Could the Star Trek Universe Get the Same Treatment as Marvel?
- Thread starter Kruezerman
- Start date
Trek doing a kind of 'Avengers' let's involve everyone ? At least from the prime continuity.
Intro/teaser (old footage, CGI, new footage intercut, whatever) Kirk's movie Enterprise and crew experience something unusual that they partially resolve, report and go on their way. During the sequence, someone calls up partial records of a similar incident involving Archers Enterprise.
Main body of story set after Voyager returns, involves some cast from all three 24th century shows - whoever's available/interested. A third 'incident' of a similar nature ocurrs and the ad hoc crew need to work together to solve the problem. Along the way they encouner a very ancient T'Pol who tells the full version of Archers crews incident in flashback. Armed with this information the 24th century crew prevail, ending the threat once and for all.
It would probably work best as a two or three part miniseries, Kirks crew seen in the first, Archers in the second.
A bit fanwanky, but it could work...
Intro/teaser (old footage, CGI, new footage intercut, whatever) Kirk's movie Enterprise and crew experience something unusual that they partially resolve, report and go on their way. During the sequence, someone calls up partial records of a similar incident involving Archers Enterprise.
Main body of story set after Voyager returns, involves some cast from all three 24th century shows - whoever's available/interested. A third 'incident' of a similar nature ocurrs and the ad hoc crew need to work together to solve the problem. Along the way they encouner a very ancient T'Pol who tells the full version of Archers crews incident in flashback. Armed with this information the 24th century crew prevail, ending the threat once and for all.
It would probably work best as a two or three part miniseries, Kirks crew seen in the first, Archers in the second.
A bit fanwanky, but it could work...
the same. I'm liking this current 'movie only' era of Trek. Like 1979-86. I don't mind another TV show (show. Not shows) but after Trek3
Only the parts that were contradicted.
Why would I mean that if I was talking about the state of affairs before that happened?
I also agree with this sentiment. Another TV show would be nice, and we probably should have less lag time between the movies (every three years would be fine), but otherwise Trek's fine they way it currently is. I don't want Trek to turn into something like the MCU or what Star Wars is being planned as. Both are going to severely suffer burn out within the next five years. Maybe Disney should talk to Rick Berman and listen to what he has to say about oversaturating the market.
Marvel loves to over saturate. That's why there are a million Avengers titles right now.
Like I said, though, the MCU will run out of steam and burn out within the next five years. That's a guarantee with two to three movies a year being released.
yes Trek feels more of an event every 3 years (like 1979-86...those films were all BIG deals and major events - much more so than any of ones following...until 2009). each movie felt like a special event...a big deal that felt like a proper MOVIE which could compete with anything the likes of Spielberg or Lucas had out (Lucas even got them to change the Star Trek II 'Vengeance' of Khan title as it was too similar to his 'Revenge' of the Jedi)...
it could be argued that the introduction of TNG dampened anticipation and enthusiasm for the movie series somewhat - making a trek film less of an event…. its difficult to be sure as the first film to come out after TNG was Trek V...but Trek VI didnt do as well as Treks I-IV (although that could be due to it being part '6' and coming after TFF)…and with the TNG film era it really felt overcrowded with several new tv shows showing at once as well as the movies . i remember reading a review of First Contact saying although it was a good movie it felt less of a big deal due to all the tv shows and how less is more.
that was Harve Bennetts view on the matter too - in the Trek VI Cinefantastique he said something along the lines of the TNG show had affected anticipation for the movies and it was like fans having their turkey every week (tv) instead of just thanksgiving (movies)
it could be argued that the introduction of TNG dampened anticipation and enthusiasm for the movie series somewhat - making a trek film less of an event…. its difficult to be sure as the first film to come out after TNG was Trek V...but Trek VI didnt do as well as Treks I-IV (although that could be due to it being part '6' and coming after TFF)…and with the TNG film era it really felt overcrowded with several new tv shows showing at once as well as the movies . i remember reading a review of First Contact saying although it was a good movie it felt less of a big deal due to all the tv shows and how less is more.
that was Harve Bennetts view on the matter too - in the Trek VI Cinefantastique he said something along the lines of the TNG show had affected anticipation for the movies and it was like fans having their turkey every week (tv) instead of just thanksgiving (movies)
After they get done with the Infinity Gauntlet storyline they should just stop, but they won't.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Christ, I hope not.
Altman has a very limited idea and perspective here. Pass.
There's just no reason to. Just by introducing new characters from the comics and adapting the best of the comic stories they've got enough fresh material to release three or four movies every year.
The public MAY eventually tire of superhero movies, but it probably won't be due to any collapse of quality. And why would the public tire of good movies ?
Excuse me? Star Trek is pulp/space opera with an action-adventure component. Despite what it said about the human condition and its other social commentary, it is still that. Elevating it to the levels that the writer of the article has done is only setting it up for a massive fail, as seen in the 1979 movie. As for said social commentary about the human condition, Star Trek Into Darkness did that, but people didn't like even that and had to be bitchy about it like they were about the last movie.
Although I would like to see Star Trek return to the small screen myself (perhaps as an animated series focusing on Starfleet Academy) I am in agreement.
Last edited:
But filmed (live-action) Trek was said by TPTB to be canon and the only thing that was canon ... yet still at times contradicted itself. The Star Wars films, that took priority over everything else, also at times contradicted themselves; given this, I think you have to have some middle ground and I don't see why the newer stuff taking precedent means an inconsistency should render past works non-canon.
Yeah, people even insist that there is no social commentary in the film.
For whatever it's worth, Ex-Astris-Scientia has chipped in two cents on Facebook Re: the io9 piece. It's not lengthy, it's listed "Public," and it's commenting on an openly-published article, so I'll reproduce the text here:
Why should I care about what this guy and his fellow fans (who are all stuck in the past of this franchise and can't deal with the present of it) think about the new movies?
As I said above (and as others have said countless times) Star Trek is an action/adventure franchise (with a smattering of social and political commentary.) If he or the other fans can't get that, that's their problem, not Paramount's, Abrams's, Bad Robot's, or CBS's.
If a MCU approach should be done (and done successfully), let it be done, and if intelligent commentary can be done in the context of a movie (and it was done-they weren't paying attention due to all the hatred of Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman and what they've supposedly 'done' to the franchise) even all the better. But pleasing fans like him isn't the way-they're the past, the younger generations who've seen the movies and made them box-office champs are the future.
Last edited:
This. I can't imagine EAS' fans being happy with the future of Trek, whatever form it takes.
So they are saying that Star Trek should go back to the very loose continuity that it had in the 1960's?
No, not really. STID pays lip service to some things which are topical to today's society, like terrorism, but they really are just plot devices meant to advance the story. There is nothing profound, significant, or meaningful said on the matter. If anything, they handled it in the same clichéd way any other action movie would.
This is always such fannish bullshit, and the fans who believe it repeat it to one another until they've heard it echoed so often that they think the whole world is saying it.
Star Trek's ratings had been on a steady, long-term decline since the mid 1990s, chartable through every post-TNG series along a simple timeline. The fact is that interest in Trek peaked and then declined without respect to series or fan-perceived "quality." Paramount managed to produce a Star Trek series that had a years-long mass audience appeal - TNG - and then were never able to replicate that.
It really is that simple. Look at the numbers over time.
Similar threads
