If Marvel bought Star Trek, would you like it..?

[Cyke101]

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.

We'd also have to consider the creative powers that be. As it was, Braga and Berman were simply stretched and exhausted, leading to two lackluster back-to-back movies and the unimpressive Enterprise, which is why all three ended up stinking badly (no love for the product = no quality in the work). The only reason why Enterprise started to get good was because they relinquished more and more duties to other writers until Coto could take over. Indeed, after Trek, Braga's resume started to fill up with more and more acclaimed work (and good for him for doing so).

But the people who are in charge of Trek right now have their own certain intentions, and among those intentions are how far they'd go. Before Abrams left Trek to work on Star Wars, he made it clear that he'd only do a few Trek movies and not stretch it out. The actors are under similar contracts. So fans wanting something is only one side of the equation; creative interest from the franchise's heads is another. If they don't match up, then it doesn't happen (likewise, if the creators are willing but the fans don't care, then nothing happens. That helped kill Enterprise.)

If there was to be a splintered Trek universe like the one you'd want, it would have to take a while to get there simply because the current team would have to finish the next movie and move along. But then you'd also need years to develop it as well; the Marvel cinematic universe didn't happen overnight, it took years of planning and foresight before laying down groundwork, and that was even before they started working on Iron Man 1. And in a few years, Trek might look like a completely different beast altogether as well.

 

[BillJ]

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 just simply don't see it. Trek has a lot of baggage associated with the brand, from geeks in their Mom's basement to oversaturation to the spectacular flaming burnouts of Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Enterprise, that it may simply never overcome. The fact that J.J. Abrams was able to craft a couple $400 million dollar films from the ashes of the brand is a damned miracle.

Personally, I think Paramount is in the right frame of mind regarding Star Trek. Give the audiences good movies periodically and leave them wanting more. Eventually, Disney will be tested with their strategy regarding the Marvel movies when one eventually stumbles at the box office and affects the movies coming after it.

 

[Kibbin]

Oh sure, I know this isn't a next month kind of thing but couldn't a universe solve some of the issues you mentioned. For instance the contracts are coming up for Marvel's big three Downy, Evans and Hemsworth. Now I'm not going to say if they'll kill them off, retire them to the farm to bring back if they get desperate or just renegotiate but the fact that they're bringing Cpt Marvel, Ant Man and so on up to the big leagues means that when the big three do go we'll be distracted by the announcement of a new Guardians movie or something.
Couldn't getting another crew working on a new Trek movie or T.V series in the same universe also help to keep the engine going when contracts come up and heads go off to work on Star Wars? Get a mini-series going following the S.C.E and have Pegg show up in the pilot to help with a problem, when Quinto and Urban all elect to not renew their contracts you simply show the S.C.E helping to build the new wonder horse starship of the federation.

Maybe you're right, heck maybe they're working on this right now mapping it out it just doesn't seem like it.

 

[BillJ]

I think the other thing that separates the current Marvel universe and Star Trek is the fact that there isn't a 700-hour back catalog of live-action material out there.

 

[Cyke101]

Personally, I think Paramount is in the right frame of mind regarding Star Trek. Give the audiences good movies periodically and leave them wanting more. Eventually, Disney will be tested with their strategy regarding the Marvel movies when one eventually stumbles at the box office and affects the movies coming after it.

I agree. Bits and pieces for Trek, at least for now. I myself think Trek would be better suited as a TV show rather than a movie, but for the most part the movies are doing their job.

Couldn't getting another crew working on a new Trek movie or T.V series in the same universe also help to keep the engine going when contracts come up and heads go off to work on Star Wars? Get a mini-series going following the S.C.E and have Pegg show up in the pilot to help with a problem, when Quinto and Urban all elect to not renew their contracts you simply show the S.C.E helping to build the new wonder horse starship of the federation.

Getting another crew to work on spinoffs is possible, sure. But having the right people make the right pitch is one thing, and studio willingness is another. As it is, imagining one of the current cast as the bridge is jumping the gun when we really haven't heard much of an interest from Paramount or others in that position about making a spinoff, meaning the interest on the development side isn't there.

It's not just that Trek needs time to develop and implement ideas, it's also that Trek would need time to cultivate audience readiness and interest to make it feasible and profitable; otherwise, all that time spent in development will be an expensive batch of nothing. And the ultimate point here is that while Trek is in demand, it's not in demand yet to warrant a Marvel-style universe. If Paramount wasn't concerned about money, they could make whatever spinoff they/we would want, but it's a business and it's quite easy to mess up a cash-cow. As it is, from a business standpoint, Paramount could lose money on a spinoff and isn't ready to green-light one because of the cost.

Marvel has several reasons to make the movies that they do, but one of the major ones is that their people do calculations and make projections as to how much money each film will make. If it seems like a comfortable bet, they'll approve it. Trek is a riskier brand, so Paramount would have to face the spectre of a losing investment worth millions if it crashes. Abrams got Paramount to agree to Trek because he's Abrams and he's a proven money-maker; but someone considerable would have to step up to the plate to make some sort of spinoff, and that hasn't happened yet.

 

[The Lensman]

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.

I don't need to imagine it because we've already had it and the result is 21 seasons worth of shows and a needlessly bloated and largely bland universe. Thank god they streamlined it back down to the most iconic one. I'm not interested in a retread of that, nor does every single creative property need to do a "universe". It works for Marvel and DC because that's been the norm for the source material since the Justice Society of America introduced the idea of the "shared universe" to comics in the 40's.

We do not need movie after movie set on yet another ship, with another bridge, transporter room, sickbay and engine room set. We do not need another captain, first officer, medical officer, security officer ad nauseum. Nor will the average joe care because they didn't turn out in huge numbers when this stuff came out on a weekly basis for free.

 

[BillJ]

We do not need movie after movie set on yet another ship, with another bridge, transporter room, sickbay and engine room set. We do not need another captain, first officer, medical officer, security officer ad nauseum. Nor will the average joe care because they didn't turn out in huge numbers when this stuff came out on a weekly basis for free.

I think this pretty well gets to the heart of the matter. It's a wide open format where you can tell pretty much any kind of story. It doesn't need to be duplicated over and over.

 

[eyeresist]

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.

I was watching the extras on the remastered Nemesis DVD last night, and this was mentioned in the roundtable discussion. That person had a rather different take on the matter to Stewart, which was that the point was to make a Trek movie without Stewart and Spiner, who had become progressively more expensive with each movie. I think it could have worked, as there were a number of other strong characters to choose from, and the mix might have encouraged some fresh writing.


Whether a Marvel Trek would work would depend on execution. I don't know if association with the Marvel juggernaut would be beneficial, as I have a feeling the superhero movie bubble might burst in the next couple of years (given the increasing complexity of their on-screen mythology, plus DC planning to enter the marketplace in a big way).

 

[Cyke101]

Whether a Marvel Trek would work would depend on execution. I don't know if association with the Marvel juggernaut would be beneficial, as I have a feeling the superhero movie bubble might burst in the next couple of years (given the increasing complexity of their on-screen mythology, plus DC planning to enter the marketplace in a big way).

I think we've already started to see an example of this bubble getting there (though not quite yet) in the form of the X-Men movies: The Last Stand and the first Wolverine movie were financially successful, but quality-wise, they were a mess. And yes, while it took a few movies to correct those mistakes, the movies did a couple soft reboots here and there and now their mythology is gradually getting just as convoluted as the source material.

I say this as a superhero movie fan (the avatar says it all), but you're right, execution is key. I think Marvel's done a fine job, but there is always the danger of slippage and the need for quality control (Hello, Iron Man 2 and Hulk).

 

[GalaxyX]

At least tt would have been more interesting than Nemesis whose plot was leaked more than a year before it was released.

I agree.

I can't think of how much more anyone could have botched Nemesis even worse than what we got on screen.

 

[GalaxyX]

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 just simply don't see it. Trek has a lot of baggage associated with the brand, from geeks in their Mom's basement to oversaturation to the spectacular flaming burnouts of Star Trek: Nemesis and Star Trek: Enterprise, that it may simply never overcome. The fact that J.J. Abrams was able to craft a couple $400 million dollar films from the ashes of the brand is a damned miracle.

Personally, I think Paramount is in the right frame of mind regarding Star Trek. Give the audiences good movies periodically and leave them wanting more. Eventually, Disney will be tested with their strategy regarding the Marvel movies when one eventually stumbles at the box office and affects the movies coming after it.

I honestly thought Guardians of the Universe was going to be that movie.

But I guess a cgi talking racoon was enough to make it a success.

 

[Karzak]

If Marvel bought Star Trek?

 

[Kibbin]

I think the other thing that separates the current Marvel universe and Star Trek is the fact that there isn't a 700-hour back catalog of live-action material out there.

But it does have more than the same amount of comics which are currently being adapted for a new wider audience the same thing Trek is doing as seen in 'Into Darkness'.

Also who said they would all be on a bridge/ medbay/ transporter room etc. In the same way that Marvel is doing Spy movies, space operas and war movies could Star Trek not do political stuff like articles of the federation, law stuff like century city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_City_(TV_series)) and war stuff like siege or ar-558.

 

[Cyke101]

Also who said they would all be on a bridge/ medbay/ transporter room etc.

Well, BillJ is citing the history of the franchise. Every variation on TOS that Paramount's given us still retains the usual ship layout and appropriate crew roles. Even DS9, the most radical twist on the concept, eventually brought on the Defiant, which then assumed those roles. And then the reboot followed suit anyway. This pattern has happened at least five times now, and no reason to expect a real variation on the formula anytime soon.

So it's said because there's a clear historical pattern established (and we use history to anticipate the future all thee time). Say what you will about Marvel movies in general, but it still boils down to your standard three acts (hero is known, hero struggles personally and in battle, hero wins the day -- all their movies are variations on Iron Man 1, where the hero starts out with a less-than-ideal life, loses everything, and finds strength to achieve. Even Peter Quill does this, and everyone on his team explicitly says this through his "team of losers" speech.). End even with spy work and outer space adventures, it's still following a template; in that sense, it really isn't different than Trek's past of setting shows into a farther future, 2 weeks into the future, a space station that gets a ship, or stranding a ship far away. They follow the same beats.

And besides, it's still Trek. Create an interstellar spy show and it'll still involve a starship somehow someway, either as a main or as a supporting setting. Even treating the ship as mere invisible transportation would still yield a captain.

 

[jayceee]

For such a hypothetical thing to happen in practice, most likely it would require Disney to buy up CBS and Paramount.

Such a huge merger might also attract attention from the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Also who said they would all be on a bridge/ medbay/ transporter room etc. In the same way that Marvel is doing Spy movies, space operas and war movies could Star Trek not do political stuff like articles of the federation,

Which didn't sell enough to the niche audience to warrant a sequel.

law stuff like century city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_City_(TV_series)) and war stuff like siege or ar-558.

Which lasted nine episodes before getting canceled.

 

[Oso Blanco]

We do not need movie after movie set on yet another ship, with another bridge, transporter room, sickbay and engine room set. We do not need another captain, first officer, medical officer, security officer ad nauseum.

Nor do we need reboot after reboot, recast after recast ... I'd prefer a new crew on a new ship/station/planet expanding the Trek Universe rather then endless TOS reboots with new actors every few years.

 

[BillJ]

We do not need movie after movie set on yet another ship, with another bridge, transporter room, sickbay and engine room set. We do not need another captain, first officer, medical officer, security officer ad nauseum.

Nor do we need reboot after reboot, recast after recast ... I'd prefer a new crew on a new ship/station/planet expanding the Trek Universe rather then endless TOS reboots with new actors every few years.

Expanding to what exactly? Just more copies of TNG, DS9, VOY material with the names changed?

 

[Morpheus 02]

This scenario would mean Star Trek characters in Disney Infinity. So yes.

It's not realistic for reasons mentioned up thread.

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?

Waiting for closer when the movie actually comes out...I predict Sept-Oct or so....in time for Christmas Law-a-ways, and building up anticipation for the movie.

MAYBE, just MAYBE early November...then quickly followed by Happy Meals

 

[drt]

MAYBE, just MAYBE early November...then quickly followed by Happy Meals

Disney doesn't do fast food promotions.