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

[Kamen Rider Blade]

We don't need more universes. We've already got 3 effective continuities: TOS to ENT, Kelvinverse, and NuTrek (it may not be another universe but NuTrek and TOS are discontinuous; its a reboot, plus, the average Joe would not be able to identify DIS S4 as being Trek).

I concur on the 3x Time-Lines theory.
It makes the most logical sense and fixes any continuity gaffes.

The continuity always felt like a branch from Enterprise NX era to the KELVIN then branched.

Spoiler: Salty Trekker FKA Anti-Trekker - Triple Timeline Theory Redux

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Spoiler: The 3x Time-Line theory makes the most sense

Given the fact we've had several spinoffs from DISCO would be a strong possibility the numbers were good enough to move forward. I don't doubt Viacom could brand and sell a new Trek for a movie going audience with DISCO if the story was compelling to tell. The visuals on DISCO is on par with motion picture quality of production... why not go a little further making it a mid-budget Star Trek theatrical venture?

If you're going by popularity as to which Time-Line / era to spin-off a new movie.
It's not going to be DISCO. If anything, it's probably going to be in the early 25th century right around ST:Legacy's time frame.

Spoiler: The Popcast - Definitive Rankings of all ST Shows in 2023

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Spoiler: "Global Average Fan Rankings" vs "The Popcast Rankings"

 

[STEPhon IT]

I can see that, but I was thinking of formality from previous Star Trek series being promoted to the silver screen. TOS did it, and then came TNG... so why not DISCO?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Streaming success and mainstream success are two very, very different things. Paramount are the only ones with the concrete numbers, they're the only ones who know.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I can see that, but I was thinking of formality from previous Star Trek series being promoted to the silver screen. TOS did it, and then came TNG... so why not DISCO?

Studios are notoriously slow when green lighting films which are about things that most people have never heard of (and don't care about).

There will never be a DSC movie. Not in mainstream cinemas, anyway.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There will never be a DSC movie. Not in mainstream cinemas, anyway.

I'm sure it's being seriously considered for a Paramount+ movie. The plan is one every 2 years, and we know Section 31 is first and Legacy is rumoured to be the second.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I'm sure it's being seriously considered for a Paramount+ movie. The plan is one every 2 years, and we know Section 31 is first and Legacy is rumoured to be the second.

Is Legacy rumoured to be a P+ movie? That’s a new one on me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Is Legacy rumoured to be a P+ movie? That’s a new one on me.

It did the rounds on those BS rumour sites.... the same ones that talked about a Disco/Kelvin crossover that turned out to be legit.

 

[HIjol]

I agree with Gatsby and others on many points, but as has been mentioned in other Threads, the PTB need to consider that we Khanians and Borgites are aging and will soon be in the Starfleet Retirement Home on Riza.

The Next (Alpha) Generations of fans are to whom Trek needs to appeal…

…but not Area 31…no good, that, imho.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It did the rounds on those BS rumour sites.... the same ones that talked about a Disco/Kelvin crossover that turned out to be legit.

Fair enough.

If that is right, depending on what happens with the strike and if the S31 movie is still going ahead, it might be 3-5 years until we see it I guess.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Fair enough.

If that is right, depending on what happens with the strike and if the S31 movie is still going ahead, it might be 3-5 years until we see it I guess.

But as a movie, they're more likely to get Patrick Stewart and more of the TNG cast back.

 

[M'Sharak]

I agree with Gatsby and others on many points, but as has been mentioned in other Threads, the PTB need to consider that we Khanians and Borgites are aging and will soon be in the Starfleet Retirement Home on Riza.

The Next (Alpha) Generations of fans are to whom Trek needs to appeal…

…but not Area 31…no good, that, imho.

I don't have any idea who Gatsby is, and Area 31 sounds like a Nevada atomic test site from the 1950s.

However, if we're talking theatrical films, targeting Star Trek fans only (never mind specific subsets thereof) is a recipe for box-office failure. If it doesn't appeal to an audience significantly broader than the active Star Trek community, it's not going to be profitable even on a mid-size budget.

 

[HIjol]

Gatsby was a previous poster.
“Area 31” was my cutsie-sarcastic way of referring to Section 31.

My post was not so cutsie.
Not so clear.

Apologies!

 

[M'Sharak]

Gatsby was a previous poster.

I'm still not following. There's no poster by that name in this thread or on this board.

Probably better to refer to a poster by their username, so that everyone can easily understand what you mean. It's just so much simpler without having to try (and fail) to decode the cryptic reference.

 

[HIjol]

Understood, and I absolutely will!

 

[Richard S. Ta]

But as a movie, they're more likely to get Patrick Stewart and more of the TNG cast back.

Interesting. Like I said, I just hadn’t heard the rumour (not meaning to cast doubt on what you said), but it is very interesting.

 

[Kor]

I'm still not following. There's no poster by that name in this thread or on this board.

Probably better to refer to a poster by their username, so that everyone can easily understand what you mean. It's just so much simpler without having to try (and fail) to decode the cryptic reference.

I think he might mean @William Gatsby on the first page of the thread. Things can get a tad confusing when abbreviating usernames that have more than one word.

On the general topic of a mid-budget movie, I've been saying for a while that I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional feature-length movie released to streaming. I'm not sure if I would want to see them in theaters though. These days I tend to only go to the theaters for the huge blockbusters that just demand the experience of a humongous screen and immersive audio system. On the other hand, I also like to see the smaller independent productions in the theater. But those are talky dramas with no big-budget action at all. If "mid-budget" these days would be something along the lines of TWOK through TVH, I could go either way; theater or streaming. I would definitely go see it in the cinema if it was a theatrical release, since it is Star Trek after all.

Kor

 

[M'Sharak]

I think he might mean @William Gatsby on the first page of the thread. Things can get a tad confusing when abbreviating usernames that have more than one word.

Ha, I believe you're right.

A search of the thread for the word "gatsby" turned up nothing, though, nor is the user findable doing a member search for only that word. Plus, the post in question is from more than two months ago -- if we're going to refer to something from that far back in the discussion and expect everyone to follow, I'd suggest either a link to that post, quote a pertinent bit from that post above the reply, or write out the complete username with a '@' at the front. (Added benefit of the latter two will be that that user receives a notification that there's been a response.)

 

[HIjol]

I think he might mean @William Gatsby on the first page of the thread. Things can get a tad confusing when abbreviating usernames that have more than one word.

On the general topic of a mid-budget movie, I've been saying for a while that I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional feature-length movie released to streaming. I'm not sure if I would want to see them in theaters though. These days I tend to only go to the theaters for the huge blockbusters that just demand the experience of a humongous screen and immersive audio system. On the other hand, I also like to see the smaller independent productions in the theater. But those are talky dramas with no big-budget action at all. If "mid-budget" these days would be something along the lines of TWOK through TVH, I could go either way; theater or streaming. I would definitely go see it in the cinema if it was a theatrical release, since it is Star Trek after all.-budget

Kor

I did, indeed, mean William Gatsby and realize how to "fix" the confusion.

I also agree with you, Kor, with regard to the "mid-budget" parameters you speak of, and also the streaming rather than big-screen release preference.

Maybe it is an outcome of the more diverse content being offered by providers (in general) but it seems there are less and less of what we used to call "Blockbuster" movies being released.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe it is an outcome of the more diverse content being offered by providers (in general) but it seems there are less and less of what we used to call "Blockbuster" movies being released.

This has been ongoing for some time though, now. Originally, the blockbuster idea was closer to a tentpole, with a lot of smaller films released to help augment profits through the year. STAR WARS was an example of a mid-tier "kid's movie" that would augment Fox's monies if "Damnation Alley" didn't perform to expectations.

Now that films are bigger and louder and expected to be "events" and not just a film, the pool of films being produced is lessening and the focus on huge blockbusters is the studio goal. Add in unexpected developments (global pandemic, streaming, strikes) and studios are going to look for less mix of content and more big bang for their bucks.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Studios are notoriously slow when green lighting films which are about things that most people have never heard of (and don't care about).

There will never be a DSC movie. Not in mainstream cinemas, anyway.

Concur with this. The entire Paramount+ market isn't big enough to support a feature film.

The truth of the matter is (no matter how much we don't want to hear it): Star Trek is effectively dead in the public eye. It's not getting a new generation of viewers. Sure, it's picking up a few on Paramount+, but nothing like the draw for TNG and Berman-Trek, and mostly through "legacy" Trekkers (e.g. I got my wife to watch Strange New Worlds, and my daughter enjoys Lower Decks).

I work at a Uni and have asked students if they've watched Star Trek -- any Star Trek! Nada. None. Zip. The last successful injection of Star Trek into the public eye was over a decade ago. Yes, I know Beyond was 2016, but I said "successful". The students were 7/8 when Into Darkness came out. Doesn't compute for them. And if you consider ST'09 to be the only one that made a big splash, that's 14 and counting...