Star Trek 3 due in 2016?

News Simon Brew 11 Mar 2013 - 06:27
Star Trek

The next Star Trek film might just be targeted around the 50th anniversary of the franchise...

Over the weekend, in case you missed it, a new teaser trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness landed, which introduced some new footage. This came a day after Paramount previewed a good half hour of the movie, and you can read our thoughts on that here.

There's been a four year gap between the release of Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness though, and given director JJ Abrams' commitments to the Star Wars universe as well, inevitably questions have been raised about when to expect the next Star Trek movie. Abrams is set to remain involved (we'd be surprised if he directed), and while the official line appears to be to wait to see how Star Trek Into Darkness does, producer Bryan Burk has admitted "we're definitely talking about the next one".

So then: when are we likely to see a Star Trek 3/Star Trek 13? Star Trek celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2016: might that be the opportune time to release a new film?

"We haven't talked about a release date", Burk said. "We don't wait to wait four years, the same amount of time between the last one and this one, but [talking about 2016] it's going to be a big year to celebrate, hopefully".

More news on Star Trek movies as we get it...

Digital Spy.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Look I'm not afraid to say this but 'the league of extraordinary gentleman' was and is a good movie.

Can we wait til this one's out the door, people? The amount of preview marketing for Into Darkness is beyond ridiculous, teasers for teasers, teasers, trailers, prologues, 30 minutes of footage. It's a little disappointing to me, people talk about the marketing far more than they do the actual film, it feels - something which no doubt makes the studios pretty chuffed.

That mini-moan aside, I do hope JJ steps away properly from Star Trek, and they get someone in who properly understands the franchise to call the shots, rather than looking to Abrams for advice. Abrams' film career peaked in the first 5 minutes of his first film, and rocketed downhill from there.

lol

I hope it doesn't turn out to be Sir Sean's last film ...

Churn 'em out boys! Churn 'em out!
More movies, more money, less time!
Who cares if we suffocate the market? We'll be rich!!! Glorious, glorious money!!!

Cant see the third being about anything other than Khan then. Maybe Shatner will put in an appearance (if he doesnt burn all his bridges before then).

3 years is a decent time between films....but worried about J.J Abrams wont be able to do this,because Star Wars is set for 2015(and yeah right,like that wont get pushed back)

Don't forget the moving posters DoG helpfully posted, they are so much more 'movier' than regular posters

Simon Brew in Monday morning non-story? More news on the non-story, as we get it.

Please die, Paramount.

whilst i agree with you about the over use of various forms of marketing for this movie ( the way of the world unfortunately ), i cant agree with you about abrams ability as a director. he is a great director of good, pop culture popcorn movies, which is what star trek essentially is, a very good techno laden populist sci fi fantasy. i think his first trek film was excellent, and whilst i was hoping they might have had a cameo of a character from the countdown comics, or shatner-kirk doing the birthday present message thingy that was mentioned, or the ship being smaller than it ended up being ( but looking the same, which i think is a good thing ), the movie was pretty much spot on. it felt fresh and was a welcome departure form the repetitive crap that was being churned out by the okudas which was killing trek as a franchise. abrams has kept it alive

That's fair enough. I'll sum up my feelings on Abrams in a more fleshed out way though: Dude's too interested with plot intricacies and cool style to inject enough character into his films. His "first 6 minutes" was that interrogation flash forward in Mission Impossible 3, because it was without any time travel nonsense, any rabbits foot, any Spielberg homages, and actually gave us a character in an intense situation, and thus was exciting cinema.

In Star Trek, he paints these characters with broad strokes that just ring false when thought about or rewatched. The manner in which Spock gives up command to Kirk, the reasons he does it feel plot driven, I didn't buy them at all. I got the seeds of why he was doing it, but I really got a sense of railroading, because Abrams was more interested in the time travel stuff, as he often is. Star Trek as a franchise worked so well because of it's commitment to character, the science fiction - whether being popcorn pop culture in Star Trek IV, or some network TV diplomacy in TNG, or even its soviet analogies in VI, always put character first, and didn't undermine that for the sake of cool twisty plots.

It's the same reason I think Star Trek III is the worst TOS Trek movie, despite having some okay moments, the things that film does to Kirk's character after the masterful journey of Wrath Of Khan are downright insulting.

I do feel as if my tastes could not be further from Abrams' ideas as to what makes good storytelling - he's forwarded the trend of cliffhanger heavy storytelling in Network TV, again focusing on the mysteries and plots as the hook, rather than character. To see a person with those priorities in charge of the series that brought me some of my favourite childhood characters, is kinda heartbreaking.

Star Trek XIII not Star Trek 3

Sponsored Links