J.J. Abrams Will Direct ‘Star Trek 2′; Release Date Delayed

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:28 pm,

While J.J. Abrams has (in public) been scuffling his feet about actually committing to the task of directing Star Trek 2, it is understandable. Between his having completed post-production and promotion duties on Super 8 just a couple months ago, and his involvement as producer on upcoming TV shows like Alcatraz and Person of Interest, the man has definitely had a lot on his plate to handle.

The good news for Trekkies and sci-fi lovers alike is that Abrams seems ready to finally accept the job as helmer of Star Trek 2. However, the bad news is that (as we’ve all but known for months now) the film will definitely not be arriving in Summer 2012.

According to Deadline, Paramount has accepted that it’s simply not possible for Star Trek 2 to make its original June 29th, 2012 release date. So, the next Trek is being pushed back, while the G.I. Joe sequel (which is reportedly now titled G.I. Joe: Retaliation) is being bumped up to take its place.

Abrams is reportedly prepped to sit down with his Star Trek 2 writing staff (Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, and Roberto Orci) and flesh out their 70-page outline for the film into a full-blown screenplay. The tentative plan is for production to begin by about January 2012.

While it’s possible that the Star Trek followup will be ready for release by Winter 2012, there’s a good chance that Paramount will delay the film until Summer 2013 – like Warner Bros. did recently with Superman: Man of Steel. A handful of tentpole pics are already slated for release in December of next year (including The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Lone Ranger), so the next voyage of the USS Enterprise might not be until almost two years from now.

Star Trek Sequel J.J. Abrams Will Direct Star Trek 2; Release Date Delayed

With progress on Star Trek 2 being so slow for almost a year now, there’ve been only a handful of unconfirmed rumors circulating the film, including who the villain might be and whether or not newly-minted Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) would be getting a love interest in the sequel. Kurtzman and Orci settled on a story for the project last year, but we can only guess how much the game plan might’ve changed over the past six months – not to mention, any possible alterations or changes to the plot that Abrams could push for, now that he appears to be getting properly involved with the screenwriting process.

All the same, the project looks to finally start picking up speed again. So expect to hear more news and rumors about Star Trek 2 – as well as an update concerning its new official release date – in the near future.

Source: Deadline

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: gi joe, gi joe 2, star trek, star trek into darkness

72 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. AWEOMSEE!!! :]]

  2. Well this sux >:(

  3. I dont understand why a studio wishes to continue or wait for a director/writer/writers when the franchise is solvent and ready for new ideas. Why does it have to be the same writers? We already should have had this film this year! UGH.

    • It’s pretty simple. This director and writing team produced the most successful Star Trek film yet. Just like Nolan did with Batman and they would rather keep the team in tact rather than change it up and produce something less than good. Let’s not forget what happened when Singer made the X-men a huge movie franchise couldn’t come back in time for the third and they replaced him. That didn’t go so well.

      • What are you basing the term Successful on? The Wrath of Khan was the biggest success of the Star Trek franchise and the most memorable by the Trek crowd.

        • I’m basing the term success on the fact that it made the most money and had the highest attendance of all the other films including Wrath of Khan.

          You know the basic definition of success.

          I would also add that Wrat of Khan isn’t even second, third or fourth most successful. Wrath of Khan had the 5th highest box office of all the Trek films. Considering how few there are that’s not exactly a big deal. It may be loved and respected, but it is far from the most successful

          1 Star Trek Par. $257,730,019 4,053 $75,204,289 3,849 5/8/09

          2 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Par. $109,713,132 1,956 $16,881,888 1,349 11/26/86

          3 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $92,027,888 2,812 $30,716,131 2,812 11/22/96

          4 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Par. $82,258,456 1,002 $11,926,421 857 12/7/79

          5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Par. $78,912,963 1,621 $14,347,221 1,621 6/4/82

          • Someone got schooled….. ;)

            • no doubt Star Trek(2009) was successful, however, 78 million in 1982 dollars is very successful. accounting for inflation, etc. it still might not be more that Star Trek(2009).

              • The average ticket price in 1982 was $4.50, the average ticket price today is between $10 and $12, so that is more than double what it was when Khan came out. Do the math.

                • 2.56 is the precise amount according to experts. Would you care to do the math? Because I have and you are still incorrect. Shuffle the facts around as much as you like I’m still correct and you still are not.

                  • Keep telling yourself that and maybe one day people will believe you.

                    • Aleric actually everyone already believes me because I posted facts and actual numbers instead of making up crap out of thin air to try to bash a movie. Now you are just embarrassing your self trying to say that I’m wrong when I’ve proven beyond a shadow of doubt with facts what the truth is.

                      Enjoy your self.

              • I never said it wasn’t successful simply far from being the most successful.

                It would be roughly 199Million which is less than Star Trek 2009 at 257million

                Also Star Trek Motion Picture not only made more than Wrath Of Khan, but it also came out in 79 which gives it inflation over Wrath of Khan as well.

                Also adjust for inflation The Voyage home came out in 86 and there was very little change in ticket price from 82 to 86 and adjusted Voyage home still beats it but only by a hair.

                Which puts Wrath of Khan in fourth place. Still trailing several films. Which still leaves not only 2009 as the most successful but Khan as definitely not most successful.

          • So you are using 1980 dollars based on 2009 dollars, typical. Adjusted dollars are how these films are really tracked. Number of tickets sold is a better basis for comparison.

            Not to mention I was basing the term “Success” on the amount of impact this movie made with the public at large and the amount of fans it created for the franchise. Abrahms is not revamping the Star Trek Universe he is destroying it and dividing the multitude of fans who grew up with the series by ignoring them and basically doing whatever he wants. I will never spend another dollar to see anything else he does based on the sloppy way he directs and the bad writing and I am not alone.

            • If you look above I’ve replied to someone else adjusting the prices and Wrath of Khan still loses. It not only is less than 2009 film but less than Star Trek The motion picture and Voyage home. Adjusting for inflation only puts it above First Contact (Sad given it’s the best of them all) and only places it in fourth. So it still fails at being the most succesful.

              So you are using successful in a way that no one else would? Good to know.

              I was using the success as the way most people would describe it and certainly in the way that a money hungry studio would. They would want to keep the team that made them the most money even adjusted for inflation. Rather than rush and inferior film.

              clearly Wrath of Khan didn’t do enough considering how quickly the franchise ran out of steam after it and considering the low rating the plagued all the shows to follow aside from TNG.

              So even with your inflation argument and your ability to change the definition of the word from what the public would usually consider it to mean. My point still stands and 2009 still made the most money and had the highest attendance.

              Please try Again Later.

              • Is there a name for this personal universe you have created around yourself where it defies rational thought? It certainly isnt one I want to visit.

                • This is just getting pathetic at this point. End of the day I have FACTS and actual numbers on my side and you have nothing by blind hatred of a movie and the uncontrollable need to continue to fight after you have been proven to be completely wrong. It’s sad really.

                  • No the difference is you seem to feel you have the right to ignore or obfuscate facts when I can guarantee you never saw the original Star Trek movies in the theaters when they were released.

                    What’s pathetic is that you and others who never grew up watching the original series are willing to accept this crap that modern hollywood dishes out to you and you are stupid enough to ask for more. Wake up, stop paying for garbage it only gets you more trash.

                    • I’ve ignored zero facts. I’m the only one who has shown any facts. You just keep saying your WRONG opinion over and over again. I’ve actually shown facts. I’ve proven you wrong over and over again.

                      It’s just getting sad at this point.

                    • ALERIC, where have you show any single fact? You have proven nothing, show some factual evidence with your claims maybe someone could give some credibility but at this point I seriously doubt it.

                      Please explain to us as to how seeing the original Star Treks in the theater makes you right?

                • Aleric, give up, Daniel F is right and he proved it with actual numbers, not emotion and opinion. You have nothing to stand on.

                  • Hey Timmy, I dont give up on anything.

                    • That has become obvious, you don’t give up even when you are clearly wrong.

            • 2009 Trek made more money than all other Treks because it not only had Trek fans watching it but Star Wars and sci-fi fans as well. As much as I wanted it to stay completely loyal to the source, you have to admit that the Trek universe was suffering until Trek 2009. Paramount, IMHO, did the right thing in revitalizing Trek with new blood.

              I just wish they had called me so I could have helped them with those inconsistencies. 8-)

  4. happy/sad …

  5. I’d rather it be pushed back and be really damn good then rushed and crappy. And JJ did a great job with the last one so i don5 mind the wait. Unless the world ends before hand lol.

  6. This does suck, but like others have said, I’d rather they wait and get it right than rush something out for the sake of making a release date.

    While I want it to come out December 2012, it’ll probably get pushed back to the Summer 2013. Probably a couple weeks after Iron Man 3.

  7. Most likely they’ll push it back to Summer 2013. I was actually expecting this, seeing as to how production has yet to even start, so it’s not much of a surprise for me.

  8. Theoretically, great movies take two years to create. If they start shooting sometime in January 2012, “Star Trek 2″ will not hit theaters until December 2013/January 2014. Since Paramount sees wisdom in waiting until the summer, we may be possibly looking at June 2014.

  9. Wonder if he will start the movie with some more time travel and ignore all previously established events again?

    • I find this comment funny. You sound like a really bitter fanboy. I find that funny given your stance on XFC. do changes bother you? Can’t you just like a good movie?

      • Except for the fact that JJ Abrahm’s movie was nothing but a rewrite of Star Trek Nemesis with time travel thrown in and bigger effects. Its people who have no concept of the past history of the Star Trek universe that dont have a problem with Abrahms crapping all over the previous films and TV series.

        • You clearly didn’t watch Nemesis at all.

          I don’t remember seeing the villain in Nemesis killing Picards father.

          I don’t remember villain in 2009 being a clone of Kirk or Pike.

          I don’t remember Riker becoming the new captain of the enterprise in nemesis after Picard is captured and tortured becoming a cripple.

          I don’t remember Spoke sacrificing him self in 2009 to save the captain as Data Did in Nemesis.

          The only thing the two movies have in common is that there are Romulans in the film.

          • Schooled again

            • Get a new line tool.

              • That’s childish.

                You may want to go back and read the rules of the site. Personal insults not allowed. Tool is an insult. Unless you are calling him a famous rich band or an Screw Driver, but I doubt both.

                • Sort of like calling someone a bitter Fan Boy??

                  • Aleric good think I never called anyone a Bitter fanboy. I merely pointed out that he sounded like one. Also since clearly you havn’t been around long on the site I’ll explain why. He and I had been having a discussion on the X-men thread where I complained about the changes the film made and he called people who complained about those changes Bitter fanboys. So here I merely said that he sounds like a bitter fanboy. It’s a reference to our previous conversation.

                    You flat out insulted Anthony simply because he called you out on being proven wrong several times.

                    • Schooled yet again.

                    • Ok Herr Goebbles, Simply because you say something over and over doesnt make it a fact. Let me guess you are the guy who likes to tell people how right you are and hopes ther will agree with you.

                      Guess what, it isnt so.

                    • No it doesn’t make it fact because I say it is. However when it is actually a fact it does make it a fact.

                      The numbers I posted for the box office are the official numbers and they are indeed fact. Also the the adjusted numbers I stated were indeed fact and can easily be confirmed on several websites one of them is Boxofficemojo.com

                      Every fact I’ve given you is easily confirmed.

                      Also everything I’ve said about Nemesis and 2009 Trek are fact as well. You can watch the movie and confirm for example that Spock did not go to the nameless planet to warn him self like you said.

                      Funny that I strike you to be that guy because you strike me to be the guy that even when he’s been proven wrong and embarrassed him self he will keep arguing just to try and act like he’s still right even when everyone in the room knows he’s wrong now. You strike me as that guy, because that is what you have done.

                      So you think I’m not right.

                      Do your self a favor and actually use some facts and accuracies for once. Instead of simply saying I’m wrong please tell me what I am incorrect on. Was I wrong about the box office? Please tell me the numbers if so. Try responding to my actual numbers and facts with actual information rather than screaming “No NO No I don’t like that Answer It’s wrong, but I have no evidence as to how it is”

          • Daniel, it’s good to see you posting again man :)

            • Lol thanks and thanks for the support lol

          • Really, no similarities?

            A Romulan with a large ship that can destroy earth who has a vendetta with the Captain of the Enterprise and will do anything to see him dead. Both Romulans are willing to defy and even destroy their own people to accomplish their goals.

            There wasn’t a change in Captains (or as Starfleet would look on it a Mutiny) on either ship when one went to the others ship?

            Spock didn’t sacrifice himself, he didn’t strand himself on a nameless planet with no way off simply to bring a message to his former self?

            • Aleric

              Rofl wow you didn’t even watch the 2009 film that’s amazing.

              No actually both Romulans were not willing to defy or destroy their own people just to kill the captains.

              In Nemesis he wasn’t doing what he was doing to simply Kill Picard. He needed Picard captured so that he could us Picards blood and what not to cure him self of the disease that was killing him.

              In the 2009 film his goal wasn’t simply to kill the captain. His main goal was to destroy Vulcan.

              Also wtf are you talking about with Spock? NO Spock Did not strand him self on a planet to warn his former self. That statement has so many inaccuracies it’s hard to know where to start.

              1. Spock never went to that seemingly abandoned planet. He Sent Kirk to it.

              2. Kirk didn’t go voluntarily Spock ordered him to be abandoned on it so that he wouldn’t continue to stir up trouble.

              3. No one was trying to warn the other spock no one knew he was there. It was just a strange coincidence they landed on the same planet. No one brought a message to anyone. Vulcan had already been destroyed at that point and Kirk and other Spock both watched it happen. In fact after being abandoned Kirk was chased by a beast and other Spock saved him and explained who he was. Then Kirk found a way back to enterprise to emotionally compromise Spock to assume command.

              • Once again you seem to think because YOU say something it isn’t so. I saw the movie in the theater when it was released and I have no need to see it again. It seems you have no concept of the Nemesis movie and cant connect the two so you redirect it away from the similarities.

                Not to mention you can’t fathom the number of plot HOLES that were in the Abrahms movie as well as the bad writing it showcased.

                If you don’t like my opinion Tough Sh*t, neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to tell me I can’t speak my mind. Get used to having people disagree with you, when you move out of your mothers basement you will find the real world has consequences for trying to suppress someone’s ability to express their opinions.

                • Rofl wow the Moterhs basement line that’s awesome lol. Especially coming from the guy who is crying about the movie.

                  I have no problem with your opinion. If you don’t like the film that’s fine. I have a problem with your WRONG information. Like trying to say 2009 film wasn’t the highest grossing even after inflation adjustments. Or claiming Spock went to a nameless planet to warn him self.

                  Both are completely wrong and easily proven to be so yet you claim them anyway and even after being proven wrong and called out on it by several people still proclaim you are right.

                  Not liking the film is your choice and that is indeed your opinion. You have every right to it. However box office numbers and actual events in a film are facts that are wrong or right and have nothing to do with opinion. Wrath of Khan making more than 2009 Trek is not an opinion it’s wrong. Spock going to a nameless planet to warn his future self is not your opinion it’s wrong.

                  Please by all means continue to insult everyone personal and proclaim everyone is wrong with no evidence. It’s the only thing you know how to do apparently. Have fun internet troll.

                  • Danny you are the only person here I am talking to. Keep making statements that I am insulting everyone, which of course means two people, you and Timmy. The claims of my inability to accept your facts shows how flawed yours are by statements such as those.

                    • No, it just shows how unwilling you are to admit you were wrong when you were……clearly wrong. Man, mules aren’t as stubborn as you.

                  • Uh, guys, it wasn’t a nameless planet, it was Delta Vega.

        • Well, I know quite a bit about Trek lore and I enjoyed Abrams Trek. Sure, there were inconsistencies but like someone said earlier, X-Men: FC had inconsistencies and it was also a success. And no way was Trek 2009 anywhere near as bad as Nemesis.

          • Kahless

            I agree with everything except Nemesis. I know it’s popular to hate on it, but I loved that movie. I don’t get the hate for it. I thought it was good. It had solid action a good story and it had emotion. Losing Data (and I’m not ashamed to admit it) made me cry.

            I’ve never seen one complaint about the movie that made sense to me.

            To each his own though. At least you are not trying to spread false inaccurate information to prove a point like some one else is.

            • The scene with Data sacrificing himself actually mad me angry. Of course, if they ever did have a sequel, B-4 would be given more neural pathways to be the new Data.

              I didn’t like the film but I wouldn’t say I hated it. The Reman ship was great and so was some of the action but I didn’t like how the film played out. I felt that the characters were not the same as the ones I had known for years. I don’t know, maybe I should give it another watch; there are movies I didn’t like much on first viewing that was much better on second viewing (The Core, Matrix: Reloaded/Revolutions, etc..).

              • Honestly alot of that is very surprising to me.

                Next to Picard screaming in First contact Data sacrificing him self for Picard to me was the best moment in all the films.

                I also liked B4 I thought he was a great contrast to the new Data and reflected back to him in season 1 a bit.

                I also thought all of the characters acted the same. They were not exactly the same as the were in season 1, but that’s because they had just spent 8 years growing and developing, but watching season 7 again I don’t see them being any different than they were in nemesis.

                The only thing I see people complain about the characters being different is when they cry foul about picard ramming the ship. It seems the point of the film and that scene eludes them thought. The point is for him to be different. You don’t beat your self by acting like your self.

  10. As the actors age, what will they do, say the new film takes place 5 years later, with Kirk an experienced captain rather than see him grow into the role? Oh well, I waited 20 years for a Tron sequel. I can wait for this.

    • That’s what I was thinking. You wait too long and you might as well just replace the cast again and reboot it! (kidding, KIDDING, I hate reboots)

      But age is something very real to worry about when making sequels that move a story forward. The only good thing about Star Trek is it was pretty much a movie to set up future movies.

  11. this is great i hated star trek until the recent film and that turned me around

  12. This news is like getting paid $100 to get punched in the head

  13. Psyched about JJ comin back, I trust it’s in good hands. Summer 13 is gonna be another packed one!

  14. Bitter/sweet

  15. As much as I want it to be as great as it can be, 2013 is an awfully long way away. I wanted to see a sequel the second after I saw the first film the first time.

  16. G.I. Joe: Retaliation is such a better name for a movie then G.I joe: Cobra strikes.

  17. this is one of the reason i hope studios read online forums like this.

    We rather wait a year for a god movie than have a crappy movie now.

    studios should rush sequels just because the original was popular. People are willing to wait and if anything, only adds to the Boxoffice numbers when it finally does come out.

  18. Sandy, isn’t the term now “Trekkers”? :)

    • Or petaQS!! :-D

    • I’m not now nor will I ever be a Trekker or a Trekkie.

      I’m a Picarder lol

      • HAHAHAHA, Speaking of our bald captain, I recently watched Conspiracy Theory again, I wish eh wouyld play more bad guy roles.

      • He was absolutely FANTASTIC in “Macbeth”.

  19. J.J.’s version of “Star Trek” doesn’t have the heart of the original. Within the movies based upon “Star Trek: TOS”, the stories examined the psychological and philosophical aspects of the human condition. Many of the shows covered current events, sexuality, etc…

    “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” – was about human evolution, love, and technological evolution.

    “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” – was about taking risks, flaws in seeking revenge, and facing one’s mortality.

    “Star Trek II: Search for Spock” – was about the fall of the ‘Garden of Edan’ and the examination of second chances.

    “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home” – was about how humanity wipes out an important species, which was critical to our overall survival. Commentary on being a responsible species.

    “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” – was about defining our selves beyond our physical limitations. Even though we may have accomplished a lot in life, there are still things about ourselves that we have yet to discover. Is life a dream? Is there more to life than just work? Is this all a delusion?

    “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country” – was about social changes (Cold War specifically), and how fear can cause the most innocent to do radical things. As things change in the world, this will become a commentary about East and Western conflicts.

    “Star Trek VII: Generations” – was about leaving an everlasting impression on history and life. Even though all things must end, something just as awesome is on the horizon. Change is defined as a natural process that is not forced but nurtured.

    “Star Trek ’09″ – was about… Time travel… Uh… Saving the planet… What the hell was the intellectual theme?

    What J.J. does not realize is that he scrapped the core elements, which made “Star Trek” – “Star Trek”.

    Where was ‘the triad’?

  20. If ST 2 is indeed delayed until Summer 2013, that will be a four year gap until the sequel – the same amount of time between ST Insurrection and ST Nemesis. (It wasn’t worth the wait, IMHO). Previously, there had only been a two and a half year gap between films, on average. If it means waiting longer to make a great sequel, I’m all for it. But no matter how long the wait, some people will no doubt hate it, regardless. You can’t please everybody, or as a certain Starship Captain once said, “Well, there’s no accounting for taste.”

  21. Man… 2013 seems so far away.

  22. BREAKING-J.J. Abrams exits STAR WARS VII: “I’m through with narrative film” http://wp.me/p2Z9Vh-5u