Star Trek spinoff movies

[Flake]

Marvel have got a really good thing going on with the Avengers. Their comic book heroes all inhabit the same universe so they have have the same characters and even have crossovers!

Trek at the moment cannot do this because TOS stands alone in its universe and as a result this means that Paramount have to make do with 1 new movie every 4 years whilst they jealously look on at the likes of Marvel and other comic book franchises pumping out 1 or 2 movies a year! All that money! Meanwhile other franchises like Fast and Furious and Hunger Games and DC Comics are getting loads of movies out! MONEY!

When the JJ Abrams movies finish in 2016/17 perhaps Paramount can then look into rebooting TNG, DS9 and even VOY. They all inhabit the same universe and therefore the potential for standalone movies and crossovers are endless.

If someone can come in and reboot TNG with the same results as JJ Abrams has got then why stop there? May as well do the other spinoffs and then Paramount get their wish. Successful Trek movies everywhere! ! and they don't have to make their shareholders wait 4 long years between movies.

Paramount are probably itching to make this so but are probably just waiting to see how STID does. If it does well... I think they will green light movies for the spinoffs. If the movie is good people will watch! ST09 proves this by increasing the boxoffice by nearly TENFOLD worldwide over Nemesis.

 

[ALF]

Problem is, every time they score a hit the actor's pay raises considerably. Therefore a long term series is not sustainable, unless stated in a contract from the beginning.

Isn't it well known that Star Trek 09 only planned three films total?
I'd prefer a TNG reboot on TV, but I'm in the minority that seems to prefer Trek on TV.

 

[Flake]

Well personally I would like to see TNG rebooted in the same way TOS has but thats my opinion. 3-4 year gaps is fine with me after being spoiled for 18 years.

What I am trying to post is that the studio execs who spend all their time trying to make money for Paramount will be looking at where they can make money and see this as yet untapped potential in their Star Trek brand. I think they will green light new movies in addition to the JJ ones IF STID does well, we might not hear about them for a few years but I think behind the scenes the screenplays will be written, actors tapped up and potential directors sought because of Paramounts need to make money for their shareholders.

Paramount don't have very much on their schedule at the moment. Outside of Star Trek, Transformers and Mission Impossible they don't have anything else that is guaranteed to make a good sum of money after losing Dreamworks Animation and Marvel to other studios.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

What I want to see is Paramount getting back the right to Star Trek for a new TV show to be made by their TV division that Brad Grey's just announced; CBS Studios doesn't give a shit about this franchise and is just hanging on to it to make money from merchandising like some kind of cosmic ATM instead of reviving it for TV like they should (if CBS Studios/CBS Corporation can bring back Hawaii Five-O and do a remake of Sherlock that nobody really wanted, they sure as frack can bring back Star Trek to TV.) An animated TV show for Saturday morning or Cartoon Network can also be done, or it can be made for FOX and put into the Sunday night schedule as a replacement for King Of The Hill. Movies can be done too, if needed, but I think that Star Trek belongs on the small screen.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The thing is, the entertainment business is still a business. It's about making money. And right now, the business model that's working extremely well for CBS does not call for a new Star Trek series at the moment. Some Trekkies may not like it, but some Trekkies didn't like it when there were multiple Trek shows on.

Also, there's no guarantee that even if Paramount still owned Trek, they would push for a new TV series right now since the collapse of UPN (UPN was the only reason why we had VOY and ENT).

 

[F. King Daniel]

Voyager could be told in a standalone two hour action movie - just look at Lost in Space a few years ago. Just compress it and cut the Maquis stuff entirely - Voyager lands in the middle of Borg space, they meet Neelix and Kes, liberate Seven and have to fight and defeat the Borg while figuring out a way to appease the Caretaker so he'll send them home.

It's got much more potential than TNG or DS9 to be told in movie format, IMO

 

[marksound]

Just because Marvel has a formula that works -- for the moment -- it doesn't mean that every other franchise could make the same formula work. There's too much copycatting going on in Hollywood as it is. Not enough original ideas, too many remakes/reboots/reimagining/regurgitation.

One Trek movie every few years will help to ensure that the franchise doesn't wear itself out again.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Well, since Disney took over Star Wars and there was some mention not too long ago about a "Star Wars movie every year"-kind of thing, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Paramount would start to try to "keep up with the Jonses", as it were. Whether or not either franchise will turn to shit because of a potentially new "sci-fi arms race", however, remains to be seen.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Well, since Disney took over Star Wars and there was some mention not too long ago about a "Star Wars movie every year"-kind of thing, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Paramount would start to try to "keep up with the Jonses", as it were. Whether or not either franchise will turn to shit because of a potentially new "sci-fi arms race", however, remains to be seen.

I actually don't see that happening at all. At best, Paramount may want a new Trek movie every two to three years like they did during the '80s and '90s, but never a movie-every-year thing.

 

[horatio83]

How about new stuff instead of spin-offs and (semi-)reboots ?

 

[Relayer1]

I'd hate TNG, DS9 or Voyager to be rebooted on TV or on film. They are recent and fine as they are. OK, Voyagers poor, but I still wouldn't reboot it.

A spin of in the JJverse either as a film or on TV would be fine...

 

[Lee Enfield]

Why even reboot anything. Why not make films to other Trek related (Starfleet-) content, without using the enterprise, but within the established politics of the 24th century?
They could make up a crew year after year till they hit one with a good review and stay with it for some films. This way we could explore the Trek Universe more and see how other people (besides the well trained super starfleet soldiers) work in the future. There are other points, like more freedom when it comes to continuity.

 

[ALF]

Why even reboot anything.

Clearly something is working with reboots because they keep happening. The only way to stop reboots is if they haven't a strong following... so from the looks of it they will never end.

Spoiler: Why reboots?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Lee Enfield]

Sure they wanna make money. The Question was rethorical.
I was suggesting a method of using all the advantages of reboots ... without rebooting ...while enriching an existing universe. But they would have to shift their focus.

 

[TheSubCommander]

I don't think there needs to be a Star Trek TV series at the moment. It seems the plan is to continue the movie model for a few years and a few movies more. Besides, as stated before, any TV show will end up being a spin off from the current continuity. During the Berman era, people complained about over-saturation of the Trek franchise, and if a spin off series (regardless if it is in the same era as Star Trek 2009,2013, or that timeline's future), you will get over-saturation again, at least as far as Paramount is concerned. Also, despite what fans like many of us here believe, to a lot of people (IE the casual Star Trek watcher, or post reboot watcher), the only "real" Star Trek is TOS, and a maybe a lesser extent, TNG. So for that reason, I don't think it is a good idea to do a TNG reboot series, or a series based on another crew in the same timeline and era as Star Trek 2009.

Personally, if a series "must be done," then I think a good idea is to take a page from the Clone Wars animated series. If Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek Into Darkness follow the real world time gap of 4 years, that means Into Darkness is just now entering the 5th year of the voyages of the Enterprise. There are potentially 4 years of adventures to be explored, and a CGI animated series is just the medium to do that: it would be cheaper from both the FX stand point, and the fact they can use voice sound-a likes for the crew, if the cast members of the movies want to charge too much.

But I would only support such a proposition if it were well-written, and targeted towards adults. I would rather see 12 episode seasons of quality episodes, than 24 episodes of mediocre output.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Besides, as stated before, any TV show will end up being a spin off from the current continuity.

Not necessarily, because it depends on who CBS hires to create it (Abrams and his gang are not a given). CBS itself--and perhaps every non-diehard Trekkie--could care less what continuity it's set in as long as the show has a concept (and a budget) that appeals to them. As such, a new show could be set in the prime universe, the Abramsverse, or even an all-new continuity. Either way, it's likely to have it's own unique look and tone, IMO.

 

[Xavier_Storma]

Why even reboot anything. Why not make films to other Trek related (Starfleet-) content, without using the enterprise, but within the established politics of the 24th century?
They could make up a crew year after year till they hit one with a good review and stay with it for some films. This way we could explore the Trek Universe more and see how other people (besides the well trained super starfleet soldiers) work in the future. There are other points, like more freedom when it comes to continuity.

Thanks! I agree completely.

The 24th century post NEMESIS and post XI is a very interesting time to place a story.

You have a broken Empire (Romulans) a galaxy which is after a devastating war a decade ago (Dominion).

There is no need to follow the adventures of the Enterprise-E or any other known crew for that matter. That's the beauty of TREK in the first place, it does NOT depend on the same names over and over again.

 

[Caretaker]

If they decided to do a spinoff movie, I'd love to see a Eugenics War movie, taking place in the 1990's, with no time travel or 23rd/24th century era-framing story (although, the Eugenics War elements could be based on Greg Cox's novels). It would serve independently as a science fiction film with the audience not needing to be familiar with Star Trek or even necessarily knowing that it is a Trek film.

 

[Oso Blanco]

There is no need to follow the adventures of the Enterprise-E or any other known crew for that matter. That's the beauty of TREK in the first place, it does NOT depend on the same names over and over again.

I completely agree, but tell that to Paramount!

 

[Flake]

I was thinking that maybe the best potential for a spinoff movie is a new crew in the current Abramsverse, at the same time frame as nuKirk etc. On a different ship perhaps? It would allow the possibility for a crossover between the two and both of them borrowing cast members from each other in future movies.

This is instead of jumping ahead 80 years and losing the ability to crossover.

The other option is to simply put all the TNG era characters and ships into the TOS era, this would not be explained away by a simple timeline divergence and would cement the nuVerse as a true reboot that gives all the characters from every era the chance to interact.