Trek didn't really crossover much, except for around the 1993-94 seasons when they were setting up the Maquis arc for Voyager. Even then, it was only a couple of minor characters like Gul Evek and Nechayev. Quark and Riker turned up on all the shows, but those were mainly cameos.
Well, let's be clear; labeling something as an "MCU" is a pretty vague term, IMO. What does that even mean? To me, it's just the shared universe aspect of it where characters from various productions can make appearances in other productions set in the same universe. And as we all know, Trek was doing that long before the MCU even existed. I don't think Star Trek will be the next "MCU" in terms of its popularity. Maybe I'm just cynical, but, I can't see Trek ever going mainstream like Marvel is able to. No matter how you slice it, Trek is niche and it always will be. You also have to remember that references to events that we already saw were made. This was to simply inform you that even though a literal crossover may not have happened, characters from other series are at least aware of the events that we saw, as viewers.
And The Beverly Hillbillies / Petticoat Junction / Green Acres were doing it decades before Trek did.
The current definition of “be like MCU” is earning bagizillion of dollars at box office. This is why anyone and everyone is digging out every bit of IP they own and throwing into some kind of shared universe in hope of making some money. Everyone can do shared universe, not nearly anyone can make money doing it. CBS/Viacom coming together can finally unify Star Trek IP and they have a better chance of monetizing it, but it’s highly unlikely we can get Star Trek and MCU in the same ballpark $$ revenue wise
Pretty much my stance. It can be an interconnected TV Universe and already is. But a huge Cinematic Universe ala Marvel isn't happening. Star Trek on TV will be one part Doctor Who, one part Marvel. But at the same time, even though they never reached the size of Marvel or Star Wars, TOS was followed by six movies and TNG was followed by four. Continuations of the same incarnations of those characters. No other TV series have ever accomplished this. So that's not bad. Usually, a TV series that branches out into movies (without being rebooted) will get "The Movie" and that's it. Except for The X-Files, which managed to squeak out two.
Yes, that's fair. There were lots of reference across the series and films to DS9, the Dominion War, the Maquis, even the Son'a which did help it to feel like a larger shared universe. But direct crossovers were deliberately kept to a minimum.
Don't forget the NBS Mystery Movies ... McMillan & Wife, Hec Ramsey, McCloud and Columbo. They occasionally crossed over also.
The future of Star Trek films has been murky for a few years. The three Kelvin films were only modestly successful and the fourth fell apart. The Tarantino idea has been lurking out there but there hasn't been any real indication that it's going to go forward. I'd be more surprised now if had a place in the new unified vision for the brand. I'm not really sure what might happen now on the film side. CBS is clearly happy with the perofrmance of Discovery and confident enough in the brand to pursue several other series. But can they get people to go to the theater? That's a tougher sell now in general than it was in the 80s and 90s because of all the streaming options at home. They can either go for another big blockbuster in hopes of the spectacle bringing peple out (which, again, has only been modstly successful since 09), or they can go with a smaller budget and more modest expectations in hopes that the devotees might drag a few friends along. I am certainly curious to see how it goes. I hope they don't milk the udders dry again.
Let’s hope Discovery was a stepping stone, not top of the mountain. They have momentum, better not waste it. ST09 was great momentum builder but it was wasted. Nothing is guaranteed in Star Trek world.
I've been curious about the chance of having Future Star Trek movies that I've been reading about on Trekmovie the past week.
Hogan's Heroes was also a part of the "Hooterville" continuity... http://www.televisioncrossoveruniverse.com/2012/04/tvcu-presents-hooterville.html?m=1 And all of the above and many more are all inside of Tommy Westphall's snow globe... http://mentalfloss.com/article/500756/tommy-westphall-theory-unified-tv-universe-explained
Wrong. The Kelvin films were hugely successful, and the fourth film didn't 'fall apart' so much as they simply couldn't get their main star to agree to a contract. Had Pine & Hemsworth been available, production would have commenced.
I do agree with this. I've always said, and everyone's free to disagree of course, but when Star Trek (2009) was released, the franchise was poised to be a massive tentpole film franchise that could've competed with the other franchises in theaters at the time. Star Trek finally had a good entry point to bring new fans in (and it did). Unfortunately, Paramount did not strike while the iron was hot and I just can't understand why. Star Trek Into Darkness (then just the Star Trek sequel) I recall was announced a month or two before 2009 was even released, so, it seemed like a sequel was going to be coming out as quickly as possible. Instead it took a whole FOUR YEARS before it came to theaters and I truly believe that the thrill had worn off by then and audiences had moved on. Maybe modestly successful when compared to other tentpole franchises, but, they were indisputably the most successful Star Trek films both financially and critically. And don't forget The Golden Girls shared universe!
A bit of a stretch to call them "hugely successful". The first definitely was, and Into Darkness did well without being a smash hit. Beyond definitely underperformed, which is why Paramount couldn't do a deal with Pine and Hemsworth. They would have expected blockbuster salaries for a film that was unlikely to make those sorts of returns.
They were hugely successful at a time when Star Trek on TV was hugely unsuccessful. I won't even go into the amount of money these underperforming films still made despite the almost total lack of advertising on Paramount's part.
TV Trek wasn't hugely unsuccessful during the Kelvin era, it was entirely absent. Without access to a machine which can travel to alternate universes, we can't interpret whether bringing Trek back to TV in 2009 versus 2017 would have made a huge difference. I'm inclined to say a TV reboot could have worked even at that early time so long as Berman and the Paramount hacks who kept trying to interfere with latter-day Voyager and Enterprise were kept away from it.
Rick Berman was long gone by that point, so I'm not sure what he's got to do with it. Bad Robot have plenty of experience with TV shows, so I'm sure it could have worked if the rights situation wasn't a mess.
I guess it means we're gonna see thinly disguised USS Discovery sets standing in for the Kelvinprise 1701-A, or whatever direction they choose to go in for the next film. It's Star Trek V and VI all over again!