Elephant in the room:-
Will we be calling this the 14th Star Trek movie or not? At least we're getting *something*
I admit the idea of a SECTION 31 series wasn't appealing to me, but I'm happy it's a single film
Spoilers Section 31 General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Will we be calling this the 14th Star Trek movie or not? At least we're getting *something*
I admit the idea of a SECTION 31 series wasn't appealing to me, but I'm happy it's a single film
They may do a 'premiere event' for critics and media with the cast and crew present and everyone will go watch it in a theater; but it won't be released to any sort of actua publicl theatrical run.
It technically is. It just is not the 14th theatrical release. Unless it get a limited theatre release later on down the line.
Honestly, I do not see a single 2 hr ish one off as prime strategy to attract new sustained subscribers to the platform. Heck even a 7 day free trial woild cover seeìng this . And If that subscriber increase is minimal, I say might as well also do a limited 3 day run or so in theatres and the theatre event it self can be used to promote other P + programming. Perhaps do an exlusive "short trek" in theatres and a different exclusive short trek on P+.
Last edited:
Plenty of streaming services have their own exclusive TV movies and it works well for them. And they don't have theatrical runs. Well, Netflix occasionally does, but that's only when they really spend a budget on a movie.
I think they’ll be banking on the Yeoh factor for new subscribers. I’m skeptical that it’ll do much - Star Trek is just such a hard sell for a lot of people - but it’ll probably do fine. Grab a few more people while the reliable demographic hopefully tunes in, too.
Or they want to have their film up for Oscar consideration.
It may boost P+ subscribers in Asia.
Eh, my opinion is that while they've gotten a boost with Halo and Tulsa King, Paramount+ depends heavily on Star Trek for anyone at all to show up.
I'm pretty sure Taylor Sheridan pulls his weight for them too. Otherwise they wouldn't keep greenlighting a dozen Yellowstone spinoffs plus another dozen of his other shows.
Fair point.
First image from the movie
https://twitter.com/thetrekcentral/status/1773003965661053087
https://twitter.com/thetrekcentral/status/1773003965661053087
Since Star Trek is such a recognized brand, I think it should be one of those exceptions to parallel in theatres. You may get some more then exoected walk up sales from the general public who mistakenly think there's a new Star Trek feature being released. Especially since the lead in this has movie clout and is an Oscar winner.
Out of the 13 Trek movies released in theatres, only half have performed well in theatres, the last of which was released in 2009. Star Trek isn't as big as you think it is.
Georgiou is standing with a young
https://variety.com/2024/tv/feature...t-academy-section-31-michelle-yeoh-1235952301
So now we know the timeframe!
Rachel Garrett (Kacey Rohl), a character first introduced on “Next Generation” as the older fearless captain of the USS Enterprise-C.
https://variety.com/2024/tv/feature...t-academy-section-31-michelle-yeoh-1235952301
So now we know the timeframe!
I was thinking a helmetless Vader.
Something I rather appreciate about that article is how it highlights how Paramount is approaching the next feature film (yeah, we shall see, etc) with a mind toward the franchise’s well-established box office ceiling.
This is the sort of thing that dominated so much discourse over the relative financial success of the three most recent outings, most notably Star Trek Into Darkness, whose $455 million 2013 global cume was only modestly impressive. It was the highest of the three, and it couldn’t crack half a billion.
Much has been said on the subject of whether it might have had stronger legs if it was perceived as a better film, but a lot can be gleaned without the hundred-page forum threads. Internationally, Star Trek is not a big brand, for starters. These movies weren’t going to go where Paramount wanted them to go without that.
If they can put out a new film - if, indeed, but if they can - and that film eyes something more in this ballpark, a lot of suit-wearing people are going to be happier with the results. And while none of us, at least that I know, belong to the subset of viewers who wear those suits at Paramount, we can be glad to know the franchise isn’t underperforming on the big screen in large part due to the unavoidable relentless conundrum of ballooning budgets that have not, nor will they ever, fit the bill for Star Trek’s broad appeal.
tl;dr Let’s see a movie go into production that’s cost-effective enough for a $455 million haul to be regarded more optimistically.
As for Section 31, it knows its audience and it will have been budgeted accordingly; that’s the impression I get from all this. So yeah. Good start!
This is the sort of thing that dominated so much discourse over the relative financial success of the three most recent outings, most notably Star Trek Into Darkness, whose $455 million 2013 global cume was only modestly impressive. It was the highest of the three, and it couldn’t crack half a billion.
Much has been said on the subject of whether it might have had stronger legs if it was perceived as a better film, but a lot can be gleaned without the hundred-page forum threads. Internationally, Star Trek is not a big brand, for starters. These movies weren’t going to go where Paramount wanted them to go without that.
If they can put out a new film - if, indeed, but if they can - and that film eyes something more in this ballpark, a lot of suit-wearing people are going to be happier with the results. And while none of us, at least that I know, belong to the subset of viewers who wear those suits at Paramount, we can be glad to know the franchise isn’t underperforming on the big screen in large part due to the unavoidable relentless conundrum of ballooning budgets that have not, nor will they ever, fit the bill for Star Trek’s broad appeal.
tl;dr Let’s see a movie go into production that’s cost-effective enough for a $455 million haul to be regarded more optimistically.
As for Section 31, it knows its audience and it will have been budgeted accordingly; that’s the impression I get from all this. So yeah. Good start!
I'm talking about a limited release here . Remember the budget here is no where near it would be for a feature film . The metrics of a successful limited run for a movie that was essentially made for TV is totally different. I just cant see how it can hurt Paramount plus. I'm not saying they should angle for a blockbuster at all here. But Star Trek has more brand recognition that some random film that a streaming service also parallel releases in theatres. I don't think its a bad idea to look at adding additional revenue streams and delivery options to hhe consumer in addition to trying to increase subscribers. I dont think those 2 aproaches really cannibalizes on eachother.
Last edited:
They don't do theatrical releases for their other exclusive movies, not even a limited run. They're not going to just because it's Star Trek. Besides, when they did theatrical screenings of TNG two-parters to sync up with Blu-ray releases, that didn't exactly do wonders. Likely why they gave up on those.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
