If Marvel bought Star Trek, would you like it..?
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
Fucking yeah!
Laugh all you like, but the very first time she was on screen, with the big wide eyes and the cute innocent smile, she looked and sounded like a Disney character brought to life... like Belle with short hair.
I wasn't crazy about Jahdzia up to that point. I missed her like crazy every time Ezri was in a scene.
IDW currently publishes Star Trek comic books.
Considering the last movie was a greatest hits package of what Trek has done before, I'm still waiting for the "exploration of the unknown" you seem to think they're "finally" doing... Maybe in the next one.
All it requires is a separate licensing deal between CBS Studios and Disney for that to happen, not much of a problem that I see. If they can have the Lone Ranger as part of Disney Infinity, then they can have the characters of the new movies.
About Disney Infinity-why isn't there a Star Wars set yet?
Marvel already has various incarnations of GotG for that.
Actually I wonder why Star Trek hasn't gone Marvel style with everyone jumping on the whole universe thing. If Marvel, who are the only ones so far to have done this successfully, got hole of it it could be interesting. Imagine three or so crews flying around; one does the action adventure stuff. another the dark grim and gritty and another to do the serious morale stuff.
According to various sources, including no less than Patrick Stewart himself, one of the original plans for Star Trek XI was to have an adventure that united the TNG/DS9/VOY crews (or at least several representatives of each) altogether. However, because Nemesis was such a critical and commercial failure, plans were scrapped and we had to wait for years until Abrams revived the brand.
(EDIT: My previous version said Nemesis was supposed to be the crossover. The correct version is that, had Nemesis been successful, the next movie would've been the Marvel-style crossover)
Personally speaking, Nemesis came out at a time of extreme Trek overload and oversaturation, and putting three shows together would just be a manifestation of it, fangeeky on one hand but inaccessible to casual viewers. So for me while it would've been nice to see, stuffing all those characters into one movie could have been just as detrimental to the franchise as Nemesis.
Last edited:
At least tt would have been more interesting than Nemesis whose plot was leaked more than a year before it was released.
Okay right now we have Marvel, DC, Universal Monsters and the notion that we could be getting the same for Robin Hood.
I'm not saying you can't mix them up in ech series just that if you want multiple crews flying around at the same time you need to differentiate themselves so people don't question why you have multiple crews flying around.
Just look at Marvel movies with Thor handling the more fantasy stuff and Captain America deal with cold war spy stuff. Heck just look at the series with Deep Space Nine handling the dark corner far from the edge of the Federation, Enterprise handling the more political stuff. That's not to say the two series couldn't touch on the same kind of story lines but they generally edged toward their individual field.
Star Trek simply isn't that popular. Even with rave reviews for both Abramsverse films, the franchise still hasn't had a film hit $500 million theatrically.
I'm unfamiliar with any upcoming Robin Hood crossover, so any details would be appreciated.
As for the Universal monsters, they've had crossovers for years, among the most famous being Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman in 1943. Addtionally, I'd also argue that the Universal monsters are well regarded, simply because they're much more entrenched in pop culture than Star Trek, to the point where they even get incorporated in other franchises much more often (Power Rangers does this as an homage to Universal. Even Twilight, which really has nothing to do with the brand, points a lot to Bela Lugosi, the archetype that belongs to Universal.). And then consider that the money-maker that was the Mummy series over the past 15 years is itself fairly recent and thus fresh in people's minds.
They've attractions, music videos, Halloween decorations, et all, that incorporate some sort of crossover. As standalones, they've cereals and toys and cartoons for kids and slashers for adults and movies for ages in-between. The monsters are a very, very profitable part of the Universal brand because they're constantly in the public's memory.
For Trek, the fact of the matter is that Nemesis bombed and cost Paramount any chances of a Marvel-style crossover since then. Now Abrams/Orci have a single cast to work with, but no spinoffs to crossover with, making it a moot point. And considering the sins of the past, I imagine that Paramount might be leery of any sort of spinoff, lest they fall back into the trap of oversaturating Trek and starting back at square one, where franchise fatique ended the Berman era.
As for the Universal monsters, they've had crossovers for years, among the most famous being Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman in 1943. Addtionally, I'd also argue that the Universal monsters are well regarded, simply because they're much more entrenched in pop culture than Star Trek, to the point where they even get incorporated in other franchises much more often (Power Rangers does this as an homage to Universal. Even Twilight, which really has nothing to do with the brand, points a lot to Bela Lugosi, the archetype that belongs to Universal.). And then consider that the money-maker that was the Mummy series over the past 15 years is itself fairly recent and thus fresh in people's minds.
They've attractions, music videos, Halloween decorations, et all, that incorporate some sort of crossover. As standalones, they've cereals and toys and cartoons for kids and slashers for adults and movies for ages in-between. The monsters are a very, very profitable part of the Universal brand because they're constantly in the public's memory.
For Trek, the fact of the matter is that Nemesis bombed and cost Paramount any chances of a Marvel-style crossover since then. Now Abrams/Orci have a single cast to work with, but no spinoffs to crossover with, making it a moot point. And considering the sins of the past, I imagine that Paramount might be leery of any sort of spinoff, lest they fall back into the trap of oversaturating Trek and starting back at square one, where franchise fatique ended the Berman era.
I haven't delved too far into it and I'm sure there are better sources out there but for what it's worth and certainly as a start http://io9.com/sony-wants-a-robin-hood-cinematic-universe-because-why-1643272757, I think the idea was for various characters to get stand alone movies and origins and stuff. Not sure if this is one of those things that will die out or not but as far as I'm aware it is being discussed.
I know everyone talks about over saturation of Trek but for me that was because a lot of the series ran too close to each other. Voyager episodes were often not too far from tng and the same goes for Ent until it flew off into a nebula to chase Xindi. I think if they did what I said and looked to Marvel as a way to have the whole gell but have each part stand separate it could work. A dark and gritty Maquis series, a comic based on a medical ship.
I know everyone talks about over saturation of Trek but for me that was because a lot of the series ran too close to each other. Voyager episodes were often not too far from tng and the same goes for Ent until it flew off into a nebula to chase Xindi. I think if they did what I said and looked to Marvel as a way to have the whole gell but have each part stand separate it could work. A dark and gritty Maquis series, a comic based on a medical ship.
Similar threads
