But he would seem to be a 13 year old Academy graduate. I seriously doubt he'd be on starship duty even if he was able to accomplish it.
Crew age and nu-Trek
- Thread starter YARN
- Start date
But he would seem to be a 13 year old Academy graduate. I seriously doubt he'd be on starship duty even if he was able to accomplish it.
Not only that, it's Star Trek.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Star Trek fans got very creative in rationalizing the potential issues with TOS continuity as presented on screen to make it fit their ideas of canon. Some fans today are a lot less creative and a lot more strict when it comes to relating AbramsTrek to the TOS universe.
I find this hard to believe.
The cast all signed 3-picture deals -- and while I understand that is often SOP and does not necessarily guarantee sequels, I think in this case sequels were part of the master plan, as long as the first film did relatively well.
There's no way that could possibly be true. They were trying to revitalize the franchise, to make it a big tentpole property. That's the whole reason they gave it to Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci -- they wanted them to duplicate their success with Mission: Impossible III, to make ST as viable an ongoing franchise as its fellow Desilu-legacy series had been.
There's also the fact that they signed all the cast to three-film contracts. And the fact that they deliberately cast young actors in the leads, just the sort of thing you do when you're trying to launch a film franchise that you hope will endure for years and years.
So yeah, it might be valid to say that if this movie hadn't done well, they would've been unlikely to do any more, but it can't possibly be right to say that they didn't expect it to do well enough to generate sequels. That's got to be a misinterpretation of whatever you're alluding to. The whole point was to revitalize it as a cash-cow tentpole that they could profit from on a continuing basis.
Just as well, because it's not true.
The cast of everything is signed to three films. SOP.
Make up your mind. Is Star Trek 3 the last with this cast or not?
Didn't mean to start a panic. If you prefer to believe that Star Trek is permanent, then do so.
Because the studio wants to be prepared for the possibility of sequels. Also, it has to be considered in context with the other evidence, all of which together makes it overwhemingly clear that Paramount did hope the film would be the first of a new series of movies.
A meaningless question. Obviously signing people to 3-film contracts does not preclude signing them to further films beyond the third, so there is no contradiction.
You didn't, because everyone else in this thread is fully aware that your assertion was completely untrue. Also, why would the allegation that they weren't expecting a sequel four years ago possibly create a panic now, when the sequel has already been shot and is four months from premiering?
And you're misunderstanding that quote. That line doesn't mean they had no expectation of sequels. Of course they were hoping for sequels. They just weren't sure whether it would succeed. They were taking a chance, and they were realistic enough to know there were no guarantees, but it's not like they would've given the franchise to Abrams if they didn't think there was a reasonable chance the film could spawn sequels. Your problem is that you're taking something that's in the middle ground -- the studio being realistically prepared for it going either way -- and interpreting it in all-or-nothing terms, assuming that just because they didn't assume it would succeed, that meant they expected it to fail.
^Of course it was in trouble, which was the whole reason they wanted to reboot it and get it out of trouble! The 2009 movie was not intended to be a last gasp, but a new beginning. Of course they knew they were taking a risk, but that doesn't mean they planned it to be the last Trek film ever. Hell, just about every Trek film was made without any certainty that there would be another.
All I know is that five years ago when the first film was being put together, some of the conversations on this board revolved around potential sequels. So, we fans certainly felt that sequels were in the cards if all went to plan for Abrams. I'm sure Paramount felt the same way. I remember discussions on this board about how long it would take to make three films, and how old the actors would be by the end.
I'm not sure where this idea that while they were making the first film they felt it WOULD be a one-shot deal, because I remember (albeit as someone outside of the production) the opposite feeling being true while this thing was in filming and production.
I remember people cautioning others who talked about sequels. They were right to be cautious, but the point is that the general feeling among fans was that if this film did relatively well, there would be sequels. I could be wrong, but I think Paramount was on the same page as the fans.
I'm not sure where this idea that while they were making the first film they felt it WOULD be a one-shot deal, because I remember (albeit as someone outside of the production) the opposite feeling being true while this thing was in filming and production.
I remember people cautioning others who talked about sequels. They were right to be cautious, but the point is that the general feeling among fans was that if this film did relatively well, there would be sequels. I could be wrong, but I think Paramount was on the same page as the fans.
Last edited:
Yes.
The film came out in May 2009 and we had news the sequel was green lit in March 2009.
A one-hundred and fifty million dollar movie and a sequel that was given the go-ahead before the first ticket was sold... sounds like Paramount had an awful lot of faith in a 'dead' property.
Even if the Abrams film had bombed, I don't believe the property would've died. It likely would've had a more radical reboot done.
I'm not remembering a whole lot of fan enthusiam in those days. People were going on about how "prequels" were stupid, predictable and lame. They insisted Paramount had learned nothing from the "failure" of the Star Wars prequels.
A lot were saying that Picard and Co. deserved yet another chance, and surely they would do better if they weren't up against the box office powerhouse known as Jennifer Lopez.
Then the reboot rumors started building steam and there was just a massive wall of denial.
There was a great deal of pessimism around here back then.
A lot were saying that Picard and Co. deserved yet another chance, and surely they would do better if they weren't up against the box office powerhouse known as Jennifer Lopez.
Then the reboot rumors started building steam and there was just a massive wall of denial.
There was a great deal of pessimism around here back then.
The pessimism would've likely been here when TNG had premiered if this place had existed. It's a Trek fans natural state of being.
Myself, I was both optimistic and pessimistic. Just like I am towards the new film. Excited about some things, rubbed the wrong way by others...
Similar threads
- Poll
