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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A liberal, socialist utopia... I can't wait! :\
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: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: (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 race
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.
Re: (Score:2)
and that's what makes it so boring.
Re: (Score:2)
god, another? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:god, another? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flamebait? Bad form. It was at least as funny as the grandparent post.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Re:god, another? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but how many lights do you see?
Re:god, another? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, only six. But which six?
For me Two, Three, Four, Six, and Eight were all pretty good and I would count them in my top six easily. But that leaves only one slot out of six left. Both One and Five are fairly, with Five being obviously worse than One. However One and Five can't hold a candle to the suck brought out by Seven, Nine and the bad, emotionally devoid, remake of Two that we call Ten.
Perhaps there really are only FIVE good Star Trek films?
Re:god, another? (Score:5, Funny)
"Of Gods and Men" is pretty good, if you're a geek. Luckily, I'm a geek so I liked it. The sad thing is, I've been hosting a Peep Off, a Marshmallow Peep eating contest, for every fucking Star Trek movie there has been. I've been calling it "the last ever Peep Off" for a few years now and I'm sadly disappointed that there's another sequel coming. Please make it stop!
http://www.nokilli.com/food/peep.html [nokilli.com]
Tis the day... (Score:2)
Re: (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, w
Re: (Score:2)
theres only one SIX
Yeah but that's a 10 in my book.
Of course no one reads my book......
Re: (Score:2)
hand over your geek card
Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
hell, I hope I don't eat my words later, but I agree, it seems legit this time.
Re:Please (Score:5, Funny)
I like to think of it as "Younger and Edgier." [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Another fucking sequel.
Hollywood is on its way out.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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:)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mindless Sex and Violence (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Odd sucks" does not mean "even does not suck".
Re:April Fool's (Score:5, Funny)
I disagree, Nemesis was a very good movie. I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.
Yes, it was very dark and not the normal Trek, but it was still good and explored some interesting questions (i.e. who am I, what is a person?).
Here's why (Score:5, Informative)
I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.
This guy explains it more eloquently than I can. [stardestroyer.net] NSFW language.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, that was the funniest thing I've read in awhile.
Re:Here's why (Score:5, Funny)
"DATA: The transporters conveniently failed after sending Picard, so I'm going to leap across space to get to Shinzon's ship.
GEORDI: What about the transporters in the shuttles?
DATA: Shut up.
GEORDI: What about the Captain's Yacht?
DATA: Shut up.
GEORDI: Why didn't we just send a bomb instead of Picard?
DATA: Shut up.
GEORDI: What about the transporters in the cargo bays? They're independent units, remember?
DATA: What part of "shut the fuck up" do you not understand? This is my big heroic exit, asshole. Don't fuck it up."
This has to be some of the best dialog I've read for Star Trek. if sums up every contrived scene in almost every show and movie. FCOL, if you can't use technology to your advantage, you don't deserve it.
Best laugh of the morning for me.
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Funny)
I agree I haven't read something so funny in a long time.
RIKER: Dim red light makes everything look more foreboding.
WORF: But didn't they say that the Remans see really well in the dark and can't stand bright lights? Why don't we crank up the lights to fullbright and blind 'em?
RIKER: Shut up and just try to look dramatic.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
GEORDI: Hey Data, when we found an exact duplicate of you, why didn't we immediately think about Lore?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw Fast and Furry on pay per view... Totally not work the money man.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Dragging their kids to the movies?
Is this like brainwashing?
Re:Star Trek Reloaded? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent UP
sorry no mod points today
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And be on the internet in minutes, registering their disgust!
Brett
Re:Confidence? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's to hope... (Score:3)
....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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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:2)
J.J. Abrams. Damon Lindelof. LOST. Need I say more?
you make it sound like that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
J.J. Abrams. Fringe. Need I say more?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Reboot (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
The new Trek movie could be "Gigli in Space" and still be better than at least one of them [wikipedia.org]
Aprilfoolsday is better served cold (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"I even endured 'Enterprise'."
Much the same way I can endure water boarding. Not much difference really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For giggles: Enterprise > TNG > TOS > Voyager > DS9
At least, thats the way I roll.
saw the trailer on the IMAX (Score:2)
while catching the Watchmen...Eh...I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.
Re:saw the trailer on the IMAX (Score:5, Funny)
I decided right then to save a few $'s and see Star Trek on the small screen.
Great idea.
That way, when it becomes unbearable, you can simply close the phone.
Sequel..... (Score:2)
"Star Trek Sequel Already Planned"
-Is that like when two Trekkies talk about having a baby?
freudian slip? (Score:2, Funny)
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.
That's... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem with counting tribbles before they've hatched is that your number is always low.
Living up to expectation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Timestamp: 01:46 AM April 1st, 2009 (Score:2)
Yep. Thought so.
Is this a reboot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Star Wars Star Trek (Score:2)
Modded as flamebait? I guess you pissed off someone in a chipmunk suit.
Re:Star Wars Star Trek (Score:5, Informative)
Star Trek's creator is dead. Paramount is no more the 'creator' of Star Trek than the RIAA (or member company) is a recording artist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They've left the number off, for precisely this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
James Siberius Kirk
I hope that's an attempt at humor... if not, kindly hand over your license