http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/brea...009/#more-1581



Quote:
BREAKING NEWS: Star Trek Pushed To May 2009 [UPDATED] February 13, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Paramount, Star Trek (2008 film)

Variety is reporting that Paramount has pushed the release of the new Star Trek movie from Christmas 2008 to May 8, 2009. Apparently the reason is to go for bigger box office during the summer season. Variety quotes a studio insider saying “Star Trek has the potential to gross more in May than in December.”

UPDATE: Trek move part of larger reshuffling at Paramount
Apparently this is all part of a larger plan on the part of Paramount and the decision was likely made by new Film Division Head John Lesher. Here is more from Variety’s Blog.


Quote:
"John Lesher is starting to make his imprint felt at Paramount. (And make no mistake, he’s still overseeing Vantage too.) Paramount is changing a number of release dates on their 2008 and 2009 skeds, moving J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek from Christmas, 2008 to May 8, 2009. David Fincher’s Brad Pitt-starrer The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will move from November 26 to December 19, 2008.

DreamWorks Pictures’ comedy Tropic Thunder, originally scheduled for July 11, will now be released on August 15 by DreamWorks-Paramount. And Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, originally announced as a DreamWorks-Paramount release, will now be distributed by Paramount Vantage. Which makes perfect sense; who better to handle it as an Oscar contender?"

UPDATE 2: Nothing to do with script
The Hollywood Reporter also notes that Paramount’s reshuffling of six films was due to a rethink after the strike and that in the case of Trek it was not related to the script.


Quote:
"Dramatically underscoring the need for movie-side execs to review slates following the long writers strike, Paramount on Wednesday bounced six films to new dates and moved two unslotted films to next year’s calendar.

Other distributors were scrambling to complete similar reviews of their upcoming productions to determine what can or can’t be delivered on scheduled dates. In some cases, films will move because of talent issues, but many film projects have been frozen in time when script rewrites weren’t completed before the 100-day scribe walkout.

“Star Trek” arguably was the biggest film moved, with the intended Christmas Day release now set for the first prime date in the following summer boxoffice season: May 8, 2009. But “Trek” appears something of an exception in the mix of itinerant pics, with its shift unrelated to script or cast considerations.

” ‘Star Trek’ is moving to summer because its has so much boxoffice potential,” Par spokesman Michael Vollman said. “It does not need any script tweaks. They’re two-thirds of the way through shooting, and we would have delivered a great movie at Christmas.”

Summer a better move?
Although winter release films can make a lot of money (like the recent Lord of the Rings films and last years Bond film), the biggest film’s tend to come out in the Summer. Due to the writer’s strike, the summer of 2009 will be a bit lighter than 2007 and 2008. Right now there are no movies slated for the 8th of May 2009, although the week before is X-Men Origins: Wolverine and the week after is Angels and Demons (ironically this sequel to The Da Vinci Code was originally slated to come out the weekend before Star Trek in December 2008). Of course, there is no guarantee those films will stay in those slots. As for Christmas this year, Star Trek was one of three films being released that day (although the other two were likely more aimed at different markets).

The move could be to help fill Paramount Dreamworks 2009 line-up after 2008 which already has a number of strong entries (Spiderwick, Iron Man, Indy 4, Madagascar 2, The Love Guru, Benjamin Button, etc.). The only other big films currently slated for Summer 2009 are Transformers 2 on June 29th and G.I. Joe in August.

As more details emerge, TrekMovie.com will report them.

Rather than just post a link to the story, I have copied it
here for members to read. This way, you don't have to go
to another site.

Here's the link, anyway:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breaking-news-star-trek-pushed-to-may-2009/#more-1581


BREAKING NEWS: Star Trek Pushed To May 2009 [UPDATED] February 13, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Paramount, Star Trek (2008 film)

Variety is reporting that Paramount has pushed the release of the new Star Trek movie from Christmas 2008 to May 8, 2009. Apparently the reason is to go for bigger box office during the summer season. Variety quotes a studio insider saying “Star Trek has the potential to gross more in May than in December.”

UPDATE: Trek move part of larger reshuffling at Paramount
Apparently this is all part of a larger plan on the part of Paramount and the decision was likely made by new Film Division Head John Lesher. Here is more from Variety’s Blog.

"John Lesher is starting to make his imprint felt at Paramount. (And make no mistake, he’s still overseeing Vantage too.) Paramount is changing a number of release dates on their 2008 and 2009 skeds, moving J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek from Christmas, 2008 to May 8, 2009. David Fincher’s Brad Pitt-starrer The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will move from November 26 to December 19, 2008.

DreamWorks Pictures’ comedy Tropic Thunder, originally scheduled for July 11, will now be released on August 15 by DreamWorks-Paramount. And Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, originally announced as a DreamWorks-Paramount release, will now be distributed by Paramount Vantage. Which makes perfect sense; who better to handle it as an Oscar contender?"

UPDATE 2: Nothing to do with script
The Hollywood Reporter also notes that Paramount’s reshuffling of six films was due to a rethink after the strike and that in the case of Trek it was not related to the script.

"Dramatically underscoring the need for movie-side execs to review slates following the long writers strike, Paramount on Wednesday bounced six films to new dates and moved two unslotted films to next year’s calendar.

Other distributors were scrambling to complete similar reviews of their upcoming productions to determine what can or can’t be delivered on scheduled dates. In some cases, films will move because of talent issues, but many film projects have been frozen in time when script rewrites weren’t completed before the 100-day scribe walkout.

“Star Trek” arguably was the biggest film moved, with the intended Christmas Day release now set for the first prime date in the following summer boxoffice season: May 8, 2009. But “Trek” appears something of an exception in the mix of itinerant pics, with its shift unrelated to script or cast considerations.

” ‘Star Trek’ is moving to summer because its has so much boxoffice potential,” Par spokesman Michael Vollman said. “It does not need any script tweaks. They’re two-thirds of the way through shooting, and we would have delivered a great movie at Christmas.”

Summer a better move?
Although winter release films can make a lot of money (like the recent Lord of the Rings films and last years Bond film), the biggest film’s tend to come out in the Summer. Due to the writer’s strike, the summer of 2009 will be a bit lighter than 2007 and 2008. Right now there are no movies slated for the 8th of May 2009, although the week before is X-Men Origins: Wolverine and the week after is Angels and Demons (ironically this sequel to The Da Vinci Code was originally slated to come out the weekend before Star Trek in December 2008). Of course, there is no guarantee those films will stay in those slots. As for Christmas this year, Star Trek was one of three films being released that day (although the other two were likely more aimed at different markets).

The move could be to help fill Paramount Dreamworks 2009 line-up after 2008 which already has a number of strong entries (Spiderwick, Iron Man, Indy 4, Madagascar 2, The Love Guru, Benjamin Button, etc.). The only other big films currently slated for Summer 2009 are Transformers 2 on June 29th and G.I. Joe in August.

As more details emerge, TrekMovie.com will report them.

My take
Obviously my first feeling is disappointment. No one saw this coming and all reports from the production and Paramount are that things are looking great. Looking at the landscape I think it is likely that Paramount feel their 2008 lineup is already strong and their 2009 is looking a little thin. Plus 2009 has less competition and more summer movie goers. Of course it should also ensure a better film as all that time can be spent on more polishing and more post-production. So in the end we can get a better movie that appeals to a larger audience (translating into more strength for the franchise) which is all good. But it still means waiting twenty more weeks for the film and that is not fun.

Well... waiting for 10 years for 'The Motion Picture' probably wasn't fun, either. Of course, I only had to wait 5 years for TMP as I wasn't a fan of Trek until 1974. I was only 2 in 1969 when Trek was canceled, so I didn't know any better.

In this case, I'm not worried about waiting a little longer if it could mean a potentially better film. Better that Trek gets a longer rest anyway and on a personal note... summer means movies for me, too. I don't much like going in the winter.

Rather than just post a link to the story, I have copied it
here for members to read. This way, you don't have to go
to another site.

Here's the link, anyway:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/13/breaking-news-star-trek-pushed-to-may-2009/#more-1581

Links are to save space and, in case you don't read very well, here is something else:

Copyright
TrekMovie.com is not affiliated with Paramount Pictures or CBS. Star Trek®, in all its various forms, is a trademark of Paramount Pictures and CBS. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective holders. All original content on TrekMovie.com is the property of The SciFanatic Network, owned by Anthony Pascale. Also, how can it be "breaking news" when I posted it 6 hours before you did?

Well... waiting for 10 years for 'The Motion Picture' probably wasn't fun, either.

On the contrary, waiting for that movie was a helluva lot more fun than watching it.

On the contrary, waiting for that movie was a helluva lot more fun than watching it.

What's the old saying...be careful what you wish for, you may get it. Or wanting is sometimes better than having.

On the contrary, waiting for that movie was a helluva lot more fun than watching it.

Touche`

Well... waiting AGAIN for it till it was fixed up and released COMPLETE in 2001 wasn't so bad. The film was finally what it should have been.

To be fair, TMP wasn't ALL bad. It introduced the 'modern' look of Klingons and their hardware. It gave us, in my opinion, the nicest rendition of the Enterprise I've ever seen and the orbital spacedock scenes really were nicely done.

Also, character moments like this weren't totally lacking:

McCoy: " Well, Spock! You haven't changed a bit; you're still as warm and sociable as ever. "

Spock: " Nor have you, Doctor... as your continued predilection for irrelevancy
demonstrates. "

Yeah, I'm one of those who stood on line opening day and was terribly disappointed with what I saw. Despite a great score and terrific effects and miniature work STTMP is a crashing bore.

On the other hand, Abrams commented that he had ideas for some great scenes he couldn't do because of the writers' strike. This might give him the chance.

Why are 2 threads for the exact same topic needed?

Why are 2 threads for the exact same topic needed?

Ask CaptFrank. Seems mine was 6 hours ahead of his post. I think he can't click on a link because his popup blocker won't let him and he assumes that we are all in the same boat. Other than that I have no clue. :freak:

Touche`

Well... waiting AGAIN for it till it was fixed up and released COMPLETE in 2001 wasn't so bad. The film was finally what it should have been.

To be fair, TMP wasn't ALL bad. It introduced the 'modern' look of Klingons and their hardware. It gave us, in my opinion, the nicest rendition of the Enterprise I've ever seen and the orbital spacedock scenes really were nicely done.

Also, character moments like this weren't totally lacking:

McCoy: " Well, Spock! You haven't changed a bit; you're still as warm and sociable as ever. "

Spock: " Nor have you, Doctor... as your continued predilection for irrelevancy
demonstrates. "

Had Gene not gotten his hands on it and rehashed the "Changling", then had people look at the viewscreen for what semed like hours, it may have been a great movie. Just think had TWOK been the first movie, that would have been great.

I'm sure this means they've read the threads on the many message boards decrying their tampering with a classic designn, and they'll use the extra time to redo all the Enterprise footage and make it look, properly, like the original.



:D

O.K. Admiral Nelson

... how can it be "breaking news" when I posted it 6 hours before you did?
How can it be breaking news?
That's the title of the story that the link brings you to.

What does the Copyright TrekMovie.com is not affiliated with Paramount Pictures or CBS. Star Trek®, in all its various forms, is a trademark of Paramount Pictures and CBS. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective holders. All original content on TrekMovie.com is the property of The SciFanatic Network, owned by Anthony Pascale.have to do with anything?

As for Anthony Pascale, if you'll read the beginning of the quoted post,
his name is right there giving him the credit.
And, he's just quoting "Variety" anyway!!

irishtrek asked:Why are 2 threads for the exact same topic needed?
The other thread is nothing but a stub. There is nothing there.
I posted the whole story here to give members something to read,
and respond to. (and you have. :) )

Admiral Nelson,
I'm not assuming credit for the information. I don't claim to have
written it. I thought it was generally understood by the users of this
forum that when text appears in a "quote" box, that means it was
written, or said, by someone else.

What do you mean by "the other thread is a stub"?
Both threads have the exact same link and the only difference I see is the thread title and the user name of the persons who started each thread.

irishtrek asked:What do you mean by "the other thread is a stub"?
Well, I don't know what to call it.
There's nothing there, just a link.
I posted the whole article to give members something
to read, in addition to the link.

On a lot of message boards, people consider it rude to just post a link and make them go somewhere else to read the point of the thread. It's considered polite and helpful to quote the relevant article. Some people even highlight important parts to help people who don't have time to read the whole thing.

One board I'm on, they even roundly ridicule you if you don't also add personal opinion and commentary to get the conversation going.

On a lot of message boards, people consider it rude to just post a link and make them go somewhere else to read the point of the thread. It's considered polite and helpful to quote the relevant article. Some people even highlight important parts to help people who don't have time to read the whole thing.


The other practical reason for doing things like that, is if the link goes dead, any newcomers to the thread are completely out of the loop.
Links change all the time.
Content gets taken down, moved, or edited.
By quoting at least the highlights, it gives everyone something to go on.
IT is common courtesy to also post the link, both the give the source material their due credit. But to also give others a chance to check the source, and possibly read a full, or more indeapth article.

On a lot of message boards, people consider it rude to just post a link and make them go somewhere else to read the point of the thread. It's considered polite and helpful to quote the relevant article. Some people even highlight important parts to help people who don't have time to read the whole thing.

One board I'm on, they even roundly ridicule you if you don't also add personal opinion and commentary to get the conversation going.

It's also considered rude to start another post with the same information long after the other one was already posted. It used to be that the owner of the webpage asked you to post links to save bandwith, but I guess this isn't a problem anymore. I can understand that people do get bored and want to pi--folks off, but what's the point? :rolleyes:

The other practical reason for doing things like that, is if the link goes dead, any newcomers to the thread are completely out of the loop.


Yes, except trekmovie.com keeps their links up for weeks and then archived.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29%2C_ENT1231.jpg

You all 3 have a valid point and I do have to adnnit I never thought of the reasons given by JohnP. and Tay666.

nevermind.

nevermind.

Who cares?:rolleyes:

For some reason ,I'm really not disappointed.