We've got a Sequel!

[Praetor]

He meant 'Voyager' I'm sure.

 

[Michael]

He meant 'Voyager' I'm sure.

It's the only possibility, I agree.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So this is all on the level, is it? It's not an April Fools joke that jumped the gun?

 

[Aragorn]

^ The suits behind Batman & Robin were so impressed with the sets during shooting that a sequel was a go. You know how that one turned out.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

Great news!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

In response to Aragorn: Exactly. The sequel that is geenlit today can be canceled tomorrow--or placed in retooling limbo for years, like the Superman, Batman and Bond franchises. If Trek XI does well, the sequel will proceed. If not, probably not. No reason for naysayers or cheerleaders to get bunched panties either way.

 

[Amasov]

So is this going to be Star Trek XII or Star Trek II?

 

[StarTrek1701]

^ The suits behind Batman & Robin were so impressed with the sets during shooting that a sequel was a go. You know how that one turned out.

*Shudders*

 

[yakueb]

He meant 'Voyager' I'm sure.

You're half-right. Sorry, I meant Enterprise. I was just watching DS9 and I still had Children of Time and Time's Orphan stuck in my head.

Voyager did some dumb time travel, to be sure, but it was Enterprise that took it to an unforgivable level. Time Traveling Aliens helping Nazies? Really?

 

[Michael]

He meant 'Voyager' I'm sure.

You're half-right. Sorry, I meant Enterprise. I was just watching DS9 and I still had Children of Time and Time's Orphan stuck in my head.

Voyager did some dumb time travel, to be sure, but it was Enterprise that took it to an unforgivable level. Time Traveling Aliens helping Nazies? Really?

You are forgiven.

 

[Ro_Laren]

I'm excited that Paramount seems ready to give a sequel the green light. Hopefully May's Trek movie will do well so that we will actually get to have a sequel!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm still not sure this is all real. I'm getting paranoid about April 1st, I know. But I think some healthy skepticism is called for. Especially since Trek XI isn't even out yet.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So this is all on the level, is it? It's not an April Fools joke that jumped the gun?

Actually, this entire movie is a put-on.

Remember, Paramount just floated the rumor that Abrams might direct a "Star Trek" movie to drum up pre-release publicity for "Mission Impossible III." After they got their mileage out of it, the whole bogus Trek movie just evaporated. People wise to the ways of Hollywood explained this to us.

 

[Aragorn]

I went to The Asylum's web site. I see Transmorphers 2 and The Terminators. But no Star Trax or Space Trekkers or The Adventures of Captain James or anything like that. So obviously this movie can't be real.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Don't get me wrong, I would have welcomed news of a sequel, even this early. But I'm still suspicious that this is an April Fool's joke (albeit a bit early). If it wasn't so close to April 1, I would have accepted this news as real. But not quite yet.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's real, baba.

 

[Messianni]

^ Don't get me wrong, I would have welcomed news of a sequel, even this early. But I'm still suspicious that this is an April Fool's joke (albeit a bit early). If it wasn't so close to April 1, I would have accepted this news as real. But not quite yet.

That's moronic. It was reported by Variety. What, exactly, would Variety have to gain by doing an "April Fool's Joke", before April 1? Give me a break.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Don't get me wrong, I would have welcomed news of a sequel, even this early. But I'm still suspicious that this is an April Fool's joke (albeit a bit early). If it wasn't so close to April 1, I would have accepted this news as real. But not quite yet.

That's moronic. It was reported by Variety. What, exactly, would Variety have to gain by doing an "April Fool's Joke", before April 1? Give me a break.

What does *anybody* have to gain by doing April Fool's jokes? Nothing, of course. So Variety would have no more, and also no fewer, reasons to do so.

 

[M'Sharak]

^ Don't get me wrong, I would have welcomed news of a sequel, even this early. But I'm still suspicious that this is an April Fool's joke (albeit a bit early). If it wasn't so close to April 1, I would have accepted this news as real. But not quite yet.

That's moronic. It was reported by Variety. What, exactly, would Variety have to gain by doing an "April Fool's Joke", before April 1? Give me a break.

What does *anybody* have to gain by doing April Fool's jokes? Nothing, of course. So Variety would have no more, and also no fewer, reasons to do so.

No, Baba. This is real. This is not an April Fool's joke. Variety is about as close to received Gospel as it gets in the movie biz. I really don't want to see (or to have to read) two or three pages of you arguing with everyone about how this could all be an elaborate put-on for totally nonsensical reasons.

 

[Messianni]

^ Don't get me wrong, I would have welcomed news of a sequel, even this early. But I'm still suspicious that this is an April Fool's joke (albeit a bit early). If it wasn't so close to April 1, I would have accepted this news as real. But not quite yet.

That's moronic. It was reported by Variety. What, exactly, would Variety have to gain by doing an "April Fool's Joke", before April 1? Give me a break.

What does *anybody* have to gain by doing April Fool's jokes? Nothing, of course. So Variety would have no more, and also no fewer, reasons to do so.

This news was announced the night of March 30th. Not April 1st.

April Fool's Jokes are done on April 1st.

March 30th =/= April 1st.

It's not that hard of a concept. Honest.