Star Trek movie apparently a go…

Updated on February 28, 2007 By Ken Begg 14 Comments

That J.J. Abrams Star Trek prequel has been schedule to come out on Christmas day of 2008.  Whenever they stick a release date on something, that’s a sign that it’s pretty much a go.

Meanwhile, the next Indiana Jones movie is due to start filming in June.  I never really thought they’d get this up and running.  I’m still not sold on the idea, but I know a lot of folks who are, so good for them.

Pin It



Related Posts

  • Jack Spencer

    Casting, I’d heard somewhere was:

    Kirk… Matt Damon
    Spock… Adrien Brody
    McCoy… Gary Sinise
    The Shark… Ben Affleck

    These are most likely rumors, though

  • Ed

    Star Trek managed to jump the shark long ago.

    Still, it would be cool to see a great Trek movie. That’s just me tho.

  • Terrahawk

    I don’t like the idea of going back into the past for a young Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. If they want to do Star Trek, they need to move forward and find some compelling story.

    I saw Firewall with Ford last year. The man is too old to do any sort of physical stunts. In the movie, they made sure to keep the action scenes to a minimum. If they have Ford doing a lot of action stuff in IJ, he will end up like Connery in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

  • Sardu

    I’m pretty much of the opposite opinion- I have zero interest in any new characters set in that universe but if they can do a credible job at breathing some new life into a young version of the classic TOS characters I’m all for it. Of course, I’d lay heavy odds it will be a hideous disaster, but putting JJ at the helm at least gives me *some* hope.

    Though he did so that last Mission Impossible film, didn’t he. Whoops.

  • Ed

    I think if Matt Damon were cast as James Kirk we would have a movie.

    Ken…your opinion?

  • Ken HPoJ

    I really like Damon a lot, and he’s a good match for the role.

    The big thing will be to see how un-politically correct they’re going to allow old J.T. to be. Given that for a while they didn’t let James Bond smoke, I’d really hate to see the character neutered.

    On the other hand, a Casino Royale like reboot would be potentially fantastic. And Gary Sinise as McCoy? That’s right on the money.

    I’ve never been a Star Trek head by any means, but I’m still (at least in the abstract) about ten times more excited about this than I am the Indiana Jones movies. Which isn’t necessarily saying that much. I don’t know, I just can’t shake the feeling that Jones *will* be PC’d to death.

  • Ed

    If the Casino Royale reboot is any indication, Abrams may just thumb his nose at the tedious elements of the franchise altogether. The Bond in Casino Royale is positively brutal and on more than one occasion in the film the creators smirk at elements of the other Bond movies (the martini scene and the scene where LeChiffre remarks disdainfully about “elaborate tortures”). I think Star Trek XI would need to have that “to hell with the past” attitude while retaining the core elements.

    But, either way, a great movie is a great movie and you can take a turgid franchise (Bond) and renew it or run a great one into the ground (Star Wars). If they make a great movie it will be like the previous 10 films never happened.

    As for Kirk, I would hope they make him into a womanizer. Especially the young Kirk.

    I doubt there will be any PC moralizing. At least I hope not. In these films, it’s pretty basic: there’s the universe – save it. Although they did have the “save the whales’ message in the 4th one (I stopped watching them after the atrocious “Final Frontier”). OTOH, they do seem to have a bunch of PC “diversity” type messages in The Next Generation. Keep your fingers crossed and hope they give us an irreverent, kick-ass Star Trek film with two or three sequels right behind it.

  • Danny

    You doubt Star Trek will have moralizing? Perhaps you missed TNG, parts of Deep Space Nine (My favorite, of the series), or heaven forbid “Voyager” (I, Katherine Janeway, will force my crew to spend their lives away from their loved ones because every week we get a way home that makes me feel uncomfortable. I am the greatest person ever, which is why Q is hot for me.)

    Fun fact: The term “Mary Sue” comes from a piece of Star Trek fanfiction. It was later made into Voyager.

    I hope there won’t be speechifying.

    I don’t see Kirk’s character getting cleaned up, though. If anything, they’ll probably make him an alcoholic child molester, given the increasing preference for “dark” characters. Besides, his major flaws were that he was horny and that he liked to bend the rules, neither of which are traits Hollywood shies from.

    It’s McCoy I’m worried about. He’s racist against Vulcans!

  • Ed

    I imagine Warner Bros or whatever studio owns the “Star Trek” franchise would not put any of the parties involved w/ TNG or the other TV series anywhere near Star Trek XI. Even TNG movies felt like they belong on TV.

    They know they have a huge fan base and if they can string together three films that energize that fanbase, then they’re looking at several hundred million dollars. They need to take that mythology and kick-start it same as the Bond franchise got kick-started.

    Unlike the “Star Wars” films, “Star Trek” has been firmly anchored to television. If they can get out of that rut and make a few good movies, they’ll have something special, because making a movie w/ the old guard (Shatner, Nimoy, etc) is simply not an option anymore and I would hate the see it fade away on TV forever.

  • Sardu

    Damon?? Sinise?? C’mon, that’s joking. They’re supposed to be twenty years old or something!!

  • ED

    Damon could easily pass for a young Captain Kirk. I realize he’s 36, but he looks boyish. I can see your point about Sinise for Bones. Sinese is 52.

    This is all massive speculation though. I just think Matt Damon would be an awesome James Tiberius Kirk. This is all I’ve heard:

    No roles have been confirmed for Star Trek XI, nor is there any credible information definitely pointing to any actor or actress in any part in the movie. This has not prevented widespread speculation, rumoring, and occasional credible suggestions.

    Much of this speculation involves Matt Damon playing Captain James T. Kirk. The rumor was widely reported as true after Marc Malkin of The Insider Online reported that J. J. Abrams had contacted William Shatner to get the former Kirk’s permission to recast Damon in his place.[19] Shatner’s approving comments to USA Today seemed to confirm these rumors.[20] The official Star Trek website later denied that Shatner had been contacted in any way.[21] Shatner himself has been little help in attempting to verify the rumor, alternately encouraging, quashing, admitting, and denying reports that he has ever even spoken with Abrams about the movie, much less given his blessing to a new Captain Kirk. Damon’s publicist, on the other hand, told the Wall Street Journal on August 5, 2006 that Damon himself has not been approached about the film to date.[22] In December of 2006, Damon told Sci Fi Wire that he is open to assuming the role of Captain Kirk, but denied previous rumors that had already been approached about the role. Matt Damon, 36, is the same age that William Shatner was when he first took up the role.[23]

    The Trek Movie Report confirmed in August, after suggestive comments by Leonard Nimoy to the Toronto Star,[24] that both Shatner and Nimoy have recently signed contracts giving them some approval power over any recasting of their Star Trek characters.[25] It is unclear exactly how much power they have, as the full terms of the contract have not been revealed.

    Other uncorroborated casting rumors have fingered Oscar-winner Philip Seymour Hoffman as playing a doctor other than Dr. McCoy in XI (possibly Dr. Mark Piper, McCoy’s predecessor)[26], and Damon’s childhood friend and frequent film collaborator Ben Affleck as playing either Kirk or Spock.[27] These rumors have been denied or disputed by Paramount[26] and Moviehole.net,[28] respectively. However, Moviehole.net went on to support the Hoffman rumor, though it is unclear whether this is based on the original IGN article or new information.

    According to IGN news, as of February 2007 the actors being considered for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are Matt Damon, Adrien Brody, and Gary Sinise, respectively[29].

    Many other actors, including Daniel Craig, Greg Grunberg, Kevin Weisman, Harold Burgess, James McAvoy and Zachary Quinto have expressed interest in playing roles in Star Trek XI, but their comments have indicated no actual offers, personal auditions, or negotiations with the studio.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_XI#Cast

  • Ed

    It just hit the wires of Entertainment UK 10 hours ago that Matt Damon will be the next Kirk and IGN is reporting that it will NOT be a Starfleet Academy story. It’s reported that it will be about the characters’ first adventure together, not their first meeting. They’re citing “studio sources” of course.

    I guess Abrams knows that when you have a strong leading man and a serviceable story you get a Batman Begins or a Casino Royale.

    I have never seen this much buzz about a movie that hasn’t even entered pre-production or had the cast nailed down. Can’t wait to see what they do w/ the Enterprise. I bet they go with an updated retro look and feel.

  • Ashley Pomeroy

    This is totally off topic, but are you aware that there is, at least in the UK, an 8-DVD boxed set of Steven Seagal movies called “The Steven Seagal DVD Legacy”? (have a look on Google).

    It boggles my mind that (a) there is an 8-DVD boxed set of Steven Seagal movies (b) this boxed set sells for almost fifty pounds and (c) it is called “The Steven Seagal DVD Legacy”.

    “DVD Legacy”.

    It includes, according to Amazon.co.uk, “NICO (aka ABOVE THE LAW), OUT FOR JUSTICE, UNDER SIEGE, UNDER SIEGE 2, THE GLIMMER MAN, EXECUTIVE DECISION, FIRE DOWN BELOW, and EXIT WOUNDS”. As one of the commentators at that site points out, it neatly captures Seagal’s career arc, although sadly and tragically it does not include On Deadly Ground. This gap unfortunately decontextualises the second Under Siege film, which was presumably a desperate attempt to get back on track.

    You can carry on talking about Star Trek now.

  • Ed

    I think Mr. Begg wrote a review of “On Deadly Ground” and the movie sounds so laughably enviro-whack job, anti-corporation, Billy Jack-ish that I’m not surprised they left it out of his “legacy.”

    This cracked me up in your post regarding Segal: “career arc.”

    Now that’s funny.