Trilogy of Nambois

[RobertScorpio]

With the Marvel setting up a series of movies, and Potter and LOTR so successful, should Treks 11-12-13 be written as a trilogy. Meaning a begining middle and an end?

I know TREKS 2-3-4 were not written as a trilogy, but we accept them as such. And those three movies seem to have been the zenith of the TOS movies.

Do you think they should be written as a trilogy and stated as such so that they can hype it as such? Or should it be just another stand alone TREK movie?

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Therin of Andor]

With the Marvel setting up a series of movies, and Potter and LOTR so successful, should Treks 11-12-13 be written as a trilogy. Meaning a begining middle and an end?

You're really scratching for post topics here.

The Harry Potter films are all quite standalone. They just happen to adapt a series of seven novels. I won't be surprised if they try to get an eighth film out of the final book.

LotR was planned and filmed as a trilogy because the original novel was originally released in three volumes, and it was decided the story required needed (two or, as finally decided) three films to do justice to it. The previous Ralph Bakshi animated version only adapted the first half of the adventure and due to lower-than-expected box office, the second half was never made. It was so disappointing to see it finish with "And so ends Part One..." with the ring still so far from the Crack of Doom - and then we had to wait for Rankin/Bass to do a TV animated sequel, "Return of the King", following up their own "The Hobbit" TV cartoon movie to get a semblance of animated closure.

I know TREKS 2-3-4 were not written as a trilogy, but we accept them as such. And those three movies seem to have been the zenith of the TOS movies.

They weren't planned as a trilogy at first, no, but ST II was avoiding being a sequel to TMP's storyline. ST III did, however, get made as a direct sequel to ST II, and ST IV addressed the Spock memory and court martial aspects while telling its own story. So by the time ST IV was being planned, it was known they were dealing with a trilogy.

Do you think they should be written as a trilogy and stated as such so that they can hype it as such? Or should it be just another stand alone TREK movie?

It's been made fairly clear that the main cast of the new film have three-picture deals. The first ST film will certainly, and correctly, be quite self-contained. The second movie may or may not choose to follow up any tantalizing, dangling plot threads, or it could blaze off in a new direction, or even do some remakes of, prequels or sequels to, TOS episodes - but many of these decisions won't be made till after the first film premieres.

Who would want a flop ST XI that ends on a never-completed cliffhanger? No one.

 

[RobertScorpio]

With the Marvel setting up a series of movies, and Potter and LOTR so successful, should Treks 11-12-13 be written as a trilogy. Meaning a begining middle and an end?

You're really scratching for post topics here.

The Harry Potter films are all quite standalone. They just happen to adapt a series of seven novels. I won't be surprised if they try to get an eighth film out of the final book.

LotR was planned and filmed as a trilogy because the original novel was originally released in three volumes, and it was decided the story required needed (two or, as finally decided) three films to do justice to it. The previous Ralph Bakshi animated version only adapted the first half of the adventure and due to lower-than-expected box office, the second half was never made. It was so disappointing to see it finish with "And so ends Part One..." with the ring still so far from the Crack of Doom - and then we had to wait for Rankin/Bass to do a TV animated sequel, "Return of the King", following up their own "The Hobbit" TV cartoon movie to get a semblance of animated closure.

I know TREKS 2-3-4 were not written as a trilogy, but we accept them as such. And those three movies seem to have been the zenith of the TOS movies.

They weren't planned as a trilogy at first, no, but ST II was avoiding being a sequel to TMP's storyline. ST III did, however, get made as a direct sequel to ST II, and ST IV addressed the Spock memory and court martial aspects while telling its own story. So by the time ST IV was being planned, it was known they were dealing with a trilogy.

Do you think they should be written as a trilogy and stated as such so that they can hype it as such? Or should it be just another stand alone TREK movie?

It's been made fairly clear that the main cast of the new film have three-picture deals. The first ST film will certainly, and correctly, be quite self-contained. The second movie may or may not choose to follow up any tantalizing, dangling plot threads, or it could blaze off in a new direction, or even do some remakes of, prequels or sequels to, TOS episodes - but many of these decisions won't be made till after the first film premieres.

Who would want a flop ST XI that ends on a never-completed cliffhanger? No one.

Your reasons not to I think are the very reasons to do so...and since we know 2-3-4 were not to be a set, but were changed to be so because the success of doing it midstream, then why not do it again...

Potter, LOTR were books that fed right into each other, but those are just mediums. STAR WARS were not books and made a fine set. So why not a stated Trilogy going in...couldn't hurt..

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Therin of Andor]

Your reasons not to I think are the very reasons to do so...and since we know 2-3-4 were not to be a set, but were changed to be so because the success of doing it midstream, then why not do it again...

Because... they are making a one-off film to see how it will be received.

TMP, ST II, ST III, ST IV, ST V and ST VI were all expected to be "the last" ST movie when written.

Sometimes people feel very cheated going to see one movie, but knowing (or discovering) they are only getting one third of the intended story, and will have to wait up to six years to see the whole thing.

You want a ST movie to end with "To be continued. See you in a few years" ? Ick.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I just don't understand the point of forcing it to become a trilogy. Abrams should tell the story he wants to tell. Then, if this one's successful, he'll get the chance to tell the next story he wants to tell. If, along the way, they form a coherent trilogy, good for him. If not, we'll hopefully have a series of good stand-alone movies.

All the examples you give here don't really work that well. Star Trek III would have gone in a different direction had Nick Meyer been involved, and that would have further affected the subsequent films. Star Wars was an accidental trilogy as well. George Lucas may have had more story he wanted to tell, but he only got to make Empire Strikes Back because of the phenomenal success of Star Wars. Lord of the Rings was three films because that's the way Tolkien's books were split apart by the publisher 50+ years ago. (Though even within that structure, Jackson shifted events around between films.) Harry Potter was a preexisting series of books before they became films. (And, in answer to Therin's statement above, it's already been announced that Deathly Hallows will be split into two films.)

 

[Doug Otte]

What is "nambois?" Sounds French...

Doug

 

[archeryguy1701]

A trilogy won't make the coming Star Trek movies successful. If people are uninterested in seeing 1 Star Trek movie, how in the world is 3 Trek movies going to make things more interesting to them? Potter was successful because of the following it had from the books. LOTR was likely for the same reason. Star Wars was successful because the space soap operas was big at the time. These various marvel movies that are doing trilogies are successful because they have a following. If Star Trek is going to be successful, it's going to be because it interests people, not because they have six hours coming at them rather than two.