Talkback: Is 13 Months Enough Time to Make a Good Star Trek Sequel?
With J.J. Abrams not quite yet confirmed (but expected) to return to helm Star Trek 2, which Paramount has already set for a June 29, 2012 release, Deadline does the math: That leaves 13 months to go from what Paramount currently has in hand -- a 70 page outline, according to Roberto Orci -- to fully delivered film. But is that truly enough time to finish scripting, prep, shoot, and edit a massive, effects-heavy summer action tent pole?
On the one hand, Orci sounds confident about the short turnaround time. He told the community at TrekMovie.com not to worry about the final script: "Once [Abrams] says go, we'll have it in no time. Meanwhile, our outline is detailed enough (70+ pages!) to do some prep."
But with Abrams still closing out his Super 8 promo duties, the Star Trek sequel is stuck in a holding pattern with an advancing release date; either Paramount will move the date back, or production will have to adhere to the fixed 13-month window and risk a rush job. The first Trek, by comparison, spent four months on principal photography and was completed by late 2008; Paramount pushed its release date back from winter to summer, which allowed even more time for the visual effects work for which the film later earned an Oscar nomination.
So, Trekkies, a game of would you rather: Would you rather see Star Trek 2 in June 2012 as planned, or suck it up and re-mark your calendars to allow more time for Abrams & Co. -- assuming Abrams signs on the dotted line as expected? Or, alternately: Is this as much of an issue as it seems, considering the physical prep work already done on the first film and Orci's confidence in his 70-page outline?