Predictions for Phase 2 of Star Trek

[FederationHistorian]

The Conpiracy Bugs would be a good thing... for Legacy. Not TNG.

If we're to treat Picard Season 3 as the final TNG "film", then it ended with

Spoiler

them fighting the Borg, the biggest TNG enemy, and the Enterprise-D crew taking on a revenge-driven Borg Queen, and saving Picard's son. Then handing off their legacy to the next next generation.

I think TNG's story should end there. But Legacy's story, with the Enterprise-G, can continue. Not that I wouldn't expect to see TNG/VOY characters in Legacy (besides Seven of Nine), but I think it would be back to PIC Season 1 and 2 levels.

Yes, I left out DS9 because who are we kidding?

To be fair, it would be a finale for Picard specifically. And I don't see how that happens without incorporating archaeology, as that's the one area related to Picard not explored.

And if its based around Picard, then for sure we will have Data. So more Data means more Geordi. I supposed Riker and Troi would be involved as well.

That's why it ends up being a TNG film. Even though an actual PIC film would be based around Picard, Seven, Raffi, Laris, Jack, Elnor, Soji, Jurati and the various La Sirena holograms based on Rios. With other characters making a cameo - Janeway, Kira, Kim, Naomi, Alexander. Maybe Wesley, Kore and Robin Lefler. Maybe Q. Maybe even resurrect Zhaban for the film. Where they actually visit new worlds in Vashti, Vergessen, Freecloud,& Coppelius, instead of Prime Earth, Confederation Earth, and a couple of Starfleet ships. I'm not sure why a return of Picard to the big screen needs the TNG crew beyond nostalgia. The TNG story is done. Tell new stories. Picard dealing with a significant archeological discovery in a region controlled by Romulan warlords in the Romulan Free State is an example of a new story.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not sure how a show set on the Enterprise-G would be any different from a show set on the Discoprise, other than the horrible lighting and a bunch of old geezer guest stars.

Maybe SNW is family friendly, while Legacy is rated R. They have been trying to make rated R Trek happen with DIS S1 and PIC S1.

 

[Dukhat]

"Rated R Trek" is vastly overrated.

 

[fireproof78]

Why, so they can just kill them off? If PIC is any indication, some things should be better left alone.

I don't know the why. I agree that some things are best left alone. However, since this is an industry set on capitalizing on every opportunity it seems that Legacy is the next in a long list of "*shrug* Why not?" decisions.

"Rated R Trek" is vastly overrated.

Agreed. R rated in general is vastly overrated. People try way to hard with that.

 

[Lord Garth]

"Huge surprise" but I have the opposite view. I love Rated R. It's PG-13 I'm not a fan of. Like I've said before: 9 times out of 10, PG-13 tells me two things: It's either an R-movie with the guts cut out of it (figuratively or literally) or it's a PG-movie with something stupid added in to amp it up. As a rule of thumb, I don't like PG-13 because it comes across to me as a "compromise rating".

PIC Season 1 also happens to be my favorite season of Kurtzman Trek, with DSC Season 1 as the immediate runner-up. So there you go.

DSC Season 4 has lost a little luster in my eyes, since it was released, but it's bubbling just underneath those two. I have to give PIC Season 3 a full re-watch, but I knew what it was going into it and enjoyed it on its own terms ("TNG as a TOS Movie").

If Legacy had the S3 cast (aside from the TNG characters) and had the S1 tone, that would be the perfect combination for me. I know a ton of other people here would hate it, but that's what I'd want in a dream world.

 

[FederationHistorian]

"Huge surprise" but I have the opposite view. I love Rated R. It's PG-13 I'm not a fan of. Like I've said before: 9 times out of 10, PG-13 tells me two things: It's either an R-movie with the guts cut out of it (figuratively or literally) or it's a PG-movie with something stupid added in to amp it up. As a rule of thumb, I don't like PG-13 because it comes across to me as a "compromise rating".

PIC Season 1 also happens to be my favorite season of Kurtzman Trek, with DSC Season 1 as the immediate runner-up. So there you go.

DSC Season 4 has lost a little luster in my eyes, since it was released, but it's bubbling just underneath those two. I have to give PIC Season 3 a full re-watch, but I knew what it was going into it and enjoyed it on its own terms ("TNG as a TOS Movie").

If Legacy had the S3 cast (aside from the TNG characters) and had the S1 tone, that would be the perfect combination for me. I know a ton of other people here would hate it, but that's what I'd want in a dream world.

I think there can be a Star Trek: Legacy movie, focused on Picard and Seven that is shot in LA and presumably rated PG or PG-13 so that it can guarantee box office success. Though even the highest grossing Star Trek film doesn’t even crack the top 10 or even top 20 all time grossing rated R films. And an R rated Trek film would break new ground.

Afterwards, there can be a Star Trek: Legacy tv show, focused on Seven and the rest of the Ent-G crew, shot in Canada that is TV-MA.

 

[HotRod]

I think there can be a Star Trek: Legacy movie, focused on Picard and Seven that is shot in LA

Paramount is all about saving money at the moment. They're not going to film a Star Trek film in Los Angeles.

so that it can guarantee box office success.

Star Trek!? A guaranteed box office success? What are you smoking!?

And an R rated Trek film would break new ground.

And tank even harder at the box office.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

...so that it can guarantee box office success.

It must be so cool on your planet.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Paramount is all about saving money at the moment. They're not going to film a Star Trek film in Los Angeles.

PIC was only filmed in LA because of Patrick Stewart. A live action Legacy film featuring Stewart is only going to get filmed in LA.

Star Trek!? A guaranteed box office success? What are you smoking!?

The thing that says historically, all Star Trek films break even, except NEM. That includes the controversial Into Darkness, and yes, even the much disliked TFF. But not NEM.

And tank even harder at the box office.

That’s hardly conclusive of anything since an R rated Star Trek movie has never been done before.

 

[HotRod]

A live action Legacy film featuring Stewart is only going to get filmed in LA.

Then they won't make a Legacy film featuring Stewart in any significant role. They will not take on that massive extra amount of money, just for Patrick Stewart.

The thing that says historically, all Star Trek films break even, except NEM. That includes the controversial Into Darkness, and yes, even the much disliked TFF. But not NEM

You're talking about films from over 20 years ago. Try looking at movies like Star Trek Beyond. If that film, filmed in Vancouver btw, with the star power behind it, couldn't make a decent chuck of change, a supposed "Legacy" film doesn't have a chance. I don't know if you haven't been paying attention, but films haven't exactly been tearing up the box office lately, with very rare exceptions.

That’s hardly conclusive of anything since an R rated Star Trek movie has never been done before.

Star Trek has always been somewhat family friendly, even the newer series only drop an f-bomb or two. Pretty pg-13 in today's world. You make the film R rated, unless you have one hell of a name behind it like QT, who will draw in non Trek fans, you've pretty much doomed yourself at the box office because you won't be getting families.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

@HotRod

Don't bother with any actual evidence or points supported by facts. They will all be roundly ignored in favour of ill-informed speculative fantasy. Federation Historian has a long history of this.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek has always been somewhat family friendly, even the newer series only drop an f-bomb or two. Pretty pg-13 in today's world. You make the film R rated, unless you have one hell of a name behind it like QT, who will draw in non Trek fans, you've pretty much doomed to yourself at the box office because you won't be getting families.

Indeed, yes. I understand that QT or R rated Trek has an appeal to a smaller section of the fan base. I didn't even mind the darker aspects of Discovery, which were treated as "a poor fit" with Star Trek, and I thought they were closer in line with stuff from DS9, or even TMP in some measure. But, as a full on R rated film? No, I don't see that meshing well. Discovery and Picard were lambasted for daring to have swearing in Trek, much less any nudity or more graphic violence. At every step there was push back against those artistic choices.

Could it be made? Sure, if Paramount wants to see limited box office returns. Last I checked that was the opposite of their goals right now.

 

[HotRod]

@HotRod

Don't bother with any actual evidence or points supported by facts. They will all be roundly ignored in favour of ill-informed speculative fantasy. Federation Historian has a long history of this.

He does seem to occupy a reality different from our own. I'm thinking he got his treks and wars mixed up.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

@HotRod

See:

Should Paramount put a mid-budget Star Trek film into theaters?

How to calculate the budget for a Lower Decks movie?

It's as simple as taking the budget for a single episode of Lower Decks and multiplying that figure by 6! (6x 20 minutes makes a movie).

123, easy peasy! That's how Hollywood works!

 

[Lord Garth]

R-rated movies don't do as well as PG-13, that's why there are so many PG-13 movies. So having it be Star Trek and Rated R would be a double-handicap.

The Quentin Tarantino film could've worked because it would be seen as a Tarantino movie first and a Star Trek movie second. But if anyone else did it, no way.

I haven't looked at their box-offices ever, but the Alien films come out infrequently: four from 1979 to 1997, one in 2012, and another in 2017. (If anyone mentions Alien vs. Predator, I'll smack them upside the head!) If they did better, they'd come out a lot more often.

As it was, I lucked out getting as much of what I wanted from Star Trek as I did.

 

[Lord Garth]

@HotRod

See:

Should Paramount put a mid-budget Star Trek film into theaters?

How to calculate the budget for a Lower Decks movie?

It's as simple as taking the budget for a single episode of Lower Decks and multiplying that figure by 6! (6x 20 minutes makes a movie).

123, easy peasy! That's how Hollywood works!

I agree with your point, but a few corrections: As a comedy, it would be more like 90 minutes. So it would be the length of 4.5 episodes. They'd probably also make the animation more detailed. Still in the same style, but more detailed. And they'd have at least a few big-name voice actors as guest stars. So, it would probably be more than 6 times. Maybe a lot more.

 

[mattman8907]

I would love if Section 31 begin a series of Stand-alone movies they can either be animated or Live-action. Just a one-off detailing a untold event in Star Trek history. Similar to the Lost Era of books. (I.E. Kirk's time on the Republic/Farragut, Riker's time on the original Titan, the Romulan War, the Treaty of Algeron, The Khitomer Massacre, etc....).

 

[FederationHistorian]

Then they won't make a Legacy film featuring Stewart in any significant role.

Then they have no box office draw and have to find a way for the umpteenth time to get the Kelvin films to happen.

I don't know if you haven't been paying attention, but films haven't exactly been tearing up the box office lately, with very rare exceptions.

*clap* Because *clap* tastes *clap* are *clap*changing!

Did you seriously think the audience was going to watch Marvel movies forever?

unless you have one hell of a name behind it like QT,

So an R rated Star Trek can be successful. Gotcha.

Don't bother with any actual evidence or points supported by facts. They will all be roundly ignored in favour of ill-informed speculative fantasy. Federation Historian has a long history of this.

There is someone engaged in il-informed speculative fantasy. One day, or even a few decades from now based on my experience with you, you’ll figure out it was not me.

He does seem to occupy a reality different from our own. I'm thinking he got his treks and wars mixed up.

If you don’t think a studio breaking even is not a sign of success, I would suggest you don’t quit your day job.

@HotRod

See:

Should Paramount put a mid-budget Star Trek film into theaters?

How to calculate the budget for a Lower Decks movie?

It's as simple as taking the budget for a single episode of Lower Decks and multiplying that figure by 6! (6x 20 minutes makes a movie).

123, easy peasy! That's how Hollywood works!

You genuinely speak like someone that’s never made a business plan in his life.

 

[Dukhat]

Federation Historian is welcome to believe whatever he wants. I personally don’t find many of his thoughts to be actually realistic, but that’s just me. As for my thoughts, I feel that in two years there isn’t going to be any more Star Trek on TV at all.

 

[HotRod]

Then they have no box office draw and have to find a way for the umpteenth time to get the Kelvin films to happen.

Hate to break it to you, but Patrick Stewart is not a box office draw. He never has been. Sure, he's popular amongst a certain, niche crowd, but no one has ever been like " let's go see the new Sir Patrick Stewart movie."

*clap* Because *clap* tastes *clap* are *clap*changing!

Did you seriously think the audience was going to watch Marvel movies forever?

Who said anything about Marvel, tho Guardians and Spider-Verse did well enough. Look at nearly every other major film that's come out in the last few years. Hell, look at the past few months. Disney movies bomb. Pixar movies bomb. Indiana Jones, Fast and the Furious, even Mission Impossible has underperformed. This summer has been a disaster, save for Barbie and Oppenheimer.

So an R rated Star Trek can be successful. Gotcha.

Under a very specificand highly unlikely scenario, sure.

If you don’t think a studio breaking even is not a sign of success, I would suggest you don’t quit your day job.

It's not a sign of success. Studios don't makes movies in the hope of not making any money. They have shareholders who are expecting a return on investment.

You genuinely speak like someone that’s never made a business plan in his life.

And you speak like someone who has absolutely zero idea how the film industry works. The numbers you have put forward have absolutely no basis in reality.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Hate to break it to you, but Patrick Stewart is not a box office draw. He never has been. Sure, he's popular amongst a certain, niche crowd, but no one has ever been like " let's go see the new Sir Patrick Stewart movie."

If he wasn’t a draw, he would not be in any movies, or lead a streaming series. Otherwise, Paramount would have just done Star Trek: Young Picard. And his other roles recasted.

Who said anything about Marvel, tho Guardians and Spider-Verse did well enough. Look at nearly every other major film that's come out in the last few years. Hell, look at the past few months. Disney movies bomb. Pixar movies bomb. Indiana Jones, Fast and the Furious, even Mission Impossible has underperformed. This summer has been a disaster, save for Barbie and Oppenheimer.

Let’s see what they have in common.

Marvel…a Disney property.
Pixar…a Disney property.
Indiana Jones…a Disney property.
Disney…self explanatory.

Wow, all of these Disney properties.

Plus two films that are going to have multiple installments as part of a finales for their respective franchises (Fast 10, Mission Impossible). But the film industry is in trouble.

Are you sure its not just a Disneypocalypse? And fans are just saving their money to see franchise finales in full during tough economic timesl?

Under a very specificand highly unlikely scenario, sure.

Then using A Piece of the Action as the basis, set the Star Trek film on the planet T’Arantino Prime with the Tarantinoians and run every Tarantino trope.

It's not a sign of success. Studios don't makes movies in the hope of not making any money. They have shareholders who are expecting a return on investment.

And if they don’t turn a profit or break even, they run the risk of going under. Like any other business, even those with shareholders. It's not unique to Hollywood.

And you speak like someone who has absolutely zero idea how the film industry works. The numbers you have put forward have absolutely no basis in reality.

Again, make the business plan, and you’ll understand why I said what I said and led with what it costs to make a season of LD aka conservative numbers. Instead of “we need double or triple or quadruple the budget of what is spent on a season of Lower Decks to make a film!’