What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

[Konata Izumi]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Because no one but trekkies would care.

People cared about The Avengers. And the 09 film, a team-up too as Franklin explained.

[Franklin]

Konata Izumi wrote:

---

People cared about The Avengers. And the 09 film, a team-up too as Franklin explained.

But the ST09 "team" had a history (TOS) and the Avengers have a history of cartoons and comic books.

The Avengers also formed a perfect unit, just as the seven in ST09 are supposed to do. They're almost organic combinations.

An "all star" movie of captains and first officers wouldn't be like that at all. It would be too contrived. First, it would be contrived in how they get together from across time. Second, it would be contrived in how the "work" in solving the conflict is divided up (do we want Janeway to do this or Picard; should Sisko lead the ships into battle or Kirk; is someone the "leader" of the captains; should Archer be the ultimate hero or should it be Kirk).
And, no clashes of egos among all them? We're pretending these are real people rather than freakish superheroes, after all. A coming together of this group may be rather nasty, really, or at least "un-Avenger-like."

[Set Harth]

The coming together of the Avengers got somewhat "nasty" in places, while most Trek captains come from Roddenberry's "can't we all get along" future.

[Nerys Myk]

Konata Izumi wrote:

---

People cared about The Avengers. And the 09 film, a team-up too as Franklin explained.

I must have missed the solo films starring Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Scotty.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Konata Izumi wrote:

---

People cared about The Avengers.

So what?

[Konata Izumi]

Franklin wrote:

---

An "all star" movie of captains and first officers wouldn't be like that at all. It would be too contrived. First, it would be contrived in how they get together from across time. Second, it would be contrived in how the "work" in solving the conflict is divided up (do we want Janeway to do this or Picard; should Sisko lead the ships into battle or Kirk; is someone the "leader" of the captains; should Archer be the ultimate hero or should it be Kirk).

For Hollywood hacks yeah. Whendon did just fine.

Who's Iron Man anyways?

[Nerys Myk]

More importantly, who is Whendon?

[CorporalClegg]

Dunno. But the name sounds British. And stuffy.

Sir Reginald Joshua Whendon Duke of Slayington, for example.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There are an insufficient number of people in the world who want to see Janeway or Sisko do anything for Paramount to consider building a movie around them as parts of a "team." Not when they can headline Kirk and Spock.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Konata Izumi wrote:

---

For Hollywood hacks yeah. Whendon did just fine.

Who's Iron Man anyways?

In a 5-year period prior to Avengers we had Iron Man movies, a Thor movie, a Captain America movie and a Hulk movie. By the time Avengers came out, the general movie-going public were reminded of/became familiar with these characters who would eventually team up for that film.

Unless you are saying we should first have a separate Sisko movie, a separate Janeway movie, a separate Archer movie and a separate Picard movie in the few years prior to them teaming up for your Avengers-style Star Trek film, I doubt the general movie-going public would care that much about those characters.

Even then, I don't think those characters are all interesting enough to carry their own film. More people knew who Iron Man and the Hulk were before their separate movies came out than who know who Janeway, Archer, and Sisko are. Granted, a lot of people know who Picard and Kirk are, and we DID already have one "Picard and Kirk save the Galaxy" film -- but the advantage of that film was that it had the original actors.

[BillJ]

I just don't see the entertainment value of watching five characters who are relatively the same arguing over whose in charge and then spewing some technobabble to save the day?

[Joby]

The unfortunate biggest problem here is that we live in a country that is very ageist and movies are directed towards teenagers and very little attention paid to those over the age of 21.

The actors for those characters would be considered way too old. Nimoy was allowed in Trek 09 b/c he was surrounded by much younger actors in their 20s and early 30s.

There's no way Paramount is selling a Trek movie where the youngest leads are in their 50s and the oldest (Shatner and Nimoy) are in their 80s. They got away with guys in their 50s and 60s during TOS movie era back in the day b/c they were TOS with Kirk and Spock/Shatner and Nimoy, but I doubt that's ever happening again.

This idea is best left for fanfics or novels.

[Oso Blanco]

I think a movie featuring all Star Trek captains/crews would be stretching it (not just) a little. But I'd be very interested in a broader movie/tv franchise. While I have never been fond of prequels, I really like the idea of multiple spin offs.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Joby wrote:

---

The unfortunate biggest problem here is that we live in a country that is very ageist and movies are directed towards teenagers and very little attention paid to those over the age of 21.

Movies are directed towards people who watch movies. If older people watched movies, you'd see older people in big budget blockbusters.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

^Red, The Expendables, Expendables 2, The Watchmen, A Good Day to Die Hard...?