BTW, what Trek was "prior to his hijacking it" was...canceled.
What's the difference between Enterprise getting cancelled and four years later being followed by a movie... and Star Trek 2009 coming out and four years later being followed by a sequel?
Uh...well, for starts just the fact that because the first Abrams movie was a success the studio is doing a second movie in the same setting with the same cast and crew.
Hope you're not waiting on the next Star Trek: Enterprise
show or movie, or anything. That's
the difference between failure and success.
If your question is meant to be "what's the difference in the rate of supply of new product between failure and success" then the answer is: you're getting a new movie, period. Failure = no new Trek, at all.
None of that is unclear, is it?
milo bloom wrote:
wow, a potential four and a half year gap between movies is just ridiculous
No, a longer gap should work out fine. People may
not get tired of this version as quickly as they did the last if they have to wait a little longer.
I doubt that there will be another four-year gap after this one, though.