Talkback: Is 13 Months Enough Time to Make a Good Star Trek Sequel?

startrek300.jpgWith 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 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?



  • The Winchester says:

    Given Abrams' love of secrecy and surprises for the film audience, I wouldn't be surprised if these statements are all a ruse and he's already shot the thing and has a teaser ready in front of Super 8.

  • ZebedeeDooDah says:

    Or perhaps Super 8 IS the Star Trek sequel and all the footage we've seen is just a dream Kirk has in the first two minutes?

  • Lord Hoffman says:

    J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman need to surpass Star Trek (2009) and rectify the mistakes that they made because as much as it was a tremendous film, I was still privately disappointed because it could have easily have been so much better. The Orion Syndicate as the villains, larger all-star cast as well as many cameos including by William Shatner and Lady Gaga, more planets, larger space battles with more starships, bringing back and give more screentime to Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Rachel Nichols, Winona Ryder and Diora Baird, Kirk having better fighting skills and several human love interests played by Hollywood’s most beautiful young actresses, no cut scenes and the Jerry Goldsmith theme music from the Star Trek Insurrection end credits as well as the album version of ‘Where My Heart Will Take Me’ used at the end.

  • Cash says:

    All the time in the world was apparently plenty to make a crappy one. Maybe JJ won't have enough time to throw in all that ungodly lens flare if he's actually shooting on a tight schedule.

  • Bob says:

    Wow, "Lord" (or should I say "Bill"?), you don't want much, do you?

  • casting couch says:

    After the mess that was the reboot script, they should take the extra time and come up with something decent this time.

  • Reality says:

    I really hope that's sarcasm Hoffman. To what point I know not.

  • Reality says:

    So they had to reboot the franchise one way or another...unfortunately the original cast is past their prime or passing away. The film is rated at 94% postive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, made over three times as much as any prior Trek move ($385M) and even wins an Oscar (albeit for makeup) and you define it as a "mess"? It was a fun film to watch if you accept the fact they had to distance themselves from the original story lines one way or another.