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

[Yminale]

Weren't at least some of those other things "the people in charge were off doing" also generating revenue for Paramount? Transformers movies, Hawaii Five-O, M:I:4, things like that?

Well like I said, it seems to imply that Abrams is more important to them than Star Trek.

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. I suspect there is more to the story than "I'll get to it when I'm ready"

 

[Bishop76]

Poor Enterprise I wonder if it has more fans now than it did at time? (I'm probably one of them)

I don't hate it. It's certainly better than anything Voyager had to offer. That said, I recognize it as a weaker series and the 4th season - while entertaining to me - was really a complete pile of fanwank.

 

[M'Sharak]

Weren't at least some of those other things "the people in charge were off doing" also generating revenue for Paramount? Transformers movies, Hawaii Five-O, M:I:4, things like that?

Well like I said, it seems to imply that Abrams is more important to them than Star Trek.

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. I suspect there is more to the story than "I'll get to it when I'm ready"

I suspect that the story is far less about that (or not at all) and far more about strategic scheduling. If Paramount had decided they wanted Star Trek Into Darkness to be ready sooner, it would have been ready sooner, and something else would have been pushed back to make room in the production schedule.

 

[The Wormhole]

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. I suspect there is more to the story than "I'll get to it when I'm ready"

Probably because no one else wants Star Trek. After Enterprise ended, Paramount and CBS were content to let it lie, and in fact had even rejected another movie proposal from Berman. It was a dead franchise being mocked by pop culture pundits all over the internet. Then JJ Abrams walks in, still basking in the success of Lost and now has connections with Paramount thanks to having just directed Mission Impossible 3. He now has his choice of projects, anything he wants, they'll make happen. He pitches ideas that eventually become Cloverfield and Super 8, and then adds "and one other thing: I want to do a Star Trek movie." Paramount dare not say no to him, and so even though only a year has gone by since they turned their backs on the Trek, Paramount greenlights a new Star Trek movie to be directed by Hollywood's rising star. And since that did pull some money in and made people stop making derisive comments about that "terrible prequel starring the guy from Quantum Leap" Abrams pretty much has control of Trek until he wants to give it up.

At least that's my take on things based on nothing substantial. Just a cynical intrepretation of how things played out.

 

[Maurice]

Wow, the ignorance of how business—let alone the moviemaking business works—on display here is impressive.

Movies get made when they get made for a lot of reasons, from when the script is deemed ready to when the crew and cast can be scheduled and when the soundstages and locations can be booked. Sometimes the studio's priorities get shuffled. Sometimes work is shifted backwards or forwards to make the expenses and profits land in particular fiscal calendar years.

But let's not allow any of that fact spoil a bunch of whiny arguments and finger pointing.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

No!! JJ was being a withholding little bitch and that's all there is to it!

 

[M'Sharak]

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. I suspect there is more to the story than "I'll get to it when I'm ready"

Probably because no one else wants Star Trek. After Enterprise ended, Paramount and CBS were content to let it lie, and in fact had even rejected another movie proposal from Berman. It was a dead franchise being mocked bu pop culture pundits all over the internet. Then JJ Abrams walks in, still basking in the success of Lost and now has connections with Paramount thanks to having just directed Mission Impossible 3. He now has his choice of projects, anything he wants, they'll make happens He pitches ideas that eventually become Cloverfield and Super 8, and then adds "and one other thing: I want to do a Star Trek movie." Paramount dare not say no to him, and so even though only a year has gone by since they turned their backs on the Trek, Paramount greenlights a new Star Trek movie to be directed by Hollywood's rising star. And since that did pull some money in and made people stop making derisive comments about that "terrible prequel starring the guy from Quantum Leap" Abrams pretty much has control of Trek until he wants to give it up.

At least that's my take on things based on nothing substantial. Just a cynical intrepretation of how things played out.

 

[Greg Cox]

Weren't at least some of those other things "the people in charge were off doing" also generating revenue for Paramount? Transformers movies, Hawaii Five-O, M:I:4, things like that?

Well like I said, it seems to imply that Abrams is more important to them than Star Trek.

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. "

Because there's no guarantee that "someone else" would be able to recreate the commercial success of the last movie.

Seriously, why would any sensible company want to replace the guy who made the last movie a hit? Because he's not churning out a sequel fast enough?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Better to wait a year or so to get your winning team back together.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Amaris]

Poor Enterprise I wonder if it has more fans now than it did at time? (I'm probably one of them)

I like to think fans have softened to it a bit now the dust has settled. I was totally indifferent to it until the third season, which I loved to bits. The fourth was enjoyable, but it was a bit too fanwanky even for me. And, as a fan of the novels, I have a high threshold for that sort of thing!

They're releasing season 1 on Bluray to coincide with the theatrical release of Into Darkness, so it's not going away any time soon.

That would be me as well. I didn't like the series very much during it's run, but I did a re-watch about six months ago on Netflix, and it turns out I like it better than I initially thought. I consider it a solidly decent series, and do wish they could have had another season. Hated TATV, though. Hated it with a passion, even though I adore Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis.

Also, in reply to the OP in this order:

1) 4 years is a reasonable amount of time for a sequel.
2) Fuck no, followed by "that would be incredibly stupid and shortsighted."

 

[The Wormhole]

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. I suspect there is more to the story than "I'll get to it when I'm ready"

Probably because no one else wants Star Trek. After Enterprise ended, Paramount and CBS were content to let it lie, and in fact had even rejected another movie proposal from Berman. It was a dead franchise being mocked bu pop culture pundits all over the internet. Then JJ Abrams walks in, still basking in the success of Lost and now has connections with Paramount thanks to having just directed Mission Impossible 3. He now has his choice of projects, anything he wants, they'll make happens He pitches ideas that eventually become Cloverfield and Super 8, and then adds "and one other thing: I want to do a Star Trek movie." Paramount dare not say no to him, and so even though only a year has gone by since they turned their backs on the Trek, Paramount greenlights a new Star Trek movie to be directed by Hollywood's rising star. And since that did pull some money in and made people stop making derisive comments about that "terrible prequel starring the guy from Quantum Leap" Abrams pretty much has control of Trek until he wants to give it up.

At least that's my take on things based on nothing substantial. Just a cynical intrepretation of how things played out.

Now that is awesome!

 

[Therin of Andor]

Will it be treated like a "Shatner-verse", in regard to novels and comics?

It's the only way it can and will be treated, but I do expect that, eventually, characters such as Robau Prime and Keenser Prime will turn up as guest characters in regular TOS novels and comics.

For that matter, will Simon & Schuster and/or IDW drop it altogether? (This could be the case, if the JJ-verse continuity novels and comics aren't selling very well).

Some JJ tie-ins have sold gangbusters: especially "Countdown", "Nero" and the movie adaptation mini-series. All have gone into multiple reprints/re-presentations.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's a good thing I don't know his name, it means he isn't as obsessive and demanding as the Bad Robot gang. And being thanked in a comic is different than having a credit among the writers and artists, giving the impression you're actually involved in the creative process.

Being the arbiter of a media tie-in manuscript does not earn a share of creative credits. That would imply a share of the royalties as well.

Paula Block only received one writing credit: when her 70s fan story was republished in the first "Strange New Worlds" collection of short story contest winners.

 

[newtontomato539]

1. Enterprise was garbage.

2. People like Bad Robot Trek.

3. If Bad Robot Trek fails, it will not bring back live action Star Trek Prime.

4. Period.

5. I would rather have quality than quantity.

6. Abrams isn't going anywhere.

7. Long live Star Trek!

 

[The Wormhole]

5. I would rather have quality than quantity.

Maybe Trek was choking itself back in the period of 1993-1999 where there were two TV series in production and a new movie every two years, but we've just gone from one extreme to the other where there only one Trek movie every four years and nothing else. There really needs to be a new series. Hell, I'd settle for that Abramsverse animated series which Orci has claimed for past year or so is "in talks."

 

[Bishop76]

Scarcity creates demand, though - and so far they've been doing a great job of keeping it just scarce enough that fans are champing at the bit when anything new comes out. I don't think they're doing anything wrong at all. I'd be surprised if they do put that animated show into production, but if they do, don't expect anything else for a long while.

 

[SalvorHardin]

The way shows are axed left and right without given much chance to grow these days, an animated show is the only Trek that has any shot to last on tv right now.
Maybe after a couple more successful movies we can start thinking about live action.

 

[Squiggy]

The way shows are axed left and right without given much chance to grow these days, an animated show is the only Trek that has any shot to last on tv right now.
Maybe after a couple more successful movies we can start thinking about live action.

This.

Any network worth bragging about being on cancels shows after half a season if a sereis isn't a bonafide hit. The network with the rights to Star Trek, CBS, isn't going to waste an hour a week because they hold the honor of having the #1 show, #1 new show, #1 comedy...blah blah blah. They know what works and they have little patience for something that doesn't.

If Seinfield or Cheers or Friends or really any TV show you remember from the past 30 years were to premiere today, it would be yanked off the air by the end of it's first season for not performing. The suits simply don't believe in waiting.

They're all looking for the next American Idol, or some show who's cost is a fraction of the revinue.

Trek, by it's nature...it's an expensive show. Unless you'd be willing to watch Syfy movie of the week effects. God help the endless nerdrage threads in here if that were to happen.

So, we're stuck with this. As much as all of us would gladly welcome a new series with open arms...we'd all get tired of it because modern TV isn't pumping out TOS or TNG. It's pumping out Enterprise. It's not going to ever pump out TOS or TNG again. The networks owe us nothing and they're only in it for money. How to they make money? By getting good add buys. How do they get those? Buy appealing to the widest audience possible in the shortest amount of time.

Star Trek doesn't fit that model.

 

[RoJoHen]

Trek fans can be so ungrateful sometimes. How many Trek series do we already have? How many movies do we already have?

Now, how many other franchises in the history of TV and movies have anywhere near that amount of stuff? Plenty of very popular shows never come back. I'm not saying you have to be happy with the direction modern Trek is taking, but you should feel lucky that Trek didn't end forever back in the 60s, because it very easily could have.

 

[Squiggy]

There have been 703 (I think?) episodes of Star Trek.

Laid end to end, it spans 28 television seasons.

If you watched The Cage this week, and watched one new episode a week, you would watch These Are The Voyages... the week of June 21, 2026.

If you conceived a child after watching The Cage, they would be in 8th grade when you ended the tradition.

There have been more movies with Star Trek in the title than any other franchise besides Friday the 13th (12) or James Bond (23). In May, Star Trek will be tied for 2nd.

If it were one series it would be the most successful television series in American history beating Gunsmoke by almost 70 episodes. I don't count WWE Raw because it's shit.

 

[Therin of Andor]

If that's true why not hand off ST to someone else and you have the best of both worlds. I suspect there is more to the story than "I'll get to it when I'm ready"

There'd be a contractual agreement for three movies, and estimated dates. I seem to recall Bad Robot successfully renegotiated a change of start date for the second film. Paramount would have been extremely shortsighted to have remained inflexible.