Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Sci-Fi Entertainment

Star Trek Sequel Already Planned 213

Posted by kdawson
from the boldly-going-again dept.
bowman9991 writes "Paramount Pictures are so confident about the box office potential of the upcoming Star Trek reboot directed by J. J. Abrams that they're already working on a sequel. They've hired Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof to write the screenplay. We're looking at a possible 2011 release for the next Star Trek movie with the same cast. Now that they've committed themselves, let's hope it lives up to expectations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Trek Sequel Already Planned

Comments Filter:
  • It's dead, Jim (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Let it lie.

    • No, it's not. Not until there is a replacement. Star Trek is the fictional universe where (at least among humanity) scarcity, hatred, and superstition are eliminated; and science is exalted. Even when the plot and acting are bad, Trek still takes you to this universe--the universe humanity must aspire to make for themselves.

      In my opinion other sci-fi series does this convincingly.

      • A liberal, socialist utopia... I can't wait! :\

        • Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lord Ender (156273) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @11:16AM (#27417857) Homepage

          When scarcity is eliminated, distinctions between economic systems are meaningless. You shouldn't use words like "socialism" unless you know what they mean.

          • Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:5, Interesting)

            by GMFTatsujin (239569) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @12:38PM (#27419677) Homepage

            I've never actually understood the economy of Star Trek. Sometimes stuff they want magically appears out of thin air. Sometimes they talk about exchanging credits. Other times it's gold pressed latinum. And there is still demand for scarce items like antique baseball cards, fulfilled by taking a dip in the Great Material River.

            Star Trek is -- in the words of Nomad -- "a mass of conflicting impulses." The focus has always been on the humanity of the characters anyway; we are meant to take for granted that everything just all works out on broader levels like economy. It's not a way of life. It's a fairy tale.

            It's foolish to aspire to a fairy tale. At some point, the system needs definition. The future: some assembly required.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Teancum (67324)

              I, too, have never understood economics of the Federation and how money has been "eliminated".

              It should be noted that the gold-pressed latinum bars were something that came from the Ferengi, who not only involved themselves in commercial relationships but even immortalized the ideas into a sort of religion. Deep Space 9 was a conduit of ideas and goods between the Ferengi and the Federation, so it shouldn't be too surprising that money continued to be use in that context when dealing with space-faring race

              • Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Arterion (941661) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @04:20PM (#27423295)

                All the basic necessities of life can be replicated. The parts to build a replicator can be replicated. There is still a component of human labor, which in a world where anything you want can be conjured from thin air, human (or alien) labor is the only value.

                However, for things like large space vessels, certain components can't be replicated. Fuel can't be replicated. The law of conservation of energy still applies. So there still has to be mining operations, shipping fleets, etc. All of this is basically just an effort of human labor.

                As for the average Federation Joe, there are still important things you might want money for. Property, for example. I would assume there is still scarcity of highly desirable property in Earth and other planets. A lot of human-provided services COULD be rendered by holograms, but there is the constant theme that holograms somehow fall just a little short of flesh and blood when it comes to certain things that are "artistic" in nature. A hologram can (generally) only be as original as its programming.

                Even things like houses still are probably built by humans. The materials are likely replicated, but the assembly is probably easier to just have a person do. Holograms are generally not portable, and replicators haven't been shown to be on the scale of replicating entire structures, and should there be any of that size, they're probably stationary.

                So it's not terribly different from today. Money = human labor. It just so happens the standard of living is basically as high as it can be, because any physical item you desire can be conjured from thin air, and a lot of services you'd want from a person (a massage?) could be provided by a computer.

                So there's still a lot of work to be done, and a lot of stuff to spend money on. It's just not the primary factor in life anymore. People can do job they enjoy without the drudgery.

                Also consider: most of TNG (and ENT) focused on Starfleet. There would be no money, because the entire operation is funded by the government. Voyager was lost in the middle of nowhere, so the rules were totally different there. DS9 is where you really see a little bit how the galactic economy works.

      • by Sloppy (14984)

        Star Trek is the fictional universe where (at least among humanity) scarcity, hatred, and superstition are eliminated

        and that's what makes it so boring.

      • Scarcity is dead. Yeah right. That's harder to believe than faster than light travel. That's like a computer that will never need a ram upgrade. NO SUCH THING. And why the fuck would the Klingons and the Humans hate each other if Scarcity were dead? I don't think even Klingons fight just for shits and giggles.
  • by Niris (1443675) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:49AM (#27412551)
    whats this going to be, movie 15 by now?
  • Please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:50AM (#27412555)
    Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.
    • Re:Please (Score:5, Informative)

      by spiffyman (949476) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:55AM (#27412607) Homepage

      Doesn't seem too likely. TFA was written "Yesterday," and it likely references this article [variety.com], which was written March 30.

      Sorry to disappoint.

      • by eltaco (1311561)
        that's part of the setup nowadays though, isn't it? everyone chants "OMG APRIL FOOLS!", but in the article's defense it was posted 1-2 days earlier. also, that's sorta the time-frame virals need to spread around to become known.

        hell, I hope I don't eat my words later, but I agree, it seems legit this time.
    • Re:Please (Score:5, Funny)

      by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @02:32AM (#27412823) Journal

      I like to think of it as "Younger and Edgier." [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bonch (38532)

      Another fucking sequel.

      Hollywood is on its way out.

      • I don't mind sequels, really, as long as there's something there, some more story to be told. A sequel to a movie which is already a bad take on an existing franchise... that just has no potential at all.
    • Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3&phroggy,com> on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @03:16AM (#27412985) Homepage

      Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.

      You know, if they made a really great Star Trek movie that was totally true to everything we hold dear... the best thing they could do is make the trailers for it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie, to ensure box office success. I'm not saying that's the case here, just saying... when was the last time you heard someone comment about how accurate a trailer was?

      • by paganizer (566360)

        Damn. That really is insightful.
        But, perceive for a moment, my problem: I grew up in extremely rural southern Illinois; while I have vague recollections of watching ST on my parents Black and white TV during first run (I was 6 or so), I didn't really get into it until I was 14. I purchased a ungodly large UHF antenna so I could pick up the broadcasts from st. Louis; I bought all the James Blish novelizations. I bought, frankly everything there was, sometimes 2, like the technical blueprints; there was a tim

      • Or they could just make the movie for the mindless sex-and-violence crowd...

        Come on... Spock and emotions with women? Yeah that will fit well into the overall scheme of things.

        So the director is a producer, directory, and writer from? Lost, Alias?

        Look I happen to be a huge Lost fan, but Lost is a fantasy, not scifi! Or it is that new age goo that people call scifi mixed in with a whole bunch of make believe garbage.

        I think that this is what Star Trek has become FANTASY that tries to pass off as SciFi...

        • by Tony Hoyle (11698) *

          So the director is a producer, directory, and writer from? Lost, Alias? ..and Fringe.

          Oh god, the movie is doomed.

    • Re:Please (Score:5, Funny)

      by Big Hairy Ian (1155547) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @04:51AM (#27413349)

      Please tell me this is the start of April Fool's Day. The new movie looks like it's totally disrespecting the source material (seriously, the trailer made it look like a mindless sex-and-violence movie)... I'd rather not see more like that.

      Erm did you ever see the original series in it's original late night spot???

      Mindless sex and violence was what I remember but hey at least it was in space:)

    • Of the little that I have seen through the trailers I thought the exact SAME THING...

      I thought, oh god not yet another movie that targets this "reality TV" generation. What I always liked about Star Trek is that they always tried to put some techy stuff into the overall scheme of things. They tried to answer or provoke some question.

      For example with Star Trek 1 it was women and aliens... Ohhh they could even be NORMAL...

      Star Trek NG... Ohhh robots can intermingle with HUMANS...

      Star Trek DS9... Ohhh someti

    • by furby076 (1461805)
      mindless sex and violence...so what's your problem with this movie?
    • by GargamelSpaceman (992546) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @11:08AM (#27417677) Homepage Journal

      The trailers I've seen for the new Star Trek movie make me actually want to see it. It looks edgier which is exactly what Star Trek needs to survive.

      TNG, and Voyager were space soap operas. The original Star Trek had some mild edginess though, albeit necessarily fit for 1960s TV. Star Trek can have more Edginess today.

      Star Trek Original re-vampped has at least as much value as the zillions of Comic Book Superhero movies with the same story that have come out of late. I watch those for fun. I'll watch the new Star Trek too.

  • April Fool's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmhowell (26755) * <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:50AM (#27412565) Homepage Journal

    Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!

    • by Socguy (933973)

      Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!

      Duh, that's why they need to start the sequel right away. They need to get this forthcoming abomination out of the way so that they can cash in on the even numbered awesomeness!

  • by Darkk (1296127) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:50AM (#27412567)

    Problem is the new Star Trek movie is too much like Fast and Fury which won't be appealing to older audience. Young audience might like it but I think the movie overall will fail.

    • by Aranykai (1053846)

      I saw Fast and Furry on pay per view... Totally not work the money man.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by newcastlejon (1483695)
        Yeah, and you lost poor Jacqui her job. Still, she was on the fiddle and had to go, would you mind seeing to the rest of them too? You can have all the pr0n you want.
    • by symbolset (646467) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @02:41AM (#27412865) Journal

      Hm. What are you, 12? It's not possible for a Trek movie to fail. It won't win an Oscar but they're not supposed to. It can't do that and fulfill Roddenberry's vision for social change through fantasy.

      Not one Trek movie has ever failed to get more box office than its production cost [the-numbers.com], let alone before you figure DVD sales and merchandising. Nemesis came close but over the history of the franchise they're running 2:1 just in box. With a Costneresque budget on Trek XI they're doing their best to see if they can spend more than any box office can handle and it might just happen, but net of DVDs and books and merch the movie will make money. Old jerks like me will still drag their kids out to see it no matter how much they don't want to. We'll buy the new lightsabers for birthday gifts and the scale models for Christmas, the desk calendars and action figures and hundreds of cobranded happy meals with the cheesy Chinese lead-based toy. We'll do it because we're struggling to connect our spoiled brats with the hopeful social message of yesteryear when you didn't know the doomed guy's shirt was red because the TV was black and white. As a side effect we'll perpetuate the exploitation of a franchise that's gradually losing the vision of its creator, but hey -- that's what memes and pop culture are about.

      One day my kids will be dragging their kids to Trek films. They won't know why and the films won't contain anything that makes the endeavor worthwhile. Perhaps the tradition will die with that generation. In the meantime the landfill is going to see billions of those happy meal toys. Hollywood is going to try to milk this one long after it's dry because they ran out of new ideas 15 years ago if they ever had any.

      Let me condition that: If Sony buys the franchise from Viacom/Paramount it's over in one movie flat. Sony just doesn't get it and they never will.

    • People who grew up with the Star Trek TV show are in their 40s now. They are no longer the target demographic for action movies.

      It's surprising that they're making another movie at all.

      • by S-100 (1295224)
        People who grew up with TOS are in their 50's now. The new movie is not meant to appeal to them at all - it's the passing of the guard to a new generation a few decades younger. Whether the oldies (like me) consider the new movie a triumph or an abomination will be irrelevant to its success or failure.
    • I think the fact that people want a bunch of cool special effects is hurting the story.

      The Old Star Trek up to Star Trek II space battles were more like submarines in battle. Hide and fire, avoid fire, target fire. Try to find a mistake from you enemy take advantage of it. It makes a lot of drama during the fighting and a lot is going on except for shooting and flying.

      The new ones when they try to put more effects have became more like Fighter Planes in close combat where it is basically if you shoot more

  • Confidence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tpgp (48001) * on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:50AM (#27412569) Homepage

    Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.

    Paramount would have been planning another feature even if they were confident this trek was going to bomb.

    • And be on the internet in minutes, registering their disgust!

              Brett

    • by tcolberg (998885) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @02:10AM (#27412689)

      What the hell!? They had to leave the field lie fallow for five years because they had squeezed every last ounce of creativity out of the last production team working on Trek. Now the comeback movie hasn't even been released yet and they're already back to raping the land for all it's worth.

    • by rolfwind (528248)

      Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality.

      I never watched one in the theatre (haven't watched that many at all, actually) even though I lived through some trailers of them over a while.

      I don't know what it is, but this one actually seems compelling. Perhaps it's just because there doesn't seem to be anything worth watching until May when this and then T4 comes out, but I'm plannng on seeing it.

    • by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp.Gmail@com> on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @02:42AM (#27412869) Homepage Journal

      Star Trek will always do well at the box office; there's enough die hard trekkies that will go & watch regardless of quality

      Then why was Nemesis a total failure?

      No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise. And while the trailers look exciting in some regards, I have no hope that JJ Abrams will make a real Star Trek movie, just another "shiny box" movie with Star Trek characters.

      • by feepness (543479)

        No, real Trek fans are feeling burned out too, and are tired of Paramount 'effing up the franchise with trash like Enterprise.

        Enterprise actually picked up well in the last season. I was sad to see it go.

        TNG started out pretty craptastic too. I think Enterprise just got too aggressive too fast with big storylines.

    • I worked with a bunch of science fiction geeks when Star Trek V came out. We all went to opening night as a group. When we came out of the theater, one member of the group said,"Wasn't that the best Star Trek Movie yet?" He was serious. The rest of us replied instantly in unison, "No!"
  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @01:51AM (#27412571) Homepage

    ....hope that J.J. Abrams and friends don't screw up Star Trek. Because it sounds like they have been given carte blanche over the franchise for the time being.

    RIP Gene Roddenberry.

    • by Darkk (1296127)

      I think Gene Roddenberry will haunt Abrams if he really screwed it up which I think he will since the latest movie is totally different from what we're used to seeing for the past 20 years.

      • by N1AK (864906)

        I think Gene Roddenberry will haunt Abrams if he really screwed it up which I think he will since the latest movie is totally different from what we're used to seeing for the past 20 years.

        What we are used to seeing for the last 20 years includes a hell of a lot of crap. Frankly the last thing I want is another film anything like the last two. JJ Abrams could well of created something terrible with Star Trek, but I don't think the trailer is proof of that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iced_773 (857608)

      J.J. Abrams. Damon Lindelof. LOST. Need I say more?

      Nemesis and Enterprise made me want to abandon Star Trek altogether (actually should have even earlier). But having seen who's working on this one, and being a huge Lost fan, I'm actually excited.

      I still can't imagine Sylar as Spock, though...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by f2x (1168695)
      No, no... You're missing the big picture. With both Roddenberry and Barrett passed on, the vacuum energy created by the suction of this next release should set their final remains into a "Hyper-spin". This in turn will induce a casimir effect so we can create the first stable worm hole. Since only parts of their remains are being launched into space, this will allow one end of the wormhole to remain on earth while the other extends deep into outer space allowing us travel to the stars at a fraction of the c
  • In fairness, this movie does not have to be that good to be better than a number of the Star Trek movies. Their quality has been... inconsistent, at best. I'm skeptical, but I'll give it a chance.

    After all, this is supposed to be modeled after the original series, which (while cerebral) also had a good share of fist-fighting and babes. More than any of the later series did, I think, at least considering the time it was aired.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbcad7 (771464)
      Personally, I would be more enthused if they did something totally different. I really have little interest in the origins of Kirk and Spock.. and I didn't care for the Enterprise series either.. I think maybe it's just the Next Gen, Voyager, DS9 series where more interesting to me, and trying to go back to the hokey past series.. is just hokey... It's like trying to remake the Dukes of Hazard.. you got to say, sure you can do it.. and probably explore different angles.. but why ?
    • by sdnoob (917382)

      ... this movie does not have to be that good to be better than a number of the Star Trek movies ...

      The new Trek movie could be "Gigli in Space" and still be better than at least one of them [wikipedia.org]

  • Is not a good day for serious announcements, so... then they DONT plan to make a sequel? What happens in the 1st one, all die? Or they are already covering their backs from the wrath of the fans if this one flops saying "next one will be good, we promise".
  • Pizza? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcrbids (148650) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @02:00AM (#27412629) Journal

    To paraphrase Garth Brooks....

    "Star Trek is like a pizza: When it's good, it's just great. But even when it's bad, it's still pretty good!"

    I'm not the type to wear blue face paint, stick pointy ears on, or know the Klingon alphabet. But I've seen every single Trek movie. I've watched all the shows, time permitting. I even endured 'Enterprise'.

    Seriously, making money at a Trek show is like shooting fish in a barrel without water in it. There's a HUGE fanbase of nerds like me who dig it and make enough money to matter.

    All it has to do is not actually suck bad enough to cause migraines and it will profit!

    • by acehole (174372)

      "I even endured 'Enterprise'."

      Much the same way I can endure water boarding. Not much difference really.

    • So people don't like Enterprise? Thank God, I thought I was the only one! You don't know what it's been like, the guilt, the fear of being exposed and shamed. I am a StarTrek fan, but I could not stomach that show!
  • while catching the Watchmen...Eh...I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.

  • "Star Trek Sequel Already Planned"

    -Is that like when two Trekkies talk about having a baby?

  • I read the title as "Star Trek Sequel Already Panned".
  • by master_p (608214) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @03:49AM (#27413107)

    A series allows the development of characters and story in much greater detail than movies allow. And Star Trek is special because of the details.

    Star Trek became an important aspect of today's (sub) culture due to the series (TOS, TNG, DS9 etc). The movies aren't so important.

  • That's... (Score:3, Funny)

    by feepness (543479) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @05:13AM (#27413447) Homepage
    ...counting your tribbles before they've hatched.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mdielmann (514750)

      The problem with counting tribbles before they've hatched is that your number is always low.

  • by glwtta (532858) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @06:36AM (#27413819) Homepage
    My expectations are that it's going to be a pile of utter shite - should I still be hoping that it lives up to that?
    • From Wikipedia : "A newly Captained James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise fights Romulans from the future, who are interfering with history by destroying the Federation."

      Are they KIDDING?! Time travel to interfere with history and destroy the Federation? Really? Everyone loved it in Enterprise, how could it fail here?

      Hopefully, we get more Space Nazis.

      I'm sure this will meet your expectations.

  • Is this a reboot? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Wednesday April 01, 2009 @08:31AM (#27414499) Journal
    I'm a casual Star Trek fan. I've seen all the movies, watched quite a bit of TOS & TNG, but never got into DS9 or the others. I've seen the trailer for this, but must admit, I don't know too much about it except that it's supposed to start from when Kirk first enters the academy. I'm not a stickler for cannon, and I don't mind when a movie takes some liberties with the origins of characters (like in Iron Man, Spiderman, etc.). Since I'm only a casual fan, I wouldn't mind a reboot of the series. I just hope everybody will be able to judge the movie on it's own merits and not have a bunch of complaining about how something in the plot line doesn't grok with episode y of series x.
    • Ok, but how about the books?
      http://www.amazon.com/Best-Destiny-Star-Diane-Carey/dp/0671795880 [amazon.com]
      The best star trek book ever written. Tells about his father and kirk, and an experiance they had together that shaped kirk's entire life. Has a number of moving scenes of self sacrifice on the part of both kirk and his dad (after kirk starts to get over his teenage issues with his dad).
      It would be a TRUELY great star trek movie if they used that book. Unfortunately, the movie seems to be going in a totally differan

  • Yank the plug... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CFBMoo1 (157453)

    I'd rather see stories of other ships in the Federation, not rehashes of the same ship and crew as the time line gets bent over sideways and backwards.

    • by Abcd1234 (188840)

      I'd rather see stories of other ships in the Federation

      Yeah. They did that. It's called Voyager. And Enterprise. I'm sure there are plenty of fans (myself included) who wouldn't want to see a repeat of them...

      not rehashes of the same ship and crew as the time line gets bent over sideways and backwards.

      Not that I have any faith whatsoever in the work Abrams, et al, have done, but to be fair, it's quite clear the new movie is intended to be a reset, in which case there is no time line to get "bent over si

My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure. -- Errol Flynn

Working...