What were they thinking? AVENGERS style TREK

[The Mirrorball Man]

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.

Because of your personal investment in the Trek universe, I don't think you realize how little people care about it and how detrimental it could be to the commercial and critical success of a movie. People would not be excited about a story starring Picard, Ezri and some character from Enterprise: they would think it's laughable.

 

[BillJ]

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.

I don't think they rank with the best sci-fi books of the last twenty years and I don't think they're even the best David Mack books.

A Time to Kill/A Time to Heal would work much better and connect with the audience in an emotional way.

 

[Ketrick]

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.

Because of your personal investment in the Trek universe, I don't think you realize how little people care about it and how detrimental it could be to the commercial and critical success of a movie. People would not be excited about a story starring Picard, Ezri and some character from Enterprise: they would think it's laughable.

Perhaps I don't, but I'm not counting on the Trek name to put butts in the seats. I'm counting on a good story, interesting characters, and memorable scenes to do that because I believe in David Mack's ability as a writer to adapt the spirit of his story to film and I believe the right director for the films can be found.

 

[Sindatur]

What were they thinking? The possibilities were endless…

Looking at the shared universe franchises of THE AVENGERS, the X-MEN and soon to join the club STAR WARS and DC Comics, I wonder if the analysts at Paramount will knock their heads on their tables after realizing the stupidity of the decision they took back in 2006 to re-invent STAR TREK.

Yes, we have to go back half a decade to discuss this matter further.
2006: BATMAN BEGINS and CASINO ROYALE launched a very successful reboot of their respective franchises. It was hard to sell established continuity, since the producers and managers thought that the average Joe, who goes to the movies is unable to remember more than 2 films back into a movie series. And no doubt, both relaunch movies were great.

But now, half a decade later, cinema changed once again: Movie franchises which span not only one, or two sequels, but consist of sidequels, prequels and spinoffs are more popular than ever. Marvel started the trend, having produced 6 films in the shared continuity in less than 10 years! The X-Men are following suit having so far released 5 films, with number 6 and 7 following; joining the club will be the fantastic four… but that was just the beginning…
It appears now that every studio tries to create it’s own shared universe: DC comics will launch it with MAN OF STEEL this year, Fox is connecting dots in the Alien/Prometheus/Predator franchise, and it is possible that Blade Runner is/will become part of it, too; universal is creating a spy franchise out of the Bourne series... and I guess we will see a sidequel to the teen-loved Twilight series down the road, too!

Now look at TREK. How outdated it feels (again). Yet, Paramount failed to realize… all the other studios are craving for… are building up… all that was already there. There is no other universe like the established TREK universe, spanning more than 700 hours of TV and 10 movies. A sandbox for every author.

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

They had it all, yet they failed to see… I wonder how you guys think about it... let me know.

You'r pointing at apples and tying to prove something about Oranges.
Marvel/Avengers, DC/Justice League, etc are buildng their Universes now, they aren't dragging in 50 years of previous TV shows and movies.

Marvel/Avengers Universe building is the exact opposite of wanting Trek to drag in DS9, Voyager, ENT, and TNG characters to their current Film Franchise. Following the Marvel/Avengers model (Or something close to it) with Star Trek, would b more along the lines of Spinning Pike from Trek '09 off into his own movies, and maybe spinning off a movie of Vulcan rebuilding it's Society on their new Planet and stuff like that, or having a movie to introduce some new Captain, or Admiral or other Character, and having them appear in Trek XIII, or maybe have a Movie set entirely at the Academy following new Cadets, etc.

Now, I'm not saying this is a Good idea, I really don't think it's wise to saturate the market right now with Trek movies, I'm just aying what you're suggesting for Trek is the exact opposite of what your examples are doing, and I merely made suggestions of what would follow the same kind of pattern as your examples.

I believe, if/when Into Darkness shows itself to be a success, it gives Orci/Kurtzman a good leg up to pitch a TV Series to have premiere around the same time as the third movie in the Trilogy is released, and that would be a saturated enough market. 2 Series running concerrntly and Theatrical movies going at the same time, is what eventually put the Franchise into it's coma. Now sure, there were some major writing problems that contributed, but, I'm not sure that all would have been well even with both Series and the Theatrical movies being stellar. I think for the amount of audience you need to make the profits that are desired, you aren't going to get there, and stay there, if you over-saturate the market.

 

[The Wormhole]

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

I'm sorry, but what? In what way has either movie "shaped the future of cenima franchises?"

The Transformers movies began six years ago and despite the massive amounts of money they somehow pull in are mocked and derided for various reasons. Plus the series is about to be rebooted anyway.

The Avengers may have been unprecedented, in that it is basically based on a handful of seperate standalone movies, I don't see that becoming a trend. Besides, The Avengers was okay, but it's no piece of cinematic art.

 

[Ketrick]

I don't think they rank with the best sci-fi books of the last twenty years and I don't think they're even the best David Mack books.

A Time to Kill/A Time to Heal would work much better and connect with the audience in an emotional way.

The novels don't have to be the greatest for an adaptation to be a success. In fact, there have been adaptations in recent memory that are far better than the original material. Case in point, Batman: Under the Red Hood is considered one of the greatest animated Batman movies and also IMO is one of the best Batman movies period despite its source material commonly being viewed as mediocre.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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.

They wouldn't have to pay the novelists anything. Anything they write in the Trekverse is the property of CBS. Star Trek's George and Winona Kirk were borrowed from the novels and AFAIK Vonda McIntyre (Enterprise: The First Adventure) nor Diane Carey (Final Frontier, Best Destiny) were credited. And Carey's novels were namedropped in interviews as being their source for the characters back in 2008.

 

[Ketrick]

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.

They wouldn't have to pay the novelists anything. Anything they write in the Trekverse is the property of CBS. Star Trek's George and Winona Kirk were borrowed from the novels and AFAIK Vonda McIntyre (Enterprise: The First Adventure) nor Diane Carey (Final Frontier, Best Destiny) were credited. And Carey's novels were namedropped in interviews as being their source for the characters back in 2008.

Ok, thanks for correcting my misperception. I appreciate it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

So, after reading the OP, I watched the trailer a couple of times to find the "outdated" part. No luck. Clearly I'm missing something.

Really, I was just looking for an excuse to watch the trailer again.

 

[Jeyl]

Star Trek Into Darkness taking on the style of the Avengers? Rubish.

 

[BillJ]

Because no villain has ever been surrounded by armed guards in a film, ever.

 

[Jeyl]

Because no villain has ever been surrounded by armed guards in a film, ever.

Only the superior and manipulative englishmen.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Ok, thanks for correcting my misperception. I appreciate it.

It's an American thing. The laws in the UK are more complex, with the tie-in writers retaining ownership of their new characters - I've read about it resulting in all sorts of strange Doctor Who spin-offs.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek Into Darkness taking on the style of the Avengers? Rubish.

*Rubbish

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek Into Darkness taking on the style of the Avengers? Rubish.

Aside from not understanding the use of the word "style" in this context, you appear not to have seen many movies.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Because no villain has ever been surrounded by armed guards in a film, ever.

Only the superior and manipulative englishmen.

Loki isn't English.

 

[urbandk]

What if they did it like Super Friends?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Loki isn't English.

He totally is. Space England is a thing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Because no villain has ever been surrounded by armed guards in a film, ever.

Only the superior and manipulative englishmen.

Do yourself a favor and quit while you're not even in the ballpark of making a valid point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Loki isn't English.

He totally is. Space England is a thing.

Is that where Movie Germans come from?