What Took So Long...why we're only getting a new movie now...

[Ian Keldon]

Movie Bytes has some interesting observations as to why we have had to wait until 2013 to get a new Trek film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI8bzOTjMMQ

If all this is true, Paramount should take Trek away from Abrams and give it to a producer and writers who will make it his top priority.

I nominate Many Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses. They know Trek. They love Trek, And they would give Trek the primacy and respect it deserves as a property.

 

[Kemaiku]

No.

 

[SalvorHardin]

If all this is true, Paramount should take Trek away from Abrams and give it to a producer and writers who will make it his top priority.

I nominate Many Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses. They know Trek. They love Trek, And they would give Trek the primacy and respect it deserves as a property.

No

 

[backstept]

I think it's worked out pretty well so far. No complaints from me.

 

[Greg Cox]

No.

It's only four years. That's just one year more than, say, the gap between TMP and THE WRATH OF KHAN. Or STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Or BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT. No big deal.

There's no rule that says you have to forsake all other projects if you work on STAR TREK. Indeed, churning out one movie after another on a rapid-fire schedule sounds like a sure-fire recipe for burn-out to me.

Better to let them take some time off, recharge their batteries by working on other projects, and come back refreshed when it's time to do TREK again . . . .

 

[Devon]

No. Next?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And again, no.

If Paramount weren't very, very happy with what Abrams is doing then he wouldn't be making a second movie - and it's virtually certain that he'll make a third on a schedule mutually agreeable to him and to the studio.

Put the Franchise back in the hands of producers who worked on oldTrek? Again, not going to happen any time soon.

I'm much happier having a really entertaining Trek released occasionally than accepting stuff like ST 5 and Insurrection ground out on the studio's schedule. Obviously, so is Paramount - and the vast majority of ticket-buyers.

 

[Kemaiku]

The gap isn't appreciably bigger than between the other Trek movies. And if it is, it's because we're getting a higher quality product for it

Since the last movie was the second highest grossing film of the series, the quality is obviously good enough for both the audience and the studio, why change that?

 

[Squiggy]

It's a well known fact sunny-jim that a gap of over 3 years kills a franchise. Look at Dark Knight Rises or Skyfall.

 

[Matt S]

NO

 

[Shazam!]

I'd love them to hand over the reins to another creative team but not for length of time between movies reasons.

 

[Bishop76]

No. If anything, keeping some space between movies builds excitement in my opinion. Crapping out poor to mediocre product on a more regular basis is what drove Trek into the ground in the first place.

 

[anh165]

Considering the cheeziness of the last 4 Trek movies before the reboot, I'd rather wait longer for a better Trek movie.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Plus there may be another 3 years before the third Trek movie, so that it will be out for Trek's 50th Anniversary.

Right now, Abrams and Co. have been able to successfully update Trek with known characters and make it a fresher and more vibrant property to Paramount than what it was after the final episode of Enterprise.

Test case: my daughter, now 11, seems bored with watching some episodes of Enterprise and can't sit through Nemesis, despite her wanting to see what they were like. However, she loves watching Trek '09 and can't wait for STID.

If that's a microcosm of the movie going crowd, then Abrams and Co. have done their job, and Paramount will want to keep it that way.

 

[milo bloom]

My concern was always that they would lose all the momentum they picked up from the mainstream audiences who won't come back for the new one because they've moved on to other things.

 

[Greg Cox]

My concern was always that they would lose all the momentum they picked up from the mainstream audiences who won't come back for the new one because they've moved on to other things.

Again, didn't hurt WRATH OF KHAN, or THE DARK KNIGHT, or THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK or SKYFALL. And I'm guessing it's not going to hurt THE HOBBIT . . . despite a ten-year gap between movies!

If, come May, the TV ads and reviews and word-of-mouth is good, mainstream audiences looking for something fun to do on a Friday night will check out the movie. Even if they've been watching other movies in the interim.

I seriously doubt that anyone's going to scratch their heads and go "STAR TREK? What's STAR TREK again? I can't remember . . . "

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Whenever a studio announces a franchise like nuTrek, they always have a press release saying new movies are coming every two or three years. They are usually wrong. Shit happens. People make multiple commitments/find bigger opportunities, or the process just stalls for some other reason. Four years between movies isn't that bad.

I nominate Many Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses. They know Trek. They love Trek, And they would give Trek the primacy and respect it deserves as a property.

And some Trek fans may love them right back, but no studio is going to give them the keys to a tent pole franchise when they can get J.J. Abrams.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

There was a gap in between some of the Mission: Impossible movies (between 2 and 3 for sure), and that was an example of the time in between actually helping the series!

The Bond movies have had fits and starts because of the studio having legal and/or financial troubles, and those tend to work out OK (with one exception being Quantum of Solace).

If the public enjoyed a previous entry in a movie series, they'll more than likely want to see the next one.

 

[M'Sharak]

Movie Bytes has some interesting observations as to why we have had to wait until 2013 to get a new Trek film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI8bzOTjMMQ

Is there a text version of these observations? I've sworn off YouTube rants because most go on far too long and are simply not worth the time investment.

If all this is true, Paramount should take Trek away from Abrams and give it to a producer and writers who will make it his top priority.

No. I don't think they should, nor do I see any need.

I'd love them to hand over the reigns to another creative team but not for length of time between movies reasons.

Reins.

One hands over reins, not reigns.

 

[Greg Cox]

If the public enjoyed a previous entry in a movie series, they'll more than likely want to see the next one.

Exactly. Even if they haven't thought of the previous film in years, or been distracted by other entertainments in the interim.

I mean, I haven't watched a LORD OF THE RINGS movie since the last one came out in 2003--but I'm still want to see THE HOBBIT.