If Star Trek could only be one, movie franchise or series franchise, which would you prefer?

[Shawnster]

Paramount are stuck on TWoK as the successful movie formula, regardless as to what the script details, and cannot consider anything else outside of the box.

Nor can they figure out why TWOK was so successful. "Maybe it was the nebula battle so let's put in a nebula battle. Maybe it was Khan, so let's literally reuse Khan. Let's recreate certain scenes nearly beat for beat."

Psst. It wasn't any of those things, Paramount.

 

[fireproof78]

When you're risking millions you want a guarantee.

 

[Lord Garth]

Most villains want revenge. Several anyway. That idea's a lot older than TWOK. A lot older than literature itself. A lot older than Homo Sapiens.

 

[BillJ]

A lot older than Homo Sapiens.

Since we don't know anyone else that has created stories or literature, this would be hard to verify.

 

[Lord Garth]

Since we don't know anyone else that has created stories or literature, this would be hard to verify.

Cave Paintings!

 

[silver121]

Series.

If they are using well known characters then 6 episode series would be ideal.

 

[Qonundrum]

When you're risking millions you want a guarantee.

That's why TOS failed, too risky and they didn't know at the time. Plus, given the cost of the original pilot being a historic high, they would want to give it one more go instead of chucking all the sets into the bin. The corridors and bridge don't easily get redressed as a sitcom living room and all.

 

[1001001]

At 94% - 6%, seems like it wasn’t really much of a choice at all.

 

[kneelicks]

While I like some of the movies, I feel like cinema as the only medium would limit the scope of the universe too much. Star Trek revels in its inclusion of multiple different species, worlds, anomalies, ideas, etc. A movie can only contain so much, and has to have a much clearer throughline. With a show, different writers can take a crack at things, different tones can be tried, and the property can just more easily seek out its boundaries. This seems much more in keeping with what Star Trek was always trying to be.

The movies have often been seen as a way to pursue a grander single story. Prestige TV can do exactly the same thing these days. Picard is closer to being a movie than a classic Trek show (at least the first couple of seasons). I think TV is ultimately just more flexible.

 

[publiusr]

I voted for movies for several reasons:

1.) So internet only TV shows make their way to H&I where I could see them

2.) Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder.

3.) A lot of plot points are exhausted

 

[Laughing Dragon]

Series for me as well. 2 hrs is not enough for me.

 

[kkt]

Series. When they make a movie they:

- need to spend the first 45 minutes explaining for an audience who's never seen star trek before what's going on.

- bring in a movie director who doesn't care what's gone on in star trek up to then.

- make a flashy, special effects heavy movie that appeals to the early teen audience and contains nothing that makes the audience think too much.

- as has been pointed out, it's possible to make a bad TV episode and survive. That means they can experiment, to some extent. Lose their shirt on a movie and they might never get to make another one.

 

[fireproof78]

I voted for movies for several reasons:

1.) So internet only TV shows make their way to H&I where I could see them

2.) Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder.

3.) A lot of plot points are exhausted

4). It's easier to keep up with.

 

[Trek Writers Room]

Series television, especially when presented as a continuous narrative rather than in an episodic format, offers a unique opportunity for in-depth character development. Unlike films, which are often constrained by their shorter runtime and tend to focus on a small cast of principal characters, television series have the luxury of time. This extended format allows writers to explore their characters more fully, giving audiences the chance to see their growth and evolution over multiple episodes and even seasons.

 

[Lord Garth]

At some point, TV in general became better than movies.

 

[Qonundrum]

Series television, especially when presented as a continuous narrative rather than in an episodic format, offers a unique opportunity for in-depth character development. Unlike films, which are often constrained by their shorter runtime and tend to focus on a small cast of principal characters, television series have the luxury of time. This extended format allows writers to explore their characters more fully, giving audiences the chance to see their growth and evolution over multiple episodes and even seasons.

Apart from TOS, which was largely episodic at the time (1960s) with one or two references to past episodes at most. Then came the 1979-91 movie series where there was quite a lot of character development (chiefly for the big three), with an intertwining arc/continuing epic (for the most part). TUC did manage to set up and sell in 2 hours a formidable opponent in General Chang, in a trope that isn't " revenge on Kirk, moohahaha", that also concluded the intertwining events that started in TWOK-onward. 2-4+6 are impressive. 5 doesn't quite fit without some headcanon, but 5 is more like what TOS circa 1968 would feel like on the big screen and with shinier sets. It's an interesting film, but that's too far a tangent.

But TOS's movies are the odd ones out, only because they had the established TV show characters to play with. (The TNG movies definitely didn't do the same continuing saga, which some fans were probably expecting at the time... oh, one flick has "The Dominion" mentioned, but they could have said "The Dustbunny" and it'd be just as pointless.)

TV from the 90s onward did introduce the type of character development that couldn't be done in movies*. Having 26 episodes to play with per season helps a lot, though PIC season 3 is a great example of having ten and still hitting it out of the park (IMHO).

With big movies feeling more fizzled than fantastic, it's sorta easy to see why tv shows now, despite fewer episodes, try to feel more cinematic - with HUGE budgets. I just wish they'd find hues other than teal and orange at times, but as David Gerrold once alluded to, "a good story survives anything". I think he'd said that about "Land of the Lost" (1974), another show that's impressive for (a) the time and its budget, and (b) ostensibly being a kid show and yet season 1 feeling transcendental of that. There are some TNG connections to that show as well, if you look through the end credits of various episodes...

 

[F. King Daniel]

While I very much enjoy the TV series', I do miss the hype for the movies 2008-2013. But then a bad episode isn't as bigger deal as a failed movie...

 

[BillJ]

This extended format allows writers to explore their characters more fully, giving audiences the chance to see their growth and evolution over multiple episodes and even seasons.

Or, in the case of Trek, we end up with enough plot for four episodes that then gets insanely watered down to make 10-15 episodes.

No thanks.

 

[Trek Writers Room]

Apart from TOS, which was largely episodic at the time (1960s) with one or two references to past episodes at most...

Vice Admiral Q, I am genuinely impressed with your statistical references for films and series. It would have taken me a week's worth of research to compile such comprehensive comparisons. Bravo!

One of the reasons I gravitate toward television series, especially when compared to big-screen films, is the unique demands placed on the writing. Film narratives must be incredibly tight, necessitating precise and impactful dialogue. As a writer, I strive to guide my characters through their journeys, but in film, this luxury is often sacrificed in favor of visual storytelling. Writers contend with numerous constraints: sets, effects, time, place, and setting. This can reduce a 90-minute film to just 40 or 50 pages of dialogue. Despite these challenges, I admire film productions for their ability to craft cohesive plots with a clear beginning, middle, and end. In contrast, writing for a television series allows for extended character and plot development, as long as studios continue to fund additional seasons. This generally results in more intricate plotlines, multiple story arcs, and richer, more fully developed characters, making series television a uniquely compelling medium for storytelling.

 

[Trek Writers Room]

Or, in the case of Trek, we end up with enough plot for four episodes that then gets insanely watered down to make 10-15 episodes.

Anything watered down whether it be story line or characters, is always the fault of the writers, producers, or show runner. This can be done in either film or series television. The medium is not at fault, the humans are.