What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

[Franklin]

Even with new actors in the roles, it would be an utterly ridiculous mish-mash of characters that would cause fanboys in the theater to squeal in delite while everyone else did face-palms.

We had something like it with Kirk and Picard together in GEN, and instead of a truly special and memorable adventure scene using both of them, we had a lot of dialogue between Kirk and Picard in a cabin and on horseback (mostly exposition), a fistfight between Kirk and Soran, and Kirk falling off a bridge to his less than glorious death while Picard was powerless to help. Wow!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The marvelous thing is that in no more than ten years they'll start fresh yet again, recasting Kirk, Spock and the gang.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Imagine how an AVENGERS-style TREK film could look like, teaming up original Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer!

When you say "Archer", if you mean Sterling Archer (as in my current avatar), then that would be awesome!

...and I mean "Totally" awesome:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriUTQjcED8[/yt]

 

[EyalM]

Imagine how an AVENGERS-style TREK film could look like, teaming up original Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer!

You know, a team up only works when every member brings something unique and valuable to the table. What exactly does each of these characters bring that the others don't?

 

[Konata Izumi]

Imagine how an AVENGERS-style TREK film could look like, teaming up original Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer!

You know, a team up only works when every member brings something unique and valuable to the table. What exactly does each of these characters bring that the others don't?

Different personalities.

Maybe movie 3 will be like the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past. A good moment to change the director too, as you'd expect a different aesthetic in the cross-over anyway.

 

[M'Sharak]

Trek '09 was a massive failure because it made $385M at the box office.

FLOP!!!!

"I love GENERATIONS. In fact, over the years it has become my favorite TREK film.

It's so unconventional and so against mainstream. It's epic in scope and never before and never after that again,..." - Xavier_storma

I actually liked Generations, but Xavier_Storma's overselling it a wee bit. This is assuming he actually said that and you aren't putting words into his mouth/keyboard.

It appears to have been a direct quote.

Not sure this thread really belongs this forum, though. Seems almost as if it would have been a better fit in Future of Trek or Fan Fiction.

 

[Ketrick]

Not sure this thread really belongs this forum, though. Seems almost as if it would have been a better fit in Future of Trek or Fan Fiction.

I'd say it fits more in Future of Trek.

To answer the OP, having all five captains or crews meet wouldn't work well. However, if you didn't try to shoehorn Archer and Kirk into the plot, a TNG/DS9/Voyager crossover movie might work if it was well written and well directed. Actually, an adaptation of Star Trek: Destiny would kinda fit the bill and could be as successful as the book series or moreso.

 

[Konata Izumi]

Maybe movie 3 will be like the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past. A good moment to change the director too, as you'd expect a different aesthetic in the cross-over anyway.

I just remembered someone said Bryan Singer likes Trek a lot.

They can continue the family theme as in the first movie they gathered together in the second they stay together in grave circumstances and then in the third they'd go their own ways or something and interact with Picard's crew while at it.

And then we continue with two Picard movies. As the current crew is just a re-hash anyway, so two and a half is plenty.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Actually, an adaptation of Star Trek: Destiny would kinda fit the bill and could be as successful as the book series or moreso.

i.e. not very successful.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You know... AVENGERS was also plain stupid, just like TRANSFORMERS, yet it did money and shaped the future of cinema franchises....

While I would agree that Avengers was NOT an intellectual art film that raised important social issues, I wouldn't call it stupid...

...Avengers was an escapist film that was a lot of fun to watch. It was extremely entertaining, even if it wasn't serious, or what some people would call intelligent. What I consider "good films" can have a wide variety of characteristics.

The characteristic that made Avengers a good film was that it was so fun to watch, and it certainly did not take itself too seriously. It was a smart film relative to the type of film it was trying to be.

 

[BillJ]

And then we continue with two Picard movies. As the current crew is just a re-hash anyway, so two and a half is plenty.

So you'd replace one "rehash" with another? You sir are brilliant and should move to Hollywood ASAP!

 

[Ketrick]

Actually, an adaptation of Star Trek: Destiny would kinda fit the bill and could be as successful as the book series or moreso.

i.e. not very successful.

My understanding was that the books were very successful. Is my understanding wrong? Now, to work on the big screen, things would have to be left out, modified, and in some cases, flat out changed; but with smart writing and good directing, I truly believe a trilogy of films based on the Destiny novels would be very, very successful.

 

[Konata Izumi]

And then we continue with two Picard movies. As the current crew is just a re-hash anyway, so two and a half is plenty.

So you'd replace one "rehash" with another? You sir are brilliant and should move to Hollywood ASAP!

That's the idea! Not long till they can make CGI Shatner.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Actually, an adaptation of Star Trek: Destiny would kinda fit the bill and could be as successful as the book series or moreso.

i.e. not very successful.

My understanding was that the books were very successful. Is my understanding wrong?

Wrong? No, it is incomplete. Those were very successful Star Trek novels, which is nice, but if a movie only managed to reach that kind of audience, it would be considered a bomb.

 

[Ketrick]

i.e. not very successful.

My understanding was that the books were very successful. Is my understanding wrong?

Wrong? No, it is incomplete. Those were very successful Star Trek novels, which is nice, but if a movie only managed to reach that kind of audience, it would be considered a bomb.

I realize that. However, that audience would be a foundation. It's not like all Trek fans read the novels. Not only that, but if properly done, I believe such an adaptation could reach a general audience and be as successful or even more successful than a Prime universe movie like First Contact. Just to clarify, I mean the individual films of the trilogy by themselves would be that successful.

 

[BillJ]

My understanding was that the books were very successful. Is my understanding wrong?

Wrong? No, it is incomplete. Those were very successful Star Trek novels, which is nice, but if a movie only managed to reach that kind of audience, it would be considered a bomb.

I realize that. However, that audience would be a foundation. It's not like all Trek fans read the novels. Not only that, but if properly done, I believe such an adaptation could reach a general audience and be as successful or even more successful than a Prime universe movie like First Contact. Just to clarify, I mean the individual films of the trilogy by themselves would be that successful.

You would have to absolutely shred the books to get even one to fit into a two-hour time frame.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I realize that. However, that audience would be a foundation. It's not like all Trek fans read the novels. Not only that, but if properly done, I believe such an adaptation could reach a general audience and be as successful or even more successful than a Prime universe movie like First Contact. Just to clarify, I mean the individual films of the trilogy by themselves would be that successful.

Who knows? Speaking for myself, though, I'd have absolutely no interest in seeing such a film. I think while it may make for a nice reading for fans, it would be the wrong direction for the franchise and would probably lead to a rather unsatisfying cinematic experience.

 

[Ketrick]

You would have to absolutely shred the books to get even one to fit into a two-hour time frame.

The adaptations would have to be loose and have many things left out, you're right. However, the majority of the non-canon characters, if not all of the ones not created by David Mack, would probably have to be left out anyway because I doubt the studio would want to pay all the creators of those characters royalties. To remain true to the spirit of each novel, if I was producing these movies, I'd have David Mack either write or co-write the screenplay.

Who knows? Speaking for myself, though, I'd have absolutely no interest in seeing such a film. I think while it may make for a nice reading for fans, it would be the wrong direction for the franchise and would probably lead to a rather unsatisfying cinematic experience.

I can't really address your tastes, but if I were given the power to make this adaptation, I would do it as a way of giving that era of Trek the proper sendoff it deserves and other than animated adaptations of the Star Trek: Odyssey trilogy and Star Trek: Countdown, I would do nothing else in that era or most likely any of the 24th century.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I can't really address your tastes, but if I were given the power to make this adaptation, I would do it as a way of giving that era of Trek the proper sendoff it deserves and other than animated adaptations of the Star Trek: Odyssey trilogy and Star Trek: Countdown, I would do nothing else in that era or most likely any of the 24th century.

You're speaking as a fan, and that's fine. But filmmakers don't make films because they want to give fictional eras their proper sendoff. Most of them just want to make good movies.

 

[Ketrick]

I can't really address your tastes, but if I were given the power to make this adaptation, I would do it as a way of giving that era of Trek the proper sendoff it deserves and other than animated adaptations of the Star Trek: Odyssey trilogy and Star Trek: Countdown, I would do nothing else in that era or most likely any of the 24th century.

You're speaking as a fan, and that's fine. But filmmakers don't make films because they want to give fictional eras their proper sendoff. Most of them just want to make good movies.

You're absolutely right. However, as I said in a prior post, if written and directed well, I believe these films would be successful. I will also state that I believe they would be considered among the best science fiction films made in the past twenty years or so.