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."
Re:Here's to hope... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:The Reboot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:god, another? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you number the unnumbered ones according to release order, I guess that makes the good ones 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9.
Of course, even the bad ones have redeeming qualities for fans.
ST:TMP for instance is on the whole a fairly terrible movie, with a thin plot and some of the most egregiously overdone special effects in the history of moviedom (long, long scenes of pretty much nothing BUT special effects strung together by lame "oh, look at that" dialog), but on the other hand it features some of the best acting in Leonard Nimoy's career up to that point.
STIV:TFF seems to go out of its way to create as many continuity problems for the franchise as possible and also has a pretty hokey basic premise (the whole "take away your pain" thing), but the opening scenes are very well done (up to about the point where they get sent to investigate the crisis), and the brig/jailbreak scenes are nicely done, and also Spock's use of the jet boots in the turbolift shaft is pretty cool.
Generations has its problems (internally inconsistent continuity, undesirable changes to Data's character that have to be worked around in all the subsequent movies (though First Contact does a reasonably good job with that), and too much time spent on the wrong things (e.g., they pour time into further developing Kirk's character, which is entirely unnecessary at that point; the viewer either KNOWS who Kirk is by now, or never will and doesn't care), but on the other hand it shows off Spiner's considerable acting skill in new ways, and the main villain is compelling, and also you get to see Lursa look at an image of Dr. Crusher and say to B'Etor, "Ugg! Human females are so repulsive!", and that right there makes it all worthwhile.
As for Nemesis, I know a lot of people don't like it, but personally I find the villain compelling, and also his name is really fun to say, and the female Romulan commander is also very well portrayed, and I think what happens to Data at this point, as much as it does bother me (and as lame as the whole B4 thing was), was nonetheless really the only acceptable way to deal with the changes to Data's character that were introduced in Generations.
Is this a reboot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yank the plug... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:5, Interesting)
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:It's dead, Jim (Score:3, Interesting)
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 races that hadn't rejected the concept of money.
Even with Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, it still doesn't explain how the Federation deals with the allocation of scarce resources. Even assuming that the typical Federation citizen has access to nearly infinite quantities of energy (nuclear energy research makes some breath taking advances in the next couple of centuries) and basic resources for living such as food, clothing, and shelter come from automated robotic factories to take care of basic needs, there still be be some things which will be in short supply or you can only obtain a limited number of in a short period of time.
Not every federation citizen can order up a Galaxy-class starship to explore the furthest reaches of the universe at will. No matter what you can tell me about economics of the future, there reaches something that can be bartered and exchanged... and with that you have money. It may not be quite as critical as it is today for even mere existence, but it will be something that will have to happen on some level even assuming a completely egalitarian future for mankind.
Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:4, Interesting)
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.