Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Xavier_Storma, Feb 7, 2013.
For Hollywood hacks yeah. Whendon did just fine.
Who's Iron Man anyways?
More importantly, who is Whendon?
Dunno. But the name sounds British. And stuffy.
Sir Reginald Joshua Whendon Duke of Slayington, for example.
There are an insufficient number of people in the world who want to see Janeway or Sisko do anything for Paramount to consider building a movie around them as parts of a "team." Not when they can headline Kirk and Spock.
In a 5-year period prior to Avengers we had Iron Man movies, a Thor movie, a Captain America movie and a Hulk movie. By the time Avengers came out, the general movie-going public were reminded of/became familiar with these characters who would eventually team up for that film.
Unless you are saying we should first have a separate Sisko movie, a separate Janeway movie, a separate Archer movie and a separate Picard movie in the few years prior to them teaming up for your Avengers-style Star Trek film, I doubt the general movie-going public would care that much about those characters.
Even then, I don't think those characters are all interesting enough to carry their own film. More people knew who Iron Man and the Hulk were before their separate movies came out than who know who Janeway, Archer, and Sisko are. Granted, a lot of people know who Picard and Kirk are, and we DID already have one "Picard and Kirk save the Galaxy" film -- but the advantage of that film was that it had the original actors.
I just don't see the entertainment value of watching five characters who are relatively the same arguing over whose in charge and then spewing some technobabble to save the day?
The unfortunate biggest problem here is that we live in a country that is very ageist and movies are directed towards teenagers and very little attention paid to those over the age of 21.
The actors for those characters would be considered way too old. Nimoy was allowed in Trek 09 b/c he was surrounded by much younger actors in their 20s and early 30s.
There's no way Paramount is selling a Trek movie where the youngest leads are in their 50s and the oldest (Shatner and Nimoy) are in their 80s. They got away with guys in their 50s and 60s during TOS movie era back in the day b/c they were TOS with Kirk and Spock/Shatner and Nimoy, but I doubt that's ever happening again.
This idea is best left for fanfics or novels.
I think a movie featuring all Star Trek captains/crews would be stretching it (not just) a little. But I'd be very interested in a broader movie/tv franchise. While I have never been fond of prequels, I really like the idea of multiple spin offs.
Movies are directed towards people who watch movies. If older people watched movies, you'd see older people in big budget blockbusters.
^Red, The Expendables, Expendables 2, The Watchmen, A Good Day to Die Hard...?
Again, I'm mostly talking about big-budget blockbusters, not mid-level action movies.
RDJ isn't exactly a spring chicken either.
People seem to miss that a team-up doesn't need to have all the captains, only old actors, etc.
Stewart's a cool dude so he'd fit great. Reintroduce one less-known captain too and it could be a great trio. Or make up a new one. I haven't seen Janeway but I guess it'd have to be a younger her to keep some sort of gender balance, if it's an existing character. They're doing something similar by Uhura taking McCoy's place if you believe that one thread title. Or some other old character can get promoted.
Let them go. Outside of the novels (an re-runs), the Prime universe and the Modern Trek characters are done.
They just resurrected the TOS crew a few years ago and now possibly Khan; all old icons. Is there a reason for such a sharp divide? For kids like me they're all old Trek. Everyone knows the facepalm guy.
They can spin off movies for each of the captains: $$$
It only makes money if it's done extremely cheap or they get big names to play the characters (like Samuel L. Jackson playing Sisko).
^Professor X? That random who plays Kirk?
You ignored the question -_-
The reason for the sharp divide?
Kirk, Spock and company resonated with the general public in a way the rest simply didn't. An 'All-Star' captains movie featuring Janeway, Sisko and Archer just wouldn't put enough butts in the seats to matter and Stewart and Shatner are simply too old to be believably put in space suits again.
There is a massive difference between Kirk and Sisko, the latter is not well recognised outside of the hardcore Star Trek community and the character is principally so dull that someone of screen presence and sharp wit like Samuel L Jackson could allay the risk of using such a character on the big screen.
Chris Pine is a competent actor with quality that suits big screen hero persona, a perfect example for someone to play someone as big as Kirk.
I think many people miss the simple fact that the structure of Star Trek works better on the big screen than the ensemble structures of the spin-offs.
The Original Series always was big space adventure in a weird universe. When we watch Kirk fight the big green lizard, we go "cool". When we watch Picard swinging from a conduit fighting Borg, we go "eh?" that really isn't the character I know from the TV series.
The differences don't make the spin-offs bad, but less suited for a story you have to sell tickets for and tell in two hours or less.
Separate names with a comma.