My grandfather was born 87 years before me. My generations are a little unbalanced.
My great-great grandfather lived until 1948.
FTFY
The Ark is currently airing on the SyFy channel.
Yes... The point is they probably shouldn't make Star Trek movies...
The only live action one that might do well at this point is something involving Captain Seven on the Enterprise G.
The last Star Trek movie released last year.
Just because almost nobody watched Section 31 doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
True. But the ark is a paid cable program. On air TV is the last bastion of 20+ episode seasons (which is getting rarer and rarer for even the on air networks) and no scifi as far as I know. The big on air networks won't do sci-fi anymore. It's all streaming and yes cable programs.
I would rather have a movie franchise now instead of a 10 episode every year and a half deal. The only con to that is I'm getting to an age where it will probably be my last Star Trek series of films.
...but that's ok.
All I can say is that something has to be in the water for any human being to think this is a good idea.
Section 31 wasn’t a theatrical release.
Thankfully. Streaming service was bad enough.
You said, and I quote, "networks have 100% ceased doing scifi". That is a network doing Sci-fi on cable.
Expand that to streaming and you get a lot more.
Despite what a handful of people on this forum might think, a movie involving Captain Seven on the Enterprise G would get millions of more butt's into theater seats then a movie who's only claim to fame is the words "Star Trek" in the title.
Because Seven of Nine and Enterprise are names that exist in the public conscious.
Is that goalpost shifting I sense?
"You do realize the last movie released a decade ago?"
Why yes, yes it is.
Yes, but on the up side Section 31 categorically proved the "will watch anything with the name Star Trek in it" crowd is actually very very tiny and not really worth courting.
Come on. I think we all knew he meant traditional on air networks.
This is just dumb. I mean flat out dumb. Even for the internet.
I mean, even Paramount wants nothing to do with it.
Everyone here, including you, knew damned well that I was talking about theatrical releases.
Bravo!
I'd love United with Scott Bakula, but even my ENT fanboy ass is realistic enough to know it's not likely to happen and would take a construction site's worth of heavy lifting. The Enterprise-G show with Captain Seven isn't happening.
They wouldn’t even buy light bulbs for Picard. I somehow doubt Captain Seven is getting a $200 million dollar Summer blockbuster.
It is so dumb that I can’t even pretend to contemplate it.
The Ark airs on a traditional on air network...
No, just you and a handful of others.
But you didn't say that.
SyFy? Nope. It's cable
Since everyone here knew what I was talking about, I didn’t need the qualifier.
Nobody outside of our shrinking fandom gives a rat's ass about Seven of Nine. I say this as someone who generally thinks she was one of the better things to happen to Voyager, though the less said about Picard, the better.
The public consciousness, for anyone old enough to remember the 90s, simply remembers her as the blonde bombshell in the tight catsuit. Why? Because that's how they advertised her. The general public saw some knockout on magazine covers with the words Star Trek beside her. Beyond Trekkies, nobody gave a damn about the character.
There's a reason they keep going back to Kirk and Spock. Those are the names that broke into the public consciousness. Those are the characters that became part of pop culture. Seven of Nine, as great a character as she was, never even approached their level.
Khan also exists as a recognizable name in the public consciousness. I don't need to see him seventy more times.
Let me know when the theatrical movie or TV show featuring those things are in production…
I’m betting I’m going to be waiting a while.
The only way Trek really grows, at this point, is to become a player in the video game industry.
Similar threads
