I'm really glad that none of the hate for Section 31 is spilling over to the actors, at least not here.
Do you consider Section 31 a Trek movie?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
80?!!?
Not according to one of the actors (Robert Kazinsky), who in an interview said Section 31 essentially cost the equivalent of two episodes of Strange New Worlds, which I think would be around $14 million, not $80 million (although it’s not clear whether Yeoh’s salary is included in this).
As for the thread’s question: For me it’s less about “Is this a movie?” (because just like a feature-length TV episode it is of course “a movie”, even if it’s not released theatrically) but more about “Does it belong in line with the other movies?”, which I don’t really think it does. In my mind I pair them like this:
The Original Series Movies
The Next Generation Movies
The Kelvin Timeline Movies
(The Streaming Movies?)
So I don’t see Section 31 in one line with say The Motion Picture, just as I don’t see First Contact in one line of movies with The Motion Picture, if that makes sense.
Encounter at Farpoint got a theatrical release in Europe. Does that count?
It's not a Trek movie like the other 13.
There's gotta be a distinction between it being released on TV and not having a theatrical release
Given its nature as a truncated series of 10 episodes turned into a movie, people will probably liken it more to "The Cage" or "Encounter at Farpoint," where it has more in common with a 2-hour pilot than a self-contained movie with a beginning, middle, and end.
Also, the development history is important in determining its nature.
- Intended as a tv series
- Went into pre-production as a tv series
- Problems occurred where it was shelved
- Yeoh wins an academy award
- People dust off the all the old work
- They quickly condense.
- It becomes a movie where you can see the seams of where they patched it together
That's not a movie. It's an extended recap of a show that wasn't.
There's gotta be a distinction between it being released on TV and not having a theatrical release
Given its nature as a truncated series of 10 episodes turned into a movie, people will probably liken it more to "The Cage" or "Encounter at Farpoint," where it has more in common with a 2-hour pilot than a self-contained movie with a beginning, middle, and end.
Also, the development history is important in determining its nature.
- Intended as a tv series
- Went into pre-production as a tv series
- Problems occurred where it was shelved
- Yeoh wins an academy award
- People dust off the all the old work
- They quickly condense.
- It becomes a movie where you can see the seams of where they patched it together
That's not a movie. It's an extended recap of a show that wasn't.
Last edited:
TMP?
-They hired a noted film director to make it a movie
-Spent a fortune on it and expanded it, instead of treating it as TV material
-They didn't condense the Phase II stuff, if anything they expanded it to fit the format of a movie
-TMP tries to transcend its TV roots, where Section 31 is firmly rooted in Discovery's aesthetics and story formula.
-The people involved with TMP seemed to have seen making a movie as an opportunity to stretch and make something different and unique using the material, where Section 31 has the feel of trying to dust off a rejected script and the cast crew cashing a check for their work.
Just talking about the points I quoted. Obviously SEC31 took a different path once it became a movie. TMP had it's own problems once it headed towards the screen.
How can anyone be expected to create good material when they have a specific budget and a mandated running time? No Trek in history has had to deal with constrictions like this.
Agreed.
The definition can be finagled because of streaming and what not, but in general there's no theatrical release, the budget is miniscule, the director had only done TV, and the production studio does television, not films. Twenty years ago this would be called a "Star Trek Discovery SPECIAL EVENT!"
I'm not going to tell people they're wrong for considering it a movie-movie, but personally I'll never see it that way.
It's like the Odyssey to me.
If the people making it say it's supposed to be a Star Trek movie, and they made it as a Star Trek movie, it's a Star Trek movie. How much they spent on it, what it was supposed to be before filming, or where it was released doesn't change that. If it was actually filmed as a television series and they had to awkwardly kludge things together at the last minute and never intended it that way, I'd think different. Or if it was actually the pilot series of a show that didn't get out. But 31 was intended as a film from mid-2022 onward and they filmed it as such.
That the writer and director were primarily TV guys and didn't do a great job at making a movie that feels more like a movie than a TV show isn't a new tale, especially when it comes to Star Trek.
That the writer and director were primarily TV guys and didn't do a great job at making a movie that feels more like a movie than a TV show isn't a new tale, especially when it comes to Star Trek.
How much of that $80 million was Michelle Yeoh's salary? (Not that she wouldn't take less. but her agent/agency...)
Though the production value was high and that showed too.
I will be more dogmatic.
Tell me what cinemas you can watch it on, its box office revenue and then I'll equate it to the other movies.
In five years, it might be in the failed pilot category
None of this makes any difference, though. A movie is a movie is a movie.
They are movies. What does your qualifier "just like" supposed to mean?So the 1980s Ewok movies are Star Wars movies just like the trilogies and Rogue One?
Similar threads
