When Will 'Star Trek' Get a Cinematic Universe?

[fireproof78]

Here's my thing, and my apologies if it has been touched on before.

Simply put, Paramount/CBS/PTB do not see a way to make money at it beyond what they are already doing. As has been pointed out, if they saw it differently then they would be doing it.

The MCU is a whole different animal, regardless of beliefs by groups of fans. Marvel has had several decades of multiple characters, worlds, storylines, and reboots, and re-imaginings, some successful and some less that successful. If you listen to many of the writers over the years that for every character accepted, several others were rejected.

Star Trek doesn't have that in the same way. There are certainly many different storylines and characters, comics and literature, that inform this world. However, the concept of a reboot is more foreign to Trek, and has not been adopted smoothly. The fact that we are still discussing Abrams Trek as whether or not it should be considered Trek indicates that fact.

I think the Trek universe is best set on the TV, where the more in depth character arcs can be better explored, and continuing stories can be allowed to unfold. The films can allow for the bigger action, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, the longer, more complex arcs can really be explored through TV.

The MCU is not a good model for Star Trek. There are simply too many disparate elements that have formed the MCU over the years that Star Trek does not have.

 

[T'Girl]

Interesting co-incident, that my position on the last two movies.

 

[Shazam!]

I can't say I'm even looking forward to a new single film let alone a whole shared universe full.

 

[Tim Walker]

We are lucky to have any live action Trek at all. ( J.J.'s movies).

I suspect that the franchise could have died-permanently with the cancellation of Enterprise.

 

[T'Girl]

If Star Trek were to share with others in the "Paramount Universe" it's company would be ...

Barbarella
Bug
Cloverfield
Coneheads
Crack In The World
D.A.R.Y.L.
Deep Impact
Event Horizon
Evolution
Face/Off
I Married A Monster From Outer Space
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (B/W)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (Colorized)
Man Without A Body, The
Night Of The Comet
Phase Iv
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow
Space Children
Tales That Witness Madness
Time Machine, The
Virtuosity
War Of The Worlds
War Of The Worlds, The
When Worlds Collide
Zero Population Growth

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed quite a few of these movies, But there's not a lot of promise for a "team up" on that list.

Maybe the Coneheads?

 

[eyeresist]

There are certainly many different storylines and characters, comics and literature, that inform this world. However, the concept of a reboot is more foreign to Trek, and has not been adopted smoothly. The fact that we are still discussing Abrams Trek as whether or not it should be considered Trek indicates that fact.

I am sure that in the comics forums there is a lot of controversy about who is the "real" Wolverine, Hulk, Falcon, etc. Outside of fandom, no-one cares about what "real" Star Trek is.

People immediately asked for a Kelvin movie or TV show with Captain Robau and Commander Kirk

First time I've heard about that.

Regarding the "problem" of too much Star Trek, I don't think one 100-minute movie every year or two would be too much, except for people who hate Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

There are certainly many different storylines and characters, comics and literature, that inform this world. However, the concept of a reboot is more foreign to Trek, and has not been adopted smoothly. The fact that we are still discussing Abrams Trek as whether or not it should be considered Trek indicates that fact.

I am sure that in the comics forums there is a lot of controversy about who is the "real" Wolverine, Hulk, Falcon, etc. Outside of fandom, no-one cares about what "real" Star Trek is.

I have no doubt that that is fact and probably a source of irritation to many comic book fans who are suddenly inundated with new blood due to the films.

My point was more to the fact that Star Trek has not had the multiple reboots or timelines in the same quantity, simply by nature of the medium, printed versus TV/film. A reboot may be an annoying part of comics, but it is a common occurrence. That is in contrast to Trek's current state.

People immediately asked for a Kelvin movie or TV show with Captain Robau and Commander Kirk

First time I've heard about that.

Regarding the "problem" of too much Star Trek, I don't think one 100-minute movie every year or two would be too much, except for people who hate Star Trek.

After watching the Kelvin and Robau I would have taken a TV series on spin off material about that in a heart beat. I certainly have seen some interest around here, but not enough for my liking. Not enough additional material either to inform that time period

 

[slappy]

I don't mind this.

Limit it to the movies, one TV show on maybe CBS, and one Netflix 6 episode miniseries. the movies are.....the movies. The TV show would be about a different race within the Trek universe. Use the Netflix mini to tell different anthology stories set within the universe.

 

[TRON JA307020]

The Hollywood Reporter is wondering why there are no plans for a Trek shared cinematic universe à la Marvel.

After all, in the mid-to-late 1990s, a Trek shared universe was a reality. In today's climate, this seems more impossible than ever - even though Into Darkness made $467 million and has a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

This may be part of Paramount's plans to reinvigorate the franchise - though some say no course correction is warranted. I'll bet there's something brewing behind the scenes at Par - what with the firing of Orci, unsubstantiated rumors of TV Trek, etc.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/will-star-trek-get-a-786368

We basically had a shared universe with TNG, DS9 and VOY plus TOS characters from past eps or CGI insertion showed up in all three newer series. The Defiant was in First Contact, Kirk was in Generations. Original Spock was in NuTrek. To expand it out further with different crews and movies is to much and would just get exhausting. Believe it or not Marvels shared movies will start to lose appeal because people will just start to get bored with them. I mean how many times can a audience get excited seeing a major city(Usually New York) get destroyed and over acting extras running down the street screaming?

 

[fireproof78]

The Hollywood Reporter is wondering why there are no plans for a Trek shared cinematic universe à la Marvel.

After all, in the mid-to-late 1990s, a Trek shared universe was a reality. In today's climate, this seems more impossible than ever - even though Into Darkness made $467 million and has a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

This may be part of Paramount's plans to reinvigorate the franchise - though some say no course correction is warranted. I'll bet there's something brewing behind the scenes at Par - what with the firing of Orci, unsubstantiated rumors of TV Trek, etc.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/will-star-trek-get-a-786368

We basically had a shared universe with TNG, DS9 and VOY plus TOS characters from past eps or CGI insertion showed up in all three newer series. The Defiant was in First Contact, Kirk was in Generations. Original Spock was in NuTrek. To expand it out further with different crews and movies is to much and would just get exhausting. Believe it or not Marvels shared movies will start to lose appeal because people will just start to get bored with them. I mean how many times can a audience get excited seeing a major city(Usually New York) get destroyed and over acting extras running down the street screaming?

You're forgetting "Guardians of Galaxy"

Also, I agree that the Trek universe is already its own universe, just not in the same vein as the MCU. Such a take is not necessary with Trek given the current trajectory of the literature.

The development of the Trek universe will never get the same treatment MCU because it doesn't require the same fastidious planning as the MCU.

 

[HIjol]

I think it has been alluded to in previous posts, but, profit aside for just a second, a CU for Star Trek would require some pretty detailed and consistent attention and planning. Even those with passing familiarity with ST knows the amount of consistency and accuracy fans demand of the Franchise. Sure, action and romance, but also meaning and depth. I am not sure there is a will or a knowledge base of procucers, directors and writers willing and able to achieve the theoretical task. I would LOVE to see more ST with new stories and cast members (I was a nose-sticker-upper at 2009, and was pleasantly surprised). I hope some version of ST goes on for generations. I am just not sure it is possible or advisable.

 

[eyeresist]

I mean how many times can a audience get excited seeing a major city(Usually New York) get destroyed and over acting extras running down the street screaming?

That's been happening in the movies since the 1950s, and it still makes money.

 

[shapeshifter]

If Star Trek were to share with others in the "Paramount Universe" it's company would be ...

Barbarella
Bug
Cloverfield
Coneheads
Crack In The World
D.A.R.Y.L.
Deep Impact
Event Horizon
Evolution
Face/Off
I Married A Monster From Outer Space
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (B/W)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (Colorized)
Man Without A Body, The
Night Of The Comet
Phase Iv
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow
Space Children
Tales That Witness Madness
Time Machine, The
Virtuosity
War Of The Worlds
War Of The Worlds, The
When Worlds Collide
Zero Population Growth

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed quite a few of these movies, But there's not a lot of promise for a "team up" on that list.

Maybe the Coneheads?

It wouldn't need to do that, thankfully.

There are myriad of species from dozens of worlds from which to weave an expanding story-line which reaches an epoch in one or a series of films. Then, return to the minor stories and examine the repercussions of the film/s events, begin building towards the next epoch.

I've actually been for something like this ever since I first came online back in the days of Enterprise, at StarTrek.Com. Oh the beat downs I suffered.

 

[I am not Spock]

CBS owns Star Trek and Twilight Zone, right? Let's have the crossover! Charlie X vs a grown up Bill Mumy as Anthony Fremont. Kirk sees a creature outside, on the hull of the Enterprise....oh wait.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't JJ Abrams once say all his shows and movies took part in the same world? Cloverfield, Super 8, Fringe and Lost could be part of the Trekverse...

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I have no desire for a cinematic universe where Trek is concerned. After 700 hours, I'm still burned out.

With multiple TV spinoffs set before and after TOS, there's simply no need for a cinematic universe (it's just doing spinoff after spinoff again). If anything, that takes us back to milking the franchise dry again.

Agreed. I think some people are saying this and wanting this because (IMHO) they hate the new movies and want to bring back the spinoffs due to their being (now) perceived as being 'better' than the new movies by said people.

If Star Trek were to share with others in the "Paramount Universe" it's company would be ...

Barbarella
Bug
Cloverfield
Coneheads
Crack In The World
D.A.R.Y.L.
Deep Impact
Event Horizon
Evolution
Face/Off
I Married A Monster From Outer Space
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (B/W)
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (Colorized)
Man Without A Body, The
Night Of The Comet
Phase Iv
Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow
Space Children
Tales That Witness Madness
Time Machine, The
Virtuosity
War Of The Worlds
War Of The Worlds, The
When Worlds Collide
Zero Population Growth

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed quite a few of these movies, But there's not a lot of promise for a "team up" on that list.

Since when has the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers been owned by Paramount or CBS?

EDIT: Okay, now I see why, after having checked the IMDB site.

Eh. I don't really see the need. There's already a shared universe for Trek. It's called "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager" and "Enterprise."

And said universe is played out and tired, which is why CBS and Paramount went back to the beginning as a basis for the new movies.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think I'd prefer Trek to have unrelated movie and TV series', like Gotham and the DC movieverse. I know opinions vary wildly, but I *love* Gotham, and cannot wait for Batman v Superman, whereas I think Agents of Shield (which I watch cos I love the MCU movies) is severely hampered by being part of the MCU. The continuity is shaky at best and AoS feels almost like they deliberately hold back and keep it "small fry" not to overshadow the Marvel movies.

 

[Kirk's Tribble]

My idea.

If they had multiple crews in multiple franchises of their own, or various factions (Starfleet, Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans) in various films, they could all come together in one film to face a large threat. That may work.

 

[Isolinear]

With multiple TV spinoffs set before and after TOS, there's simply no need for a cinematic universe (it's just doing spinoff after spinoff again). If anything, that takes us back to milking the franchise dry again.

Personally I don't see what's wrong with spinoff after spinoff and I don't get the 'milking it dry' or 'too many trips to the well' arguments.
Star Trek is mostly episodic. Each episode stands on its own. The Star Trek universe is just a vehicle for telling SF short stories. Basically The Twilight Zone or Outer Limits but with a permanent cast to glue it all together.
If the writers are good at what they do, they will come up with good stories that feel fresh. When an episodic show feels tired, it's probably the writers who are tired, not the show itself.

 

[ichab]

With multiple TV spinoffs set before and after TOS, there's simply no need for a cinematic universe (it's just doing spinoff after spinoff again). If anything, that takes us back to milking the franchise dry again.

Personally I don't see what's wrong with spinoff after spinoff and I don't get the 'milking it dry' or 'too many trips to the well' arguments.

It comes from those of us that experienced the milking of the franchise in the nineties and don't want to see that same mistake repeated. By the time Voyager came along I was ready for Trek as a series to end.

Star Trek is mostly episodic. Each episode stands on its own. The Star Trek universe is just a vehicle for telling SF short stories. Basically The Twilight Zone or Outer Limits but with a permanent cast to glue it all together.

I take it you never caught DS9. That was a trek show that became very serialized it's last few seasons.And even before the multi arcs the episodes were always referencing something that happened in another episode.

If the writers are good at what they do, they will come up with good stories that feel fresh. When an episodic show feels tired, it's probably the writers who are tired, not the show itself.

If that were true, no show would ever be canceled. No matter how new or talented a writer is, he or she is going to have a hard time coming up with a fresh idea for a show that has hundreds of episodes. Add in the problem that writers for Voyager and Enterprise had of writing something new for an audience that had already seen TOS,TNG, DS9 and at least 7 or 8 movies and you can quickly see how impossible that task became.