Instead of many new shows, would TV movies be a better choice for Star Trek?

[Mage]

Just curious about the general opinion on the board.

For a while, we had three live Star Trek shows in production, plus two animated shows. We'll be down to two live tv shows, and I believe no more animated. Unless Prodigy does get picked up again.

With the Section 31 movie coming up, I can't help but wonder if TV/Streaming movies are the way ahead for Star Trek. Instead of adding another show to the roster. I would be quite happy if 90-120 minute movies telling one contained story would be a thing. A movie set during the Romulan War. Not a Star Trek Legacy show but a movie, set on the Enterprise-G. Perhaps a movie set on Earth, in the year 2083. A few warp powered ships are exploring our solarsystem and we see the formation of a United Earth and the struggles that come with that.

 

[Markonian]

Trek works better as series.
You get to reuse assets instead of churning them out for a single movie.
There’s less financial risk compared to cinema productions.

 

[Serveaux]

Trek movies are never that good.

 

[Farscape One]

STAR TREK is better on tv for a simple reason... you have a better opportunity to flesh out the universe and make it feel like a real, lived in place and care about the characters more in a series than you can with a movie. Or even a movie every year or two years.

 

[MrPicard]

The PIC producers (and Sir Patrick) kept saying about each season that it's "a ten hour long movie". So I guess in a way the ones in charge are already looking at Trek in this way, at least sometimes.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't care if it's an omelet, quiche, or frittata. Just use better eggs.

 

[HotRod]

I think Trek works far better as a series. Their track record with films isn't that good. But, in the end, I'll watch pretty much anything they throw at me.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Just curious about the general opinion on the board.

For a while, we had three live Star Trek shows in production, plus two animated shows. We'll be down to two live tv shows, and I believe no more animated. Unless Prodigy does get picked up again.

With the Section 31 movie coming up, I can't help but wonder if TV/Streaming movies are the way ahead for Star Trek. Instead of adding another show to the roster. I would be quite happy if 90-120 minute movies telling one contained story would be a thing. A movie set during the Romulan War. Not a Star Trek Legacy show but a movie, set on the Enterprise-G. Perhaps a movie set on Earth, in the year 2083. A few warp powered ships are exploring our solarsystem and we see the formation of a United Earth and the struggles that come with that.

I think Star Trek's strengths lie in its character work and world building. It's like the inverse of Star Wars.

 

[Jedi Marso]

I'm also on the 'series' train. Trek seems to work best that way, IMHO.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Series for me.

 

[eschaton]

Yeah, for each new setting they have to build an entirely new group of sets. It's expensive to do for TV movies, unless you expect a bunch of TV movies to utilize the same standing sets.

Actually, that's a hybrid idea that I kind of wish Trek would entertain. Don't stick to either the 10-episode or movie format, but mix/match as the stories require. If you break a story that needs six episodes, shoot it at six, then do a three-parter four months later, than a standalone feature. It might cause some issues with contracts, but it seems like from the storytelling perspective it would be the best way to avoid padding.

 

[evilchumlee]

Series is definitely the way to go, although realistically the way that Trek works, we need older-style longer seasons. Focus less on the idea of it being a 10 hour long movie, give us more time to spend with the characters.

Media has changed and not necessarily for the better. I don't need every episode to be a VFX escapade. Some of the best Star Trek episodes were basically bottle episodes. I want more "Measure Of a Man"s. Audiences today have so little attention span for anything. I want episodes that explore an interesting topic and are largely driven by dialogue between the characters rather than huge set piece effects shots.

My ideal Trek show would be an older/modern hybrid. Give me like 16-17 episodes. Have a serialized plot running through them, but also give me something like A, B and sometimes C plots. The serialized plot isn't always the A plot. Sometimes it's the C. It allows some episodes that just... do interesting side things. And having some extra episodes gives more time to develop characters, and more time for those side-stories. And yeah, the only way to do it is that not every episode is going to be a motion-picture level effects extravaganza.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Series is definitely the way to go, although realistically the way that Trek works, we need older-style longer seasons. Focus less on the idea of it being a 10 hour long movie, give us more time to spend with the characters.

Media has changed and not necessarily for the better. I don't need every episode to be a VFX escapade. Some of the best Star Trek episodes were basically bottle episodes. I want more "Measure Of a Man"s. Audiences today have so little attention span for anything. I want episodes that explore an interesting topic and are largely driven by dialogue between the characters rather than huge set piece effects shots.

Agreed 100%. The per-episode budget for TOS, adjusted for inflation, was $1.4 million. Discovery's is $8-$8.5 million per episode. Yes, everyone lauds the VFX, but that's not what Trek is about.
You could do a 15-episode season of Discovery on a TOS budget easily, and have money left over from what they were spending. Why they don't, I have no idea.

 

[fireproof78]

Why they don't is likely because they feel the pressure from their competition with streaming shows upping the VFX. So, the first one to try out a lower budget with scifi property and less VFX is going to be pretty reluctant because of the fear of losing more money.

 

[valkyrie013]

Trek as a Tv Series is the best bet, however, You need to get fresh blood into the fandom.
Take a look at Star Trek 2009, it reinvigorated the franchise like never before, Trek wasn't some dweeb show only nerds watched, it became more mainstream, made new fans, made more people want to check out the series.

So, to me, Movies should be Big and Flashy that draws the masses, now even then they won't do 1 billion of business, have to be a more medium budget, say $150 million tops, and hope you get $400 million in box office, which is doable.
Get new blood in, keep the franchise relevant. Introduce new series that a newbie can get in on. Tng was that way, you didn't need to know about TOS, you could enjoy it without it.

 

[evilchumlee]

Why they don't is likely because they feel the pressure from their competition with streaming shows upping the VFX. So, the first one to try out a lower budget with scifi property and less VFX is going to be pretty reluctant because of the fear of losing more money.

It's in balance though. You would be spending significantly less money in the process.

I really want Trek to be more of a positive-oriented Twilight Zone/Outer Limits style thing, using the space setting to tell interesting stories.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Why they don't is likely because they feel the pressure from their competition with streaming shows upping the VFX. So, the first one to try out a lower budget with scifi property and less VFX is going to be pretty reluctant because of the fear of losing more money.

Someday, hopefully, someone will realize that throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it will make more money *cough*Quantumania*cough*.

 

[fireproof78]

It's in balance though. You would be spending significantly less money in the process.

I really want Trek to be more of a positive-oriented Twilight Zone/Outer Limits style thing, using the space setting to tell interesting stories.

I don't disagree in principle. Just the potential motivation behind it is a deep rooted fear. We're acting like it's no big deal.

Someday, hopefully, someone will realize that throwing more money at a project doesn't mean it will make more money *cough*Quantumania*cough*.

But, you have to answer "What do we do instead?" We are not a patient people any more (if we ever were). As one radio host I heard describe it, "We expect our car immediately, our food instantly, and that movie to stream without issue the moment it drops." We are impatient, in search of sensation, constantly looking for distraction, and demanding people change at the drop of a hat without any considering to the How.

It's impressive if a bit sad.

 

[Cr0sis21]

But, you have to answer "What do we do instead?" We are not a patient people any more (if we ever were). As one radio host I heard describe it, "We expect our car immediately, our food instantly, and that movie to stream without issue the moment it drops." We are impatient, in search of sensation, constantly looking for distraction, and demanding people change at the drop of a hat without any considering to the How.

It's impressive if a bit sad.

I'd posit that's what people think they want.
There are way too many people complaining about how stressed out they are and how they don't want to "adult" anymore for me to genuinely believe people desire everything to be so fast-paced.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd posit that's what people think they want.
There are way too many people complaining about how stressed out they are and how they don't want to "adult" anymore for me to genuinely believe people desire everything to be so fast-paced.

I agree, but no one is showing a change. It's amazing to me how much people complain about things yet do nothing to change their lives.