‘Star Trek 2′ Scheduled For May 2013 Release; Will Be A 3D Movie

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

Trekkies and sci-fi fans alike need not fret any longer – Star Trek 2 (a.k.a. the delayed sequel to J.J. Abrams’ successful 2009 reboot of the franchise) is at last moving forward towards production.

Shooting on the new Trek adventure is scheduled to begin by mid-January 2012; Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) has even begun working on some of the film’s more elaborate effects, to help ensure the final product looks all the more slick and polished. Paramount has now settled on a new theatrical release date for the sequel, which was originally supposed to hit theaters in Summer 2012 (G.I. Joe: Retaliation is essentially serving as its replacement, during that season).

The Star Trek sequel, which Abrams and co. promise will not merely be titled Star Trek 2, is now set for a May 17th, 2013 theatrical release date in the U.S. That date was previously being occupied by Roland Emmerich’s new sci-fi project, Singularity. However, the latter film has been pushed back to November 1st of 2013, freeing up that key summer spot for the Star Trek franchise’s twelfth feature-length installment.

Deadline is also reporting that Abrams will “be making ['Star Trek 2'] in 3D” – which, presumably, means the film will be shot in the 3D format and not converted during post-production. The possibility of a 3D Trek sequel was previously mentioned by co-scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, but this is the first actual confirmation on the matter.

Coming Soon has also learned that Oscar-winning composer Michael Giacchino is set to score Star Trek 2. That should come as little surprise, seeing how he previously provided musical accompaniment on the Abrams-produced TV shows Alias and Lost, as well as the Abrams-directed Mission: Impossible III, this past summer’s Super 8, and the 2009 Star Trek reboot. All the same, news of his return for the Trek sequel should be welcomed by many a fan.

All of the main cast members in the 2009 Trek reboot (Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, etc.) are set to reprise their roles as younger and alternate-timeline incarnations of the classic U.S.S. Enterprise crew in the sequel. There is also a strong possibility that the (unknown) main villain in the film will be brought to life by Benicio del Toro.

Star Trek 2009  Star Trek 2 Scheduled For May 2013 Release; Will Be A 3D Movie

The U.S.S. Enterprise will literally fly off the screen in 'Star Trek 2'

Virtually nothing has been revealed about the plot, new villains, or even new worlds that will be featured in the Star Trek sequel. The main topic of discussion amongst Trekkies right now has (by and large) concerned the potential antagonists that will be featured this time around – with popular suggestions including the Klingons, Romulans, and the fan-favorite superhuman Khan Noonien Singh. While these all remain legitimate possibilities for the time being, Kurtzman and Orci have previously indicated that Khan is a long-shot to appear in this new film (see: their comments on fitting the character into the Star Trek 2 story).

The news that Star Trek 2 will be released in 3D is bound to be a point of some controversy, for the time being. While there are several recently-released titles (Hugo) or upcoming blockbusters (The Amazing Spider-Man, The Hobbit) that do (or look to) effectively use the extra dimension, a lot of moviegoers still tend to be annoyed when any project is announced as being shot in 3D. Hopefully, though, the decision will ultimately benefit the Trek sequel.

[poll id="219"]


To reiterate: Star Trek 2 is now prepped to soar into theaters around the U.S. on May 17th, 2013.

Source: Deadline, Coming Soon

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


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. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I’m excited about the sequel coming out and having a release date, but I am very disappointed in the decision to go 3D. I was hoping by 2013 this whole fad would be over. The first one worked great in good old fashioned 2D. Why the change?

    • Question: Why the change?
      Answer: Money, Money, Money!!!

      • I don’t know; I think it might be about money. :-D

    • The change is because a fair amount of the public prefer as much realism in a film as they can get. 3D gives them that while they wait for holographic technologies to be perfected. When that happens you will be able to enter a holographic scene and walk around in it. Can you imagine how much comfort that will give to someone who has lost a loved one but still has their holographic counterpart to visit? Beats looking at a tombstone in a cemetery. I have been shooting stereo slides since 1952 and to see my grown children as small children again in the realism only the “fad”, as you put it, can recreate, is a comfort you will never know.

    • I don’t understand the anti-3D complaints. I personally love well made ( shot in 3D ) movies like Avatar & Hugo. If you don’t like 3D or don’t want to spend the few extra bucks for a 3D showing, there is always a 2D showing as well.

  2. When will “Hollywood” give up on 3D? It is a gimmick that does nothing to advance the telling of a story. Directors/producers – please ask yourselves “… is the 3D FX a necessary element of the story? …” Is it a generation thing? It seems about every 30 years since the invent we deal with this side show of movie technology – the mid 50’s, the mid 80’s, and now. Will we have to wait until 2015 for this sideshow FX device to be put back in the box? If so then I hope the Mayans are right.

    Just my rant,

    Happy Thanksgiving to all! (Message brought to you in true 2D)

    • WesRant,

      While I’m not a 3D acolyte, but if we extend your logic we could say why have movies/TV? Why not stick to written novels? 8)

      Usually it doesn’t add anything at all, you’re right. But sometimes, if used well, it does (IMHO).


      • But we wanted The tv and movies. Most people were tired of 3D by time AVATAR went to DVD.

        • Boy, if I knew what most people feel about things, I would contact the CIA and offer them my services.

      • I am not a big fan of the whole 3D thing but in some movies it does work. When I went to go and see Tron Legacy in 3D, it made the experience so much greater. I can say this because I saw it a week later in…well normal D. And this doesnt work for all films either. I did the same with Avatar and actually prefered the normal screening rather than the 3D

      • Most of the times, 3D movies just end up looking terrible (it doesn’t “add to the experience” it actually takes away) — most of these are the “converted to 3D” flicks FYI

        BUT, you’re right, there are a select few movies (usually shot with 3D cameras) that are quite good: Avatar, TF3, and a few animated movies… those actually look good.

        Yet still, in the end, MOST 3D movies completely ruin the viewing experience IMO. It’s a fad that has to go away. I don’t really care if there is ONE good 3D movie every year – it’s the other 20 bad movies that get me PO’d.

    • Really? Following that logic, why color when we could have black and white!

      • Take that a step further Jerry. Why have movies at all when we have still photographs and the written page. A lot of folks don’t carry their logic through. That’s when it falls apart. I object to the fact that these 3D haters would, if they could, tell me what film format I should see. As far as I know, most, if not all, 3D films are also offered in 2D. So why don’t they just ignore 3D and see the 2D versions. No, they are incensed because something they object to is being offered at all. There was a guy around many years ago who felt that way and caused quite a stir. His name was Adolph Hitler.

  3. Happy all the cast is returning.

  4. I dont mind it being in 3D. Just as long as the film isnt called STAR TREK 3D. I hate it when they advertise the 3D affects more then the movie itself.

  5. For Star Trek 2 to be in 3D does not bother me, but I still hate 3D in general.

    • Then you beter keep one eye closed or that hateful 3D will get into your brain.

  6. Finally! Glad it’s coming.

  7. Well at least if it’s shot in 3-D then it’ll be designed for 3-D viewing which is better than post conversion anyway. Maybe j.j. will hit his good buddy Jim Cameron up for the use of his special 3-D cameras. I hope before I die they make a rockin high concept Star Trek movie with bleeding edge production values…

  8. Happy to finally have a date for ST2, NOT happy it’s going to be in 3D. I will be seeing the 2D version, thank you very much.

    • If you will be seeing the 2D version Andy, why does it also being released in 3D make you NOT happy? I think you just defined the term “convoluted logic”. Or, see my Hitler comment.

  9. Just accept that it’s going to be in 3D and get over it with 3D TVs and stereoscopic 3D is most likely here to stay. In my opinion it should stay the reason it’s not perfect is because after a few years enough people complain and the movie companies put it away. When something isn’t perfect you don’t just throw it out you make it better.

  10. Yeah if we’re still around after 2012

  11. YAY! Finally something a bit more concrete. I’m glad the cast are coming back. I do agree to most here, not found of the 3D thing. I loved it in 2D, really no point in the change. Oh well that’s hollywood for you.

  12. Ehh 3d I understand why there doing it JJ wants money. Makes me respect christopher nolan for not doing the dark knight rises in 3d

  13. Glad to know ST2 is officially on the way.
    3D? Meh… as long as it’s shot with 3D-cameras, then I guess it’s okay…

  14. May 17th, one week after Wolverine 2, and one week before Fast 6, not to mention Iron Man 3 comes out May 4th, definately going to be a tight month.

    • Meh, the amount of blockbusters for 2013 are basically the same as this year’s…
      I just hope that 2013′s movies will be of a much better standard than this year’s (I’m not saying 2011′s movies were bad, I’m just saying that most of em’ weren’t as good as they could have been.)

  15. I find that 3d rarely adds to the quality of the movie, and by the second watching the 3d effects are ignored by my mind. With the brain problems caused for those with vision problems caused by uneven eye focal points (like myself) it can be unsafe for some people to watch 3d movies. I will debate with myself if to risk a headach or worse by watching the 3d verson. Since I do not like wasting gas, if the 3d verson is nearest, that may be the deciding factor.

    • ellenasherah, are you saying that you have a differant prescription for each eye? I hadn’t thought about that being a problem, but im sure your right. Like you, I’m going to need to consider the risk, which is a shame, this would have been my first 3D film since Captain Eo first came out. Thanks for bringing that up.

  16. 3d gives me a headache

    Hope they release it in 2d theaters as well

    Hope since the five year mission is already over that the Giaganta-Prise gets a bit of a refit to tone down the fugly secondary hull

    Hope there is less shouting and manic sprinting with odd shakey camera angles

    Hope there is less lensflares and less lighbulbs on the bridge.

    Hope Scotty is not completely bald by the time they film in Jan

    Hope Simon Pegg is less jokey. Scotty was a badass in the original series and next to Kirk threw the best one punch knockout

    Hope Kirks actually whups some ass. Kirk should always be able to personally beat 1-3 guys asses at a time no matter who it may be (except Spock) Kirk is the best fighter in all of Sci-Fi and his dropkick has no equal. Shatner Kirk could kick Batman’s ass all over the place (FACT)

    • I’m a huge Trek fan but that last sentence had me laughing. No way Kirk would come even close to beating the Bat.

      I agree with about everything else. But a think the lens flares are a trademark of Abrams, so they are probably here to stay.

      • ShatnerKirk wouldn’t have to fight him he would phaser him in the rubber padded noots

    • I loved this post! Haven’t enjoyed reading one this much in a long time! Kudos, Lord Garth.

      As to Kirk beating up Batman? Interesting. If they both have their usual equipment, then Bats is toast, I agree with you. Tricorder and phaser win over Batarangs and Kevlar any day, don’t you think? Mano a mano instead? That’s harder to argue for… but still doable…

      • Batman carries plastik explosives if he hit Kirk he’s done but a phaser set to kill could take out Bats plus many other gadgets tough call either way

        • Even if ShatnerKirk didn’t have his phaser he could make a bazooka out of a treestump, some coal and some rocks

          • Bats is a highly trained, extremely educated and smart fighter. Kirk would have to be able to spot batman to beat him. He hides in the shadows like a pro and will come out at the perfect moment

            • Don’t forget that Kirk can beat even Spock in strategy games like 3D Chess. So Bat’s training isn’t so superior to Kirk if you think about Starfleet training, personal experience and gobs of natural talent.

            • Shatnerkirk could spot a cloaked Bird of Prey he can spot a repressed wierdo in a rubber muscle suit

              He could also use a tricorder to detect a skinny white guy in rubber muscle suit (that is setting 13 on the tricorder)

              • That all depends on how much the Bat knows about Federation technology. If he found out about the tricorder, he would figure out a way to circumvent it. And the phaser: if the Bat got hit, he’s toast, but you have to hit him and that’s not easy.

          • I’m loving this conversation.

            Do you know how long it took Kirk to make that cannon? Bat’s would have thrown like 20 batarangs into him by the time he finished it. :-)

  17. 3D is a normal progression to the next level of realism, which is the cinematic holy grail since movies began. We started with flickering black and white images, then they improved the frame rate so it plays smoother. Then, when technology allowed, they added sound. Then color, then bigger screens, and now 3D. For the 1st time the tech is there to do it properly, it is certainly not a fad. Why all this opposition against it? It’s the natural way our eyes see, why must everything in a cinema be flat? 3D has proven itself to enhance the film if used right. I’ve seen that many times if I compare a good 3D film with its 2D counterpart. I wonder if people also bitched like this when they introduced sound and color etc.

    • Don’t think so. Reason: sound and color were actually good improvements.
      3D (IN MOST FILMS) is terrible. It’s dark, blurry, and it gives a lot of people headaches. (Studies has actually shown that in the long term, 3D can actually be harmful to your health — especially kids, drinkers and pregnant women – but yeah, if that’s “the way forward” then sure! Let’s all put on the glasses! :D — Sarc-mark)

      A lot of filmmakers (especially director) and film stars say themselves that it’s a fad FYI.

      Also, I don’t know where you got the idea that 2D films are “flat”, because they have depth as well — if there is a guy on the left side of the screen, and a tree on the right, and the guy is standing in front if the tree when it was filmed, we when we see it on the screen, we still KNOW that he’s standing in front of the tree, because humans have a little thing called “depth perception” ;)…
      Here’s a quote from Christopher Nolan:
      “I think it’s a misnomer to call it 3D versus 2D. The whole point of cinematic imagery is it’s three dimensional… You know 95% of our depth cues come from occlusion, resolution, color and so forth, so the idea of calling a 2D movie a ’2D movie’ is a little misleading.”

      Check you fact buddy.
      No one is saying 3D sucks COMPLETELY, it just sucks in general ;)

      • So if I follow your argument that 3D suck in general, then we should ban all movies simply because the majority of movies sucks?
        Besides, depth perception is just that – perception. 3D is a much better and more realistic depth perception than “flat” 2D. Nolan is right – we do get our depth cues from occlusion,res, focus, ect, 3D gives you yet another cue which is actually very powerful.
        As for the notion that it’s harmful, that is pretty much still under debate. No proper long term studies could have been done because the tech hasn’t been around for that long. One can also get headaches and nausea from normal movies that’s blurry and shaky.
        I’m in the film business myself, and I’ve never heard any filmstar or directors worth their salt shooting down 3D for any other reason other than that there are badly done 3D movies out there. In fact, the big guns support 3D – Spielberg, Jacson, Cameron, Luckas, Scorsese, etc. Granted, many 3D movies does suck, but that’s because it’s badly done, not because the tech sucks. It’s still early days for 3D, and they’re still finding their feet. Done properly, I think we’re pretty much there. The next step would be to get rid of those glasses, and already the tech is there, although still in its infancy. They’re starting with mobiles and games, but it’s just a matter of time before it spreads to cinema and then you can kiss those glasses that bothers you so much goodbye.

        • I agree, IF DONE RIGHT, 3D can be good.
          But what I’m (trying) to say is that is ISN’T being done right: people are converting 2D movies to 3D simply to get more money. And because people loved Avatar (and the very few other 3D movies out there), they’ll buy into anything that has the “3D” label on now a-days.
          THAT is what I’m saying: it’s a fad, most people will watch any movie that’s in “3D” because they remember that ONE good 3D movie they saw a year ago.

          If you look at all the 3D movies out there: the amount of badly done ones FAR out-seed the amount of good ones… and as long as that’s the case, then I think they shouldn’t even bother with it (3D).

          I guess the main point here is that they should just stop converting movies to 3D. (If they’re shooting it in 3D, then it’s fine).

          As for the health concerns: even the manufactures of the products (like 3D TV’s and the Nintendo 3DS) issue warnings that you shouldn’t watch 3D content for more than 3 hours straight, because it can be very harmful to your health.

          Also, I can honestly say that I have never seen any one get headaches while watching a 2D movie (except if it’s a terrible movie like Twilight ;)), and the amount of people who get headaches through watching 3D movies, are shockingly high.

          Anywho, I’m done arguing about 3D for today, “agree to disagree” and all that?

    • I concur completly with you Gys. Most people have binocular vision. If they lost one eye they would find it very difficult to adjust to 2D vision. I must conclude therefore that those who hate 3D must walk around all day with one eye closed, shutting out that pesky 3D.
      If they find 3D offensive, they will break out in a rash when holography is perfected to the point of being able to enter a holographic scene and walk around in it.
      This must all be quite amusing to someone who has always lived with one eye. They truly could not care less.

    • Yes they did. People bitched about sound when it was employed in films in the early to mid 1920s. People bitched about blurry color film for over 30 years from the 20s through the 50s. Truth is, it’s still that way. There are lots of modern movies with bad shooting and terrible effects, awful soundtracks, and awful 3D. Why should 3D get singled out everywhere just because the employed technology isn’t even 5 years old?

  18. Has Abrams commented on the whole 3D thing? Is there any chance the Deadline report is wrong?

    It just smells of studio interference.

  19. Aren’t we tired of complaining about 3D yet? SHEESH!

    • Yep.
      I’m done for the day ;)

  20. Clearly the studio is pushing for him to film and release it in 3D. I think he’s choosing his battles, and if you know anything about the film industry, there are many battles to be fought to even bring a film to the attention of a studio.

    But will lens flares interfere with the 3D effect?

  21. “But will lens flares interfere with the 3D effect?”

    They’ll make it so that when you turn your head, from the glare, you’ll see the stage assistant pointing the light at you… ;)

  22. So hipster to hate on 3D. Most of you haters will have plenty of access to the 2D presentation at your local cineplex. As for me, I’ll be first in line with my RealD glasses. Had a blast with AVATAR, How to Train Your Dragon, Toy Story 3, and TF3 in 3D. This is going to be great.

  23. A waste all around. Didn’t like the reboot much to begin with. Since Quinto came out of the closet I have no interest at all.

    • what the hell does Quinto has anything to do with it? *smh* whatever your float brother. I’ll watch it regardless of whether everyone comes out of the closet or not because i’m a “Trekkie” per-SE. As for the 3-D thing that’s a matter of opinion and no-one is making you (people) watch it in 3-D there’s always the none 3-D option..unless your theater ONLY carries 3-D movie to offset the cost or whatnot.

      • Explain to me from a Trekkie’s perspective how this new movie is any what good? I am a Trekkie myself; I am true to the originals. I absolutely hate the Abrams interpretations. I understand how it appeals to the general audience but for me and quite a few other Trekkies I know it was horrible and completely misrepresented Star Trek. I would like to hear your reasoning.

  24. bah more 3d movies

  25. I miss the regular timeline. Move forwards, Star Trek, not backwards. But if we are forced to remain in this timeline, I wish they would reprise my favorite villain, the Borg, as well as the infamous Borg Queen. That could be interesting.

  26. I’m now a little disappointed already. The next Star Trek film will be “In 3D”… that is REALLY going to put me off seeing it at the cinema when it comes out in 2013.

    Seriously guys, you want me to go and watch films at the cinema? Stop making them “In 3D”, gives me a blasted headache and bores the s*** out of me! I guess I will have to wait for DVD/iTunes Release so I can watch it properly!

  27. Given how long they are taking between movies, the statement that the actors are playing younger versions of the original characters should be wrong by Star TREK 3! SERIOUSLY, WHY FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 1 & 2? I’m getting bored with it to be honest.

  28. I certainly hope this will end up like the transition from Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In other words, something totally horrible to something absolutely amazing. That isn’t likely though, as Star Trek (2009) was so unrelated and inaccurate to everything the original Star Treks represented (not to mention the differences in the story lines and the inaccurate representation of the original characters), that there is not way that Abrams can suddenly revive Star Trek properly in a sequel to total crap. At least TMP was accurate to the plot of TOS. I’m not saying that the new actors are bad, simply, they were given horrible parts and also were not meant for those roles.

  29. Please don’t make it just 3 d some of us older trekkies don’t like 3d and I want to enjoy the film. Loved the last one the alternate timeline was terrific