Should Paramount put a mid-budget Star Trek film into theaters?

Low/mid-budget Trek movie? Yes. No. Maybe? Just depends on the project.

I just don't think there's a market for a Discovery movie. Getting a regular four to five million regular viewers doesn't equate to a blockbuster that Paramount seemingly wants.

 

Yeah, while I'm in the camp that Discovery is probably more popular than some folks think (or want to admit), it's not well known enough to draw the general audience to a movie when they can just reboot the TOS characters again and have more success.

 

Discovery isn't even a twinkle in the eye of the public consciousness. When Average Joe thinks of Star Trek, he thinks of TOS (and to a lesser extent TNG.) That's why Abrams based his movies off of the TOS characters, because they are still in the public consciousness after all these years.

 

We don't need more universes. We've already got 3 effective continuities: TOS to ENT, Kelvinverse, and NuTrek (it may not be another universe but NuTrek and TOS are discontinuous; its a reboot, plus, the average Joe would not be able to identify DIS S4 as being Trek).

 

The Kelvinverse is not a separate continuity.

 

Uhhh... what? It's clearly established as alternate universe.

 

That doesn't make it a separate continuity. It's created due to events in the Prime timeline and includes characters who are refugees from that universe.

 

Some details make it clear that it has a past and was not created by Nero.

 

I sense something... a presence I've not felt since...

 

There wouldn't be any doubt on popularity (one way or the other) if they would just release completely accurate audience numbers. I'm of the opinion that if the numbers were fantastic, they would in fact release them.

 

That's nitpicking. Look at Strange New Worlds and Discovery's different Klingons, for example. Or Very Short Treks having a slightly different version of the Battle of the Binary Stars Europa crash scene to live action.

In other words, Trek isn't in the details.

 

There's a reason the creator of the website Star Trek Minutiae had a credit in Star Trek Beyond.

 

https://www.st-minutiae.com/cafe/2016/07/vokaya.html
For curating a database of tiny details.
My point is that nitpicking small details is an inseparable and foundational part of Trek (fandom especially).

 

Part of Trek fandom.

Not essential to good stories.

 

I'm not discussing good stories. I'm discussing apparent continuities, not good stories.

 

The continuity always felt like a branch from Enterprise NX era to the KELVIN then branched.

 

Memory Alpha.

They realised they could make money off Technical Manuals, Encyclopaedias and Chronologies and some fans took them WAY too seriously. Were you around when Enterprise started? That rewrote a lot and led to meltdowns.

Hell, the 1993 Star Trek Chronology led to meltdowns, because it deliberately contradicted the 1979 Star Trek: Spaceflight Chronology. And the TNG Technical Manual contradicted the TOS manual. Why? Not enough money from them went to Roddenberry.

 

No, unfortunately, I'm a baby.

 

Given the fact we've had several spinoffs from DISCO would be a strong possibility the numbers were good enough to move forward. I don't doubt Viacom could brand and sell a new Trek for a movie going audience with DISCO if the story was compelling to tell. The visuals on DISCO is on par with motion picture quality of production... why not go a little further making it a mid-budget Star Trek theatrical venture?

If Chris Pine or Zach Quinto like to appear in it? I wouldn't mind a crossover either. I think there's enough uniqueness for DISCO within the characters where I think the movies could explore.