ROTTEN TOMATOES: Star Trek XI Going Boldly to May 2009 Release Date

Star Trek XI Going Boldly to May 2009 Release Date

Paramount shuffles 08-09 schedule.

by Jeff Giles | February 15, 2008

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

Time to make new plans for Christmas Day, Trekkies -- Paramount has Scrooged Star Trek XI all the way back to 2009.

The J.J. Abrams-directed franchise reboot will now come out May 8, 2009, part of a slew of schedule shifts announced by the studio on Thursday. Also getting the pushback treatment are Ben Stiller's Tropic Thunder (moving from July 11 to August 15 of this year), the David Fincher-directed Brad Pitt project The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (November 26 to December 19), Renée Zellweger's Case 39 (August 22 to April 10, 2009), and Eddie Murphy's NowhereLand (moving from September 26 all the way back to June 12, 2009).

Next year's schedule also received a few adjustments. Paramount announced release dates for a few 2009 titles, including the Martin Scorsese/Leonardo DiCaprio project Shutter Island (October 2) and the untitled Wayans Brothers comedy (February 6).

Related Items

Movie:	Shutter Island
	The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
	Tropic Thunder
	NowhereLand
	Case 39
Celeb:	Jeffrey Abrams
	David Fincher
	Renée Zellweger
	Leonardo DiCaprio
	Ben Stiller
	Martin Scorsese
	Brad Pitt
	Eddie Murphy

(1-20 of 20 posts) | Reply

Admiral_N8 writes:
on Feb 15 2008 05:33 AM

Not going to be finished with the Trek movie in time? or just a business decision?

(Reply to this)

Synyster_Gates writes:
on Feb 15 2008 06:02 AM

Dude, thats not cool.. But hey, the Wayans brothers have a new movie. Maybe this one will be better than White Chicks. And finally, a new David Fincher, Brad Pitt movie.

(Reply to this)

DarthRage writes:
on Feb 15 2008 06:05 AM

That blows....instead of 10 months, now its 16 months. I am enraged, insane with anger.

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on Feb 15 2008 06:55 AM

Sound to me like a case of: "Ok, the writer's strike is over, now we can sit down and actually draft up a REAL release schedule."

(Reply to this)

Kevlegs writes:
on Feb 15 2008 07:22 AM

Here is a link to a BBC web page about the putting back of the Star Trek movie.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7246641.stm

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Feb 15 2008 07:36 AM

The Trekkies saw that Star Wars decided to pop out a fresh movie for the summer and they thus high tailed it to 2009.

Haha - kidding, kidding. That does suck though.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Feb 15 2008 07:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#1576132)
I agree with 'skull- I think the strike being over has caused everyone to re-deploy for strategic reasons, not because Trek won't be finished. I'm marginally curious as to how the math actually works for these guys... "Well, now that we have the writers back, we need to move THIS project to HERE..."

Why, Damm#t? WHY?

(Reply to this)

ManofStee1 writes:
on Feb 15 2008 09:11 AM

Weak! Star Wars must have scared them off.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Feb 15 2008 09:38 AM

I would suggest instead, that the studio heads didn't expect much from Star Trek and were going to drop it in December, when everyone else was going to see holiday and Oscar picks, but then saw the early shots and how good it was, and said "hey, this could be a summer tent-pole blockbuster". And thus they moved it.

(Reply to this)

darthvaderismydadgod writes:
on Feb 15 2008 10:04 AM

it probabally will be worth the wait

ps the god at the end of my name is accidental

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Feb 15 2008 11:32 AM

Nice, it's funny though darth. Freaked me out for a second when I saw Benjamin Button on this list, I've been waiting long enough for it to get made but it's just a few more weeks, so it's all good.

(Reply to this)

Creekboy writes:
on Feb 15 2008 01:39 PM

I think Shatter hit the nail on the head...this is a going to be a better movie than Paramount originally thought. But just look at May 2009 now...May 1, 2009 you have Wolverine...May 8 is Star Trek...May 15 you have Angels and Demons...going to be interesting....

(Reply to this)

Silverevilchao writes:
on Feb 16 2008 07:31 AM

#$^E$*&!!!!!!

THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

...unless the delay allows them to touch up the movie, that is.

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Feb 16 2008 07:36 AM

Extra time to write Shatner back in.

(Reply to this)

I_like_ike writes:
on Feb 16 2008 08:11 AM

KAHN!!!!

(Reply to this)

iakobos writes:
on Feb 16 2008 12:37 PM

SpikesInMySkull writes "Sound to me like a case of: "Ok, the writer's strike is over, now we can sit down and actually draft up a REAL release schedule."
Ditto that.

Although I'm disappointed, this could be good news. SW was originally scheduled for release Christmas 1976 but because it was bigger than Lucas realized they pushed it back 5 months to May and look at what we got. So, if it means making a good/OK movie into a great movie then I'm for it.

(Reply to this)

Willy105 writes:
on Feb 16 2008 03:13 PM

They already released a trailer saying 2008.

Too late for a delay.

(Reply to this)

~*Admiral Snowstorm*~ writes:
on Feb 18 2008 10:04 AM

I too was alarmed at the news of Benjamin Button, but it looks like it's nothing to worry about. Cool.

And what's up with Nowhereland being pushed back nearly a year? How does that make any sense at all? Are they redoing the entire movie or something?

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Feb 18 2008 11:00 AM

Here's hoping it's AT LEAST as good as the last Star Trek movie that had a Summer release!

(That would be Star Trek V: The Final Frontier)

I'm also glad to see Benjamin Button is only being pushed back to December 19, rather than doing something stupid like they did with Fincher's last movie (Zodiac) by releasing it AFTER awards season.

(Reply to this)

Trufire writes:
on Feb 18 2008 08:27 PM

I would rather the movie be pushed back and be good than see it early and bad. But then again, knowing JJ Abrams, this is all just a ploy for some bizzare twisted ending to all of this. ;)

(Reply to this)