Star Trek sequel scheduled for May 17, 2013 Release (1 Viewer)

[SilverWook]

It's also been suggested the villain might be a certain crazed starship captain that Kirk and Spock encountered in the third season of TOS.
If photos show up where Cumberbatch has a Orion ladyfriend, I guess we'll know for sure!

 

[Nelson Au]

Ah, Master of the Universe!
I hadn't been keeping with the comics. I'll look into that. And the Holmes.

 

[joshEH]

Yeah, the comics have been really good of late -- they've already adapted "Where No Man...", "The Galileo Seven," "Operation: Annihilate," and the next arc is an original storyline dealing with the destruction of Vulcan in the new timeline. Coming up after that is a retelling of "Return of the Archons" in the new universe.
The real cool thing about the comics is that they frequently veer off in unexpected directions from the original '60s episodes, and aren't simply plug-ins with the new cast. For instance:

Spoiler

Uhura now plays a major role in saving the day in "The Galileo Seven," whereas she didn't in the '60s TV installment.

A link to the solicitation for the May issue:
http://www.idwpublishing.com/news/article/2230/

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks! I'm looking through the IDW site and the Star Trek section. I'm still trying to get my head around what they have released. There's comics for TNG too and others not related to the Orci stories.
I recall reading on Trekmovie.com about the Where No Man reboot.
From what I can see on the IDW site, they've released issue #1, 2 and 3. I may go for the iPad version, but I'll see about availability after I read the first one.
Still can't find a listing of what is released in this series you are speaking of, unless all that are out are the 3 issues.

 

[joshEH]

A quick way to help identify what you're looking for:
So far, there's only been six issues released as part of the "ongoing," Abrams-verse continuity series; there were also the Countdown and Nero series which tied into Star Trek XI. Everything else with the original series logo from IDW pretty much deals with the 1960s TV universe (pre-ST XI).
Here's some info on the previously-released issues to date:
Issue #1
Issue #2
Issue #3
Issue #4]
Issue #5
Issue #6
Issue #7 (upcoming)
Issue #8 (upcoming)
Issue #9 (upcoming)
A preview of Issue #5 ("Operation: Annihilate," Part 1).
The comics even address some interesting continuity-stuff like:

Spoiler

finally dealing with the issue of "Johnny" in the first movie, and whether he was actually Kirk's brother, or not.

A great interview with Roberto Orci and Mike Johnson about the series, and how the next movie is currently tying into it.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks Josh. This is helpful!
Nelson

 

[Sean Bryan]

Production on the sequel wrapped yesterday, May 8th, on the 3rd anniversary of the release of STAR TREK.
It's a long wait 'til next May. At least there's lots of great stuff comming between now and then.

 

[Bryan^H]

A long wait indeed. I'll be happy when the trailer is released.

 

[joshEH]

The casting-news many of us have been waiting for:
http://trekmovie.com/2012/05/25/exclusive-new-star-trek-sequel-character-tidbit/

 

[Sean Bryan]

Cupcake!!

 

[Sean Bryan]

From an interview at aintitcool:

Chris Pine: I’m going to give the safe answer, but it’s true, but it is relentless. The movie is relentless, and for the visually inclined people who want to see major sequences, there are a couple specifically that I think… I’m not a huge 3-D fan, but I think will be incredible. But what I’m more excited about and what I think they did so well is that really the story is that much better, and the journey that these guys go on is that much more, and what they always talked about is that even though they're a crew from what we know about the original team, the fun of getting there is following that journey to where they become that tight-knit crew. It’s no fun if they're already a tight-knit crew. So suffice it to say, they're still learning how to get along.
Capone: So we are still in that place where they're bonding?
Alex Kurtzman: One-hundred percent. They only really came together as a team at the end of the first movie as a function of story. But the bridge crew from the original series, they aren't those people yet, neither in age nor in experience. So I think the worst mistake that we could have made was to assume that they were there already at the top of the movie and skip that stuff. And the other thing I’ll say without revealing too much is that in the first TREK, we made choices--in our invention of the story--that were extremely controversial. Blowing up Vulcan, hugely controversial choice, and we knew that die hard Trekkers were either going to skewer us or accept it based on the emotional architecture around that choice. I think for us, TREK is at its best when it is making hugely bold moves like that, and there will be hugely bold moves in this one.

 

[RickER]

I will be happy if the engine room isnt a brewery! Jeez, that made me cringe! Still does. So does the stupid humor...fat fingers...

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I just hope they understand the difference between being bold to serve a good and strong purpose versus simply being bold just to be different and generate buzz or controversy.

 

[Nelson Au]

I really have little faith in the new movie. Sorry to say, I really wanted to like the 2009 movie. But this unfortunate need to reinvent makes for tedium. I just rewatched Batman Begins. That was a pretty well made movie and did a nice job of re-establishing the character. It was different and distanced itself from the earlier TV show and films.
I just didn't find that same level of quality in the 2009 Star Trek film. You also have 7 main characters to re-establish. They should have only focused on the main three. And another thing that I didn't like about these reboots is that one whole movie is used to re-introduce and then get the crew together. Orci says that movie is out of the way now and now they can focus on how they become the crew we love. Seems like a lot of wasted time and effort. Same problem with the Daniel Craig James Bond.
Well, we'll see how this one goes.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I really have little faith in the new movie. Sorry to say, I really wanted to like the 2009 movie. But this unfortunate need to reinvent makes for tedium. I just rewatched Batman Begins. That was a pretty well made movie and did a nice job of re-establishing the character. It was different and distanced itself from the earlier TV show and films.
I just didn't find that same level of quality in the 2009 Star Trek film. You also have 7 main characters to re-establish. They should have only focused on the main three. And another thing that I didn't like about these reboots is that one whole movie is used to re-introduce and then get the crew together. Orci says that movie is out of the way now and now they can focus on how they become the crew we love. Seems like a lot of wasted time and effort. Same problem with the Daniel Craig James Bond.
Well, we'll see how this one goes.

I'm keeping an "open mind" on the new Star Trek movie.
But that analogy with the Daniel Craig James Bond is certainly a good one: The first Daniel Craig/James Bond movie ("Casino Royale") certainly *seemed* like a "proto" iteration of the James Bond character and mythos. And within that boundary it was a good movie and a unique use of the character, who seemingly graduated to become a regenerated, full-bown James Bond at the very end when the "James Bond Theme" was finally heard for the first and only time. So I was really looking forward to the sequel which promised to be the first "true" Daniel Craig James Bond movie. But "Quantum of Solace" didn't really seem much like a James Bond movie to me at all. It still seemed a lot like a "proto" Bond -- and that completely invalidated the ending of the first movie. Let's hope we don't see a similar "step back" with the upcoming Star Trek sequel!

 

[Nelson Au]

Joseph, I'll keep an open mind as well. Young minds, fresh ideas! . This is a new Star Trek for a new audience.
I totally agree about QofS. It didn't feel like a Bond film either. But on recent reviewings, if I skip some of the mindless action, like the boat chase business, and the bit with the DC-3 and jet fighter dogfight, it wasn't a bad movie and could be called Jason Bourne or some other guy as Bond had noting to do with it!
I read Casino Royale and it's a really good read. The movie was pretty faithful, except the added bit at the end with the building, but faithful. I didn't care that Bond was an idiot who was learning still in the film as the book had him a fully developed double-0.

 

[Ockeghem]

Nelson,
And how about when Bond fills that inside straight flush! That's such a great moment in the film. It's also not an easy hand to get in 'straight' poker.

 

[Nelson Au]

Poker!
I didn't like they changed the game to poker too. I guess baccarat chemin de fer is too much for a modern audience!

 

[Sean Bryan]

Karl Urban apparently let slip who Benjamin Cumberbach will be playing .....

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Gary Mitchell

Not sure that the spoiler text is necessary, because no matter who the character is it will be common knowledge before the film comes out.

 

[John Berggren]

Carl Urban apparently let slip who Benjamin Cumberbach will be playing .....

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Gary Mitchell

Not sure that the spoiler text is necessary, because no matter who the character is it will be common knowledge before the film comes out.

Saw this a couple of days ago within an article speculating that he could have been teasing.
I'm sure no matter who he's playing, I'll be checking this one out in IMAX.