Slashdot Mirror
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."
whats this going to be, movie 15 by now?
Has to be April Fool's Day for anyone to think an odd numbered Trek won't suck. OMG Poniez!
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
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.
My pics.
Doesn't seem too likely. TFA was written "Yesterday," and it likely references this article, which was written March 30.
Sorry to disappoint.
So you can laugh all you want to...
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!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I like to think of it as "Younger and Edgier."
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.
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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!
Blessed with all the brains that God gave a duck's ass, and twice the charisma.
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?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I really dont get it why people dislike the movie.
This guy explains it more eloquently than I can. NSFW language.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
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:)
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
...
When scarcity is eliminated, distinctions between economic systems are meaningless. You shouldn't use words like "socialism" unless you know what they mean.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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.
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.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild