I would? Really? As I understand it, it would make sound commercial sense for a company to satisfy the demand while it's still there, so, where's the demand now? Where's the product now? Because if the Trek forums aren't really talking about a sequel or gagging in anticipation for another film even if there isn't any real news about one, then I'd say there's a problem. People were talking about it a lot in the year it was released and Paramount should have made immediate plans for a sequel late in 2009 for a release in this year. Now, it appears that we will have to wait for 2013.
VF's thread - this thread - is basically the first such thread complaining about a delay - what does that tell you? What it tells me is that people don't really care one way or another - and VF, like me and like you, is a hardcore Trek nut who is frankly confused as to why Paramount didn't seize the moment when there was some hunger.
I'll say it again, the POTC franchise got their sequels in the can and released and controlled intervals to keep desire satisfied and desire for more going. There's no reason why Paramount couoldn't have done that with this franchise given the success of the first movie - as sson as they knew it was a success. We were told that there was a three-movie deal - so where are the other two? On the strength of the first movie's takings they could have pumped money into two sequels to rival Bay's Transformers while making them both better than Inception, but there's not even a script for the second movie, let alone one that has the green light to go. The actors in the new cast have other jobs: Pegg is a hot property and Saldana is caught up in a much bigger movie with a probably sequel. Surely to goodness you tie your cast in as soon as you know they've hit the mark?
Actually I don't agree with that because I personally know a whole bunch of haters that liked the movie when they saw it; I was one, and there are others who had big fears and had the best time duking it out with rabid Abrams fans that it would be a pile of dung. It wasn't - it was basically a good movie, and maybe a better Star Trek movie than a couple of the TNG turkeys (take a bow Insurrection! and Nemesis!) and had some really fine Trek moments in it. The new cast mostly acquitted themselves far better than even the pro-Abrams lobby wished for. A lot of people changed their minds - a lot - but a movie company has to move with some momentum because the film industry is so much faster now.
Actually, the original Star Wars movies came out within a few years of each other and were all planned out by Lucas at precise intervals: 1977, 1980, 1983. Then there was a long gap during which most people thought Lucas' original plan for six movies wouldn't happen, and then it was 1999, 2002, 2005. Do you see what I mean? All the bigger fanchises work on a much faster turnover rate now -because people aren't so patient now and they want product - like - yesterday! It's not like the 1980s when Trek fans like me were happy to wait 3 or 4 years for a new movie and enjoyed the leisure to ponder what it might be about. This is pre-internet, of course, when I was in a local fan group enjoying the banter about ideas for the next movie and we were happy to wait a long time for news and product. What were we looking at there? TOS movies: 1979, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1992. TNG: 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002. Abrams: 2009 ... ... ... 2013! That's utterly parlous for a big franchise today, and there's no excuse for that given it was supposed to be a three-movie deal, and as far as I know, TOS and TNG movies were all commissioned by Paramount on a single movie basis, and even the writing team behind NEM had a sequel planned!
So, aren't you basically supporting my main point here? There's strong enthusiasm amongst young peope who enjoyed the new film greatly because it's basically a fun, action movie? In which case, why isn't Paramount cashing in on that with movies and merchandise before they get fed up with waiting and move on with something else? Kids want more or less instant gratification now - or they get bored and go with the next best thing coming. They're not massively loyal and they won't be loyal to something that isn't delivering the goods and the toys.
If Paramount don't batten themselves onto that market soon then they'll miss the boat by failing to invigorate that market with anticpation of new stuff, and the old fans who are perhaps not so excited but just glad there's some Trek still being made, would like to have some new Trek, please! my orginal point is that Paramount isn't satisfying either end of this spectrum, and the older fans don't seem to be so engaged emotionally by the previous movie to be hungering that rabidly on the Trek forums for more, but more might get them talking again. Again, this is the fist time I've seen an expression of frustration with Paramount for failing to put out.
Yes, FHC, I can count! However, this "it's not your Trek" thing is a load of old nonsense if you don't mind me saying. Trek is for everyone regardles of age. You can be ready to put on your slippers and cardigan and it back and watch while the youngsters have their playtime because yours is past, LOL, but there's a lot of older fans who can be engaged by new stuff it just has to be a NEW and AVAILABLE. It's not rocket science to make a Trek that satisfies everyone - TOS and TNG did it, and for your information, I backed TNG from the start and have engaged with every Star Trek since (even ENT) - so it's not inflexibility on my part. I think you didn't read all of my last post did you FHC? Because I implied that I basically support the new movie with reservations - I'd just like to see more (and soon because I'm not getting any younger!), but the analysis as to why this is not happening does involve some dissection over what might be missing in the new movie that isn't getting the fans feverishly anticpating a new movie - at both ends of the spectrum!!!!!!!!
I think a lot of the older fans like me see this movie as a big compromise. No, it's not the deeply intellectual franchise that we enjoyed so much on TV, but I have always seen movie Trek as a different animal anyway in that it is always less deep. To make us older fans care more, the producers have to be sure that they take the very good start they have made with the characters adn give them big stories in the next picture that do have an emotional pull - after all, they managed to make us all care a lot in TWOK, and that was only the second Trek movie and then they were into a story-arc that led to much fan anticipation for a third movie.
Feeling sorry you responded yet? ROFL!