Star Trek Sequel Already Planned

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."

Comments

It's dead, Jim

[Anonymous Coward]

Let it lie.

Re:It's dead, Jim

[Lord Ender]

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

[GMFTatsujin]

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

[Teancum]

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

[Arterion]

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.

god, another?

[Niris]

whats this going to be, movie 15 by now?

Re:god, another?

[bleedingpegasus]

Haha, how does it feel to become the first victim for /. April Fools?

Re:god, another?

[Niris]

Slashdotters, the finest detectors of sarcasm on the Internet.

Re:god, another?

[WCLPeter]

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?

[dswensen]

Flamebait? Bad form. It was at least as funny as the grandparent post.

Re:god, another?

[chimpo13]

"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

Re:god, another?

[Xaositecte]

Yes, but how many lights do you see?

Re:god, another?

[jonadab]

Out of the numbered ones I would take STII:TWOK, STIII:TSFS, STIV:TVH, and STVI:TFF. That's four. Of the ones without numbers, I particularly like ST:FC, ST:I, and ST:N, which would make a total of seven, but I think I'm just about alone on that last one, so we'll say six.

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.

Please

[bigstrat2003]

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.

Re:Please

[spiffyman]

Doesn't seem too likely. TFA was written "Yesterday," and it likely references this article, which was written March 30.

Sorry to disappoint.

Re:Please

[R3d M3rcury]

I like to think of it as "Younger and Edgier."

Re:Please

[bonch]

Another fucking sequel.

Hollywood is on its way out.

Re:Please

[Phroggy]

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:Please

[Big Hairy Ian]

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:Please

[ildon]

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.

April Fool's

[gmhowell]

Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!

Re:April Fool's

[gmhowell]

"Odd sucks" does not mean "even does not suck".

Re:April Fool's

[lordholm]

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?).

Star Trek Reloaded?

[Darkk]

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:Star Trek Reloaded?

[symbolset]

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, 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:Star Trek Reloaded?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Star Trek has light sabers too these days? As a great half-man once said, "fascinating."

Re:Star Trek Reloaded?

[newcastlejon]

Yeah, and you lost poor Jacqui her job. Still, she was on the fiddle and had to go, would you mind seeing to the rest of them too? You can have all the pr0n you want.

Confidence?

[tpgp]

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:Confidence?

[tcolberg]

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.

Here's to hope...

[MrEricSir]

....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:Here's to hope...

[iced_773]

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:Here's to hope...

[f2x]

No, no... You're missing the big picture. With both Roddenberry and Barrett passed on, the vacuum energy created by the suction of this next release should set their final remains into a "Hyper-spin". This in turn will induce a casimir effect so we can create the first stable worm hole. Since only parts of their remains are being launched into space, this will allow one end of the wormhole to remain on earth while the other extends deep into outer space allowing us travel to the stars at a fraction of the cost needed to produce nanotube beanstalks.

See? It's absolutely brilliant!

Pizza?

[mcrbids]

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!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Star Wars Star Trek

[gmhowell]

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:The Reboot

[dbcad7]

Personally, I would be more enthused if they did something totally different. I really have little interest in the origins of Kirk and Spock.. and I didn't care for the Enterprise series either.. I think maybe it's just the Next Gen, Voyager, DS9 series where more interesting to me, and trying to go back to the hokey past series.. is just hokey... It's like trying to remake the Dukes of Hazard.. you got to say, sure you can do it.. and probably explore different angles.. but why ?

Re:saw the trailer on the IMAX

[Thanshin]

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.

freudian slip?

[cencithomas]

I read the title as "Star Trek Sequel Already Panned".

Will ALWAYS do well?

[DesScorp]

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.

Here's why

[Weaselmancer]

I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.

This guy explains it more eloquently than I can. NSFW language.

Re:Here's why

[Bucc5062]

"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

[jellomizer]

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:Remind me...

[Phroggy]

They've left the number off, for precisely this reason.

A series is needed, not movies.

[master_p]

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...

[feepness]

...counting your tribbles before they've hatched.

Re:That's...

[mdielmann]

The problem with counting tribbles before they've hatched is that your number is always low.

Living up to expectation

[glwtta]

My expectations are that it's going to be a pile of utter shite - should I still be hoping that it lives up to that?

Is this a reboot?

[XxtraLarGe]

I'm a casual Star Trek fan. I've seen all the movies, watched quite a bit of TOS & TNG, but never got into DS9 or the others. I've seen the trailer for this, but must admit, I don't know too much about it except that it's supposed to start from when Kirk first enters the academy. I'm not a stickler for cannon, and I don't mind when a movie takes some liberties with the origins of characters (like in Iron Man, Spiderman, etc.). Since I'm only a casual fan, I wouldn't mind a reboot of the series. I just hope everybody will be able to judge the movie on it's own merits and not have a bunch of complaining about how something in the plot line doesn't grok with episode y of series x.

Yank the plug...

[CFBMoo1]

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: Mindless Sex and Violence

[GargamelSpaceman]

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.