Star Trek Sequel Already Planned 213
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."
It's dead, Jim (Score:2, Insightful)
Let it lie.
Please (Score:3, Insightful)
April Fool's (Score:5, Insightful)
Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!
Star Trek Reloaded? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Confidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Star Wars > Star Trek (Score:1, Insightful)
Though I'll admit that Trekkies are probably better than Furries.
Pizza? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:god, another? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:April Fool's (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:April Fool's (Score:3, Insightful)
"Odd sucks" does not mean "even does not suck".
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Will ALWAYS do well? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:god, another? (Score:3, Insightful)
Flamebait? Bad form. It was at least as funny as the grandparent post.
Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Remind me... (Score:3, Insightful)
They've left the number off, for precisely this reason.
A series is needed, not movies. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Living up to expectation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:5, Insightful)
When scarcity is eliminated, distinctions between economic systems are meaningless. You shouldn't use words like "socialism" unless you know what they mean.
Re:Please (Score:2, Insightful)
Therein lies the problem. For Star Trek to continue, they have to discard you, the old fan base, and forge a new fan base. You are far too few to make them enough money for it to be financially viable to continue making new series/movies. Without it being financially viable, there is no new content.
It's a trade off. The real question is whether the original vision of Gene Roddenberry (a relatively hopeful future in which human nature and contemporary conflicts are explored through a future/space allegory) is lost in the process. Of course, some say it was already lost by mid TNG, anyway.