[Damage75]

I did see that on the internet about them all being locked in for nine years. That would seem to indicate at least two more movies.

I remeber Brent Spiner having a multi-movie deal with Paramount as well. However, it wasn't limited to Trek. He was signed for a certain amount of movies, but they didn't have to be Trek. I want to say that this was after Generations, while they were getting ready for First Contatc. Spiner did appear in that movie (obviously) along with appearing in "Phenomenon" with Travolta. I think he may have appeared in something else as well.

My point being: Even though they may have signed a three picture deal, it doesn't mean that all three have to be Star Trek. The deal is with the studios, not the franchise.

[Zardoz]

I know that TNG onwards actors were signed to seven year deals. The nine you saw Damage, wouldn't be out of line.

Studios usually have deals like ,"OK you appear in XYZ and it's possible sequels, and we'll let you star/direct this project."

[EFFeX]

Personally, I think a three movie storyline is the way to go. It just seems like there is so much history and details to include that squeezing it into one film would be a little messy. They could really tie everything together and make an epic story if they spread it across three films.

[Damage75]

I would love to see three movies as well, but I was just trying to explain what could happen if the first movie (god forbid!) tanks!

[starwarsrcks]

Let's hope the sequels will be brilliant as well