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?

[DJ's left nut]

Wait a minute....

V'ger is the returned Voyager probe, launched in the 20th century and well before the events of the reboot, including the new reality - yes? And everything V'ger did is completely independent of anything Kirk or the rest of the federation would've done, correct?

In other words, nothing that transpired in the re-boot would've stopped V'ger from coming to earth and doing exactly what happened in Trek 1.

So technically speaking, won't the 'new' Enterprise crew have to deal with V'ger at some point?

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Wait a minute....

V'ger is the returned Voyager probe, launched in the 20th century and well before the events of the reboot, including the new reality - yes? And everything V'ger did is completely independent of anything Kirk or the rest of the federation would've done, correct?

In other words, nothing that transpired in the re-boot would've stopped V'ger from coming to earth and doing exactly what happened in Trek 1.

So technically speaking, won't the 'new' Enterprise crew have to deal with V'ger at some point?

Theoretically, yes.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Wait a minute....

V'ger is the returned Voyager probe, launched in the 20th century and well before the events of the reboot, including the new reality - yes? And everything V'ger did is completely independent of anything Kirk or the rest of the federation would've done, correct?

In other words, nothing that transpired in the re-boot would've stopped V'ger from coming to earth and doing exactly what happened in Trek 1.

So technically speaking, won't the 'new' Enterprise crew have to deal with V'ger at some point?

[keg in kc]

The events of the motion picture wouldn't occur for another 13 years in the alternate universe.

[Red Brooklyn]

I really liked Into Darkness. But I really liked the 09 version, too. So, no big surprise. Not a perfect film, but really well executed sequel and a fun reboot/alternate interpretation of events. This whole alternate timeline thing is just brilliant.

I have no idea if they'll do a third. I hope so. Because the set up after this guy is awesome. The next one could be something special. We can actually move forward instead of dancing sideways.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

He slammed it.

Is there something about watching Plinkett that makes you stupid?

He didn't slam it. In fact, he seemed to like it more than any of the other Star Trek films he reviewed.

[BigBeauford]

So Star Trek snobs on here look forward more to Superman, than liking this excellent movie? Give me a break. This movie is easily the best that I have viewed this year.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by qbsacker93

So Star Trek snobs on here look forward more to Superman, than liking this excellent movie? Give me a break. This movie is easily the best that I have viewed this year.

You know nothing about what makes a good Star Trek movie.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

You know nothing about what makes a good Star Trek movie.

Tired argument is tired.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Man of Steel was better.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

I really liked Into Darkness. But I really liked the 09 version, too. So, no big surprise. Not a perfect film, but really well executed sequel and a fun reboot/alternate interpretation of events. This whole alternate timeline thing is just brilliant.

I have no idea if they'll do a third. I hope so. Because the set up after this guy is awesome. The next one could be something special. We can actually move forward instead of dancing sideways.

I enjoyed the reboot, even though I expected to hate it. The alternate timeline idea really pissed me off. I love Star Trek. I wanted more Star Trek, not rehashed Star Trek. The reboot gave that too me when I didn't think it could. I was very pleasantly surprised.

Star Trek 2.2 is the reason I hated the alternate timeline idea. All of my objections to rebooting the series came through in this rehashed Khan movie. It just seemed like a mish mash of Trek lore. Sadly, I loved Cumberbatch, and he makes a great villain. He makes a shitty Khan. The The role reversal, triblles, and immortality serum just seemed to take the laziness of story writing to a new extreme. One that was satisfyingly lacking in the 09 reboot, but shoved in my face in 2.2.

If 2.3 has whales, VGER, Khan (I'm expecting he escaped his ship's destruction), aircraft carriers, terraforming missiles, etc. I will be skipping it. I should have skipped 2.2 knowing Khan was in it.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Man of Steel was better.

It would be hard NOT to be better.

Any decent science fiction movie with an original plot/story > Into Darkpiss

[BigBeauford]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

It would be hard NOT to be better.

Any decent science fiction movie with an original plot/story > Into Darkpiss

Agreed, we have never had Superman's backstory hashed out in multiple forms of media by different directors/visionaries over multiple decades.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by qbsacker93

Agreed, we have never had Superman's backstory hashed out in multiple forms of media by different directors/visionaries over multiple decades.

Well, I haven't seen the new Superman movie, but nerd consensus seems to be that it's pretty awesome, and not a ripoff.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Star Trek 2.2 is the reason I hated the alternate timeline idea. All of my objections to rebooting the series came through in this rehashed Khan movie. It just seemed like a mish mash of Trek lore. Sadly, I loved Cumberbatch, and he makes a great villain. He makes a shitty Khan. The The role reversal, triblles, and immortality serum just seemed to take the laziness of story writing to a new extreme. One that was satisfyingly lacking in the 09 reboot, but shoved in my face in 2.2.

If 2.3 has whales, VGER, Khan (I'm expecting he escaped his ship's destruction), aircraft carriers, terraforming missiles, etc. I will be skipping it. I should have skipped 2.2 knowing Khan was in it.

To each their own. But it didn't feel like a rehash to me (outside of the obvious moments of borrowed plot, which only really amounted to like five minutes of screen time). It was just a new introduction to a standard original series character. It continued the same things I loved about the reboot. It gave us a new introduction/take on a classic character. And Kahn was much more interesting and fleshed out than Bana's Romulan. Big improvement there, I thought.

And this is all way before the timeframe of Wrath of Kahn. If Into Darkness is a rehash, it's a rehash of the original series Kahn episode.

I wonder if it's just because it's the second in the new series and Kahn was the second film in the original run. Would people have been bothered if they'd waited until the fifth or sixth film to do a Kahn story?

Into Darkness probably isn't quite as good as Star Trek (09). But I did actually like it more than Wrath. I would have preferred less direct homage, but I think they pulled it off. It's all explained very well. It's clever and gripping. And I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. I even got a bit teary at times.

The tribble in the middle of the scene was awkward and pure set up. That could have been handled more gracefully. And the resurrection was strained. But it could have been worse. And it's not like anyone expected dude to stay dead.

It's nice that we finally have the Enterprise out on its mission. I think that has the potential to open up the new timeline. I'm excited to see where they take it.