Probably. When you're the up and comer everyone will throw something towards you hoping for some name recognition or some other nonsense.
News The ongoing next Star Trek movie thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Doesn't mean it couldn't have changed.
Nobody knew Iron Man or even Thor could be household names even as early as the mid 2000s. Yet here we are.
Trek had a great comeback in 2009, which was completely squandered by Paramount.
After Alien:Earth keep that man away from any franchise!
Changed to what? The only way your idea works is if the studio has the entire cast under exclusive contract and can work them whenever and as often as they want. (Note: that practice was at its last gasp during the 1970s. It's long gone now.)
And if none of the films you make have significant visual-effects requirements.
And those studios weren't cranking out new films in under two years' time then, either, were they? They only sped up the production schedule once they knew they had the box office to pay for it. Effect does not precede cause.
And they were breaking visual-effects companies left and right in order to maintain that schedule. All the money in the world won't help you once you run out of those.
The other thing you're hoping everyone overlooks, when you cite the MCU films as an example, is that there were several different franchises / different groups of characters in rotation. It was possible to have more than one movie in production at the same time because those movies didn't all use the same cast.
Not the same model as the Star Trek films, is it?
That was not a standard for all most series.
For example:
The OT Star Wars films - three years between each.
With the three original Indiana Jones movies - three years between Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and another five until Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Beyond the Poseidon Adventure dropped seven years later.
Jaws 2 - released four years after the original.
Grease 2 - five years after the first.
Another 48 Hours - eight years after the first.
Ghostbusters II - five years following the first.
Batman Returns - three years between this sequel and the original.
IOW, there's never been a set, average of time for the release of sequels, as film productions--even under the pressure of demand (from audiences, shareholders, et al.) still have their individual matters influencing the why and how a sequel would be greenlit / produced.
Blade Runner series - 35 years between 1 & 2
Hollywood making shitty sequels 20-30 years later because they don’t have an original bone in their body is a whole different topic entirely.
Even with a very successful series like the Pirates of the Caribbean films there was three years between release dates, save for between 2 and 3, which had a year. But, then there was a 4 year gap, and a 6 year gap.
There's nothing quick with sequels. Star Trek The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan had a 3 year gap as well.
Same with Back to the Future. In both cases the films were made directly after one another, with no downtime. Functionally, it was the same production. Lord of the Rings did that too
Lord of the Rings was a bit larger too. Poor Peter Jackson finalized one edit then immediately flew to the premiere. Crazy time frames.
I generally agree with you. But Blade Runner 2049 is most certainly NOT a shitty sequel. It’s a stunning work of art in itself.
They were still shooting material for the extended version of tROTK after the theatrical version had already won Academy Awards. ( no pressure though
)And then there's the Matrix series which famously released 2 sequels in the same year!
Last edited:
It was visually stunning, yes. The story itself however was a convoluted mess.
Extremely. I noticed that in many third films from that era.
I didn’t find it convoluted whatsoever. I found it one of the most intellectually and emotionally absorbing films I’ve ever seen. I was completely pulled into its world for the entire duration. I was just THERE. I truly wish for a Trek film some day that I find quite as spellbinding.
I’m glad you liked it. I did not.
I’m sorry you didn’t. Tastes differ, but that makes life interesting all the same.
what i was trying to say is
those gap years that happened between the kelvin movies were in a way wastest and they should have made more star trek kelvin movies during some of those gap years
those gap years that happened between the kelvin movies were in a way wastest and they should have made more star trek kelvin movies during some of those gap years
Similar threads
