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
  #11  
Old 05-28-2009, 05:48 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
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!".
__________________
'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
  #12  
Old 05-28-2009, 05:57 AM
Buckman's Avatar
Buckman Buckman is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 182
Default

as long as there is no Cyborg saying "James I am your Father"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-28-2009, 06:02 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman View Post
as long as there is no Cyborg saying "James I am your Father"
I hear ya.
__________________
'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
  #14  
Old 05-28-2009, 07:13 AM
Tribble-eater's Avatar
Tribble-eater Tribble-eater is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In the worst place imaginable
Posts: 130
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-28-2009, 07:14 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribble-eater View Post
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!
__________________
'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
  #16  
Old 05-28-2009, 02:25 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribble-eater View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-28-2009, 02:33 PM
Tribble-eater's Avatar
Tribble-eater Tribble-eater is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: In the worst place imaginable
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-28-2009, 02:35 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribble-eater View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-28-2009, 02:40 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-29-2009, 04:33 AM
cjopbj cjopbj is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 581
Default

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.
__________________
Happiness, at least, Sir.
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 11:14 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.