[That Metal Beastie]

Originally Posted by horatio

I'd prefer stand alone movies like TUC or FC. The lose trilogy from TWOK to TVH worked, but TSFS as well as TVH is watchable when one has not seen the previous movie(s).
Let's keep story arcs for TV Trek.

Im not clammering for a cliffhanger but I see with one the the chance for something HUGE! And as I've said, possibly a shorter time between the next two films.
Of course most important is my old mantra "All I want is a good movie, good science fiction and good Trek!".

[Buckman]

as long as there is no Cyborg saying "James I am your Father"

[That Metal Beastie]

Originally Posted by Buckman

as long as there is no Cyborg saying "James I am your Father"

I hear ya.

[Tribble-eater]

I can see both points here but personally i would like them to be seperate
What i would really love is if they did the filming of the 2 films at the same time
with scenes that need the actors. Then they could relese the second film
and a year later come out with the third film.
Then i would only have to wait a year instead of 3 years

Now that would be ideal

[That Metal Beastie]

Originally Posted by Tribble-eater

I can see both points here but personally i would like them to be seperate
What i would really love is if they did the filming of the 2 films at the same time
with scenes that need the actors. Then they could relese the second film
and a year later come out with the third film.
Then i would only have to wait a year instead of 3 years

Now that would be ideal

Agreed!

[RedShirtsRuS]

Originally Posted by Tribble-eater

I can see both points here but personally i would like them to be seperate
What i would really love is if they did the filming of the 2 films at the same time
with scenes that need the actors. Then they could relese the second film
and a year later come out with the third film.
Then i would only have to wait a year instead of 3 years

Now that would be ideal

Making two movies at the same time, two movies that have nothing to do with each other?

That would require a budget of more than 300 million dollars easily. It's too extravagant.

Three 150 million dollar movies released 3 years apart is much more economical and profitable than a combined $300,000,000 budget for two movies that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

If they spent 300,000,000 upfront to do two movies at the same time, and one of the movies isn't even going to be released until a year later, it would take an even longer time for Paramount to make all that money back.

[Tribble-eater]

Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS

Making two movies at the same time, two movies that have nothing to do with each other?

That would require a budget of more than 300 million dollars easily. It's too extravagant.

Three 150 million dollar movies released 3 years apart is much more economical and profitable than a combined $300,000,000 budget for two movies that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

If they spent 300,000,000 upfront to do two movies at the same time, and one of the movies isn't even going to be released until a year later, it would take an even longer time for Paramount to make all that money back.

Yes I agree with you to a point but the actual money spent might not be as you estimated since they would not have to round up a crew twice, and could use some of the sets without having to put them in storage only to take them out again. Plus the Special effects budget can be divided as they came be done after.

But anyway Like I said I agree with you that it would not be praxtical I was really stating it more as a dream than a reality

[RedShirtsRuS]

Originally Posted by Tribble-eater

Yes I agree with you to a point but the actual money spent might not be as you estimated since they would not have to round up a crew twice, and could use some of the sets without having to put them in storage only to take them out again. Plus the Special effects budget can be divided as they came be done after.

But anyway Like I said I agree with you that it would not be praxtical I was really stating it more as a dream than a reality

Maybe if this actually was the 24th century, where money isn't an issue, it would be a reality.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS

Maybe if this actually was the 24th century, where money isn't an issue, it would be a reality.

Of course. Humanity works to better itself. However, Im not sure how action movies play into bettering humanity.

[cjopbj]

I like the idea. If not a cliffhanger, I do like the idea of the movies having some continuity. The writers and director have built this wonderful, new world for us and I would like the next Star Trek movies to deal with the ramifications of Nero's attack. I hate it when movies or TV shows forget what happened before. Why have this huge event if it has no effect.