Star Trek Sequel

[TheVileOne]

No dislike here. I loved the new Star Trek movie. However, the movie was a huge hit and it got a ton of momentum coming off that last movie and they did IMHO failed to capitalize on it properly.

Now granted I don't want them to rush out a **** sequel, however at the same time, you'd think with this being a big reboot and all they'd have an idea where they want to go next and not spend so much time doing all this other stuff before getting back to your big grandslammer.

 

[Hush]

While it may have lost some momentum it is still one of the best and most successful summer blockbusters to come out in a the last ten years. All it needs is an Empire Film Magazine cover and a EW cover to remind people, possibly a comic-con teaser and people will get hyped. This is Star Trek not some useless attempt at a sequel to a movie like Eragon where it was barely noticed, it was one of the highest grossing movies the year of its release and I believe highest grossing title of an ELEVEN Film franchise. It will be remembered of fondly when it comes out and Abrams name is a draw(as we can tell from the success of Super 8) so yeah I think we can all rest easily.

 

[8wid]

Are you sure you want to run with that?

http://boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=star trek

I meant adjusted with inflation.

 

[bunk]

I doesn't matter how long its been. If the movie looks good, people will go see it. They would be smart to have the first on cable by now though.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm betting either USA, TNT, or FX for its premiere.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

3D? Why I oughta...

*goes to J.J. Abrams' house and starts throttling him*

Even in 2d you will probably be bombarbed with lens flare.

 

[Dark Sentinel]

While it may have lost some momentum it is still one of the best and most successful summer blockbusters to come out in a the last ten years. All it needs is an Empire Film Magazine cover and a EW cover to remind people, possibly a comic-con teaser and people will get hyped. This is Star Trek not some useless attempt at a sequel to a movie like Eragon where it was barely noticed, it was one of the highest grossing movies the year of its release and I believe highest grossing title of an ELEVEN Film franchise. It will be remembered of fondly when it comes out and Abrams name is a draw(as we can tell from the success of Super 8) so yeah I think we can all rest easily.

Haha Eragon...what a terrible movie. And book. I could write a better book (and according to some, I have )

But anyway, back on topic. I wouldn't necessarily say they need to repeat the ST1 formula, but that first promo teaser showing the construction of the Enterprise was genius. All we need really to kickstart the advertising is about 1:30 of footage that recaps all the principals (Kirk, Spock, Bones, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, Uhura) and gives a taste of the next villain.

After that, it's just business as usual. Hopefully Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci can pull off two great Treks in a row because, as a casual Trek fan I LOVED this reboot.

 

[dark_b]

While it may have lost some momentum it is still one of the best and most successful summer blockbusters to come out in a the last ten years. All it needs is an Empire Film Magazine cover and a EW cover to remind people, possibly a comic-con teaser and people will get hyped. This is Star Trek not some useless attempt at a sequel to a movie like Eragon where it was barely noticed, it was one of the highest grossing movies the year of its release and I believe highest grossing title of an ELEVEN Film franchise. It will be remembered of fondly when it comes out and Abrams name is a draw(as we can tell from the success of Super 8) so yeah I think we can all rest easily.

how?

 

[Sawyer]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm betting either USA, TNT, or FX for its premiere.

It's going to be FX, I believe.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's going to be FX, I believe.

 

[mclay18]

It's going to be FX, I believe.

FX should be airing it any day now, since the exclusive movie channel window is finished. They've already shown the crappy Wolverine movie already.

It'll probably air next month or January.

 

[Sawyer]

 

[Silvermoth]

 

[Sentinel X]

The difference in wait times is that the follow up usually comes out quicker to capitalize off the 1st installment. When a franchise is already established then you can have the 3-4 year wait.

I feel the same. For instance, The Dark Knight Rises and POTC 4 can be four years apart because their predecessors made major bank. Although star trek made some good money too, it is not on the same level as the other films mentioned above so waiting too long for a sequel is not the best idea imo.

Its not like I care too much though, I can certainly wait. I'm expecting a great story and all. I'm just surprised the studio would let it take that long when they could potentially have a huge franchise on their hands. If the decisions were up to me, the four year wait would be fine be I'd be launching animated or live action tv shows, video games, etc to keep it in people's minds....oh well

 

[Doctor Jones]

FX is a hit or miss channel for me. I always preferred TNT and USA (when they're not showing Law & Order at every hour of the ****ing day)

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The fact of the matter is four years is an unusual amount a time for a follow up to the first hit movie in a franchise. I'm not saying it's going to bomb if it's good but as others have stated it will have lost momentum by the time the sequel comes out in 2013. And although Super 8 was a likable flick it wasn't nearly good enough to make me wait four years for the follow up to a better film.

I hate 3D with a burning hot passion but it's obvious that the studio is forcing him to shoot the movie in 3D because they want those inflated ticket prices. I'm happy the movie is being made but Paramount shouldn't be shocked if the movie comes out and disappoints domestically. With four years of inflation and 3D ticket prices this movie better make at least 340mil in the states.

At the end of the day though all that matters is if the movie is good.

 

[Raiden]

The fact of the matter is four years is an unusual amount a time for a follow up to the first hit movie in a franchise. I'm not saying it's going to bomb if it's good but as others have stated it will have lost momentum by the time the sequel comes out in 2013. And although Super 8 was a likable flick it wasn't nearly good enough to make me wait four years for the follow up to a better film.

I hate 3D with a burning hot passion but it's obvious that the studio is forcing him to shoot the movie in 3D because they want those inflated ticket prices. I'm happy the movie is being made but Paramount shouldn't be shocked if the movie comes out and disappoints domestically. With four years of inflation and 3D ticket prices this movie better make at least 340mil in the states.

At the end of the day though all that matters is if the movie is good.

I also feel that 4 years is too long for the sequel to materialized, and if JJ Abrams didn't have the time to do it, then he should've passed it on to another director instead of sitting on it for too long. I'm not saying that other directors can do a better job, but I feel that Abrams let too many projects gotten in the way of ST2 and when there's so many materials to choose from in the ST universe for the sequel to draw their inspiration from, this 4-year wait is really inexcusable. Star Trek has this unusual pattern of having one stellar film to be followed by a mediocre sequel, and I hope Abrams won't fell prey in his sequel for Star Trek and gave us a Final Frontier, Insurrection, or a Nemesis.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think having a four year hiatus will help remove that. With a quick follow up, the tendency is to make a film whose strength is the momentum. Without that momentum, the film has to stand on its own. It's not just a reunion movie, it's something that's important enough to reunite all these great busy actors and filmmakers.

In other words, the fact that they have to give a reason for you to come see the movie other than that its Star Trek, is a strength, rather than a weakness.

 

[bunk]

People who saw the first one won't have magically forgotten whether they liked it or not. Whats important is that they have all of the cast returning. It just has to appear to be more of what people liked the first time. In the end it comes down to marketing and competion as usual.

 

[Sawyer]

FX is a hit or miss channel for me. I always preferred TNT and USA (when they're not showing Law & Order at every hour of the ****ing day)

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

People who saw the first one won't have magically forgotten whether they liked it or not. Whats important is that they have all of the cast returning. It just has to appear to be more of what people liked the first time. In the end it comes down to marketing and competition as usual.

It's not about magically forgetting the first film. In the movie biz, you have to strike when the iron is hot when it comes to these types of film unless the movie is a super surprise hit like The Matrix or a movie that slowly builds up a following like The Terminator. Two years would have been too soon because nothing was set up but three years would have been perfect.

I appreciate that Jbrams didn't want to do two Trek movies back-back and it's probably good that he didn't but he should have directed a movie that wasn't as huge as Super 8 so that he could get to work on the sequel sooner. It should be coming out next year to be honest but instead we have to wait because he has been involved with everything not named Star Trek.

Does he even really want to direct this ****ing thing?

 

[bunk]

It's not about magically forgetting the first film. In the movie biz, you have to strike when the iron is hot when it comes to these types of film unless the movie is a super surprise hit like The Matrix or a movie that slowly builds up a following like The Terminator. Two years would have been too soon because nothing was set up but three years would have been perfect.

I appreciate that Jbrams didn't want to do two Trek movies back-back and it's probably good that he didn't but he should have directed a movie that wasn't as huge as Super 8 so that he could get to work on the sequel sooner. It should be coming out next year to be honest but instead we have to wait because he has been involved with everything not named Star Trek.

Does he even really want to direct this ****ing thing?

I don't see any reason they need to "strike while the iron is hot." I'm not clear what you're basing that on. The most important thing is to get the same crew back from the last show and acquire the best release date. If the longer wait meant certain people could no longer be involved, then yes that would be quite the blunder. I can wait if means the formula for success is intact.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't see any reason they need to "strike while the iron is hot." I'm not clear what you're basing that on. The most important thing is to get the same crew back from the last show and acquire the best release date. If the longer wait meant certain people could no longer be involved, then yes that would be quite the blunder. I can wait if means the formula for success is intact.

You don't see a reason for them to strike while the iron is hot? People have short memories so you do need to strike while the iron is hot. Would it have been fine for them to wait five or six or seven years just because they could get the cast and crew back together?

I'm not saying that the movie will fail or not be a huge hit but this wait is a huge risk. And also, people age. Do they all want the youngish cast to be in their 40's when/if the 3rd movie comes out? There are just so many reasons that this wait is ridiculous IMHO.

 

[Sawyer]

I'm sure JJ's pillow is drenched with his tears over the wait he's caused us to endure.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm sure JJ's pillow is drenched with his tears over the wait he's caused us to endure.

I ain't crying about it, I'm just annoyed.