View Single Post
  #29  
Old 11-10-2011, 07:28 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Personally, a three plus year cycle is better from my perspective because it allows folks to go and do other things (IMO Super 8 was totally worth the delay in a Trek sequel anyway).

While some franchises have been known to work on a two year cycle I think their results have been less than spectacular (Fantastic Four, Transformers 2, Iron Man 2 etc) and they aren't even projects which film back to back. In all of those films you can see the detriment that rushing the sequel out caused. So I'm totally behind Paramount's support for the team and willingness to move the expected dates around to AVOID a rush job.

And there can be no major buzz until something gets made. Though I'm not sitting all day desperately waiting on the flimsiest piece of news either.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote