Star Trek Sequel

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I am so pissed that we have a four year wait from when the first movie was released for a sequel.

Abrams and Paramount better hope that they haven't missed the chance to capitalize on the popularity of the first film because a four year lag is extremely long and dangerous.

Oh well, all I can hope for is that they keep what worked in the first one and lose what didn't work. I loved Trek and am hoping for the sequel to improve on the promising but very flawed original. I really hope that this movie doesn't go the way of Iron Man, James Bond and Hellboy. Three solid to very good movies with terrible follow ups.

 

[mclay18]

I am so pissed that we have a four year wait from when the first movie was released for a sequel.

Abrams and Paramount better hope that they haven't missed the chance to capitalize on the popularity of the first film because a four year lag is extremely long and dangerous.

It's NOT that long. I doubt TDKR will suffer because of the 4 year gap between TDK, and neither will the ST sequel.

Even before SM-4 was aborted and replaced by the reboot, there was going to be a 4 year gap between it and SM-3. Same for POTC 4.

Seems like a growing trend in Hollywood these days.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^No its not that long, I dont really see it being an issue, would rather they took their time than rushed it as well.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I just hope Abrams isn't coming back because he feels the need to. I want to see him talk about it to read him.

 

[Sawyer]

Four years? FOUR YEARS?!?! Oh my gawd, you guys...... the sky is literally falling.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It does seem wasteful. But then, they didn't seem to have much of a plan. The first movie left plenty of room for a sequel, but they didn't set anything up either.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think it is a valid point. Four years is longer than usual wait for a sequel. Dark Knight Rises is four years later yes, but at least Dark Knight was only three.

I think they have lost a lot of the momentum they gained form relaunching the franchise.

Also why has Abrams now changed his mind on 3D? Not long ago he said he wouldn't shoot Super 8 in 3D because it dimmed the picture.

 

[8wid]

Star Trek is dead as a franchise, just accept it...

 

[Sawyer]

Star Trek is dead as a franchise, just accept it...

Look who's talking.

 

[Silvermoth]

Star Trek is dead as a franchise, just accept it...

Not sure if serious.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Look who's talking.

Well, yes, that franchise is dead too, but that's hardly the point. It's not like it would be easy to get John Travolta back anyway. t:

 

[8wid]

Not sure if serious.

Am serious. Star Trek is just too damn boring for most to want to save.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Am serious. Star Trek is just too damn boring for most to want to save.

You do realize that the movie was fairly popular commercially successful, right?

 

[8wid]

^Yep about as succesful as all the TNG films were too.

 

[Thundercrack85]

^Yep about as succesful as all the TNG films were too.

You might want to check those box office numbers. There's a difference of a few hundred million dollars (even with inflation taken into account).

 

[TheVileOne]

The last movie was a big hit. It's hardly dead. They just didn't capitalize on all that momentum from the last movie.

 

[8wid]

You might want to check those box office numbers. There's a difference of a few hundred million dollars (even with inflation taken into account).

The last movie was a big hit. It's hardly dead. They just didn't capitalize on all that momentum from the last movie.

It made $100 million more at most with inflation. The release date keepings getting pushed back, it's dead...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think it is a valid point. Four years is longer than usual wait for a sequel. Dark Knight Rises is four years later yes, but at least Dark Knight was only three.

I think they have lost a lot of the momentum they gained form relaunching the franchise.

Also why has Abrams now changed his mind on 3D? Not long ago he said he wouldn't shoot Super 8 in 3D because it dimmed the picture.

Four years isnt that unusual, as you said TDK was 3 years after BB, 12 months later isnt that different in the grand scheme of things, the next Bond movie is 4 years later as well. I'm sure once people hear about another Trek movie after the last one was so well recieved the excitement will start again.

 

[KRIM]

Four years isnt that unusual

For sequels it absolutely is. It's usually two years between movies, three only occasionally. Four is a rarity.

as you said TDK was 3 years after BB, 12 months later isnt that different in the grand scheme of things, the next Bond movie is 4 years later as well.

What's 12 more months then, making it five years? At what point do you keep compounding small increments before realizing that this is all adding up? I'm not sure what the barometer for the "grand scheme" is.

I'm sure once people hear about another Trek movie after the last one was so well recieved the excitement will start again.

Well, look at what happened with Rush Hour after they waited so long. Even following a hugely successful movie, the third couldn't capitalize. I'm not saying ST2 can't still do great at the box office, but certainly the hype has died down considerably compared to what they could have taken advantage of a year or two ago.

 

[Bruce Malone]

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.

 

[Sawyer]

I love when people let their dislike of something completely cloud their judgement.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's a waste of momentum. That's for sure. However, if they actually make a good movie they might make up for the four-five year gap.

 

[Tanin]

At this rate they should just wait 5 years and then say the 5 year mission is over.

 

[Silvermoth]

Am serious. Star Trek is just too damn boring for most to want to save.

This is...illogical.

Oh by the way, 4 years isn't that big a deal. Let them get it right rather than just factory assembly line them out every year or so. Remember it's okay for something like Harry Potter to come out every year or so because they already have the story they're adapting and they know what people will respond to but this will most likely be an all new adventure.

 

[Still Wynning]

^Yep about as succesful as all the TNG films were too.

Are you sure you want to run with that?

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