Sign in to follow this  
The Founder

Star Trek Cinematic Universe

Recommended Posts

So the idea of a connected universe has obviously caught on thanks to Marvel. Now DC and Star Wars are slowly following suit. But what about Star Trek? Can such a thing be feasible?

What do you all think?

I personally love this idea because I feel it be a way to make everyone happy. One movie can be purely cerebral, one can be an espionage (S31) type thing, one can focus on aliens (maybe some type of Guardians of the Galaxy thing in Trek), etc.

Trek as a universe has too much potential to be constantly wasted on focusing on Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise.

Warning: There is an annoying video mixed into this article.

Star Trek cinematic universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know that that can work until Paramount CBS can do this in the modern era until they actually come up with things that consistently work and are profitable.

They're not there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, technically, it is all one universe.  Either you accept the Abrams explanation that the Prime and Kelvin timelines are separate and both exist, in which case everything we have seen is part of the same multiverse, or you don't, and the Kelvin timeline overwrote the prime timeline and it's one universe.

Either way, they are connected in some fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, technically, it is all one universe.  Either you accept the Abrams explanation that the Prime and Kelvin timelines are separate and both exist, in which case everything we have seen is part of the same multiverse, or you don't, and the Kelvin timeline overwrote the prime timeline and it's one universe.

Either way, they are connected in some fashion.

The Abrams bifurcation of the timelines is the official explanation; there is the prime timeline and the Kelvin timeline.  It's official.   Anything else is just head canon (which is legitimate as well; I'm a firm believer in my own personal head canon... but it doesn't mean the Trek fan next to me will be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, since canon is on screen, and the two timelines aren't officially co-existing on screen.   But it doesn't matter for purposes of this topic.  It's all one multiverse or all one universe, no matter how you slice it.

Only Discovery can go off that, but they said they didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, since canon is on screen, and the two timelines aren't officially co-existing on screen.   But it doesn't matter for purposes of this topic.  It's all one multiverse or all one universe, no matter how you slice it.

Like I said; you're free to believe whatever you like.  That's the beauty of head canon.  I have TAS and STC in my head canon, so there's that...

Only Discovery can go off that, but they said they didn't. 

They said they're sticking to the prime universe, though I wonder if the Fuller shakeup is changing that (?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except of course real canon is what's on screen, and on screen doesn't support the Abrams off camera interview, so I guess the idea of two separate universes is head canon.

 

I suppose losing Fuller could change anything and everything, though I guess they will stick to the prime universe.  Of course, how will we actually KNOW it's the prime universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except of course real canon is what's on screen, and on screen doesn't support the Abrams off camera interview, so I guess the idea of two separate universes is head canon.

 

I suppose losing Fuller could change anything and everything, though I guess they will stick to the prime universe.  Of course, how will we actually KNOW it's the prime universe?

so I guess the idea of two separate universes is head canon.

Except for that whole scene in '09 that explains it.

On screen. 

^

OK, let's PLEASE not do this again.

We've had this discussion before (many times), and we keep running into walls.

 

Let's move on from the validity of the alternate universe of the Bad Robot ST movies.   That is not the topic at all.
Anything more discussion about the validity of the alternate reality needs to be taken to another thread (pretty sure we have about a dozen or so about it already).

The Kelvin Timeline is a fact of the greater ST multiverse, just like the mirror universe.   For the purpose of the thread topic, let's accept that (here, at least).  No 'last wordsmanship' about it's validity in this thread, either.   Take it to another related thread or drop it.  


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says, "...the number of different stories told has been minimal. The majority of the series have all focused on space exploration, and the different things encountered during that exploring. The films have only focused on a handful of characters."

Um, that's why it's called Star Trek...? 

I disagree - I think DS9 threw the door open on a wider variety of stories, albeit ones set aboard a space station. Also, DS9 often focused on various recurring characters rather than a member of the lead ensemble, which gave it opportunities to Wander from the main, overreaching arc and concentrate on the lives of supporting characters when the narrative merited it. I can't imagine another Star Trek show spending time focusing whole episodes on a character like Nog, or giving writers the space to do that. It already proved the points made above, only on a smaller, TV show scale.  

It's true that you could go anywhere within any fictional universe and tell any kind of story set there - that's a trend in modern storytelling, both in movies and other media. But it's not really a "new" thing in Star Trek per se - this would just be the cinematic universe expanding the canvas (and, one supposes, the budget). 

Would I like to see it? Sure I would. Set a Star Trek movie on the Yorktown with a different set of characters. Better yet, do it on TV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article says, "...the number of different stories told has been minimal. The majority of the series have all focused on space exploration, and the different things encountered during that exploring. The films have only focused on a handful of characters."

Um, that's why it's called Star Trek...? 

I disagree - I think DS9 threw the door open on a wider variety of stories, albeit ones set aboard a space station. Also, DS9 often focused on various recurring characters rather than a member of the lead ensemble, which gave it opportunities to Wander from the main, overreaching arc and concentrate on the lives of supporting characters when the narrative merited it. I can't imagine another Star Trek show spending time focusing whole episodes on a character like Nog, or giving writers the space to do that. It already proved the points made above, only on a smaller, TV show scale.  

It's true that you could go anywhere within any fictional universe and tell any kind of story set there - that's a trend in modern storytelling, both in movies and other media. But it's not really a "new" thing in Star Trek per se - this would just be the cinematic universe expanding the canvas (and, one supposes, the budget). 

Would I like to see it? Sure I would. Set a Star Trek movie on the Yorktown with a different set of characters. Better yet, do it on TV. 

And as much as I personally enjoy real space exploration, I also accept that ST has long used exploration as metaphor for exploring the human condition right here on spaceship Earth.   As Q might say, it's not about mapping stars and cataloguing nebulae; it's about the exploration of what it is to be human.   The aliens are usually metaphors for some aspect of humanity to be explored with objectivity.    They do this through the characters; the characters are we the audience (another reason why representation matters so much in the crew makeup).

And Yorktown would be a great setting for a TV series, I agree; in a way, it'd be a ST version of Babylon 5 (which I've never really watched, but I saw the pilot and a couple random episodes; never really got into it); a coalition of Federation species all peacefully living together on an artificial world, deep in space.    DS9 accomplished this idea of a 'mobile starbase' in space successfully, but it wasn't a Federation station; the Federation was acting in the role of caretaker on DS9.   In Yorktown, it'd be a Federation institution, with all the Federation's quasi-utopian optimism in play.   

Goodness knows we could all use a shot of utopian optimism right about now... ;)

Forget a "Zero Dark Thirty" version of Star Trek; we've had too much of that lately.    For right now?  I want a "Tomorrowland" Star Trek.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

If you want to develop a star trek universe you need to develop new characters. You could start with Jaylah. Maybe have a movie with her in Star Fleet Academy where she and her friends are asked to do a mission of some sort. Then have another Star Trek movie with Kirk, Spock, et.al. Develop a new character and spin them off. Maybe have a spinoff on the Yorktown station. 

Make the spin off movies smaller less expensive movies that don't require making a half a billion dollars to be successful. Once you get three or four different spin offs going you can release a couple a year. Then when you get five or six story lines merge them into one big super movie with all of the characters fighting the equivalent of the Borg. Try to make this one the blockbuster. You can have a cycle. Two or three small movies a year that cost less than $100 million and make $225 million. Then every three or four years make a big expensive movie and shoot for the $750 million blockbuster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is an interesting bit of fanboy musing, but the reality is so far from this being a possibility.

Cinematic Universes of the Marvel/DC kind have each movie based on existing source material in the popular comic books. Also, the movies themselves are massively popular. Neither of these things exist for Trek.  

I don't normally see Marvel movies, but I went to Dr Strange last week based on the positive reviews. I presume it hews pretty close to the comic books, but it also has that Marvel movie style, tone, humor, character dynamic and strong acting. Come to think of it, this is the second Marvel movie I went to based on the reviews alone. The first was Guardians of the Galaxy. With both movies, we got something different than the usual blockbuster fare. They have unexpected elements that are even more delightful than they ought to be because of the complete lack of originality and creativity in most blockbusters. This really started with the acting and humor that Robert Downey Jr brought to Iron Man. 

This is probably why the DC cinematic universe is failing. They are same old same old paint by numbers blockbuster movies.

I even think this might be why Abrams Trek movies have not done better. There is really nothing surprising, unique or interesting about them. Maybe if other creative decisions had been made early on, we would be in a situation where Paramount was considering an expanded Trek universe. But it is just not in the cards.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVM   

I would say Star Trek is virtually already an extended universe - there were points where the TV series aired concurrently, while crossing over characters and taking place in the same universe and continuity.

Part of the problem is I don't think Star Trek can lend itself to doing wildly different stories in the film medium - a different captain on a different ship won't broaden the universe for anyone who isn't already invested. A space station wasn't enough for many people, as we know. I think a show focused on one of the alien species would be prohibitively expensive (as cool as it might be to see something about Klingons, for example) and the other familiar canon characters don't overlap with the timeline well - although consider, films based on the TNG/DS9/VOY era could all be released in a short span and mix with one another.

It's important to keep in mind, as the post above suggests, the Marvel films are not all pulling the same audiences, and that's part of the idea. You can pull in new people with Guardians of the Galaxy who may tune in for future Marvel films either by tone, or because the Guardians cross over. I know many people who only know Thor from his The Avengers appearances. Marvel is making multiple franchises that crossover, while other studios are merely trying to expand franchises into mega-franchises. Suicide Squad was new, but BVS largely continued Man of Steel, without a separate Batman film - which lead to some of its story problems, imo

I feel, these days, Star Trek has always been at it's finest on television, and while a number of the films are great, the film series still largely works as an extension of the existing media franchise. I find it extremely unfortunate Paramount and CBS can't be more cooperative. It's a huge shame we can't get a TV series with the Kelvin timeline characters, but I know it'll never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this