The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Cliffhanger?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:28 PM
That Metal Beastie's Avatar
That Metal Beastie That Metal Beastie is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Overhere
Posts: 2,527
Default Cliffhanger?

Do think there's a chance ST12 will have a cliffhanger ending like The Empire Strikes Back? With the popularity of this film the next one might be written with a third in mind.

How would you feel about that?
__________________
'A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.'

Thomas Pynchon
'GRAVITY'S RAINBOW'
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:43 PM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

Personally, I think that would be a great idea.

If this really is going to be treated as a "trilogy" (with the actors having signed for 3 films), then why not take advantage of that fact?

Leave the middle film in an ambiguous state, much as you cited Empire Strikes Back. The film is done, but the story obviously isn't over. No need to have a tidily wrapped up package of a film. If the third film doesn't get made, then you have no real down side as it is left ambiguous... plenty of options to pursue. TV series, books, comics... leaving it up to the imaginations of fans.
No down side.
__________________
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad, and it's... depressing."
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass"
"A sacrifice a day keeps Jesus away"

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:54 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

I'm tired of the cliffhanger syndrome that trilogies have been happening lately and before.

It has been done to death. Empire Strikes Back, The Matrix Reloaded, Dead Man's Chest. Dark Knight(they are gonna make 3rd one, you just know it).

I want the second one to be a self contained movie. That way it can keep the episodic feel while still being a movie.

I'm hoping this new crew spawns 6 or so movies just like the original crew did.

If it's all just one long interwoven story from beginning to end then there IS NO ROOM for true exploration or diversity.

TWOK had little to no exploration, neither did the next movie, or the next movie after that.

I really enjoyed that interwoven trilogy, but I'm just saying it would be nice if they would get back to the exploration thing. Which would imply self contained movies.

Last edited by RedShirtsRuS : 05-27-2009 at 04:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:31 PM
That Metal Beastie's Avatar
That Metal Beastie That Metal Beastie is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Overhere
Posts: 2,527
Default

I'd like to see more exploration as well but a juicy cliffhanger leaving us salivating could be cool. Remember Riker's "Fire!" at the end of 'Best of Both Worlds pt.1'! I shouted! And I know I wasn't the only one. Of course we only had to wait through the summer for resolution.

Unless they shot ST12 and 13 back to back. Hmmm....
__________________
'A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.'

Thomas Pynchon
'GRAVITY'S RAINBOW'
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:29 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Metal Beastie View Post
I'd like to see more exploration as well but a juicy cliffhanger leaving us salivating could be cool. Remember Riker's "Fire!" at the end of 'Best of Both Worlds pt.1'! I shouted! And I know I wasn't the only one. Of course we only had to wait through the summer for resolution.

Unless they shot ST12 and 13 back to back. Hmmm....
A lot of movies have failed critically and sometimes commercially because of that.

The Matrix Reloaded and the Matrix Revolutions were NOT as good as the stand alone original The Matrix.

Dead Man's Chest and At World's End was NOT as good as the stand alone originial The Curse of The Black Pearl.

Return of the Jedi was great, but it was NOT as good as the first two movies.

I'm probably overreaching, but I don't exactly know how they are going to top The Dark Knight.

They have to be careful. If they over bloat the second Star Trek movie, then the 3rd one is not going to be as good by default.

And if they don't have closure in the second installment, then the movie risks it's own critical success and the success of the third film.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, I just think this Star Trek movie took enough risks as it is. As beneficial as those risks were, it's not something one should take for granted and exploit continuously, it may backfire.

Technically a stand alone second installment might actually be more of a risk than a cliff hanger. Considering the trend for nearly all hollywood blockbusters these days is to have their second installment end on a cliff hanger.

I still say a stand alone movie with closure is a good way to end the second movie.

Also a LOT of TV shows these days end nearly every episode on a cliff hanger these days. EVERY, SINGLE, EPISODE.

It get's tiresome after while.

Star Trek can maintain that episodic feel while being presented in movie form, it really can.

First Contact was a standalone movie. So was The Undiscovered Country. It can be done.

Nemesis actually somewhat ended on a cliffhanger when you think about it. Look how well that turned out.

Insurrection was a TV episode trying to be a movie so I don't think it counts.

The Final Frontier was also what I consider an episode of TOS trying to be a movie.

Also The Motion Picture.

All this is probably a result of my somewhat paranoid state of mind concerning cliff hanger sequels though.

They just don't sit well with me personally.

Last edited by RedShirtsRuS : 05-27-2009 at 07:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:28 PM
That Metal Beastie's Avatar
That Metal Beastie That Metal Beastie is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Overhere
Posts: 2,527
Default

Redshirt I don't think you're overreaching or paranoid at all. I basically agree with what you said. I even remember being perturbed with Empire Strikes Back when it got to it's non-ending. And likewise with Back to the Future II, which you didn't mention. But the reason Return of the Jedi was disappointing to me was because it sucked! (except of course Mark Hamill's performance and Leia's slavegirl outfit). Back to thr Future III didn't suck but was weak compared to I & II. The second and third Matrix- sucked, epic fails!! I can't comment on the others as I've not seen them but cliffhanger doesn't have to equate to suckage and fail. I'm imagining a huge and sweeping story, mind-blowing and so epic as to require two movies to tell. And as I said if filmed back to back or concurrently there could be less time between the release of the two ala LOTR, which absolutely did not suck.

Anyway just a thought.
__________________
'A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.'

Thomas Pynchon
'GRAVITY'S RAINBOW'
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:39 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Metal Beastie View Post
Redshirt I don't think you're overreaching or paranoid at all. I basically agree with what you said. I even remember being perturbed with Empire Strikes Back when it got to it's non-ending. And likewise with Back to the Future II, which you didn't mention. But the reason Return of the Jedi was disappointing to me was because it sucked! (except of course Mark Hamill's performance and Leia's slavegirl outfit). Back to thr Future III didn't suck but was weak compared to I & II. The second and third Matrix- sucked, epic fails!! I can't comment on the others as I've not seen them but cliffhanger doesn't have to equate to suckage and fail. I'm imagining a huge and sweeping story, mind-blowing and so epic as to require two movies to tell. And as I said if filmed back to back or concurrently there could be less time between the release of the two ala LOTR, which absolutely did not suck.

Anyway just a thought.
I hear what you're saying, but LOTR was thought out a long time ago by a brilliant writer who took a LOT of time to get his trilogy just right.

The writers of the next movie have only 2 years to write the next installment, and I really don't think they should take on more than they can chew.

If they want to do a sweeping epic, they can do a 3 hour stand alone sequel. I wouldn't mind. I really wouldn't.

Although I do think that 3 hour movies should usually be left for the finale in a franchise, which is FAR from now.

I'm just hoping the next movie is around the 2.5 hour mark or more for sure. If it ends up being less than 2 hours again I'll be slightly disappointed.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:54 PM
CDH-313's Avatar
CDH-313 CDH-313 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS View Post
I hear what you're saying, but LOTR was thought out a long time ago by a brilliant writer who took a LOT of time to get his trilogy just right.

The writers of the next movie have only 2 years to write the next installment, and I really don't think they should take on more than they can chew.

If they want to do a sweeping epic, they can do a 3 hour stand alone sequel. I wouldn't mind. I really wouldn't.

Although I do think that 3 hour movies should usually be left for the finale in a franchise, which is FAR from now.

I'm just hoping the next movie is around the 2.5 hour mark or more for sure. If it ends up being less than 2 hours again I'll be slightly disappointed.
I agree with all points here.
__________________
. . . just an old-school Trekker getting by in a newfangled galaxy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-27-2009, 11:41 PM
Glacial's Avatar
Glacial Glacial is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Guys, c'mon, the movie was great, especially given all the STUFF they had to cram into a 2-hour runtime! I think the Supreme Court know what they're doing
__________________
Signatures make my posts more aesthetically pleasing!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.