And Fox/Disney with Star Wars. And MGM with James Bond. And Warner Brothers with Harry Potter. But please, continue on like you know what you're talking about.
Oh man, and the Ernest cinematic universe too. Those dominated the 80s and 90s direct to home video market.
If they were to go for a rebooted TNG with a young Picard, I say they go ahead and cast Tom Hardy as him, since he was supposed to be a clone of Picard in Nemesis. What?
Well, it depends on what you mean by "successful" and what you mean by "cinematic universe." If you're talking about cinematic universe along the lines of "various individual franchises who co-exist in one universe and come together," then James Bond doesn't count at all. It's a franchise, but there are no co-leading characters in his universe. If you're talking critically successful, Star Wars arguably has few successes beyond the OT: The Mandalorian, some of the cartoons and maybe Rogue One. The Prequel Trilogy was by most ways of accounting a dismal failure. The Sequel Trilogy I think had its fans but also had its detractors. I would say "Fantastic Beasts" probably also doesn't count as critically successful.
None of those are a cinematic universe, they are a series of films with no crossover. The only one that comes close is Harry Potter.
Right, but I think for it to qualify as a true cinematic universe, there would have to be movies about completely different people who happen to be in the same universe but are largely independent characters from Bond. Even if they made "Moneypenny," "Q," "Leiter" and "Jinx" as movies, those would be spinoffs. Which is arguably not the same thing. That's different from, for example, Iron Man, Cap, Thor, and even frigging Ant-Man being capable critically and commercially of carrying their own movies that operate largely independent from one another.
You’re right, I forgot about Solo; however, they filmed the movie twice, I doubt it’s considered a success.
Well, even putting aside the successful qualifier, it has been up till the Mandalorian really a tale of the Skywalker family vs. Palpatine across three generations. That isn't quite the same thing as Iron Man, Cap, Thor etc all being lead characters in a universe existing in their primes simultaneously.
Every franchise that I referenced are vastly successful, both critically and financially. That doesn't mean there haven't been some missteps and a few bad films, but by every objective measure they are outrageously successful. "Cinematic universe" is an entirely subjective concept. M, Q, Moneypenny, Blofeld and SPECTRE disagree! See my note above about missteps. Looking at those franchises in toto, only a jaded fanboy would say they're not successful. (I hate the SW prequels with a passion, but recognize that the franchise, as a whole, has been pretty damn good.)
TOS, TMP to Nemesis, TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT all took place in the same continuity and had numerous crossovers.
Okay Trek counts, but I was specifically referring to the recent franchises that have tried to copy the Marvel formula. The DCEU is basically dead, The Dark Universe died with the first movie, F&F has been successful, the NuTrek one, if they’re going that route, I’ll leave it at TBD, but I can almost guarantee you that any new movie is not going to bring in a billion dollars. But we’ll see.
Critical success is pretty subjective too. Again, with Star Wars, the only positive critical consensus is about the Original Trilogy. Both the other ones are heavily split. I wouldn't consider 3-5 movies being well received out of 9 to 11 "successful." And yes, "cinematic universe" is a subjective concept too. That's what I was saying in my original post. If you consider a "cinematic universe" merely "films that share a common backdrop," then any movie with prequels and sequels are part of the same universe. One could even believe Chris Reeve Superman through Henry Cavill Superman to be part of the same cinematic universe since they are tied together through the concept of a multiverse. Obiwan was seemingly defining the term as close to the MCU as possible: a series of separate films with separate protagonists all acting and existing in the same universe at roughly the same time. No one really did that before Marvel did, and a few studios have attempted unsuccessfully to copy it. Like I said in a subsequent post, having recurring characters who serve as support or antagonists to Bond doesn't make Bond films a cinematic universe in the sense of the MCU. It just makes Bond a franchise with recurring characters, not a combination of franchises. Now if they ever tried to show Bond set in the same world as Fast and the Furious. or Triple X or what have you, that would be more like a MCU-style cinematic universe.
Oh!! Oh!! I got it!! Generations 2!! JJ-Prise crew tries to take Spock-prime's body back to the Picard-verse through the Narada blackhole, but there's a quantum fluctuation, and they go to the TNG of Kelvinverse instead! Then we get the full 2 Enterprise team-up we should have gotten with Generations. Then!! Get this!! The next movie, the JJ-crew try to go back to the Kelvinverse, and instead, they go to the prime-verse during TOS, and team up with themselves (the JJ actors play both versions, and they use the SNW-prise), and it's the final mission of TOS, and the TOS crew is sworn to secrecy by Section 31, and that's why we've never seen the final mission until now! As for Spock prime's body, they leave it in a cryonic torpedo in TOS, and then it's finally found by Burnham in the 32nd century who takes it to Ni'var (formerly Vulcan).
And then Tony Stark, Luke Skywalker, James Bond and Harry Potter show up and save the day! It would unite the cinematic universes!
Y'know when you wake up at 3 in the morning with a "genius idea" and jot it down, and then read it back at 8 in the morning? That.
You know how in the JJverse the ship apparently doesn’t have external sensors and when they come out of warp they end up in a debris field or something ? They try to return Spock’s body through the black hole, but this time the finally learn the hard way and Cooke out of warp and it’s Wolf 359 and the ship and the entire crew is destroyed by the Borg. The end. ETA: Spock’s body was safely beamed on board the Enterprise D before the ship was destroyed.
Tarantino's Trek movie was essentially gonna be an R-rated "A Piece Of The Action". And it looks like it was gonna be a self-contained one-and-done like "Ghostbusters: Answer The Call" and "Halloween III". https://www.darkhorizons.com/revenant-writer-talks-tarantinos-trek/
They're working on multiple Trek movies including an animated one. So it looks like they want to make the film franchise an MCU. https://trekmovie.com/2021/10/28/ne...ple-star-trek-films-including-animated-movie/
They should hire the producer who was in charge of Universal’s Dark Universe since that was such a success.
While the prequels were pretty bad, the animation and storytelling within their era through to the OT have been a gold mine. It's kind of interesting that while the saga begins and ends with the Skywalker/Palpatine thing, most of everything since 2008 ties into Ahsoka's life.
The CEO of Paramount says he wants the animated movie to be like "Into The Spider-Verse". https://www.darkhorizons.com/spider-verse-inspires-trek-animated-film/
My post Nemesis film would have involved all four captains/ships in some kind of Q game crossover. They should do it before Shatner and Stewart croaks.
BoxOfficeMojo is reporting that the release date for "Star Trek 4" has been pushed to December 22, 2023. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3631252225/
