Can Any Universe Top Marvel?

[Spidey Freak]

Loads of universes already have.

 

Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter...I think it's an endless list.

 

All of those "universes" are restricted to one world. This is the first time a cinematic universe has fleshed out multiple Earth based characters and stories (Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner etc.) AND otherworldly characters and stories (Thor, Guardians etc.), bringing them together during larger universe affecting sagas. (Avengers, Avengers 3 etc.)

 

And that's not even talking about the different genres existing in the same universe (sci-fi with Iron Man, political thriller with Cap, fantasy with Doctor Strange etc.) The ONLY thing that could come close to this level of scope and diversity is the DC universe, and those folks stumble and fall twice for every step they take.

[lilmac]

The DC Universe (Batman's galley alone matches up with X-Men's) could be just as interesting.  The big question is IF Hollywood can do it justice.  Not in this lifetime.

[dashrendar44]

How could DC possibly surpass it? Haven't they already said that their tv shows will not be part of the connected universe? That automatically puts their connected universe in a huge hole compared to Marvel's.

 

Yeah, WB/DC just shot its own chance at surpassing MCU right there. Their DCU will be one huge hot mess that screws the potential interconnections that exist in the DC comics. It's kitchen sink train(wreck) of thought throwing everything on the wall to catch MCU's hype train but it's all over the place with no genuine connective tissue.

 

So right now MCU is the biggest cinematic universe connecting live action movies/TV ever put on screen. SWU could have been at one point with Clone Wars and if they had adapted EU books but since the EU is now rendered non-canon let's see if Disney can milk different spin-offs and style out of it like Marvel does successfully.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Yes something will replace since nothing last forever. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Can any universe "top" Marvel? "Top" in what sense: quality or scope (it seems like from this thread you are talking about scope). In terms of quality: absolutely. In terms of scope: it's possible, but highly unlikely. 

[Kalel009Shel]

It is difficult to say. First of all, let's fix what is an "universe" or just a franchise. If we only talk about comics, we just have Marvel for the moment, and let's remember that until Avengers, MCU was not the monster it is today. Just Iron Man did great numbers in US before TA. Let's wait what happens with DC when Justice League be released. We just have Man of Steel and plenty of speculations.

 

And if we talk about other possible universes, you can include Star Wars, which is for the moment unbeatable in US if you adjust for inflation. And considering Disney is going to expand it, Marvel has a serious rival there.

 

We already do not know if the 3 sequels of Avatar will be enough to consider it an Universe brand. We do not know if later, in the future, we could have more movies.

 

And Harry Potter with some new spin offs could be another big rival.

 

And I know it is difficult, but who knows if in the future we will have Silmarillion movies to expand Lord of the Rings universe, which could be nearly unlimited.

 

There are many options, but I agree that MCU has advantage in relation to their competitors.

Avatar will crush the avengers franchise or any franchise..

 

Just sorry it all ends after 4 movies, but pound for pound aint nothing touching films that will average

 2b-4B+ WW and thats just at the BO .

[Kalel009Shel]

Yeah, WB/DC just shot its own chance at surpassing MCU right there. Their DCU will be one huge hot mess that screws the potential interconnections that exist in the DC comics. It's kitchen sink train(wreck) of thought throwing everything on the wall to catch MCU's hype train but it's all over the place with no genuine connective tissue.

 

So right now MCU is the biggest cinematic universe connecting live action movies/TV ever put on screen. SWU could have been at one point with Clone Wars and if they had adapted EU books but since the EU is now rendered non-canon let's see if Disney can milk different spin-offs and style out of it like Marvel does successfully.

DC Characters are more epic than Marvel Dash.. Superman, Batman, Flash, Wonderwoman

SHazam,...  The many GLs, Hawkman.... The Question. They have some of the greatest heroes of all time on their  roster.

 

 All they have to do is do a huge treatment of the characters in the same fashion as their emmy award

winning Justice League and JLU series and its a wrap.

 

 I Would love to see Marvel movies keep up.. So far they got the amazing Captain, Ironman.

 

 DC got all those Batman films, The unbelievable Smallville,(10 yrs baby) , Green Arrow and the new Flash show debuts

ths year and all of those are going to be part of the Movie Universe.

 

 Marvel has alot of challenges..indeed. But considering  how much money they made so far, its pretty damn impressive, but

Marvel's characters beside Spiderman, Captain, Xmen and Ironman are not as Epic as the DC Characters

 can be on the big screen.

 

 I mean who is bigger than Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman, Martian Manhunter, GL, Flash done right.

[Kalel009Shel]

Yes something will replace since nothing last forever. 

Avatar and Battle Angelita will surpass Marvel. Heck Avatar 2 is going to beat both

  Avengers 2 and SWS 7 I think combined!!

[Ethan Hunt]

 

 

 I mean who is bigger than Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman, Martian Manhunter, GL, Flash done right.

 Hawkgirl is upset now.

[Water Bottle]

All of those "universes" are restricted to one world. This is the first time a cinematic universe has fleshed out multiple Earth based characters and stories (Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner etc.) AND otherworldly characters and stories (Thor, Guardians etc.), bringing them together during larger universe affecting sagas. (Avengers, Avengers 3 etc.)And that's not even talking about the different genres existing in the same universe (sci-fi with Iron Man, political thriller with Cap, fantasy with Doctor Strange etc.) The ONLY thing that could come close to this level of scope and diversity is the DC universe, and those folks stumble and fall twice for every step they take.

I'm going to blow your mind.STAR TREK.Multiple timelines, alternate Earths, the milky way galaxy, earth based characters, aliens. It literally covers centuries and three different generations of characters.Even the movies have different tone.The first movie is a space opera.The second movie is a tactical military thriller.The third movie is a fantasy adventure.The fourth movie is a comedy.The fifth movie sucks.The sixth movie is a political thriller.And so on.The original series is just a western in space.The second series (originally called Phase II so Marvel just stole that) is an ensemble character drama.And so on.The real question is if Marvel can ever top Star Trek? Edited July 26, 2014 by Water Bottle

[dashrendar44]

I'm going to blow your mind.STAR TREK.Multiple timelines, alternate Earths, the milky way galaxy, earth based characters, aliens. It literally covers centuries and three different generations of characters.Even the movies have different tone.The first movie is a space opera.The second movie is a tactical military thriller.The third movie is a fantasy adventure.The fourth movie is a comedy.The fifth movie sucks.The sixth movie is a political thriller.And so on.The original series is just a western in space.The second series (originally called Phase II so Marvel just stole that) is an ensemble character drama.And so on.The real question is if Marvel can ever top Star Trek?

 

Star Trek cinematic universe is a pioneer, yes. But Marvel already has topped it in terms of broad appeal (Trekkies are pretty much a small percentage of GA), scope and genres (A Star Trek movie and TV series despite the flavor of the week given is still scifi genre at its core). Paradoxally, even if ST's universe is made of multiple spin-offs expanding the universe into alternate dimensions, you still got to be a trekkie to get it all. MCU doesn't need any requirement and knowledge to get into it whereas Star Trek's universe feels like you need to be a fan of Stephen Hawking and astrophysics to enjoy it at its fullest..

 

To be fair, Star Trek got a bad rep of being a bunch of guys in pajamas on a TV set talking scifi lingo and waxing poetry about the future of Mankind with not too much action to save money and keep it cheap. And Star Trek Into Darkness as broad as it tried to be proved there is a ceiling and a stigma Star Trek's franchise can't manage to overcome.

 

Star Trek's most memorable iteration in pop culture is the original series and Star Trek The Motion Picture, not DS9, TNG, Voyager or Enterprise. I doubt Captain Sisko crew, Captain Picard's crew is as popular and memorable in audience's mind as Shatner's Kirk or Nimoy's Spock (That's why during the nineties people shrugged more and more at ST movies until the reboot) whereas in Marvel Universe you can have Iron Man franchise, Thor franchise, Captain America franchise and now GOTG in the making and so on being milked out of that Marvel universe and each one is given the chance to shine and break out, becoming as popular as each other, no niches.

Edited July 26, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Water Bottle]

Star Trek cinematic universe is a pioneer, yes. But Marvel already has topped it in terms of broad appeal (Trekkies are pretty much a small percentage of GA), scope and genres (A Star Trek movie and TV series despite the flavor of the week given is still scifi genre at its core). Paradoxally, even if ST's universe is made of multiple spin-offs expanding the universe into alternate dimensions, you still got to be a trekkie to get it all. MCU doesn't need any requirement and knowledge to get into it whereas Star Trek's universe feels like you need to be a fan of Stephen Hawking and astrophysics to enjoy it at its fullest..

 

The question isn't which universe is better. The question is which universe is BIGGER. Appeal has nothing to do with it. And no matter what the scope and genre is, Marvel films are still comic book movies at it's core. And sure, you have to be a Trekkie to get it all. But to get the full MCU experience, you have to watch every episode of TV and every movie so you have to be a Marvelite. I mean, you can drop in most episodes of Trek and most movies and be fine-they're most self-contained. I don't feel like I'm missing anything despite knowing nothing about astrophysics.

 

And scope? I think the scope of Star Trek has, by the vast library it has, to have a much larger scope. It's not just the whole universe and the future: it's entire generations of the future.

 

Oh and for a having "ceiling and stigma" to overcome, $228 million US domestic box office isn't bad at all. It might not be Marvel money but it's not bad for a franchise with the reputation you prescribe it.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Water Bottle

[The47th]

A franchise is not made 'complex' just by the number of entries. The MCU is made out of films with simple premises that never go beyond the mere objective of entertaining. It doesn't aspire to anything greater, which is not good or bad, it's just what defines it.

 

To the question of whether it will be topped...I think you can find plausible contenders for all different aspects:

 

In the complexity of the story, pretty much every big franchise is at its level or has surpassed it already: Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Doctor Who...even X-Men comes fairly close, now that they have unified all films into one storyline.

 

In number of entries, Harry Potter is a direct rival, and it's poised to keep growing in the future with the 'Beasts' spin offs, which is also the case of Star Wars. But of course, Star Trek tops everyone in this matter: those 12 films and 5 TV shows will be very hard to top anytime soon.

 

In monetary success, I don't have the numbers in hand, but I doubt the MCU films have topped Harry Potter's string of 8 films with $800M minimum. I mean, the bigger MCU films are just an average Harry Potter film in that matter. With the Avengers exception, of course.

 

 

The MCU is one of the big players and it's very 'in' at the moment, but I wouldn't say it's anything special.

 

All of those "universes" are restricted to one world. This is the first time a cinematic universe has fleshed out multiple Earth based characters and stories (Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner etc.) AND otherworldly characters and stories (Thor, Guardians etc.), bringing them together during larger universe affecting sagas. (Avengers, Avengers 3 etc.)

 

Star Trek tops that easily. Not only on that same level (different characters with its own storylines on different worlds that affect each other) but it also adds the element of time, developing all of them through entire centuries. You could write a timeline for all worlds of the galaxy from the 20th Century to the 24th Century without even the need of going beyond the audiovisual material. You could go even further for some specific elements. And that's without contemplating alternate timelines or dimensions.

 

For the crossover element (the "larger universe affecting sagas") it happens fairly often throughout the shows and films, but nothing tops Deep Space Nine, which is one big crossover of characters and civilizations in a galaxy-defining storyline condensed in 176 episodes.

 

I would say Star Wars comes close, although its narrative is very restricted to one point of view at a time.

 

And that's not even talking about the different genres existing in the same universe (sci-fi with Iron Man, political thriller with Cap, fantasy with Doctor Strange etc.) The ONLY thing that could come close to this level of scope and diversity is the DC universe, and those folks stumble and fall twice for every step they take.

 

 

This is very silly. First of all, I will eat my hat if Iron Man can be considered science fiction. Second of all, Doctor Strange hasn't even happened yet. You would've been better off with Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Third of all, that mix is not even that varied, as it all circles around action/adventure, and, again, Star Trek beats it, as it has examples of pure science fiction, war drama, family drama, period drama, fantasy, action, crime drama...and the list continues. It's only logical because TV shows allow space for creativity and variety, but that doesn't make it less true.

[dashrendar44]

The question isn't which universe is better. The question is which universe is BIGGER. Appeal has nothing to do with it. And no matter what the scope and genre is, Marvel films are still comic book movies at it's core. And sure, you have to be a Trekkie to get it all. But to get the full MCU experience, you have to watch every episode of TV and every movie so you have to be a Marvelite. I mean, you can drop in most episodes of Trek and most movies and be fine-they're most self-contained. I don't feel like I'm missing anything despite knowing nothing about astrophysics.

 

And scope? I think the scope of Star Trek has, by the vast library it has, to have a much larger scope. It's not just the whole universe and the future: it's entire generations of the future.

 

Oh and for a having "ceiling and stigma" to overcome, $228 million US domestic box office isn't bad at all. It might not be Marvel money but it's not bad for a franchise with the reputation you prescribe it.

 

No offense but I don't think you and people that are using Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings to claim they're bigger universes that Marvel understands the point why MCU is potentially the biggest. Marvel is made of multiple universes, each character got its own universe that can be included in a much larger universe. That's the big difference.

 

In Star Trek's case, Spock doesn't have his own universe nor Kirk does in his own spin-off. It's been creating as an ensemble from the beginning. Okay, there are multiple co-existing TV series spin-offs with their own adventures in that universe. However, to my knowledge, they didn't make a big ST crossover like Kirk and Spock meeting TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise's cast in one big roster that becomes one another larger franchise ("The Avengers of Star Trek Universe") since they're living in different/alternate timelines. There is Star Trek universe and everything is confined into it like galaxies.

 

MCU is made of multiple characters which got their own franchise/universe that can be added creating larger franchise/universes that are both contained in MCU. The point is that in MCU, different character universes can be combined to create another brand new ensemble universes (then add those ensembles to another ensemble) that are all part of the MCU. Actually MCU is a cosmogony of multiple universes. That's a russian doll of universes that are diverse and can be as self contained as be interdependent from each other.

 

I think the difference lies in there.

 

In Marvel Universe, they can have Iron Man's universe colliding with other characters universe, you got Avengers franchise universe then Avengers universe meet GOTG's universe, you got another one larger universe/franchise looming over it, or Avengers franchise collide with New Warriors, you got Civil War franchise and so on...that's without even having X-men and FF4 rights.

Edited July 27, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Spidey Freak]

A franchise is not made 'complex' just by the number of entries. The MCU is made out of films with simple premises that never go beyond the mere objective of entertaining. It doesn't aspire to anything greater, which is not good or bad, it's just what defines it.

I'd say Winter Soldier, Avengers and IM/IM3 all aspired to be greater than light entertainment but of course, since the MCU films don't hammer their themes and messages into skulls like say "gritty DC", those messages usually go over some folk's heads. And they come away with just the cosmetic jokes.

Star Trek tops that easily. Not only on that same level (different characters with its own storylines on different worlds that affect each other) but it also adds the element of time, developing all of them through entire centuries. You could write a timeline for all worlds of the galaxy from the 20th Century to the 24th Century without even the need of going beyond the audiovisual material. You could go even further for some specific elements. And that's without contemplating alternate timelines or dimensions.For the crossover element (the "larger universe affecting sagas") it happens fairly often throughout the shows and films, but nothing tops Deep Space Nine, which is one big crossover of characters and civilizations in a galaxy-defining storyline condensed in 176 episodes.

Trek had decades and decades over the MCU, but seeing how the Marvel Comics Universe is more diverse and has more depth and scope than the Trek-verse in all of the ways you mentioned, the MCU can easily overtake Star Trek in those aspects in another ten years' time.Also, the Earth-based stories in Trek were never as varied and fleshed out as the different Earth-based heroes in the MCU. I love that Marvel is building different stories on Earth before pulling away and showing despite the fleshed depth and conflict on just one planet, the entire thing is still a myopic setting compared to events on a cosmic level.

This is very silly. First of all, I will eat my hat if Iron Man can be considered science fiction. Second of all, Doctor Strange hasn't even happened yet. You would've been better off with Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy.Third of all, that mix is not even that varied, as it all circles around action/adventure, and, again, Star Trek beats it, as it has examples of pure science fiction, war drama, family drama, period drama, fantasy, action, crime drama...and the list continues. It's only logical because TV shows allow space for creativity and variety, but that doesn't make it less true.

OK, would you like your hat with mustard or chipotle southwest? Coz IM is sure as hell sci-fi. You know that the genre doesn't just allude to aliens and space travel right? The specifics of the suits and stuff like Extremis are as sci-fi as anything in Star Wars.Also, we haven't even scratched the surface with the MCU. Guardians, Age of Ultron and Doctor Strange are when we actually begin to explore the meat of the universe. Strange by itself raises questions relating to metaphysics, spirituality, time, space and psychology in a fantasy setting and on a level never quite explored on the big screen before.Also, war and period drama (check with Cap), crime drama (soon to be checked with the FOUR Netflix shows). As for family drama, that's what the Avengers basically are. Of course, the movie rights to Marvel properties that handle this theme with less subtlety are not owned by Disney (Spidey, FF and X-Men). But the Avengers and soon the Guardians are families in their own rights. Not to mention the literal family dynamics explored in the Thor movies and IM2. And the Hamletian aspect of Black Panther, when that property makes it on the big screen. Edited July 27, 2014 by Spidey Freak

[Water Bottle]

In Star Trek's case, Spock doesn't have his own universe nor Kirk does in his own spin-off. It's been creating as an ensemble from the beginning.

 

:lol:

 

I'm sorry but the original Star Trek was far from an ensemble drama. It only had two series regulars in the first season and added a third in the second and third season. That's not an ensemble drama.

 

 

 

However, to my knowledge, they didn't make a big ST crossover like Kirk and Spock meeting TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise's cast in one big roster that becomes one another larger franchise ("The Avengers of Star Trek Universe") since they're living in different/alternate timelines.

 

That doesn't make Marvel bigger. If anything, it actually makes it smaller. Oh and they're not completely different universes. Unless Guardians of the Galaxy is about a different galaxy, they're all in the same galaxy/universe. The whole point of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that they SHARE the same universe. It's in the name of the franchise. If you think they're all different universes, I don't think you know what the word means.

 

Oh and they did have Kirk and Picard joining up in one movie. So y'know, there's another place Star Trek was big. Worf went from being a series regular on TNG to being a series regular on Deep Space Nine. Yes, not all the characters could join up together but that's because of the huge size of the universe.

 

 

In Marvel Universe, they can have Iron Man's universe colliding with other characters universe, you got Avengers franchise universe then Avengers universe meet GOTG's universe, you got another one larger universe/franchise looming over it, or Avengers franchise collide with New Warriors, you got Civil War franchise and so on...that's without even having X-men and FF4 rights.

 

The comics are a separate universe and don't count unless they're specifically MCU comics. Just like how I'm not counting the Star Trek books.

 

 

 

Trek had decades and decades over the MCU, but seeing how the Marvel Comics Universe is more diverse and has more depth and scope than the Trek-verse in all of the ways you mentioned, the MCU can easily overtake Star Trek in those aspects in another ten years' time.

 

It doesn't have more depth and scope. I'm sorry but it simply doesn't. The scope of Star Trek is space and time. There's literally hundreds of planets that the franchise has explored. It would take way more than ten years for MCU to come close.

 

 

 

Also, the Earth-based stories in Trek were never as varied and fleshed out as the different Earth-based heroes in the MCU. I love that Marvel is building different stories on Earth before pulling away and showing despite the fleshed depth and conflict on just one planet, the entire thing is still a myopic setting compared to events on a cosmic level.

 

That's an argument of which universe is better, not which is bigger. Nice try.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Water Bottle

[dashrendar44]

:lol:

 

I'm sorry but the original Star Trek was far from an ensemble drama. It only had two series regulars in the first season and added a third in the second and third season. That's not an ensemble drama.

 

WTF? Star trek is not based on an ensemble cast? You mean there was a solo Kirk TV series and a solo Spock TV series before Star Trek the original series?

 

I don't think we speak the same language. For me, in this conversation, an universe is "Iron Man and his foes", that's one universe like "Thor and his foes" is one another. I'm not talking the encyclopedic definition of an universe like Earth is in Milky Way galaxy then millions of galaxies form one universe. "Universe" in that conversation is synonym with an independant "lore".

 

Star Trek is one universe made of spin-offs within it. Kirk coming into DS9 or TNG is guest-starring. It didn't spawn a bigger franchise. The thing is "Kirk and his foes"(TOS) and "Picard and his foes"(TNG) when added at some point didn't create one another franchise/"universe" like Avengers when they combined IM and the others that loomed larger than their respective "universes"/lore, no that was pretty much Kirk guest starred in Picard's spin-off.

 

"MCU" (I emphasize putting "universe" between commas) is a cosmogony of different "universes" combining themselves to create bigger "universes".

Edited July 27, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Water Bottle]

WTF? Star trek is not based on an ensemble cast? You mean there was a Kirk TV series and a Spock TV series before Star Trek the original series?

 

I don't think we speak the same language.

 

Star Trek is one universe made of spin-offs within it. Kirk coming into DS9 or TNG is guest-starring. It didn't spawn a bigger franchise.

 

"MCU" (I put "universe" between commas) is a cosmogony of different universes combining themselves to create bigger universes.

 

Clearly not speaking the same language if you think Star Trek: The Original Series is an ensemble drama. The Next Generation was an ensemble drama: Picard might have been the Captain but it was just as much about every other crew member. The Original Series has a clear protagonist: Kirk. It is indeed the Kirk TV series with his two best friends (McCoy and Spock) helping him out. It's like how Captain America had Black Widow and Falcon helped Captain America in the second movie. Sure sometimes Spock (or even McCoy) would take the spotlight but for the most part, it was about Kirk.

 

And not, it's not a cosmogony of different universes. It's one big universe. Even if you accept it's different universes, that only makes Star Trek by default the bigger universe since it's one big one instead of a bunch of small little ones. I don't accept that argument. All Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, and etc. have to do to be in the same place together is to go to the same place. Thor might have to travel between planets (but not dimensions) but the point stands: they don't have to go through a multi-universe warp to get there.

 

As for spawning it's own franchise, I disagree there. Each TV series generally can stand on it's own as a franchise.

[dashrendar44]

Clearly not speaking the same language if you think Star Trek: The Original Series is an ensemble drama. The Next Generation was an ensemble drama: Picard might have been the Captain but it was just as much about every other crew member. The Original Series has a clear protagonist: Kirk. It is indeed the Kirk TV series with his two best friends (McCoy and Spock) helping him out. It's like how Captain America had Black Widow and Falcon helped Captain America in the second movie. Sure sometimes Spock (or even McCoy) would take the spotlight but for the most part, it was about Kirk.

 

So TOS was like Wolverine and friends then instead of being X-Men. That's even smaller in scope as Spock and McCoy are not even equal to Kirk, nor they could have their own spin-offs.

 

We definetely don't speak the same language.

 

When you add Picard's character and crew and Kirk's character, do you have a bigger franchise  like Star Trek: Super Series or Ultra Star Trek telling larger adventures? No.

 

When you add IM's character carrying his own lore, Captain America's character carrying his own lore, Hulk's character carrying his own lore and Thor's carrying his lore, you got The Avengers series going beyond their respective lores expanding it into a larger lore.

Edited July 27, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Water Bottle]

So TOS was like Wolverine and friends then instead of being X-Men. That's even smaller in scope as Spock and McCoy are not even equal to Kirk, nor they could have their own spin-offs.We definetely don't speak the same language.When you add Picard's character and crew and Kirk's character, do you have a bigger franchise like Star Trek: Super Series or Ultra Star Trek telling larger adventures? No.When you add IM's character carrying his own lore, Captain America's character carrying his own lore, Hulk's character carrying his own lore and Thor's carrying his lore, you got The Avengers series going beyond their respective lores expanding it into a larger lore.

I'm sorry but are you judging the size of a universe solely on how many spin offs it can spin off surrounding a single character?How many Iron Man characters have their own films? How many Captain America ones? Thor? I'm pretty sure if you put all of the Star Trek characters together you would get an ultimate adventure. To suggest otherwise is silly.As for lore building, each and every single Star Trek franchise has done that. It is built into the very nature of the series. They all build lore that when taken together builds a massive universe.Just like Marvel only instead of basing it on single characters, it's based on ship crews.