Why can't Trek have a cinematic universe again?

[-Brett-]

The MCU's biggest strength is consistent quality. Some movies are better than others, but they all hit in more or less the same range. Buy a ticket for one of those movies, and you're guaranteed a certain level of quality. Casual fans are more willing to go in blind on opening weekend.

Star Trek has never managed that. Quality is all over the map. Casuals wait on reviews and word of mouth. That hurts their take on the all important opening weekend. The fact that Star Trek has one of the most toxic fandumbs out there means word of mouth is almost always negative, which hurts the box office take even more.

In order to emulate the MCU, Star Trek would need several years of consistently good quality, and a new fanbase.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm happier with the shows and movies being separate. Like Gotham and the DC movieverse or Legion and the X-Men movieverse. It allows for much greater creative freedom.

I'm amazed Agents of SHIELD is as good as it is with all the creative constraints they're under.

 

[Tesophius]

I'm actually shocked at the popularity of the superhero movies. Just don't see the appeal.

 

[Vger23]

I'm actually shocked at the popularity of the superhero movies. Just don't see the appeal.

100000000x this.

Can't stand them, really. I liked the Nolan Batman movies to some degree. Everything else is crap. Even worse is that no matter what it is, it seems like everyone else will go see it, so they just continue to perpetuate. They've become the McDonalds of the movie industry.

 

[Vger23]

100000000x this.

Can't stand them, really. I liked the Nolan Batman movies to some degree. Everything else is crap. Even worse is that no matter what it is, it seems like everyone else will go see it, so they just continue to perpetuate. They've become the McDonalds of the movie industry.

It's funny, because you go right to the generic "Sci-Fi and Fantasy" message board on TrekBBS and like 2/3 of the first page are all Marvel and DC threads.

So, I know I'm in the minority...but it doesn't change the fact that I just can't stand this genre of film or television. I think the fact that it's so popular now irks me even more. Haha!

 

[Tesophius]

It's funny, because you go right to the generic "Sci-Fi and Fantasy" message board on TrekBBS and like 2/3 of the first page are all Marvel and DC threads.

So, I know I'm in the minority...but it doesn't change the fact that I just can't stand this genre of film or television. I think the fact that it's so popular now irks me even more. Haha!

Same, I don't like fantasy at all and it bothers me how it's always grouped with sci fi. I liked a few original movies as a kid, but then a moment came when I knew that enough is enough.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm actually shocked at the popularity of the superhero movies. Just don't see the appeal.

Escapism.

 

[Solariabsg25]

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

Sort-of, except the difference is that Trek seemed to have gone really out of it's way to keep the movies and TV shows separate. For example, during the Next Generation Movies they should have been involved in the Dominion War, but IIRC there was one mention of Ketracel White, and reference to the Remans being ground troops in the Dominion War.

The Marvel universe were planning an Inhumans Movie as part of the MCU (which I believe has been if not completely shelved has been at least delayed from the scheduling), and the Inhumans are a major aspect of Agents of Shield. The Neflix batch (Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Defenders and The Punisher) are all however still doing their own thing. They still have the occasional reference to the MCU, but are a completely different tone.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Rather than multiple Trek projects on the go at once, I'd want them to focus on making one and ensure it was the best damn show they could put out. MCU works because of the vast array of background material, unless Trek just rehashed all its characters again (please dear gods no!) then they would need to create all new ships and crews, which would need time to make us invest in them and care about their adventures and lives.

Once Discovery gets going and proves its worth, if they wanted a spin-off from it to run in tandem then they might have the chance to do so, but I don't see it growing much bigger than that. One good show is all I ask for.

 

[Ralphis]

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

I'm not saying Star Trek can't have that type of shared universe, I'm just saying I don't think, at the moment, the franchise has the strength to do it. If the next Star Trek movie brings in $750 million at the box office, then maybe yeah...

 

[Jayson1]

I'm not saying Star Trek can't have that type of shared universe, I'm just saying I don't think, at the moment, the franchise has the strength to do it. If the next Star Trek movie brings in $750 million at the box office, then maybe yeah...

I agree with that. I think Discovery being a hit would also be enough to start expanding the franchise again. If both were a hit then you would really have something to work with. I wonder though if there is room for a "Hulk"style failure and still try to keep doing new things . I think alot of people don't even think of the ed Norton movie as part of that franchise. It's so forgetable people only think of the other movies that led up to Avengers.

Jason

 

[The Old Mixer]

Hmmm...this really feels like it should be a Future of Trek thread, so I'm gonna bump it down there. I know the mod, he'll be cool about it.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

The MCU's biggest strength is consistent quality. Some movies are better than others, but they all hit in more or less the same range. Buy a ticket for one of those movies, and you're guaranteed a certain level of quality. Casual fans are more willing to go in blind on opening weekend.

Star Trek has never managed that. Quality is all over the map. Casuals wait on reviews and word of mouth. That hurts their take on the all important opening weekend. The fact that Star Trek has one of the most toxic fandumbs out there means word of mouth is almost always negative, which hurts the box office take even more.

In order to emulate the MCU, Star Trek would need several years of consistently good quality, and a new fanbase.

And said fanbase would have to be the younger people that watched the recent movies and read anything based on the recent movies, not any of the past movies,TV shows, or novels/comic books based on those.

Can't stand them, really. I liked the Nolan Batman movies to some degree. Everything else is crap. Even worse is that no matter what it is, it seems like everyone else will go see it, so they just continue to perpetuate. They've become the McDonald's of the movie industry.

So, would you rather see all of the cynical 'adult' Debbie/Danny Downer kitchen sink movies of the 60's and 70's come back? Like it or not, this is a branch of science fiction, and it's just as valid as all of the now 'classic' monster movies of the 1950's and 1960's, or the endless Westerns (Osterns) of the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's.

 

[OldTrekker719]

BECAUSE MOST (nearly ALL of the ST OTS movies (with the exception of #2, and 3) SUCKED! "A Peace Planet" ? Intergalactic cardboard tube that require Whales? WTF? They go off on some grand (but IDIOTIC) storyline, and TOTALLY forget what made the series popular. They even did that with "Generations", and "Insurrection". Stick to the small screen, It keeps them from trying to get to overblown with the story ideas.

 

[OldTrekker719]

Because MOST of the Original ST movies (With the exception of #2 & #3) SUCKED big green Orion balls. WHY bother??? It turns out to be a load of RUBBISH!

 

[HugeLobes]

Comic book movies are popular because they tell stories really well suited to cinema. Origin stories involving the development of a superpower follow a super easy structure. These are larger than life characters you can break down into easily palatable onscreen variations, and they can all be quite dissimilar; Thor movies are very different from Captain America movies. Also, comic books generally lend themselves to spectacle-filled action stories.

None of this is true of Trek. I just can't see how you could create an expanded universe with that material. TNG movies basically tried to do something similar in the most part: lots of action and pretty 2D characters, and they didn't exactly pan out well.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Real reason.

Because Star Trek is no long mainstream or relevant. The last time it came close to that was the 2009 film, and then Paramount ruined that franchise.

At this point, general audiences don't care enough about Star Trek to support one film, let alone several. Brand is damaged.

STD isn't helping matters unfortunately.


If only Star Trek had it's own 'Kevin Feige,' but sadly it's stuck with the opposite, with Kurtzman, Berg and Harberts.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

It did. It was called the 90s, when DS9 and VOY were on television and TNG was in the cinema. The good old days.

 

[SolarisOne]

It did. It was called the 90s, when DS9 and VOY were on television and TNG was in the cinema. The good old days.

I miss those days.

 

[Jayson1]

It did. It was called the 90s, when DS9 and VOY were on television and TNG was in the cinema. The good old days.

I agree. We can have those days back again. If CW can have 5 Arrowverse shows we can have more Trek shows. Maybe not 5 but I can see the lineup now:

1 Disocvery: Hopefully a show that gets better like TNG but even if not it's okay if it's the watchable but not special type of show like "Voyager."

2 A cartoon set in old school Prime universe were you get older actors to voice act their old roles.

3 A show set 80 years after "Voyager."

4 Kelvin Universe movies or something new like we might get with Tarantino

5 A Trek comedy were things like canon you play fast and loose with it.

Jason