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

I concur on the 3x Time-Lines theory.
It makes the most logical sense and fixes any continuity gaffes.

Spoiler: Salty Trekker FKA Anti-Trekker - Triple Timeline Theory Redux

Spoiler: The 3x Time-Line theory makes the most sense

If you're going by popularity as to which Time-Line / era to spin-off a new movie.
It's not going to be DISCO. If anything, it's probably going to be in the early 25th century right around ST:Legacy's time frame.

Spoiler: The Popcast - Definitive Rankings of all ST Shows in 2023

Spoiler: "Global Average Fan Rankings" vs "The Popcast Rankings"

 

I can see that, but I was thinking of formality from previous Star Trek series being promoted to the silver screen. TOS did it, and then came TNG... so why not DISCO?

 

Streaming success and mainstream success are two very, very different things. Paramount are the only ones with the concrete numbers, they're the only ones who know.

 

Studios are notoriously slow when green lighting films which are about things that most people have never heard of (and don't care about).

There will never be a DSC movie. Not in mainstream cinemas, anyway.

 

I'm sure it's being seriously considered for a Paramount+ movie. The plan is one every 2 years, and we know Section 31 is first and Legacy is rumoured to be the second.

 

Is Legacy rumoured to be a P+ movie? That’s a new one on me.

 

It did the rounds on those BS rumour sites.... the same ones that talked about a Disco/Kelvin crossover that turned out to be legit.

 

I agree with Gatsby and others on many points, but as has been mentioned in other Threads, the PTB need to consider that we Khanians and Borgites are aging and will soon be in the Starfleet Retirement Home on Riza.

The Next (Alpha) Generations of fans are to whom Trek needs to appeal…

…but not Area 31…no good, that, imho.

 

Fair enough.

If that is right, depending on what happens with the strike and if the S31 movie is still going ahead, it might be 3-5 years until we see it I guess.

 

But as a movie, they're more likely to get Patrick Stewart and more of the TNG cast back.

 

Gatsby was a previous poster.
“Area 31” was my cutsie-sarcastic way of referring to Section 31.

My post was not so cutsie.
Not so clear.

Apologies!

 

Understood, and I absolutely will!

 

Interesting. Like I said, I just hadn’t heard the rumour (not meaning to cast doubt on what you said), but it is very interesting.

 

I think he might mean @William Gatsby on the first page of the thread. Things can get a tad confusing when abbreviating usernames that have more than one word.

On the general topic of a mid-budget movie, I've been saying for a while that I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional feature-length movie released to streaming. I'm not sure if I would want to see them in theaters though. These days I tend to only go to the theaters for the huge blockbusters that just demand the experience of a humongous screen and immersive audio system. On the other hand, I also like to see the smaller independent productions in the theater. But those are talky dramas with no big-budget action at all. If "mid-budget" these days would be something along the lines of TWOK through TVH, I could go either way; theater or streaming. I would definitely go see it in the cinema if it was a theatrical release, since it is Star Trek after all.

Kor

 

I did, indeed, mean William Gatsby and realize how to "fix" the confusion.

I also agree with you, Kor, with regard to the "mid-budget" parameters you speak of, and also the streaming rather than big-screen release preference.

Maybe it is an outcome of the more diverse content being offered by providers (in general) but it seems there are less and less of what we used to call "Blockbuster" movies being released.

 

This has been ongoing for some time though, now. Originally, the blockbuster idea was closer to a tentpole, with a lot of smaller films released to help augment profits through the year. STAR WARS was an example of a mid-tier "kid's movie" that would augment Fox's monies if "Damnation Alley" didn't perform to expectations.

Now that films are bigger and louder and expected to be "events" and not just a film, the pool of films being produced is lessening and the focus on huge blockbusters is the studio goal. Add in unexpected developments (global pandemic, streaming, strikes) and studios are going to look for less mix of content and more big bang for their bucks.

 

Concur with this. The entire Paramount+ market isn't big enough to support a feature film.

The truth of the matter is (no matter how much we don't want to hear it): Star Trek is effectively dead in the public eye. It's not getting a new generation of viewers. Sure, it's picking up a few on Paramount+, but nothing like the draw for TNG and Berman-Trek, and mostly through "legacy" Trekkers (e.g. I got my wife to watch Strange New Worlds, and my daughter enjoys Lower Decks).

I work at a Uni and have asked students if they've watched Star Trek -- any Star Trek! Nada. None. Zip. The last successful injection of Star Trek into the public eye was over a decade ago. Yes, I know Beyond was 2016, but I said "successful". The students were 7/8 when Into Darkness came out. Doesn't compute for them. And if you consider ST'09 to be the only one that made a big splash, that's 14 and counting...