CBS and Paramount officially back together

[valkyrie013]

One, Happy the companies are getting the band back together.. and all the fluff of "rights" etc. go the way of the dodo..
Looking forward to a Mission Impossible Tv Series again, Hoping they go back to the "Con Artist" version of the 60s series, where they put on a show and bamboozle the enemy, not just assassinate people.. way to many "Spy Series" with big action sequences.. Not saying they can't do them, just me personal. ( Like my hope for the Jack Ryan Series.. ugh.. Jack isn't a front line agent.. he's an analyst.. period..)
Wonder how a "Made for TV" movie would work? Netflix or Amazon would probably have a bidding war for the movie rights, but here in the USofA would be on CBS AA? If Anson doens't want a 5-7 year deal, but is okay with movies, Do It! I'm not sure a theatrical movie with Pike would go, so soon after the Kelvin films and Pike cacking in #2.. and a new enterprise..

 

[Krandor]

As long as they're more than glorified two-part TV episodes or the Babylon 5 movies, that's acceptable.

What does that look like?

This is the problem with trek movies. If you make it very action oriented, high stakes, huge production qualities people say it isn't "real trek". If you make it like the TV show and a long episode then people complain that it is just an episode.

What makes a movie worth being a movie?

 

[OCD Geek]

What does that look like?

This is the problem with trek movies. If you make it very action oriented, high stakes, huge production qualities people say it isn't "real trek". If you make it like the TV show and a long episode then people complain that it is just an episode.

What makes a movie worth being a movie?

I don't think it's so much a big scale thing so much as a big change/focus thing. If it's just a feature-length one-off episode about the aliens of the week, they can keep it. If it's a major character-based episode focused heavily on the main cast (like Redemption or Family or Chain of Command or All Good Things or Tapestry), that'd be ideal. Give me a major event in a major character's life.

 

[Amasov]

What does that look like?

This is the problem with trek movies. If you make it very action oriented, high stakes, huge production qualities people say it isn't "real trek". If you make it like the TV show and a long episode then people complain that it is just an episode.

What makes a movie worth being a movie?

Well, all of the TOS movies felt like movies simply because we were ten years removed from the TV series. However, I think The Voyage Home had the most movie quality to it because the actors weren't on soundstages as much as before.

First Contact felt like it really hit the sweet spot between feeling both like Star Trek and being an actual movie. Sure, you could have told that story as an episode, but, the story is what really dictates the scale of a production, IMO.

 

[Tomalak]

Ironically Final Frontier feels the most like a proper movie, it's just a pretty bad one.

I think we're going to see CBS-Viacom double down on streaming so there's pretty much always at least one Trek show running all year round. The Netflix model is to churn out a new show, run it for 2-3 years, and start on the next one.

Something like that could easily work with the Trek universe. Disco, Picard and Section 31 are just the start. You can easily crossover characters, say Burnham turns up in Section 31, or some ot the new Picard characters rock up in the Ferengi sit-com.

 

[ITDUDE]

What does that look like?

This is the problem with trek movies. If you make it very action oriented, high stakes, huge production qualities people say it isn't "real trek". If you make it like the TV show and a long episode then people complain that it is just an episode.

What makes a movie worth being a movie?

Ironically Discovery could have been a movie. A starship with experimental drive, accidentally starts a war, travels to future, stops the war, about to be destroyed by rogue ai, goes further into future to save the galaxy... to be continued. If you remove all the fluff from Discovery there is a decent movie there.

 

[guyute03]

Good news. Trying to imagine all the places they could go now.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What makes a movie worth being a movie?

I guess the feel, the budget and the way it's shot. How many of the previous 13 movies could have been 2-part episodes? I think the only one close to that is Insurrection. But even it has a different look and feel to the movie-length edits of the Next Gen 2-part episodes.

That said, I don't mind CBS-AA Trek telemovies (Long Treks?) featuring all the established new characters or new ones, I just wouldn't consider them "true" movies like the theatrically-released ones.

 

[rahullak]

^
Hope you carry on post-merger.

 

[Krandor]

I guess the feel, the budget and the way it's shot. How many of the previous 13 movies could have been 2-part episodes? I think the only one close to that is Insurrection. But even it has a different look and feel to the movie-length edits of the Next Gen 2-part episodes.
.

Different look and feel but if you could have told the same story (maybe without the same sfx or location work) as a 2 part episode is it worthy of a movie that you have to spend $10 to see?

 

[Jesse1066]

TV episodes occasionally get a limited release in theaters. Doctor Who's Christmas specials are a good example. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Star Trek TV movies.

 

[Amasov]

Ironically Discovery could have been a movie. A starship with experimental drive, accidentally starts a war, travels to future, stops the war, about to be destroyed by rogue ai, goes further into future to save the galaxy... to be continued. If you remove all the fluff from Discovery there is a decent movie there.

Yeah, agreed! Plus, it would've been Trek's first film introducing us to previously-unknown characters.

 

[Amasov]

I think what TPTB need to do in this case is come up with a plan for the franchise's future. Deadline.com is already saying that Star Trek is now poised to become the next MCU with this (re)merger and, assuming that's something Viacom wants to do, then they need to properly plan it out. Say what you want about Marvel, Star Wars -- and even some of these failed shared universes that studios attempted to get off the ground -- the studios mapped out what they wanted to do. In the past, Star Trek did not do that. They would make the call on the next film based on the success or failure of the previous one; they did it one at a time.

Even before the merger, CBS seemed to KIND of have something in place with all of these various Trek shows being announce, but, nothing completely concrete as far as dates went.

 

[ITDUDE]

There are a lot of “next MCU” attempts, nothing worked out as well yet, not DCEU not Dark Universe, not the King Kong/Godzilla universe (is it called Monsterverse? Too lazy to google)
Star Trek is perfect for shared universe, TNG/DS9/VOY were perfect setup for this, but they didn’t take it far enough. Let’s see what Kurtzman can do, but saying it’s next MCU is jumping the gun.

 

[fireproof78]

Stupidest thing about films and TV that gets said is "It's the next MCU!!"

Just let it be its own thing and don't worry about aping the MCU.

Now, with that done, I shall go continue to shout at the rain as it sounds just a productive.

 

[Danlav05]

I guess the feel, the budget and the way it's shot. How many of the previous 13 movies could have been 2-part episodes? I think the only one close to that is Insurrection. But even it has a different look and feel to the movie-length edits of the Next Gen 2-part episodes.

That said, I don't mind CBS-AA Trek telemovies (Long Treks?) featuring all the established new characters or new ones, I just wouldn't consider them "true" movies like the theatrically-released ones.

Long Treks! I love that

Some TV movies would be good, might be a perfect platform for Pike at one or two a year. Also they could get Nicholas Meyer to rework his Khan idea for one?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

There are a lot of “next MCU” attempts, nothing worked out as well yet, not DCEU not Dark Universe, not the King Kong/Godzilla universe (is it called Monsterverse? Too lazy to google)
Star Trek is perfect for shared universe, TNG/DS9/VOY were perfect setup for this, but they didn’t take it far enough. Let’s see what Kurtzman can do, but saying it’s next MCU is jumping the gun.

Trek will never be 'the next MCU'. (Well, not in this or the next decade, at least)

TV shows crossing over is a dime a dozen - it's only when the movies manage to do it successfully that it stands out the way the MCU does. And movie-wise, Trek can barely keep 1 individual movie franchise running, let alone a whole interconnected universe.

 

[eschaton]

I don't think Trek could ever be the "next MCU" because Trek characters are not superheroes. They basically run the gamut from "just a regular person" to "James Bond in space."

As far as I can determine, the MCU format is basically alternating a series of (slightly) smaller, more intimate stories which focus on a singular character with really large ensemble movies like the Avengers which basically rope everyone in.

How the heck would you do that with Trek?

I mean, there are a lot of beloved Trek characters which already exist and fans would love to see again. But fans do not want to see old stories redone or reinterpreted - they want to see entirely new stories, moving the characters forward in time. Furthermore, all of the major cast members from TNG/DS9/VOY are still alive, and most of them are still active. What the fans want is for these middle-aged to elderly actors to come back on - not be recast with a younger actor who could realistically lead an action-adventure series or movie. The MCU-format basically requires a "reboot" and starting from square one. I just don't see how they could do that with the fans and get away with it. Maybe they could with the TOS crew again, but it would be hard to build that into a fan-pleasing franchise while leaving out all the 24th century stuff.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't think Trek could ever be the "next MCU" because Trek characters are not superheroes. They basically run the gamut from "just a regular person" to "James Bond in space."

As far as I can determine, the MCU format is basically alternating a series of (slightly) smaller, more intimate stories which focus on a singular character with really large ensemble movies like the Avengers which basically rope everyone in.

How the heck would you do that with Trek?

It doesn't have to be individual combined with teams. Most 'small' marvel movies still have multiple heroes in them. And the only reason Marvel has any movies at all about singular heroes is because marvel makes superhero movies. Trek doesn't make superhero stories, so it's rather nonsensical to judge it by superhero standards. Trek is about crews, not individuals, so obviously a hypothetical trek CU would have multiple different ships/stations/units that could crossover into larger multi-ship stories.

I mean, there are a lot of beloved Trek characters which already exist and fans would love to see again. But fans do not want to see old stories redone or reinterpreted - they want to see entirely new stories, moving the characters forward in time. Furthermore, all of the major cast members from TNG/DS9/VOY are still alive, and most of them are still active. What the fans want is for these middle-aged to elderly actors to come back on - not be recast with a younger actor who could realistically lead an action-adventure series or movie. The MCU-format basically requires a "reboot" and starting from square one. I just don't see how they could do that with the fans and get away with it. Maybe they could with the TOS crew again, but it would be hard to build that into a fan-pleasing franchise while leaving out all the 24th century stuff.

I don't think that's definitively what 'the fans want' at all. Stewart and Ryan returning excites people, Spiner is a fun novelty, but no one would be lining up for the return of Robert Beltran or Colm Meaney, etc. And there are just as many people who love the 23rd century as the 24th, so there's no definitive requirement to move forward in time, either.

In either case, that's not a reason to call a STCU unworkable. None of those characters are required to be the main stars of current ongoing shows, so there's no reason you can't have a shared universe starring mostly other characters and crews and let those older actors come back for cameos and guest spots now and then. I still wouldn't call it the next mcu because tv shared universes aren't unusual to begin with, but it would work just fine in theory.

That's all in theory, of course. In practice, they're not very well positioned for a tv shared universe just now. Their current main character sets are scattered across three different far flung time periods making crossovers far more difficult than they should be. The time travel macguffins required to make it work would get old *really* fast.

 

[F. King Daniel]

First of all, the MCU was the next Trek. We were crossing over and doing all that shit in the 90's.


Just sayin'.


(We won't be thew next MCU cos that's insanely huge, but Trek could easily be the next Arrowverse.)