Why can't Trek have a cinematic universe again?

[Jayson1]

With marvel ,star wars,dc etc basically creating these why not Trek? Star Trek basically had all of this before any of these other franchises,except it was more for tv than the movies but that seems okay to me. I know people use to say DS9 AND Voyager weren't bigger hits because they were on at the same time,plus they also had TNG movies but doesn't that concept seem less important nowdays when you can't turn something on without bumping into a Marvel movie or tv show. If Discovery works out why not let that be the Iron Man of the universe in which more shows and movies eventually spring up afterwords.

Jason

 

[UnknownSample]

I don't understand. What's a "cinematic universe"? Until you reply, I'll just point out that comics and science fiction are very different things, if you want ST to do something they do in comics.

 

[Jayson1]

To be honest I just asumed "Cinematic Universe" was a fancy way of saying Franchise but a Franchise that has all it;s seperate entities all connected to each, basically in the same universe. Kind of like how all the trek shows were connected and you had aot of the same alien and characters who would crossover into all the different shows. Plus the general politics of the universe were pretty much the same. Kind of like how the Maquis were set up on TNG, established and giving a name in Ds9 and used in TNG,DS9 and Voyager.

Jason

 

[Vger23]

Mainly because nobody would care, and those who would care would gripe / complain / boycott more than they would spend time enjoying and buying tickets.

 

[Space Coast]

Isn't the Kelvin timeline basically a cinematic universe?

 

[Tesophius]

Not quite sure I get what you mean, but on a related note, I think it would make sense to have two different simultaneously running Star Treks. It's pretty clear that people like Star Trek for completely different reasons. The two major groups here are a) Exploration of ideas, as was the focus of a majority of TOS episodes b) Chemistry between characters, long arcs exploring all kinds of diplomacy and war stuff, like the Game of Thrones set in the Trek universe sort of thing.

Two shows focusing entirely on these two different approaches would be better. A concentrated high level interest for both types of viewers. I'd certainly pay extra for the a) type of a show.

 

[Jayson1]

Not quite sure I get what you mean, but on a related note, I think it would make sense to have two different simultaneously running Star Treks. It's pretty clear that people like Star Trek for completely different reasons. The two major groups here are a) Exploration of ideas, as was the focus of a majority of TOS episodes b) Chemistry between characters, long arcs exploring all kinds of diplomacy and war stuff, like the Game of Thrones set in the Trek universe sort of thing.

Two shows focusing entirely on these two different approaches would be better. A concentrated high level interest for both types of viewers. I'd certainly pay extra for the a) type of a show.

Why limit it to just two? Marvel has 6 and DC has 4 or 5. I think you could do shows that cover alot of different areas. A prequel, one set after the Berman years, a section 31 story and even a comedy. Also have a movie every year or so and people would have muliptly choices. Even if some fail some would most likely hit the target.

Jason

 

[Tesophius]

Why limit it to just two? Marvel has 6 and DC has 4 or 5. I think you could do shows that cover alot of different areas. A prequel, one set after the Berman years, a section 31 story and even a comedy. Also have a movie every year or so and people would have muliptly choices. Even if some fail some would most likely hit the target.

Jason

Yes, I agree. Obviously the counterargument here is the profitability. But I think that with a more concentrated focus, the target audience would be willing to pay 5 times the normal amount for their ideal product, thereby the returns are just as strong as if audience was much bigger.

 

[Kor]

Isn't the Kelvin timeline basically a cinematic universe?

Yes, "cinematic" means it has to do specifically with cinema, i.e. feature films that are shown in the theater.
I think the OP is thinking more of a shared universe that spans several TV series as well as movies.
But I don't think the demand for/success of recent Trek is quite high enough for that.

Kor

 

[Jayson1]

Yes, I agree. Obviously the counterargument here is the profitability. But I think that with a more concentrated focus, the target audience would be willing to pay 5 times the normal amount for their ideal product, thereby the returns are just as strong as if audience was much bigger.

Isn't the main goal though with some of these shared universes is not just to profit the franchise but the place that airs them. ratings don't seem to mean much anymore. If CBS acess or Netflix had all these shows I think it would encourge even more people to sign up. One problem I see with "Discovery" is they could literally be the only thing worth watching on CBS access. I'm not sure if one show is enough to get people to sign up but if you had mulitple shows you might something.

When I look at Netflix I think they would be in serious trouble if "House of Cards" had been there only original show worth watching. they didn't stop there but kepth creating even more good shows so now it is a legitmate thing people want to watch even though there acess to the latest movie hits is no longer there.

Jason

 

[Tesophius]

Isn't the main goal though with some of these shared universes is not just to profit the franchise but the place that airs them. ratings don't seem to mean much anymore. If CBS acess or Netflix had all these shows I think it would encourge even more people to sign up. One problem I see with "Discovery" is they could literally be the only thing worth watching on CBS access. I'm not sure if one show is enough to get people to sign up but if you had mulitple shows you might something.

When I look at Netflix I think they would be in serious trouble if "House of Cards" had been there only original show worth watching. they didn't stop there but kepth creating even more good shows so now it is a legitmate thing people want to watch even though there acess to the latest movie hits is no longer there.

Jason

I think people want to watch something very specific, at least I do, and would pay anything within reason to access it. If there's one show I really want to watch on one streaming service, I'll get it, if there's a ton of mediocre shows - I'll cancel it no matter what it costs. The days of quantity over quality were killed along with traditional tv, many years ago.

 

[Jayson1]

I think people want to watch something very specific, at least I do, and would pay anything within reason to access it. If there's one show I really want to watch on one streaming service, I'll get it, if there's a ton of mediocre shows - I'll cancel it no matter what it costs. The days of quantity over quality were killed along with traditional tv, many years ago.

I see that point but for me I always felt people were more intrested in having mulitiple opitions. I think one of the reasons people latched onto dvd's and dvr's was because you could store shows and watch them anytime you want. that and the explosion of cable and premimun tv along with streaming serives people can literally watch anything they want, anytime they want.
this might be why reboots and sequels are everywhere today. Hollywood is looking for things to cut through the clutter. trek IMO is something that can actually do that because it was sort of healed by the kelvin movies. I think new fans were made because of those movies.
I do think CBS needs Trek more than Netflix does so im not sure how that factors into things but i think they would love to be know as the Trek channel in the same way CW is basically the DC comic shows channel.

Jason

 

[Ralphis]

Technically I'm with you. I'd love a Star Trek Cinematic/Shared Universe in the style of the Marvel films. But I think there needs to be a little more demand for Star Trek for there to be a cinematic universe in the style of the Marvel films. I personally loved Star Trek Beyond, but it only made $343 million on a $185 million budget. I'm not sure if the franchise has the strength at the moment to support a Cinematic/Shared Universe.

Also, these days the rights of the Star Trek franchise are split up between Paramount (film) and CBS (TV). Anything CBS does (Discovery) will be fully independent from what Paramount does (Kelvin films). Unless there's either a reunification of Viacom and CBS, or if there was ever an agreement made between the two entities regarding Star Trek (similar to the the one Marvel and Sony made regarding Spider-Man), I'm not sure a shared universe between film and TV will happen again anytime soon. Yes, I know it's been done before in Star Trek, but that was when everything was under the Paramount umbrella.

 

[Vger23]

Not quite sure I get what you mean, but on a related note, I think it would make sense to have two different simultaneously running Star Treks. It's pretty clear that people like Star Trek for completely different reasons. The two major groups here are a) Exploration of ideas, as was the focus of a majority of TOS episodes b) Chemistry between characters, long arcs exploring all kinds of diplomacy and war stuff, like the Game of Thrones set in the Trek universe sort of thing.

Two shows focusing entirely on these two different approaches would be better. A concentrated high level interest for both types of viewers. I'd certainly pay extra for the a) type of a show.

Count me in for "show A" as well. I have no interest in Star Trek: Game of Command Chairs. None whatsoever in fact.

 

[Vger23]

I think this is all interesting discussion...but the fact remains that this will never happen. The franchise and movies simply aren't popular enough to sustain this kind of approach, especially in the movies.

 

[Solariabsg25]

Trek has however never had a cinematic universe in the MCU sense. The movie's only connection to the series has been that they are a continuation of them and have very little influence on the shows (the only exception being the Enterprise sequel to First Contact). We've never had a situation where for example the Agents of Shield are clearing up the mess left after Thor The Dark World, or directly reference the rise of Hydra and the Sokovia Accords from the movies for example.

 

[ALF]

If Discovery is on the air and we are still getting Kelvinverse film(s), then yes, we will have a Trek cinematic universe. From what I understand, however, there won't be any crossover because CBS/Viacom legalese, blah blah blah etc.

 

[Jayson1]

Technically I'm with you. I'd love a Star Trek Cinematic/Shared Universe in the style of the Marvel films. But I think there needs to be a little more demand for Star Trek for there to be a cinematic universe in the style of the Marvel films. I personally loved Star Trek Beyond, but it only made $343 million on a $185 million budget. I'm not sure if the franchise has the strength at the moment to support a Cinematic/Shared Universe.

Also, these days the rights of the Star Trek franchise are split up between Paramount (film) and CBS (TV). Anything CBS does (Discovery) will be fully independent from what Paramount does (Kelvin films). Unless there's either a reunification of Viacom and CBS, or if there was ever an agreement made between the two entities regarding Star Trek (similar to the the one Marvel and Sony made regarding Spider-Man), I'm not sure a shared universe between film and TV will happen again anytime soon. Yes, I know it's been done before in Star Trek, but that was when everything was under the Paramount umbrella.

Lets not forget though there wasn't a huge demand for a Marvel Cinematic universe at first either. It wasn't until they did "Iron Man","Captain America",Thor and "Iron Man 2" that people really got excited for "Avengers" except maybe from hardcore comic fans. Most people were content with the disconnected random comic book movies for along time.
It could be a risk that bombs but I think it would be a risk worth taking, the movie rights and tv rights not being connected would be a problem but i'm not so sure it wouldnt be any worst than Marvel not having the rights to X-Men, Fantastic 4, and Spiderman.

They were basically working with the b-team level of characters(except hulk) and they still made it work. I'm not sure if Trek being more of a tv franchise instead of movie franchise would help or hurt though in trying to pull this off.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

Trek has however never had a cinematic universe in the MCU sense. The movie's only connection to the series has been that they are a continuation of them and have very little influence on the shows (the only exception being the Enterprise sequel to First Contact). We've never had a situation where for example the Agents of Shield are clearing up the mess left after Thor The Dark World, or directly reference the rise of Hydra and the Sokovia Accords from the movies for example.

Isn't Marvel show and movies basically functioning in the same way? Except for Avengers movies and Civil War" most of there shows and movies are mostly self-contained. In fact you sometimes have to even wait for for the end credits before you get any real crossover moment at all.

Jason

 

[MacLeod]

I think Star Trek is better suited to the small screen than the big screen. But Star Trek already has it's own "Iron Man" it's called Star Trek, more shows and movies sprung up from that

The Animated Series
6 TOS movies
TNG
4 TNG Movies
DSN
VOY
ENT
DIS

Not to mention hundreds of novels, comics, games etc...