Clicky

STAR TREK Sequel Gets its Stardate - We Are Movie Geeks

General News

STAR TREK Sequel Gets its Stardate

By  | 

It was officially announced just before the weekend began that the highly anticipated sequel to J.J. Abrams’ STAR TREK will be going where no film has, as yet, gone before.  That would be June of 2012.  To be more specific, the untitled STAR TREK sequel has its stardate as June 29th, 2012.  Just in case you were wondering, the actual stardate there would be 65993.4

There are no details on the film.  Abrams hasn’t even been confirmed nor denied as the film’s director, but, with an official release date now set, expect news to come from this project fast and furious in the coming months.  Expect most if not all of the original film’s cast to be back for the new adventure.

What do you think?  What storyline should the next STAR TREK film follow?  Klingons?  Kahn?  Tribbles?  Let us know by shooting us a comment below!

42 Comments

  1. Darrell

    January 10, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Mirror Universe

    • Will Dineen

      February 25, 2010 at 3:59 am

      Well, Im for happy for a sequel, maybe J.J. Abrams can get it right this time. Hopefully he will watch a movie or read a book before he makes another movie, that way he will what he is doing. Yes khan would be a good story, again, if its done right.

  2. Sandy

    January 11, 2010 at 12:37 am

    Why not make a film that corrects the errors of the first film like the destruction of the Vulcan planet, the death of Spock's mother and the relationship between Spock and Ahura. All these elements run counter to the original Star Trek!

    • Travis

      January 11, 2010 at 1:45 am

      Sandy, with all due respect… were you paying attention to the movie? I mean, of course, the one from last year that did not star William Shatner or Patrick Stewart? Because, that's the one most of us saw and this alternate/parallel universe was kinda the whole point. I really cannot honestly say the film would have done anywhere nearly as well if it had literally just been a straight remake of the first Star Trek motion picture… In fact, and by saying this I realize I may be putting myself on the line from some hardcore Trekies (which I am not), but… the first film isn't "all that" in my opinion and I found it somewhat boring. You are welcome to your opinion, but I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here and discussing the same film.

  3. gman

    January 11, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Picard? Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q The Shat Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

    • Travis

      January 11, 2010 at 1:54 am

      Q is, hands down, my favorite character form all of the Star Trek universe… well, what of it I am familiar with anyway. Then again, this is coming from a relative non-Trekie, so… what do I know?

  4. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Come on people…wake up. I dont have aproblem with new actors just the BS time line issue that runs counter to what Original trek is all about…correcting/protecting the time line is practically a second directive in original trek. There are plenty of stories to tell in between what has been done. If you can't write around it, then writers are not that creative nor should they worry about knwoing the fture of the characters from a drama stand point..everyon knows superman, indiana jones, james bond etc lives..it doesn't destroy the story. I say correct the time line and do a real prequel, and use William Shatner to do it by Sock(Nimoy) realizing he needs help and goes to the Nexus to get kirk out. If they don't do this..then I say the sequel should be a mirror universe with shatner and have a Kirk vs kirk drama/action…who would win…could there be a draw, what are the implications if Pine's kirk loses? Maybe an ending that is unclear…waiting for a 3rd sequel where the mirror universe kirk helps to reset Pines timeline?

  5. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 5:33 am

    To clarify, the 3rd sequel should not be about "helping" to reset the time line but be used as a tactic to destroy that "universe" or shall I say it could be an unintended consequence…many ways or ideas to pull this off.

  6. guardian4ever

    January 11, 2010 at 4:26 am

    it’s quite obvious really….why, after 40 years of legal disputes, would paramount suddenly settle with harlan ellison?…because the next trek pic will revisit edith keeler, & this clears the legal hurdles to do so….it also allows for further timeline manipulations….plus, the “keeler” plot will attract women to the film, with a pine love story, winning a key missing demographic.

  7. Brian 2

    January 11, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Let it go. Had the writers stuck with the original timeline, the movie would have sucked. I love all the star trek films (except "The Motion Picture" and "The Final Frontier") but after "The Voyage Home," there was a growing disconnect with fans. Who can blame them? The movies can be pretty boring, and the jokes meaningless unless you've watched the series…. and even then, still not that funny.

    "correcting/protecting the time line is practically a second directive in original trek."

    It's a Starfleet Prime directive. What's to stop some crazy Romulan from screwing things up? Nothing! Also, who says that a fictional "Prime Directive" should be held over the heads of writers?

    There won't be any timeline restoration. We've had 4 good series (Enterprise sucked, sorry), and 10 movies to tell the stories of the "original" timeline. Any attempt at restoring it would only be a relief to Star Trek nerds, AND a terrible ending to the life brought back to the Star Trek franchise.

    btw Travis, you're not alone. The Motion Picture dragged on and on and on and had some bald lady. Creepy….. and loud annoying sounds. The Wrath of Khan feels like that's what they shouldve started out with.

    Sorry if this frays any nerves with you, my fellow geeks, but accept that the original timeline will not be restored, and Vulcan is gone. Though, it would be crazy if the Enterprise was sucked into some other dimension and the planet and all its inhabitants are there and there's some drama with Spock, but that'd be episode material.

  8. Eneg

    January 11, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Agreed Brian 2; the original timeline is gone and I'm glad to see it gone.

    There is no chance that JJ should try to bring back the original timeline. It was a great way to "reboot" the franchise without eliminating everything that happened in all of the original movies and series. I can't recall any "reboot" that was this well done.

    The sequel (for lack of a better term) should include the cast from the first one, without a doubt. The idea of Kahn is a great idea, however I think the Klingons should come first – or maybe do a story line that involves primarily the Klingons but introduces Kahn in a positive way, but then turns evil in a later movie. You could say that I've stolen the life of Harvey Dent and used it to create Kahn's character, and you would be accurate in that assessment.

    I've been a lifelong fan of Star Trek until Babylon 5 came along and knocked ST off it's perch, in my view. I've watched every ST series and seen every movie (except the original) more times than I can count. The first was so indescribably bad, I couldn't watch it more than once – and I was about 6 when it came out. As others have said before in this forum, sorry to all the Star Trek geeks out there, but the "new" timeline should remain as it is. This movie by JJ re-invigorated the Star Trek series in my eyes and I'm very thankful for the "new blood" involved in it.

  9. Mary

    January 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    29th June 2012? That's a little close to the start of the Olympics. I hope it doesn't reduce the potential audience because people have something else to watch. I'd like the film to do well so there are more Star Trek films after this one.

  10. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    "Who said that a fictional prime directive should be held over thewriters head?" Time line correction is not the prime directive by the way…the original series preached correction..a spock prime pet peeve no less, very inconsistent with his character and all past trek. Brian 2 then talks about how the original time line was not done well theatrically, I see in noway why this is an issue if you are doing movies about new topics, storylines and with today's production standards.

  11. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Useless argument. No one is asking them to remake trek movies 1-10 in any way shape or form. The problem with this last trek movie#11 is other than the name of the ship, this could have been star wars…look for R2D2 when they come out of warp on the view screen…come on. This would have been a great movie but there were a lot of logical errors as well when it comes to good story writing.

    This movie has soo many issues. First, it was made to appeal to non-star trek fans. Thus, this is why soo many people liked it along with the fact that most people didnt think enough about how and why things happened the way it did. The more I think about it the less it makes sense.

    1) If Nero went back in time, with 25 years to spare, why didn't he just warn Romulus and forget about Spock. 2) Seems spock got their too late to save Romulus, why get mad at the fire fighter when your house burns down? 3) Where are all the planetary defenses against this drill/enemy ship on Earth or Vulcan? 4) Why not torpedo the drill instead of using hand guns to destroy it? 5) Didn’t we see truth telling bugs in ST:II Wrath of Kahn?

  12. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    16) When the Ent dumped it’s warp core, why didn't the black hole crush them? 18) At no time in any of the 5 series did cross galaxy beaming take place, so how did scotty invent this in the future for spock to share in the altered past? 19) How old is Adm Archer and his beagle? It is 2230 something.
    How to fix it: The 2nd movie.
    Have old Spock visit the Nexus and get old KIRK out and work with the new crew to reset the time line by going back in time to the point of Neros first appearance, destroy him with Shatner getting the dramatic on screen death he should have gotten. Thus resetting the time line.

  13. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    The Third movie:
    A true prequel. Starting with the early days of graduating starfleet academy, a more interesting Kobayahsi Maru test..kirk being a lieutenant etc. Spock on Ent with Pike. SOMETHING more true to the original canon. 20) Comments from the writer and director about not being tied down to what has been done or knowing the fate of these characters being a hinderance is not valid. Indy Jones never dies, James Bond never dies, Spock never dies. Yet these stories go on. Just tell the stories in between everything else already done and you will make everyone happy. Star trek became great because of the great story telling and how it targeted a specific intellectual audience. Yes, it always needed better visuals and action, but with this recent movie that is all they did. The one series that did the worst in ratings was ENT and it is the only series time line to survive. It was far better than this movie.

  14. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    Star Trek was always based on a universe where the science of the possible was extended just a little farther into the realm of fiction. It inspired generations of people to try to create the universe that was depicted on the screen every week. This left the science behind completely. 21) Some sort of mysterious "red matter" has the ability to create a black hole with just a drop placed inside an object. The black hole pulls on objects in a way that doesn't reflect the tidal forces pulling on an object.

  15. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    The characters were reasonably well acted, but the story and the directing made the characters laughable, not lovable. This requires multiple paragraphs to clarify.

    22) Among other characters, Mr. Scott was a drunk eccentric out in the middle of nowhere, and Mr. Chekov was some kind of child prodigy. 23) Mr. Sulu says his combat training consisted of "fencing", but he jumped around and used a curved blade in a way completely inconsistent with the linear style of fencing.
    The movie was terrible for all these reasons and more. It should have showed us a new dimension to our beloved characters and Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, but instead it fell into predictable comic stereotypes and confusing logic, completely abandoning everything that made Star Trek timeless, right down to the three button slider on the transporter. Star Trek fans will be very disappointed.

  16. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    25) This was the 3rd trek movie to use time travel. Boring! Now we have to do another at some point just to make the correction. 26) What’s with Sulu, he is supposed to be Japenese but is played by a Korean. Good lord! 27) (again altered time line) No one was supposed to know what Romulans looked like until later in TOS but that was changed, no one was surprised that they were an off shoot of Vulcans in this 2009 movie. Remember there was a Romulan war prior to TOS and after ENT series and no one ever knew much about them. 28) Why did a mining ship have such superior weaponry? 29) Where were all the other Federation ships? 30) Why does Chekov have to run to another room and use another computer for the transporter, can’t the computer track and beam a moving target better than a human? 31) Why didn’t the Federation immediately change all of it’s defense codes once Pike was captured?

  17. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    32) How is it that Kirk, Spock and Scotty are coincidentally all on the same planet at the same time? 33) Spock referred to the Kobayashi Maru test as inducing fear to deal with death, how is a computer simulation going to do that in the safety and comfort of a fake environment? Granted, ST:II WOK did force them to go the route they took. Spocks comment was too much. 33) No Romulans survived the planet explosion? Not clear…

    34) Why would paramount let someone who admittedly wasn’t a fan make this movie? I know, to target a wide audience, but you see one must ..stay true to cannon, drama, intensity, action, an excellent score, a movie that makes you think after you leave the theater, something that pushes ones understanding or point of view…like Dark Knight. Remember, the whole reason JJ Abrams got to do this trek movie is because of everything that came before it. He took our fathers trek and future series, TNG,DS9,VOY and said we can change it all and recast it over the next 50 years.

  18. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    What I did like about it… the action at times, the look of the ship, but stay away from far shots, seems like TV. Up close, slow, mammoth effect is great. Having old spock repeat his TREK 2 & 3 lines regarding his friendship with Kirk. The uniforms were good. Bones was a good cast. Spock was ok, but seems weaker. Uhura is ok, she always had a small part. Opening sequence was good. Kirk might get a better or more appealing as this actor ages. They didn't bother explaining what a black hole is so either there was an intentional effort not to by assuming the audience had some knowledge or it could have been done so there were no rules to follow to make THIS story work.

    35) Is there hope for this new version? Well, instead of completely new stories and characters, which if they stayed with the original time line they would HAVE TO, it is already being discussed to bring in Shatner and a younger version of Kahn for the sequel. What.. no new ideas after abandoning the TREK we all used to know? Come on.

    And no, I copied pasted this entire response that i wrote before..I call it efficient writing. :)

  19. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    I suppose prequels and staying true to cannon have little meaning when it comes to trek…what if Superman didnt come from Krypton? Or he couldn't fly….or Harry Potter wasn't magical…

  20. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    What if James Bond was Jennifer Bond?

  21. Travis

    January 11, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    I'm going to go way out on a limb here, but is there any doubt that Brian is our biggest Trekkie reader here at WAMG? No disrespect. Just something I've noticed.

  22. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    Whatever happened to the temporal police from Voyager?

  23. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    I will take that as a compliment..Thank you Travis ( eyebrow raised), no disrespect taken. :)

  24. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    Philosophically, I think the problem is that we are reinventing things for another generation to enjoy..hollywood always does remakes…just don't forget what you are remaking.

    • Brian

      January 11, 2010 at 11:53 pm

      Someday there will be another tv series, what direction , what universe ? There are long term implications to changing the time line. Now, I do agree that the original time line is still there.

    • kirk13

      January 12, 2010 at 12:56 am

      Gotta be honest with you, man. I came in here expecting a spammer and getting rid of half of these comments. A+ with the commends. Thanks for reading, man.

  25. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    6) Why is Older Spock OK with not correcting the time line? This flies in the face of all past Trek. Edith Keeler must die. 7) Why is the Enterprise only manned by cadets with no Sr Officers except for Pike? 8) Why does one incident with Kirk being a hero make him eigible to become capt immediately at the end? He just graduated. 9) Why is Scotty trying to be the comic relief of the movie? 10) The bridge is too confusing and not streamlined and familiar enough. 11) What is with the water treatment plant, the ship is not really that big. 12) Isn’t Checkov supposed to be in his early twenties not 17? 13) The plot was very similar to Star Wars, planet kiling death star, old wise man Spock(Yoda), ice planet with monster (Hoth). Ent being like the falcon. Scotty's Ewok buddy. 14) Neither of these characters are really the same ones we knew because of the altered time line so this is not really a pre-quel. 15) Is a black hole a time machine or will it crush you? Make up your mind.

  26. Brian

    January 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    24) (some leeway here since it was an alternate timeline) As if all this weren't bad enough, Mr. Spock became an emotional wreck, destroying the subtlety with which Leonard Nimoy always played the character. The Spock I know would not have disgraced the core values of his people by engaging in a fist fight with James Kirk. He would not have "made out" with Uhura, as Vulcans are extremely private about their private lives. Spock and his father did not get along at all in canon. They never knew how to relate well to one another and became estranged, because his father didn't know how to relate to his son's human side. But here, we see Sarek dispensing advice about coming to harmony with his human side. This destroyed the complexity of a distant father-son relationship.

    The movie was terrible for all these reasons and more. It should have showed us a new dimension to our beloved characters and Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, but instead it fell into predictable comic stereotypes and confusing logic, completely abandoning everything that made Star Trek timeless, right down to the three button slider on the transporter. Star Trek fans will be very disappointed

  27. TREKMAN

    January 12, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Why not make one that takes place after star trek nemesis? Cause I would like to see what happens to B4 and Picard's new first officer. And if your not down with that I got two words for you, SUCK IT!

  28. Gul LaSet

    January 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Why not make a star trek movie that's based in the 29th century? Or make a star trek movie about deep space nine and voyager. That would be cool.

  29. Mike

    January 13, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Would like to see some all-star, original casting….

    John Smoltz as a Klingon commander
    John McCain as the Rigelian ambassador
    Shakira in green skin, dancing
    Leslie Nielsen as old Spock, since Nimoy is not returning
    Beyonce as Uhura
    Steve Martin as Scotty
    The story involves the disappearance of energy from the universe, gradual, unstoppable, draining, totally threatening, and the only hope is to somehow retrieve Captain Kirk from the Nexus, because in his memoirs, he seems to know the cause and the way to stop it….
    Oh, and Jessica Alba as the ships navigator.

    • Brian

      January 14, 2010 at 4:02 am

      nice, especially the Alba part!

  30. Mike

    January 14, 2010 at 1:59 am

    No new timeline. Pine needs to do something more than climb up off of ledges (count how many times the Kirk character did that. Tempting to have Old Kirk kick young Kirk off of a ledge saying "I have HAD eNOUGH of YOU!!!"

    Here's your casting gem: Christian Bale as Khan.

  31. Brian

    January 14, 2010 at 3:59 am

    Thank you Kirk13!! I also wonder what implications there are when theses movies seem to come out every 3 years…by the 3rd or 4th movie they will all be middle aged…what do you think?

  32. Will dineen

    February 25, 2010 at 10:05 am

    If J.J.. Abrams can acutally read a book of Trek or better yet, watch a movie, then he wold know how to make a movie. So, with that said, I think a sequel is great, I agree fix the timeline, You can write so many stories if the writers would just use their brains and think. the Khan idea is sound, but then again do it right and not how you want it to be. Just because you are "at the helm" dosent mena that you can foul it up, think the way Roddenberry would have thought and you will do very well everytime, without fail. Its ok to make change but do it right.

  33. vanya

    June 24, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    I don't care if the new writers aren't writing between the lines/times-I'm just soooo freakingexcited about this-i could scream-cause I am a true Star Trek Geekette!

    V
    Leader of Free world

  34. Pattie Imaizumi

    November 20, 2010 at 8:03 am

    This is my first time i visit here. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here keep up the good work.

  35. Linnea

    March 7, 2011 at 7:58 am

    I just couldn’t depart your site before suggesting that I actually enjoyed the standard information a person provide for your visitors? Is gonna be back often to check up on new posts

  36. StarTrekGeeks.com

    September 21, 2011 at 11:31 am

    As an avid Trek fan, collector and store owner, I completely loved the new timeline. It opens a whole new universe of Trek stories and alternatives without ever having to recall past experiences. Thus making the new Trek available to anew generation who never saw or in some cases ever heard of Kirk, Spock or McCoy. Bravo Abrams for making it awesome again for a new generation of movie goers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.