. He was discovered 5 or 6 years before Kirk found the Botany Bay in the original timeline, there was no McGivers, there was only Admiral Marcus (or whoever was involved with Section 31). Meaning he was found by a military vessel and not an exploratory craft. He was woken alone and his companions were used as leverage to gain his cooperation. So there are some reasons for thinking his behavior might differ under the individual circumstances. Kahn prior to his exile was a warlord responsible for subjugating and/or killing millions. In the 90s (heh, note the movie didn't mention the Eugenics Wars or its dates). So I don't think it was a stretch having Marcus trying to use his "savagery" as they put it in the movie.

Not that there weren't some issues. Magic space blood? Really?

I liked Trek into Darkness primarily because to me it actually did embody many of the original themes of Star Trek. Exploration versus militarism. Spock continuing to seek the balance between logic and emotion. Kirk growing up. Beyond that there are modern day parallels to the events in the movie, for all the talk about it being a "remake of WoK". Which it was not really. If anything I thought it was truer to the franchise than just about anything from the 2009 film.

Just one fanboy's opinion...

ha, you and my friend would be friends...

not having any of this knowledge, my experience of the movie was that is was well balanced in the way that is near impossible for blockbusters...they have to be funny/sad, serious/light, smart/dumb etc...

i kind of like that they turned the volume down on the 'militarism'/terror as the movie progressed, but it was established enough to be in your mind...i'm worn out on the 'heavy' a la the 3rd Nolan Batman, which was - to me - a total sludge

i surprised myself, as I am generally pretty cynical about mega-budget movies, but this one caught me on the right day I guess...and totally agree about the 'magic blood'...which does then lead to some questions about committing to the spock/kirk WoK reversal...but

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by SNR

Saw it last night. Here are my thoughts:

Spoiler!

What I liked:

-The acting in general. All of the characters put forward fairly strong performances (terrible script and writing notwithstanding). I actually think Simon Pegg is brilliant as Scotty. Yeah, he's very nearly a different character entirely than the James Doohan-inspired Scotty, but like it or not, the original Scott is full of funny bits in both the movies and the episodes. Pegg's acting was the only thing I enjoyed at all about the shitty ****ing Kirk/Spock death reversal. Huge props to Benedict Cumberbatch, too. I knew he'd be good in this.

-It was fun. I was entertained.

-Getting a glimpse of the Klingons for the next films was great. I'm excited by the possibilities there, provided the producers don't take a massive shit on them like they did everything else.

What I didn't like:

-I love Star Trek. That being said, **** tribbles. **** everything about them. They're not funny, they're not charming, and Trouble With Tribbles is a mediocre episode. It's boring. ****, I can't believe that geezers point to that episode has one of the hallmarks of the franchise. I can explain that McCoy probably altered the tribble in Into Darkness so it wouldn't reproduce, but still. They threw a ****ing tribble in there to save the day in the end just to appease stupid ****ing blowhards who want more Trek references. It was like Abrams was saying, "Okay, look, I ****ing hate Star Trek, so you people want a re-imagining of it? Here you go! There's some tribbles! Happy now? Good, let's move on." And he did that kind of shit MULTIPLE times, including with the entire character of McCoy. Karl Urban was fine, but the writing for his character was ****ing awful. A trainwreck.

-Spock is a huge ****ing pussy. Being half human half Vulcan doesn't mean you selectively choose when to be human and when to be Vulcan when it's the appropriate circumstance.

-Kirk is an innovator. A genius. A rabble-rouser, even. A guy who thinks outside the box. Somebody who gets the job done. He's not supposed to be a raging ****ing psychopath with unchecked emotions. Same goes for Spock. Evolution of humanity my ****ing ass.

-The ending. It doesn't die. It doesn't ****ing die. Jesus Christ. Pick a climax and stick with it for ****'s sake. At times this movie felt like just one long extended megalopic chase sequence. It reminded me a lot of Pirates of the Carribbean Dead Man's Chest, except Jerry Bruckheimer wasn't writing a movie within an established framework of characters. There's nothing wrong with lots of action, and I don't even think there's such a thing as TOO much action provided the plot and the surroundings actually call for it. A run from the Nibiruians followed by a run from the Klingons followed by a run from Wallace's crew, yeah, you get my point. It's along the same line that many people have been making: Your actions should have MEANING.

-I agree with Clayton here. Abrams was endowed with the task of re-imagining Kirk's Enterprise crew in a set of new Star Trek movies. That means you can use elements from prior episodes and movies (including Kahn), concepts, settings, and even famous lines. I think he did that okay in Star Trek (2009). In this movie he said, "I want Kahn, but I can't just remake Wrath of Kahn... umm, I'll add a bunch of other shit to it... **** I'm still writing the same movie basically... uhh... I KNOW! Kirk can die instead of Spock in the radiation! Yeah! Now it's different! Oh, and tribbles! Brilliant!" That shit is lazy as all ****. JJ Abrams with this script shouldn't have made it into a piece of online fanfiction much less a $190 million movie.

That being said...

It was entertaining. There were some good parts. I have a couple of other friends who want to see this movie, and I'll likely go see it with them. Multiple times.

I was pretty high on Star Trek (2009). I liked that movie. This one gets a final grade of "meh". Too much lazy shit that got slapped together with JJ Abrams' own diarrhea.

Star Wars is his first love? Yeah, it probably is. ****ing moron. At least that body has already been raped by Lucas, so whatever "revival" he does of it will be hard to disappoint fans of Star Wars. They've already seen the worst.

Agree with most everything there.

TOTALLY agree on Spock, and on Kirk. I disagree on Scotty -- Pegg just doesn't work for me, it seems like he's doing a parody of Doohan. Doohan always had a serious side, too, and I haven't seen that with Pegg (that I can recall).

I also HATE the Uhura and Spock romance. Not sure why, maybe I'm just racist.

The one character and actor I really like in the two films is Urban as McCoy. To me, he nails it.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

Agree about Spock. I can't stand Quinto's portrayal. It's completely different than Nimoy's Spock to be honest.

Spock seems like a high strung lil bitch in this.

SNR's review is on point. This film is pissing off a lot of hard core Trekkies.

Aren't they "Trekkers" now?

[Hammock Parties]

I don't get into that.

If you like Star Trek, you're a Trekkie. Period.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Aren't they "Trekkers" now?

I think they have been almost since the beginning. I remember reading as a kid in the 70s fans bristling at the "Trekkie" moniker, preferring "Trekker."

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

I don't get into that.

If you like Star Trek, you're a Trekkie. Period.

It never bothered me either. "Trekker" complaints are pretentious, IMO.

[keg in kc]

Sorta hits on something I said earlier: people have a hard time wrapping their brains around this not being the Spock they grew up with. This one saw Vulcan destroyed and met an all but ancient version of himself from another reality. He's like ****ed-in-the-head Spock 2.0, and younger than we've ever seen to boot, since all these events occurred years prior to the date of TOS pilot.

That said, the Uhura romance has never made any sense to me. But I have an eternal boner for Zoe Saldana so it slides.

And in a practical sense, he ain't Leonard Nimoy, so it ain't ever going to be the same. Just isn't possible. I'd argue his character is more iconic than Shatner's.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Sorta hits on something I said earlier: people have a hard time wrapping their brains around this not being the Spock they grew up with. This one saw Vulcan destroyed and met an all but ancient version of himself from another reality. He's like ****ed-in-the-head Spock 2.0, and younger than we've ever seen to boot, since all these events occurred years prior to the date of TOS pilot.

That said, the Uhura romance has never made any sense to me. But I have an eternal boner for Zoe Saldana so it slides.

Speaking of ...

Spoiler!

... going to the well once too often.

[keg in kc]

Spoiler!

Yeah, I thought that was unnecessary, although I like seeing Nimoy. Who knows how much longer he'll be around.

[Donger]

So, it sucks? I was going to take the wife to see it in a theater.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Donger

So, it sucks? I was going to take the wife to see it in a theater.

It sucks for one out of 10 viewers.

A movie doesn't get 86% fresh from critics and 89% fresh from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes by sucking. That based on damn near 79,000 reviews, by the way.