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?

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

People are just pissed it was louder and more flash-bangy than the average Star Trek film.

It wasn't necessarily a bad thing, it was just different.

The core of Star Trek has always been the relationship between the characters. I am still somewhat concerned that's going to be lost. I guess we'll see.

I still would like to see a Star Trek film with a great plot like VI. That has always been my favorite. I don't know if Abrams is that kind of guy though.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

Well we could argue back and forth all day about how flawed or stupid some of the sequences might have been.

But I still don't understand the Star Wars comparison, nor how it was dumbed down. Whether it was flawed or not, the film was fairly complex and emotionally mature.

The pace, fighting and explosion factor were upped significantly for today's modern younger audience. I don't care, they made Trek entertaining again. It had grown stale.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

The core of Star Trek has always been the relationship between the characters. I am still somewhat concerned that's going to be lost. I guess we'll see.

I still would like to see a Star Trek film with a great plot like VI. That has always been my favorite. I don't know if Abrams is that kind of guy though.

This is interesting to me because you seem to be implying that Abrams abandoned a more character driven story, but also that he didn't deliver a great plot. Those ideas seem like they could be in conflict. They aren't necessarily, but they could be.

Did you like the reboot? And what do you think Abrams & Co did well if not plot and character?

Would you say spectacle was his number one priority? Or at least, that he made a film where the spectacle was better executed than plot and character?

Because I don't think anyone could argue that the spectacle of the film was outstanding. The visuals are phenomenal.

I thought the plot was well executed, if a little straight forward. Unless we're considering the nature of the reboot as part of the plot. In which case, I'd say the plot was genius.

This is the first franchise reboot that I've ever seen that is a genuine reboot.

But, at it's core, it's the characters that elevated the movie, for me. If it had just been an action extravaganza with no substance, I wouldn't own it and watch it over and over again.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

The pace, fighting and explosion factor were upped significantly for today's modern younger audience. I don't care, they made Trek entertaining again. It had grown stale.

I completely agree.

But I would add that I think they did a great job with the character development. Especially since they were essentially reintroducing characters we already know and care about.

[siberian khatru]

Interesting conversation about the first one (the reboot).

I saw it in theaters and liked it a lot. This week, I rewatched it for the first time, on TV, and found I liked it a lot less. I was wincing at several scenes.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Interesting conversation about the first one (the reboot).

I saw it in theaters and liked it a lot. This week, I rewatched it for the first time, on TV, and found I liked it a lot less. I was wincing at several scenes.

The story was pretty basic other than the time travel stuff.....but they absolutely nailed the characters and casting. It would never have worked without getting the characters and the right actors. Chris Pine was a major find.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

Interesting conversation about the first one (the reboot).

I saw it in theaters and liked it a lot. This week, I rewatched it for the first time, on TV, and found I liked it a lot less. I was wincing at several scenes.

That's a bummer.

I seem to like it more and more each time I watch it. I've seen it well over a dozen times now and I just smile ear to ear. It hits all the right notes for me.

Hoping this next one continues the standards set in terms of spectacle and imagination, but with, perhaps, a darker bend.

Abrams & Co keep talking about TDK as a major influence, as a paradigm for what a franchise sequel should look/feel like. I hope they are able to achieve their version of The Dark Knight.

[whoman69]

If you want to get picky from things I didn't like about the reboot there are many. There are no cliffs like that in Iowa. If he had maybe driven to Dubuque he could have driven over the bluffs.

The really big thing was the way they got away from the black hole at the end. They ejected all the warp engine cores and blew them up so that the explosion would give them a push to get going. First off any explosion would have been swallowed by the black hole. Second, you've just expended the power cells that fuels your engines. How would they get away?

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

It's Star Trek, dude. Star Trek science is always full of bullshit.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

This is interesting to me because you seem to be implying that Abrams abandoned a more character driven story, but also that he didn't deliver a great plot. Those ideas seem like they could be in conflict. They aren't necessarily, but they could be.

Did you like the reboot? And what do you think Abrams & Co did well if not plot and character?

Would you say spectacle was his number one priority? Or at least, that he made a film where the spectacle was better executed than plot and character?

Because I don't think anyone could argue that the spectacle of the film was outstanding. The visuals are phenomenal.

I thought the plot was well executed, if a little straight forward. Unless we're considering the nature of the reboot as part of the plot. In which case, I'd say the plot was genius.

This is the first franchise reboot that I've ever seen that is a genuine reboot.

But, at it's core, it's the characters that elevated the movie, for me. If it had just been an action extravaganza with no substance, I wouldn't own it and watch it over and over again.

I liked the reboot but it was different than traditional Star Trek.

The characters were fine, but they still lacked the chemistry that the old cast had built up.

Plotwise it fell short...it was mostly about spectacle and building up a few key characters.

It'll be interesting to see how they proceed.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by whoman69

If you want to get picky from things I didn't like about the reboot there are many. There are no cliffs like that in Iowa. If he had maybe driven to Dubuque he could have driven over the bluffs.

The really big thing was the way they got away from the black hole at the end. They ejected all the warp engine cores and blew them up so that the explosion would give them a push to get going. First off any explosion would have been swallowed by the black hole. Second, you've just expended the power cells that fuels your engines. How would they get away?

It actually was a quarry, so that's semi-plausible. However, the area looked way too flat and barren to be eastern Iowa.

And the impulse engines aren't powered by the warp core. But yeah, the black hole would have swallowed the explosion. That was lame.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Originally Posted by frazod

It actually was a quarry, so that's semi-plausible. However, the area looked way too flat and barren to be eastern Iowa.

And the impulse engines aren't powered by the warp core. But yeah, the black hole would have swallowed the explosion. That was lame.

Didn't they go to warp, though?

[frazod]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

Didn't they go to warp, though?

No, the explosion blasted them clear (I assume they had the impulse engines on full).

[Guru]

Originally Posted by frazod

No, the explosion blasted them clear (I assume they had the impulse engines on full).

They gave it all she had.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by whoman69

If you want to get picky from things I didn't like about the reboot there are many. There are no cliffs like that in Iowa. If he had maybe driven to Dubuque he could have driven over the bluffs.

Originally Posted by frazod

It actually was a quarry, so that's semi-plausible. However, the area looked way too flat and barren to be eastern Iowa.

I figured that was due to the nuclear war in the early 21st century?