Abrams Says Star Trek 2 Is Up Next, Might Not Make Release Date

Although super-busy J.J. Abrams still hasn’t signed on to direct the sequel to 2009′s Star Trek reboot, he can confirm this much: It’s next on his lengthy list of projects.

“The next thing we’re working on, and hopefully we’ll be able to pass information out sooner or later, is the next Star Trek,” he told reporters Sunday at a press junket for Super 8, which opens this week.

Beyond that, though, much remains uncertain. Less than two weeks ago, a report surfaced that, considering there’s not even a script, Paramount Pictures is considering moving the release of the Star Trek sequel from June 29, 2012, to holiday 2012. When asked at the junket whether he could hit that original target, Abrams didn’t offer anything concrete.

“I care much more that it be good than it be ready,” CinemaBlend quoted him as saying. “I’m obviously doing everything I can to make sure that schedules don’t get screwed up. But I don’t think anyone wants a movie on time that’s not worth your time.”

The same held true on the question of whether the sequel will be 3D. “I’m not yet considering it,” The Playlist quoted Abrams as telling reporters, “but I haven’t gotten that threatening phone call from men in suits.”

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • CJ3

    Well bring it on, I would not mind seeing where J.J. takes this alternate universe Star Trek.

  • Anonymous

    Damnit I still want to know why Nero didn’t go save his people in the past once he had time traveled instead of continuing to chase Spock around. The people on his home planet weren’t dead yet!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    Because they were fine. He wanted revenge. He probably wasn’t planning on dying, which meant he could save them afterwards.

  • Anonymous

    That doesn’t make any sense. If they were fine shouldn’t he have warned them that their entire planet was going to be destroyed and they were all going to die instead of you know, “getting around to that later”?  His entire motivation was gone, there was NOTHING to get revenge for because they hadn’t died.

  • Bass Guitar Hero

    I think it’s a case that Nero was just a mad dog lashing out in pain and was obsessed with making other worlds suffer as Romulus did. Had he been even remotely rational, we wouldn’t have had much of a story.

  • Anonymous

    I tried to talk myself into that POV (and still found the movie entertaining I should say) but it just seemed like really really bad writing.

    —–Original message—–

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    His people were still gone and he still blamed Spock (it’s been a while and I don’t remember the particulars). The events still happened to both of them. He still wanted revenge for what happened. When he died, if he had won, there was still plenty of time to save them. Spock was old when they traveled back, but he was very young when they fought Nero. There was a lot of time there to save the people.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    His people were still gone and he still blamed Spock (it’s been a while and I don’t remember the particulars). The events still happened to both of them. He still wanted revenge for what happened. When he died, if he had won, there was still plenty of time to save them. Spock was old when they traveled back, but he was very young when they fought Nero. There was a lot of time there to save the people.

  • Anonymous

    His people were NOT still gone, he was 80 years in the past!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    Those weren’t his people, they were his ancestors. Semantics, but the distinction is there. The emotional connection wouldn’t be the same.

    If someone annihilated the human race and we both went into the past where they still existed, I wouldn’t suddenly not care about that. I’d still be after that guy for what he did. My people were still destroyed.