If the film is a success, will we see further films with this same crew? I don't believe that personally.
Cary, gotta to strongly disagree with you here. If the movie works to Paramounts expectations not only will we see another one we'll see many of the very same people on screen in this in the sequel - I base this in part on the fact the actors contracts as I think has been reported has them prepared to take the roles again should a sequel be made.
It's certainly possible (though the only corroborating evidence is the reputed "extended contract" you mention). I'm just stating my own personal opinion.
Yes I know Abrams said this is something of a "one shot" but I don't think he meant to imply there wouldn't ever be a follow-up, more like: Hey lets see how this goes its a complete story in and of it self lets worry about other movies when we cross that bridge.
Well, I feel pretty confident that Abrams won't be involved in any sequels. He's looking to tell a particular story... and I fully expect he'll want to move on to another (unrelated) story for his next trick.
As for whether PPC brings in someone else to lead... or keeps one or two of the other "supreme court" to do follow ons... that's a more open question, and I'd personally be pretty excited by seeing Orci become a producer.
Still, my feeling for what I'm saying is based more upon how I understand this story to be written... that is, it's filling in an unknown period where we ALREADY HAVE SEEN what comes next for these people.
That's the sort of set-up that, to me, means either "change everything so what we already know no longer counts" or "leave things the same as we know... and take away any possibility of growth or jeopardy."
That's why I think we won't see "the continuing adventures of New Kirk and New Spock." Because PPC's leadership will realize that they'd be putting themselves into a likely lose-lose situation.
I'm not claiming any particular "inside knowledge" on that count... just stating my own personal opinion, of course. But it just doesn't make sense, from my perspective, to put the franchise at risk that way. It makes a LOT more sense to establish some NEW characters in this film who can be spun off into a new show. Reuse the sets, the setting... but give us characters who we can LEARN about, who we can be SURPRISED by... who can live, or die, without us knowing in advance!
It wouldn't make much sense for the studio to have to go out and take a whole new risk once they've re-established the brand in this form. Star Trek of this style will be what we'll be getting until whatever comes to pass and it needs to reinvent itself once more.
Yeah, but I said nothing at all about "style." I said this CAST... I agree that it's very likely that they'd try to leverage some of the investment in this film into future projects.
But part of what you just said really bothers me. ANY FILM is a "risk" ... and "continuing the adventures of Kirk and Spock" is every bit as much of a creative risk as anything else.
Trying to "play it safe" is what got Berman and Co. into trouble. I, personally REALLY want the next film or series we see to involve taking SIGNIFICANT creative risks... just as this one is taking.
That's what leads to good storytelling, as far as I'm concerned.
I as well. There have been some vague hints about leaving this film open for a sequel and sequel clauses in contracts and all that jazz. Star Trek is a franchise film, every bit as much as Casino Royale or Batman Begins, films which both have sequels coming out this year. Of course, the film has to be considered a success for a sequel to be made with this cast - only if it isn't would a sequel akin to another release this year, The Incredible Hulk, be made. There might be a shuffle of talent behind the camera, as there have been with other franchises, if it's a success, the cast stays.
We'll see about that in a year or so...
As far as I'm concerned, the Batman film is the second "real" Batman film... (gotta wonder how they're going to work around Heath Ledger's death... since the Joker will almost certainly NOT be killed in this film, based upon the nearly perfect attention to "comic canon" continuity by the production team for both of these films). But the audience (except for the niche comic-reading community) really isn't aware of the "real" Batman universe... most folks think "Biff-bam-thwap" or thing of some really bad, really weird Bondage-discipline movies from few years ago. So "Batman" isn't at risk of "overwriting" facts about the character that the average audience member already knows... nor is it at risk (due to the respect for canon being shown by the production team) of driving away the loyal fanbase.
"The Hulk" and "The Incredible Hulk" are actually better examples. I assume that if you've seen any info about the new Hulk movie, it pretty much ignores the first movie and is really pretty closely related to the old TV show (all the way down to the production design being based upon the TV show designs!). It's not a "reboot" as much as an "ignore the last movie and go back to what people LIKED approach. Much like Batman, but more "mainstream."
Again, guys... I'm not saying I think there won't be further movies. But I just think it's a much WORSE RISK to try to re-use the existing characters (putting 40 years of storytelling at-risk for no good reason) than to give us new, blank-slate characters set in the same universe (and the same timeframe... ie, leveraging sets, designs, costumes and props, but being giving the production team more STORYTELLING FLEXIBILITY).
I see that as being LESS RISK... you guys see it as being MORE RISK. As for how the decision-makers see it... none of us can really say.
Audiences continue to confound me.
