What did you guys think of section 31?
Spoilers STAR TREK: SECTION 31 - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Well, I guess there’s some exaggeration involved with how Kazinsky is telling it and he’s probably talking ballpark, but I still think the actual budget is closer to what he’s saying than some “rumored” budget that seems to be designed to create a narrative where this is somehow the biggest financial failure possible.
Wish it would have been better. Like, much better. It has some cool ideas and visuals and I like a couple of the characters, but ultimately I found it boring as hell, especially that second act, where nothing seemed to happen other than the characters aimlessly wandering the Toronto (?) woods. I didn’t have high hopes for this, and in a way it turned out to be exactly what I feared it would be: one of the worst Trek productions in history.
What did you think of it?
As a generic, schlocky action adventure sci-fi B-movie, I gave it a five. As a Star Trek movie, I gave it a four. It feels more like Mission Impossible in space than Star Trek.
I believe the guy who actually worked on the fucking movie versus some guy with an axe to grind on an internet message board.
Except... $80-90 million is actually a completely reasonable production cost for a streaming movie like Section 31...Well, I guess there’s some exaggeration involved with how Kazinsky is telling it and he’s probably talking ballpark, but I still think the actual budget is closer to what he’s saying than some “rumored” budget that seems to be designed to create a narrative where this is somehow the biggest financial failure possible.
Back In Action, the number 1 movie on that list, had a production budget of $207 million dollars. (165 after UK filming reimbursement.)
Oh Yeah, wasn't that a while ago?
2005 according to Google.
I had the luck to see and go inside the Coliseum about 20 years back. The tour guide showed as the aqueducts from which it was filled with water and described how archaeologists had found trace sediment around the place which proved this did happen.
The structure BTW is huge. Huge. No picture can do it justice. It’s easily big enough to have contained a few small fleets as well as giving them room to move.
I don’t know about sharks, but I don’t doubt it. The Romans were rich, ingenious and given to incredible excess/ambition.
She’s more recent in her accolades. You’re only as big as your last picture.
Thanks for the explanation, though I don't agree. Yeoh's Academy Award was well deserved and well earned, but I don't define popularity or success in Hollywood based solely on a person's most recent award. Winning an Academy Award definitely adds prestige and hopefully is a career booster (though that's not guaranteed). Foxx is doing well years after his win, with one of his follow-ups being Django Unchained, and another his Golden Globe-nominated performance in Just Mercy. Foxx is still making movies for Netflix and Amazon and recently was Golden Globe-nominated again for his last comedy special. I haven't even touched on his musical career. It's subjective of course but I think Foxx is the bigger name. How many movies has Yeoh headlined in comparison?
It's not about success, it's a about buzz.
Adrien Brody won the Oscar long after Ben Kingsley did, but I can guarantee if both were cast in a movie in 2005 Brody would get top billing.
Yup. As Gregory Peck once observed, Hollywood’s motto really is “what’ve you done for me lately?”
Past successes are yesterday’s news. Today’s box office and headlines are what matters to the money men.
Even there, Yeoh got a lot of buzz off her award-winning role, but Foxx has been more consistently a headliner, so defining who is a big name or a bigger name is subjective. Foxx, like Yeoh, is getting streaming work but he's headlining more than she is, in more successful ventures, so how is she the bigger name? I don't want to take away from Yeoh, but I don't think Foxx is a great comparison in her favor.
You’re still missing the point of what execs are looking for in terms of bankability.
Buzz. After it dies down, Foxx may again be "more successful"
Currently Yeoh is involved in a couple of high profile projects: Avatar and Wicked. Plus a TV project with a recognizable title: Blade Runner.
Foxx's upcoming work is a little more low profile: All-Star Weekend, GeeChee and Tin Soldier. Two of which are produced by him. So he's creating work for himself. Which is a good thing,
Burt Reynolds was one of the hottest film stars on the planet for the better part of a decade then things cooled off and very noticeably. It took Boogie Nights and a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination to put Burt back into the everyday conversation. Huge stars can experience long periods of being not only off the radar but being practically invisible and whether or not they experience a career revival is wholly up to the whims of the studios and the decade at that moment.
I'm a hardcore fan of Discovery, across all seasons, and Georgiou is one of my favorite characters. I've defended the concept of Section 31 since the DS9 days when I was in my late-teens. I like Mission: Impossible, the TV series, not the movies. I've watched and enjoyed a ton of Michelle Yeoh movies. And, like a lot of people, "Yesterday's Enterprise" is one of my favorite episodes of TNG.
Those are my credentials, just so we're clear... and I found Section 31 to be a HUGE disappointment.
For a more detailed take, here's what I said last week.
Last edited:
