"STAR TREK Into Darkness" - 2013

[X]

I think reality has never been black or white, however in the past, popular culture reflected it to be so and I have always found that refreshing. Certainly the "Leave it to Beaver" ideal reflected society in the 1950's, but that society had plenty of issue's which entertainment ignored. I often look at TV programming and film form the "40's, "50's, and '60's and wish we could be more like that today and then I realize that they likely weren't ever really that way at all.

Yeah, this is the problem with looking at the past with lenses tainted by the television experience. What I find most interesting about the lens of the tv is that it affects us for the rest of out lives. There are studies out there that say many of those born in the generation of black and white tv have most of their dreams in black and white.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353504/Black-and-white-TV-generation-have-monochrome-dreams.html)

If you think about it, more people that grew up through the 80's don't quite remember all of the problems (they were too young for news to be the focus), but seems to remember the time more through the lens of fashion, growing pains, and the cosby show. I think it's the innate hope that we can be better that taints the rosy past that we imagine.

Just think if you actually remember things for what they were. It would be depressing. Things are getting progressively better, but we sort of need the moral outrage of our time being the worst time for many of us to get active and do something about it.

[Rico]

Some more tidbits from the writing team.  These guys still seem to be on the right track to me....

Kurtzman And Orci – Making A Good Star Trek Sequel
Posted by T'Bonz - 09/10/09 at 01:10 pm

When planning the next Star Trek movie, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci want to recreate what they loved about Star Trek when they were children watching the show.

One of the common elements of a good movie sequel is when a character or several characters are tested in some way. "Every franchise has a different need, so you have to look at them differently, based on whatever the mandate is. You need to be able to not have seen the first movie to appreciate the second one," explained Kurtzman.

"So, there's Empire Strikes Back, Superman 2, Aliens, Terminator 2, Star Trek 2," said Kurtzman. "What do all those movies have in common? Well, they're amazing stories, all on their own. You didn't have to see the first movie. And, there was some incredible, emotional test of character, in all of those movies. Superman has to give up his powers for love. The Spock and Kirk relationship is tested by Khan. Ripley finds a daughter. All of those things are such big ideas, in and of themselves, and you really can't tell those stories in movie #1 because movie #1 is very much about establishing a world."

It's possible that the next two Star Trek movies might be made back-to-back, but Kurtzman is more concerned with making a good sequel first. "It's very, very important to us to make sure that each movie is good, not 'Hey, let's do as many as possible.' We feel like we've inherited this incredible honor and this mantle of Star Trek, and the most important thing is to make sure that we're protecting that first."

"So, if the studio wants more than one, great," added Kurtzman. "But, our thinking is going to be very much about the story and whether the story prescribes that there will be more than one. Part of what is great about Star Trek is that it's a continuing adventure, so you naturally think that there will be many, hopefully, but we only focus on what comes next, and then build off of that. Right now, we're not thinking specifically about making 2 and 3. It may come up, but it's not where our heads are at right now."

The writing duo haven't figured out a specific story yet, but discussed having the events of the Star Trek future represent what's happening in the world today. "The torture thing was just a for instance," said Orci. "Someone asked, 'Modern day issues?,' and we said, 'Yeah, sure, modern day issues.' But, we're not doing a story about Gitmo. I read on some site that it was going to be about Guantanamo Bay. But, now that we've established the characters, we can have a more philosophical allegory, where what's happening in the future represents our world, like the best versions of it in the '60's did with women's rights and racial equality."

What about Khan? "Where we're starting is, 'Okay, where are our characters now? What are interesting complications that we can put in their lives? What feels like an organic emotional place for us to get to? How do we want to test them?," said Kurtzman. "And then, you look at everything and start asking, 'Who would be the best foe?'"

" There are mental exercises we play," said Orci. "You can't be a fan of this and not sit around and wonder."

Kurtzman and Orci are also working on remakes other than Star Trek. They will be teaming with CSI:NY producer Peter Lenkov to work on a new Hawaii Five-O for CBS, where the pair will be executive producers.

Hawaii Five-O aired from 1968 to 1980. The reboot is said to center on the son of Steve McGarrett (Jack Lord) from the original series.

source:
http://www.trektoday.com/content/2009/10/kurtzman-and-orci-making-a-good-star-trek-sequel/

[Rico]

Well, it's not by any means official, but it's looking more like a three year wait until 2012 for the next Trek film.  Not really too surprising.  Read on...

Earlier this week TrekMovie reported that, based on the Paramount's release slate and the schedules of the filmmakers, the chances of a Star Trek sequel in 2011 were shrinking. Now comes the first (sort of) confirmation of this, with comments from screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman made at the Screenwriting Expo held in Los Angeles this week. More details below




Star Trek 12 in 2012?
The comments come from a brief interview with ComingSoon.net, where Roberto Orci noted they are still in research mode, but regarding the timing he stated:

    Orci: We think it's going to be a 2012 release, but I'm not sure.

His writing partner went further noting:

    Kurtzman: Originally we thought we were going to have to have the script in by Christmas, but the release changed so certainly within the next eight months I'd say

This comes as no surprise, as noted in articles recently at TrekMovie, Paramount already have four 'tentpole' releases lined up for the Summer of 2011 (Thor, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Transformers 3). That summer only has a couple of open weekends, with the rest full of major films, including films from the Spider-man, Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter franchises. Plus both the film makers, and the film stars have very busy schedules, with their 2010 plans filling up quickly (especially Chris Pine and JJ Abrams).

A two year gap, while not uncommon, is still a short time frame between franchise films. Three out of ten of the Star Trek sequels had a two year gap(Star Trek III , Star Trek First Contact, and Star Trek Insurrection). Most of the rest had 2 1/2 year gaps or longer, with the longest being 6 1/2 years (between Nemesis and Star Trek 2009).

Increases chances of Abrams directed sequel
In addition to giving the team more time to prepare the film, 2012 also increases the likelihood that JJ Abrams would return to direct. In his interview with TrekMovie in May, Abrams made it clear that he would not want to direct two Star Trek movies back to back, preferring to do something in between. In his Q&A last week, Abrams stated that he hopes to direct another movie in 2010 which he is writing now. That film can be his 'in between' film, allowing him to return to Star Trek in 2011.

TrekMovie will have more on the Star Trek sequel as news becomes available.

[X]

I'm actually fine with this. Take your time and give me something good. I don't want this to become like the Saw franchise where movies seem to be filmed as soon as the one before it hits the box office.

[Ktrek]

I'm fine with it too but I think it's a huge mistake not building on the momentum of the first film while you have a fresh and interested audience. A lot of interest can wane in three years. Especially in the targeted young audience.

Kevin

[X]

I'm fine with it too but I think it's a huge mistake not building on the momentum of the first film while you have a fresh and interested audience. A lot of interest can wane in three years. Especially in the targeted young audience.

Kevin

When you weigh that against a rushed script and filming and serious competition from other movies in that timeframe, you could do the franchise more harm by not waiting. Also, with the 2.5 year turn around having been average with the other films, that makes sense. The Star Wars prequels and the original trilogy each moved on a three year cycle and I don't think that they lost any momentum with those. Three years seem to be a tried and true turn around for the special effect ladened sci-fi genre.

The bigger mistake would be to try to put it against a bunch of other big films made by the same company and have them fight it out for movie profits. When that happens, someone usually loses and it becomes a death knell for a franchise. Better safe than sorry. Also with Bluray and DVD, it won't be as if the movie vanishes for three years. I wouldn't be surprised it they dropped a director's cut with the footage added to keep the home fires burning during that drought.

[Rico]

While I'd love to see a sequel in two years, I frankly thought that was kind of wishful thinking.  These people are busy and deciding when to place the release for movies is very key to their success.  I think Paramount thinks they made the right choice delaying the last one by six months from Dec. 2008 to May 2009.  I'm sure it made them more money that way and turned out to be a good move.  And making money is VERY important to keeping the series going.

[Jobydrone]

While I'd love to see a sequel in two years, I frankly thought that was kind of wishful thinking.  These people are busy and deciding when to place the release for movies is very key to their success.  I think Paramount thinks they made the right choice delaying the last one by six months from Dec. 2008 to May 2009.  I'm sure it made them more money that way and turned out to be a good move.  And making money is VERY important to keeping the series going.

It would have been nice if the eight month delay in releasing the most recent movie allowed for them to bring us the sequel in a shorter amount of time.  They could have spent that time developing/filming the sequel.  Unfortunately a sequel didn't seem to be a foregone conclusion until after opening weekend.  I'm disappointed Abrams doesn't want to do two movies back to back, that would have given us not more than a year between 12 and 13.  Weren't they talking about doing the next two sequels back to back LOTR style at one point?

[Rico]

There has been just a lot of rumor and speculation and one of those was the idea of filming two movies at once, but I tend to doubt that will happen.

[Rico]

Ok - this is just a rumor at this point, but it looks like there is a possibility we might see Shatner in the next Trek film.  Again, just a rumor for now.  Read on,...

It is probably one of the worst kept secrets in science fiction film history, but finally news is coming out from the JJ Abrams camp that Captain Kirk or how he is also known as, William Shatner, will be appearing in Star Trek 2.


The director has made it no secret that he wanted William Shatner on board with the next film, one thing that highlighted the interest of both parties was when Kirk picked up the award for Star Trek at the Scream 2009 awards.


There could never have been a bigger indication that things are rolling, in fact, it seems that JJ is planning to meet with Bill to discuss how things can progress.


Of course, there is one thing talking about it and another actually putting into practice, if the part is right then yes it could happen.

Read more here:  http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/2009/11/william-shatner-will-be-in-star-trek-2/

[Bryancd]

I wouldn't be surprised to see that. I think Shatner realizes he can't play Kirk, but that doesn't mean he can't have some other and likely smaller role in the new franchise for one film.

[cosmonaut]

I wonder if they use the idea from the last movie to include him in form of a recorded speech, I think that would have worked.

What I don't like is his present look, I think in the 23rd century the very last couch potato in his nineties will look like Bryan today, but there's CGI, I think they could make him look like that wax figure he unveiled recently.

[Ktrek]

I don't see how they can bring the Shat onboard without it looking forced and contrived. It's just a move to satisfy all the fanboys who refuse to grow up and move on. I'm happy with the new cast and I think it would be a mistake to put Shatner in the next film. He had seven films and he's dead. Let the new cast carry things forward without the baggage of the past. Having Nimoy in the last film was enough.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

I couldn't see him playing "Kirk" in any way, be that past Kirk, future Kirk, whatever. I could see Shatner having a nice, juicy, over the top smaller part, not a recurring role, just something where he can let loose. I think his success in Boston Legal has shown he has some chops and isn't a one trick pony.

[Omra]

Shatner would rock as a Harry Fenton Mudd type character. 

It might even be enough to make me endure another JJ Trek film...