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?

[keg in kc]

Seeing it in an hour myself.

[Hammock Parties]

Yeah, I'll probably see it again just for the visuals...and to confirm that the last third of the movie is an abortion.

[Frazod]

My biggest problem with this, and the last one, for that matter

Spoiler!

Still no decent space battles. In both films, it's basically the Enterprise getting stomped by massively superior ship. I miss the pitched, even Battle of the Mutara Nebula. I wish they'd ripped that off.

[Hammock Parties]

That's because Abrams isn't creative enough to pull off something like that, and even he isn't enough of a ripoff artist to just copy and paste that scene.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

This isn't even the problem.

The story sucks.

Abrams is a hack.

I expect the new Star Wars trilogy will be about Luke turning to the dark side, forming a new Empire and in the third act, his son redeems him.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But it's just your opinion, and I completely disagree with it. I've watched every Star Trek episode and every Star Trek movie multiple times, so I am hardly a Star Trek noob. In my opinion, J.J. Abrams completely gets it and this film is incredible.

Spoiler!

You see a story about Khan and think it indicates a lack of originality. I see a Star Trek universe that J.J. Abrams rebooted in a way that's completely different from every other reboot out there. When Nero went back in time in the 2009 movie, he created an alternate Star Trek timeline. Every event that happened in the original series and the original movies still counts because those events occurred in the original timeline. Those events weren't thrown away and replaced with the new movies. Hell, new Spock even called up old Spock and asked him for advice based upon his experiences in the original timeline. If you didn't get a kick out of that, I feel sorry for you.

It's natural that Kirk and the Enterprise would eventually encounter Khan in the new timeline, yet the story turns out to be very different from their original encounters. And yet through it all, there is some type of Fate or Destiny that causes similar (but not identical) things to happen, such as Kirk dying instead of Spock but in a very similar manner. I loved it when Kirk said "The ship?", and Spock said "Out of danger", since those were Spock's exact words 30 years ago. That's not a lack of originality. That's retelling a story that the fans of the original movies can identify with and appreciate. The movie even paid homage to "The Trouble with Tribbles" episode by having a Tribble pay a minor yet significant role in this movie.

I think you're expecting perfection and you're holding the J.J. Abrams films to a much higher standard than the original films. I'll tell you this: I remember The Wrath of Khan being the greatest Star Trek movie of the old era. I re-watched it yesterday to see how it compared with the new movie, and it struck me as very slow, old-fashioned, and at times a little boring. I didn't used to look at it that way, but the non-stop action and the crisp storytelling of the two J.J. Abrams films have spoiled me.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, and my opinion is no more or less valid than yours. But you should expect to be challenged when you state that Abrams is a complete hack and that this story sucks. He's not, and it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

I'm eagerly anticipating Dane ripping this thing to shreds, because I know he disliked the first one, and this one, while different, was arguably worse IMO.

We don't need Dane. You've become Dane.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

That's because Abrams isn't creative enough to pull off something like that, and even he isn't enough of a ripoff artist to just copy and paste that scene.

LOL WUT? J.J. Abrams isn't creative? The fans of Lost, Fringe, and Alias disagree.

I'm starting to think that J.J.Abrams' storytelling is just way over your head. You think he is all about explosions and people falling from high places.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

LOL WUT? J.J. Abrams isn't creative? The fans of Lost, Fringe, and Alias disagree.

I'm starting to think that J.J.Abrams' storytelling is just way over your head. You think he is all about explosions and people falling from high places.

He's an unoriginal bastard.

I was completely emotionally uninvolved in this crap and sitting there smirking during the pivotal moment in the movie, knowing EXACTLY how it was going to play out.

Embarrassing "story."

[Hammock Parties]

I think you're expecting perfection

Really? The ****?

I just expect something original, not a ****ing rehash.

It's weak, short-cut, cop-out story telling.

JJ Abrams might as well be George Lucas at this point, telling us all THEY'RE POETRY, THEY RHYME!!!!

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

Really? The ****?

I just expect something original, not a ****ing rehash.

It's weak, short-cut, cop-out story telling.

JJ Abrams might as well be George Lucas at this point, telling us all THEY'RE POETRY, THEY RHYME!!!!

You're clearly out of touch with the majority of movie watchers.

91% of the audience liked the 2009 Star Trek movie, and 89% of the audience likes Star Trek Into Darkness.

The movies do even better with film critics: 95% of critics liked Star Trek, and 91% of them like Star Trek Into Darkness.

So you can criticize JJ Abrams and these movies all you want. But you're stating your opinions as though they are facts. They aren't facts. They are opinions that are shared by a tiny minority of people.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls

He's an unoriginal bastard.

I was completely emotionally uninvolved in this crap and sitting there smirking during the pivotal moment in the movie, knowing EXACTLY how it was going to play out.

Embarrassing "story."

You hate the Star Trek movies. You hate Alex Smith. You hate Andy Reid.

A pattern is emerging. You're just a hater.

[Hammock Parties]

Yes, they're entertaining movies. That's why people like them.

But to compare them to Voyage Home or Undiscovered Country...get the **** out.

PS - it's a fact that Abrams ripped the climax off this movie off. And it ****ing sucked. And it ruined the movie for me and a lot of other die-hard Trek fans.

There better not be no Genesis Device in Star Trek: Out of Darkness, or whatever shitty title the third one has. Because, shit, they already have Carol Marcus in this one, so it's just a hop, skip and a jump to more ripoff stories!

[keg in kc]

Really liked it.

Loved the way the events of the first movie led to the expansion of section 31 (one of my favorite aspects of DS9) and the militarization of starfleet. Loved the way it led to the discovery of the botany bay years earlier than in the original timeline. Loved the way Section 31 used Khan. Loved the way that Kirk and Spock grew in different ways, and before the 5 year mission.

Did not love the deus ex machina of Khan's blood, but they established very early on (like 10 min into the movie) that that's what was going to happen, so no shock. Spock's Wilhem scream was too much fan service, but that was basically him losing control of his emotions, and having Uhura help him regain control of himself was a nice circular resolution via role-reversal.

All-in-all I think I enjoyed that as much as the 2009 Trek. Maybe will end up liking it more after repeat viewings, and I'm curious to see where they go next, since the 5 year mission will free them up to basically do whatever the hell they want.

[Imon Yourside]

I liked it as well, except they didn't need to kill off/resurrect Kirk. My buds thought they sold Khan short, I thought it was well done.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

I liked it as well, except they didn't need to kill off/resurrect Kirk. My buds thought they sold Khan short, I thought it was well done.

The resurrection bugged me, too. I thought it would have been really ballsy to kill him off and leave him dead, but obviously there's no way that was ever going to happen.

I do like, since we're playing with alternate realities, the idea of certain things happening regardless, albeit in different ways. Sort of like Dr. Who's fixed moments in time.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

You're clearly out of touch with the majority of movie watchers.

91% of the audience liked the 2009 Star Trek movie, and 89% of the audience likes Star Trek Into Darkness.

The movies do even better with film critics: 95% of critics liked Star Trek, and 91% of them like Star Trek Into Darkness.

So you can criticize JJ Abrams and these movies all you want. But you're stating your opinions as though they are facts. They aren't facts. They are opinions that are shared by a tiny minority of people.

So do we get to see Spock eating Uhuru out while she hangs on to his ears in this movie?

After all, we know what gets high ratings out of the 16 year old audiences seeing these new "Star Trek" movies nowadays...