Why can't Trek have a cinematic universe again?

[PureCrimson]

Why does it need one? Almost everything in the franchise, movies, TV shows, etc, over decades is considered part of this universe.

You could argue Star Trek was one of the first canon 'universes' ever created through separate work.

The fact it's not film is even better; films are horrible mediums for long and complicated narratives. I'd always prefer a television show. (But it even stems to films too, so..)

 

[Jayson1]

Why does it need one? Almost everything in the franchise, movies, TV shows, etc, over decades is considered part of this universe.

You could argue Star Trek was one of the first canon 'universes' ever created through separate work.

The fact it's not film is even better; films are horrible mediums for long and complicated narratives. I'd always prefer a television show. (But it even stems to films too, so..)

Well if tv has only one good Trek show on at a time that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world but the appeal of cinematic universe is that you get more of what you love and also you can explore different aspects of that universe or concept. Like with the Arrowverse you got one show that is more about regular humans than superpowers and more grounded in reality in "Arrow" and then you got some fun Popcorn escapism in "Legends and Flash" and then one about female empowerment in "Supergirl." Also it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world in the case if you have fans who don't like a show might just like one of the other Trek shows. Not everyone back in the day like "Voyager" and "Ds9" so if they didn't then maybe they watched the one they did like.

Jason

 

[HugeLobes]

I think the overriding issue is that Trek is already an ensemble show with around 7 main cast members and usually a few recurring characters.

In most cases, expanded universes work best when you have individual shows or movies featuring single protagonists that then come together for certain movies. I think that's unlikely for a Trek show since the basic spacefaring concept revolves more around teams than individuals.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

You could always do a "cinematic universe" in a more unique way, rather than focus on multiples ships and crews at one time, why not focus on one ship through it's service. That way you could have several crews carrying on the ship's story as it goes through a time of great change, even with an underlying plot where each crew deals with elements of what's going on.

For example, the Miranda-Class U.S.S. Diligent is commissioned in 2274 and heads out on her maiden voyage, a long-range survey mission. Jump forward a decade when the Klingons are rattling sabres in response to Project Genesis and a standoff along the border. Then to the signing of the Khitomer Accords when they find themselves assigned to a good will mission to support the Klingon Homeworld following the destruction of Praxis. Then into the early 2300s, dealing with tensions between the three major powers. Then to 2311 and the Tomed Incident. The 2330s and rising tensions with the Cardassians and Tzenkethi. Ending in 2344 with the ship about to be decommissioned after 70 years of service, though not before being the second ship to reach Narendra III after the battle claimed the E-C. You could then have a second Diligent being commissioned soon after, a newer vessel such as a Cheyenne- or Springfield-Class, taking up the mantle and carrying on the story over the next 30-40 years.

 

[Romulan_spy]

A big reason why Star Trek does not have a "cinematic universe" like Marvel or Star Wars has, is frankly because Star trek movies don't do well enough at the Box Office to justify it. That's just the truth. Now, don't get me wrong, the movies are great and fun. But Black Panther has made over $1B worldwide, and Thor Ragnarok has grossed around $800m worldwide. Star Trek rebooted itself with the Kelvin timeline and tried to created a "cinematic universe". It didn't work. Star Trek 2009 made about $400m worldwide and Star Trek Beyond dropped to half of that. You can't do a "cinematic universe" with those kind of numbers. Star Trek movies are just not in the same box office league as Star Wars or the Marvel movies.

 

[mos6507]

What Star Trek needs, regardless of whether it's on film or TV, is a real visionary to lead the franchise. JJ wasn't it and neither is Alex Kurtzman.

The only person right now who might inject some real life and excitement into Trek is Tarantino, and that will just be a one-off.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

All hail the Whedon!

 

[Valenti]

I think that's just what the casting couch girls said too!

 

[STEPhon IT]

Escapism.

Star Trek films need more of that.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek films need more of that.

Star Trek isn't allowed to be escapist fantasy. It is supposed to be super serious examination of the human condition, at least according to the Internet.

 

[Mudd]

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

Not enough people are interested enough in Star Trek to make that profitable.

Next.

 

[fireproof78]

Not enough people are interested enough in Star Trek to make that profitable.

Next.

Pretty much.

 

[ALF]

A big reason why Star Trek does not have a "cinematic universe" like Marvel or Star Wars has, is frankly because Star trek movies don't do well enough at the Box Office to justify it. That's just the truth. Now, don't get me wrong, the movies are great and fun. But Black Panther has made over $1B worldwide, and Thor Ragnarok has grossed around $800m worldwide. Star Trek rebooted itself with the Kelvin timeline and tried to created a "cinematic universe". It didn't work. Star Trek 2009 made about $400m worldwide and Star Trek Beyond dropped to half of that. You can't do a "cinematic universe" with those kind of numbers. Star Trek movies are just not in the same box office league as Star Wars or the Marvel movies.

Agreed with your points but I don't see why we can't have a smaller cinematic universe to scale with the lower ROI for Trek.
I dunno. There's so much Trek now and it all connects with each other. It seems like a cinematic universe now, anyway.

 

[mos6507]

The original idea was for Discovery to be an anthology series which I think would have worked better than putting all its eggs in one basket. I think they should dust off that idea even though it's not a cinematic universe per se.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm curious, is anyone here a Marvel fan? And if so, do you watch ALL the MCU content on Netflix and elsewhere? Because I've tried, and a lot of it's... not so good. For every Jessica Jones or Agents of SHIELD there seem to be two Iron Fists.

I'd hate to see Trek become so bland and skippable as a lot of MCU TV output.

 

[Butters]

I’ve said it before, but Trek’s movies need to more low key, character driven but with an engaging plot, and a budget to match the audience.

Start small and intriguing and build up a set of compelling sequels, instead of blowing it all in the first film and ending with no where to go. Make something with substance, surprise the audience with a solid honest movie and they’ll come back for more.

And keep the Star Trek logo in a small font beneath the movie title. Drop the obsession with blockbusters and just make good movies. There’s more than enough interest to support two movie casts releasing a movie every alternate year, but not if they need to make $500m just to turn a profit.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm curious, is anyone here a Marvel fan? And if so, do you watch ALL the MCU content on Netflix and elsewhere? Because I've tried, and a lot of it's... not so good. For every Jessica Jones or Agents of SHIELD there seem to be two Iron Fists.

I'd hate to see Trek become so bland and skippable as a lot of MCU TV output.

I'm of the same mind. I cannot keep up with the MCU content, and not all of it is enjoyable for me.

 

[XCV330]

A trek movie should be an event. Something you wait awhile for. Star Wars is going to get ruined being overplayed year after year. Star Wars used to arrive so rarely and such an extravaganza you didnt mind the plot holes and the emptiness of the world building. And the latter was fixed by the EU, and promptly tossed in the garbage by Disney.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

A trek movie should be an event. Something you wait awhile for. Star Wars is going to get ruined being overplayed year after year. Star Wars used to arrive so rarely and such an extravaganza you didnt mind the plot holes and the emptiness of the world building. And the latter was fixed by the EU, and promptly tossed in the garbage by Disney.

Agreed. It's very easy to get franchise fatigue. I have franchise fatigue with Marvel and DC. DC it took no time at all because their movies just aren't good (Wonder Woman is the exception that proves the rule). Marvel movies are hit and miss for me now -- I look forward to certain movies, like Ragnarok and Black Panther, but then with shit like Infinity War, my interest is like 50% of what it oughta be given that eeeeeeverything has been building up to it.

Anyway, I wouldn't want Trek to fall into this trap. It's possible to have too much of a good thing.

 

[fireproof78]

A trek movie should be an event. Something you wait awhile for. Star Wars is going to get ruined being overplayed year after year. Star Wars used to arrive so rarely and such an extravaganza you didnt mind the plot holes and the emptiness of the world building. And the latter was fixed by the EU, and promptly tossed in the garbage by Disney.

See, I don't want it to be an event. I just want a good story. I mean, if we just had the Original Star Wars trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy it would generally be 50/50 split of good and bad, depending on your perspective. Even with Star Wars being overplayed (not even certain that's a bad thing) it still means we get more stories. I would prefer to have more stories.