Deadline: Trek 2 May Be Pushed to Holiday 2012

[MvRojo]

Deadline Hollywood just put up an article titled, "Can 'Star Trek 2' Morph From 70-Page Outline To Summer Tent Pole In 13 Months?"

Paramount isn't confirming any of this, but I'm told that there soon should be good news and bad news on the Star Trek sequel front. The good news: With his film Super 8 set for release June 10, JJ Abrams is expected to announce shortly his return as director of Star Trek 2. The bad news: Even moving at warp speed, Abrams will be hard pressed to make the June 29, 2012 release date that the studio set for the film. I'm told that the move being considered right now is to push Trek back for a Holiday 2012 release.

On the Trekkie fan site Trekmovie.com, Orci confessed this week that they have a 70-page outline, and are waiting for Abrams to commit so that they can really get going. Well, that is hardly an enviable position to be in, exactly 13 months before the release of the film. Orci suggested in the interview they could prep the film from an outline. That is hard, particularly for a sophisticated, futuristic science fiction film. This is basically what happened on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and director Michael Bay has been open about the fact that the rush to make a release date with a script that wasn't ready hurt the film. The cost of a Vfx-heavy film rushing like this raises the budget considerably.

It wouldn't be too surprising at this point if the movie did move and it is probably necessary at this point in order to ensure a quality film, but it is a little disappointing.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/can...age-outline-to-summer-tent-pole-in-13-months/

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

I will not watch the movie if it gets delayed.

 

[Ovation]

I will only watch the movie if it is delayed as I refuse to indulge "the franchise" if it seeks to maintain a strict adherence to previous events without taking into account the need to reach out beyond the "core fanbase".

 

[MvRojo]

If they do end up moving it, Holiday 2012 might be a bad choice since "The Hobbit, Part 1" and "Man of Steel" are opening that month.

 

[BillJ]

If they do end up moving it, Holiday 2012 might be a bad choice since "The Hobbit, Part 1" and "Man of Steel" are opening that month.

I think May 2013 is still the most likely choice. Paramount wanted it to be a summer tent pole picture.

 

[MvRojo]

If they do end up moving it, Holiday 2012 might be a bad choice since "The Hobbit, Part 1" and "Man of Steel" are opening that month.

I think May 2013 is still the most likely choice. Paramount wanted it to be a summer tent pole picture.

Yeah, I would prefer it not being near "The Hobbit." It brings up the bad decision Paramount made of releasing Nemesis a few days before "The Return of the King." Of course the film was a big problem, but releasing it so close to the final part of the Lord of the Rings definitely ate into profits that might have come from casual moviegoers who don't see tons of movies.

 

[sonak]

moving it to summer 2013 means a long gap between films. I'm not sure there's such a thing as momentum in blockbuster franchises, but wouldn't you think you'd want to follow up huge hits like "Star Trek" sooner rather than much, much later?

 

[Whofan]

It will also probably compete with the latest Bond movie as well... (Although work on that one has been a bit slow due to MGM's money issues).

 

[C.E. Evans]

They should aim for June 4, 1982...

 

[Dar70]

I will not watch the movie if it gets delayed.

You will watch it.

 

[BillJ]

moving it to summer 2013 means a long gap between films. I'm not sure there's such a thing as momentum in blockbuster franchises, but wouldn't you think you'd want to follow up huge hits like "Star Trek" sooner rather than much, much later?

Heck they wait long enough they can just re-shoot the same script and claim it's another reboot.

 

[Desert Kris]

Uh...hmm. They've been saying they are working on a script, yet it's actually been an outline that they've been mapping out? Still, I suppose a 70 page goes into enough detail to fill out into script format, and yet...hmm. Well.

And their considering bumping it to a holiday release, when the studio felt so proud of it's summer release caliber potential; is that a demotion? And that particular holiday may be loaded with other potential blockbusters hogging the spotlight, it hardly seems a fair competition, even if their confident about the quality. You can overload the audiences with too much good stuff, and if they are forced to be selective...not a promising situation. And if they bump it on to 2013, that would be four years after the first one, which was a huge hit! This is a strange way to follow up on a highly successful blockbuster that a fair amount of people are excited about.

I can imagine JJ Abrams has been busy with other stuff, definitely; but there weren't opportunities to look in on the story development, a little bit here and a little bit there?

I don't know what to make of this.

 

[BillJ]

It does seem that we are receiving a lot of contradictory information about this particular film.

 

[Jax]

I would be be very worried by a Christmas 2012 release date as films typically don't have strong legs compared to the summer counterparts + Man of Steel and The Hobbit, especially the Hobbit would crush STAR TREK.

June 2012 or May 2013 but no Hoilday 2012.

 

[sonak]

moving it to summer 2013 means a long gap between films. I'm not sure there's such a thing as momentum in blockbuster franchises, but wouldn't you think you'd want to follow up huge hits like "Star Trek" sooner rather than much, much later?

Heck they wait long enough they can just re-shoot the same script and claim it's another reboot.

well, they've begun "rebooting" comic book movie franchises about every four or five years(X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) so why not Star Trek reboots at that interval?


just think, future Trek discussions in 2025 or 2030 about which of the five or six actors to play Captain Kirk did the best job.

 

[MvRojo]

moving it to summer 2013 means a long gap between films. I'm not sure there's such a thing as momentum in blockbuster franchises, but wouldn't you think you'd want to follow up huge hits like "Star Trek" sooner rather than much, much later?

Heck they wait long enough they can just re-shoot the same script and claim it's another reboot.

well, they've begun "rebooting" comic book movie franchises about every four or five years(X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) so why not Star Trek reboots at that interval?


just think, future Trek discussions in 2025 or 2030 about which of the five or six actors to play Captain Kirk did the best job.

Technically, they are hoping to go back to the original cast for future X-Men movies, but that's down the line. But you're right about Spider-man and soon Fantastic Four as well.

 

[Kelso]

Bah! Can J.J. not fit the thing in his schedule?!? I miss the days when the films were helmed by unsuccessful directors who were desperate for the work! Frakes never would have let this happen!>!

 

[Devon]

Uh...hmm. They've been saying they are working on a script, yet it's actually been an outline that they've been mapping out? Still, I suppose a 70 page goes into enough detail to fill out into script format, and yet...hmm. Well.

Outline is done, Script is not quite done (since, as Orci said, they are waiting for Abrams to get done with the Super 8 stuff before they finish it up.)

And their considering bumping it to a holiday release, when the studio felt so proud of it's summer release caliber potential; is that a demotion?

Not really.

And that particular holiday may be loaded with other potential blockbusters hogging the spotlight,

That's even far more the case in the summer time.

I can imagine JJ Abrams has been busy with other stuff, definitely; but there weren't opportunities to look in on the story development, a little bit here and a little bit there?

He has been, thus the comments about J.J.'s input on the script by Orci.

 

[MvRojo]

Bah! Can J.J. not fit the thing in his schedule?!? I miss the days when the films were helmed by unsuccessful directors who were desperate for the work! Frakes never would have let this happen!>!

It's not JJ, it's more the fault of the writers. For various reasons, the script is taking longer than they probably thought. Possibly because they have so many other projects going on (including at least 3 television shows, and a handful of films). They're essentially spread too thin and Trek is a victim of their success.

 

[M'Sharak]

Bah! Can J.J. not fit the thing in his schedule?!? I miss the days when the films were helmed by unsuccessful directors who were desperate for the work! Frakes never would have let this happen!>!

It's not JJ, it's more the fault of the writers. For various reasons, the script is taking longer than they probably thought.

Call it a hunch, but I suspect that Kelso was not being entirely serious when he posted that.

Possibly because they have so many other projects going on (including at least 3 television shows, and a handful of films). They're essentially spread too thin and Trek is a victim of their success.

Going by what Jarod posted in the other thread, I'd say that you're probably right on this, at least to an extent. Alex Kurtzman's schedule very closely resembles Orci's and Damon Lindelof is in on some of those, as well. Whether that ends up translating into a later release date for the Trek follow-up remains to be seen, but all the main members of the creative team seem to be in demand--studios want to hire them and people on both sides of the camera want to work with them--which is not such a bad thing for Star Trek, I'm thinking (even if that does mean we have to wait a little longer.)