[USSWINGER]

i cant believe it,,, i copy for you read it...

From: The Official Star Trek Convention
Date: Jan 31, 2008 12:52 AM


We're beaming because the Star Trek franchise will be back at warp speed -- on Dec. 25, starring a new generation including Chris Pine, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and our beloved pointy-eared Vulcan, Leonard Nimoy, whom we portray proudly on our profile picture while on stage at the 2007 Las Vegas Star Trek Convention.

In an interview with IGN , Anton Yelchin (playing Checkov) said that he had been signed on for three movies. Star Trek Is Back ! Go Fans! Keep up your support.
I <3 STAR TREK!!

Join us at Grand Slam in Burbank to hear more!

Daleglen

[Aaleck]

Just because they're signed in for 3 movies doesn't mean they're doing to do them :P If it's a flop and only make $20,000,000 in the box office, I don't think they'll create another after loosing over $100,000,000 lol

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Aaleck

Just because they're signed in for 3 movies doesn't mean they're doing to do them :P If it's a flop and only make $20,000,000 in the box office, I don't think they'll create another after loosing over $100,000,000 lol

Not to mention, Yelchin may have a three picture contract, but there's no guarantee that it's for three Star Trek pictures.

[Trip]

That's good news. Maybe there will be a cliff hanger or something in the way at the end of Star Trek XI.

But what will be the names of that movies, if Star Trek XI will eb called "Star Trek Zero"?

Star Trek 1/3
Star Trek 2/3

Star Trek -1
Star Trek -2
(Prequels rule )

[Aaleck]

Originally Posted by Trip

That's good news. Maybe there will be a cliff hanger or something in the way at the end of Star Trek XI.

But what will be the names of that movies, if Star Trek XI will eb called "Star Trek Zero"?

Star Trek 1/3
Star Trek 2/3

Star Trek -1
Star Trek -2
(Prequels rule )

In a interview I read, I think it's simply going to be called Star Trek...

Brian - January 26, 2008
#487:” the way in which Star Trek (Zero) will fit into the continuum.”

I’m not sure if the (zero) really means anything, but I’m really hoping that this isnt going to be the title. I would be fine with not going Star Trek XI, even if it’s just called Star Trek (no bloody numbers or colon), I feel that the Zero would give it too much of the “Star Wars” feel when they did the prequels.

Just my 2 cents.

and...

491. roberto orci - January 26, 2008
490

Agreed. As we’ve said before, it will simply be Star Trek. We’ve used the term Star Trek Zero a few times to remind new audiences who have felt that Trek has passed them by that they can tune in and be introduced to the world anew.

[Almighty]

It's simply called "Star Trek"

they can call the sequels whatever they like

[ChessMess]

Aaleck is right, just because they signed on doesn't mean it'll happen. Its kind of used by the studios to ensure they get the stars back, and lock them in at a decent rate regardless of how well the movie does.

Still, it shows that they are open to the possibility of more movies, which is good. Just need this movie to actually be good.

[Commodore]

Most big budget franchise movies are kinda geared for a trilogy these days anyway. A three-picture deal is almost standard, but it depends on how financially successful the first one is before a sequel is officially given a greenlight by the studio. The contract just ensures that the cast will be available if two more movies are made.

I think Robert Orci did say that the Enterprise sets will not be destroyed after filming is finished, but disassembled and put into storage for possible further use.

[TheTrekkie]

Would be cool, then the Trek future really would be rescued.
But lets wait if XI becomes successful enough.

[Indiana Jones]

Getting excited at the likelihood that there will be another Star Trek is akin to getting excited about the sun going down at night. It'll almost certainly happen at some point.