Spoilers STAR TREK: SECTION 31 - Grading & Discussion

[Tosk]

Hah. I stand corrected.

With Great White sharks?

Great Whites are one of the shark species that need to keep swimming or they suffocate, so I would wonder how they'd get a bunch of them to Rome. Maybe a really long trench?

Edit: Doesn't matter, apparently the sharks in Gladiiator are tiger sharks? (I haven't seen it so I'm trusting a two minute search.) Tiger sharks can stop swimming...but that also doesn't matter because multiple experts say that sharks in the Colosseum is complete baloney (technical term!) which makes it the only thing in Ridley Scott's filmography to be historically inaccurate.

 

[fireproof78]

Great Whites are one of the shark species that need to keep swimming or they suffocate, so I would wonder how they'd get a bunch of them to Rome. Maybe a really long trench?

Don't be ridiculous.


It's called an aqueduct.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vger23]

I watched this the weekend it was released, and I'm only now getting around to commenting on it. I guess that's a statement in itself on how I felt about it.

I have really mixed feelings on this one. I didn't find it "offensive" like some people have. But, I also didn't find it to be memorable or impactful at all. I'm just really indifferent. It was the closest thing to a Syfy "movie of the week" generic production as I've ever seen in Trek. It was fun, and there were some absolutely useless Easter Eggs thrown in to "make it Star Trek" I guess (the Deltan who had 3 lines of dialogue, the Cheron alien, Rachel Garrett) but none of these "Trek" throw-ins were necessary. Like I said, it's almost like the only reason for that stuff was to be able to put the "Star Trek" name on something that was otherwise unbelievably generic.

Now...I will admit it that I thought it was fun all by itself. It wasn't GOOD, but it was kind of "guilty pleasure" fun. It looked amazing. Michelle Yeoh is always awesome.

But, ultimately, I have to put it in the rare "dislike" category for the same reason I always say I put Star Trek Insurrection there. This was a major expenditure of money and resources for the franchise, and ultimately, it was a forgettable, wasted dud that would have made a mediocre-at-best one hour episode.

When I think about all of the other things they could have done with Star Trek using that budget and those resources, it's hard not to be more than a little disappointed.

4/10

 

[Char Kais]

Star Trek: Section 31 is in second place in the Variety Original Films Streaming chart with 282.3M minutes watched

Approximately 2.9 million people watched it. (3.1 million people when you only count the runtime of the actual movie and exclude the runtime of the credits)

I don't have a basis to assess and compare these numbers. I don't track how well streaming movies are doing and what is considered a good or bad metric.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek: Section 31 is in second place in the Variety Original Films Streaming chart with 282.3M minutes watched

Well, that might send the wrong message.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Star Trek: Section 31 is in second place in the Variety Original Films Streaming chart with 282.3M minutes watched

Approximately 2.9 million people watched it.

I don't have a basis to assess and compare these numbers. I don't track how well streaming movies are doing and what is considered a good or bad metric.

Section 31 = 282.3M minutes watched / 95 minute Run-Time ≈ 2,971,579 accounts watching in 1 week.
Back in Action = 755.3M minutes watched / 114 minute Run-Time ≈ 6,625,439 accounts watching in 1 week.

That's not bad all things considered.
1) Netflix is the #1 Streaming Platform
2) Paramount+ is the #3 Streaming Platform
3) Back in Action had a dramatic fall-off from last week.
What'll be interesting is to see the fall-off next week.

 

[Char Kais]

Section 31 = 282.3M minutes watched / 95 minute Run-Time ≈ 2,971,579 accounts watching in 1 week.
Back in Action = 755.3M minutes watched / 114 minute Run-Time ≈ 6,625,439 accounts watching in 1 week.

That's not bad all things considered.
1) Netflix is the #1 Streaming Platform
2) Paramount+ is the #3 Streaming Platform
3) Back in Action had a dramatic fall-off from last week.
What'll be interesting is to see the fall-off next week.

But it's the second week for "Back in Action"
18 million people watched it in the the first week. And Michelle Yeoh is currently a bigger name than Jamie Foxx.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's still #1 movie in the UK on P+, I have no idea if that makes it successful, but I wonder if maybe it'll hit Paramount's intended targets so and they'll make more of the same...

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But it's the second week for "Back in Action"
18 million people watched it in the the first week. And Michelle Yeoh is currently a bigger name than Jamie Foxx.

If you said Cameron Diaz instead of Jamie Foxx, I'd agree.

But Jamie Foxx has had a longer successful career in Hollywood than Michelle Yeoh.

While Cameron Diaz isn't anywhere near her maximum Star Power like in her prime.

While Michelle Yeoh is still going up, slowly but steadily.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If you said Cameron Diaz instead of Jamie Foxx, I'd agree.

But Jamie Foxx has had a longer successful career in Hollywood than Michelle Yeoh.

While Cameron Diaz isn't anywhere near her maximum Star Power like in her prime.

While Michelle Yeoh is still going up, slowly but steadily.

"Currently"

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

"Currently"

Even "Currently", Jamie Foxx's name value alone should be higher than Michelle Yeoh's.

I love both of them, but even I can recognize who has a the bigger "Star Power" when comparing the two in the US market.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Even "Currently", Jamie Foxx's name value alone should be higher than Michelle Yeoh's.

I love both of them, but even I can recognize who has a the bigger "Star Power" when comparing the two in the US market.

Recent Oscar winner vs guy who's best days seem behind him.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'd bill Yeoh first, and I sat through that crapfest.

 

[Fateor]

Star Trek: Section 31 is in second place in the Variety Original Films Streaming chart with 282.3M minutes watched

Approximately 2.9 million people watched it. (3.1 million people when you only count the runtime of the actual movie and exclude the runtime of the credits)

I don't have a basis to assess and compare these numbers. I don't track how well streaming movies are doing and what is considered a good or bad metric.

That's really really bad.

And the reason why it's bad is because it had a rumored budget of 80-90 million dollars.

For that price you could have made a 10 episode season of Star Trek: Legacy, each 40-50 minute episode of which would have gotten comparable or greater numbers of minutes watched within it's first week then Star Trek: Section 31 did.

And I'm sure someone will try and make an argument that it's different because it's a show and not a movie. But streaming companies make money by getting people to sigh up, and stay signed up. So it doesn't matter to them whether the signups and sustained memberships come from a movie or show, just that they happen.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

And I'm sure someone will try and make an argument that it's different because it's a show and not a movie. But streaming companies make money by getting people to sigh up, and stay signed up. So it doesn't matter to them whether the signups and sustained memberships come from a movie or show, just that they happen.

Then at that point, TV series makes ALOT more sense than Streaming Movies.

Especially when you "Drip Feed" the new content via weekly releases like traditional broadcast.

Imagine what you can sustain if you had longer seasons and just drip release them every week on a set schedule.

 

[Michael]

And the reason why it's bad is because it had a rumored budget of 80-90 million dollars.

What blows this particular argument out of the water is that this rumor seems to be nothing more than … well, a rumor. According to a recent interview with Robert Kazinsky the movie actually had the budget of “essentially two episodes of Strange New Worlds”, which would come down to something like $14 million, not $80 million.

 

[Fateor]

Then at that point, TV series makes ALOT more sense than Streaming Movies.

Especially when you "Drip Feed" the new content via weekly releases like traditional broadcast.

Imagine what you can sustain if you had longer seasons and just drip release them every week on a set schedule.

Yes, but Network Executives want to do streaming.

What blows this particular argument out of the water is that this rumor seems to be nothing more than … well, a rumor. According to a recent interview with Robert Kazinsky the movie actually had the budget of “essentially two episodes of Strange New Worlds”, which would come down to something like $14 million, not $80 million.

Michelle Yeoh's paycheck was $12 million dollars alone, so it's quite obvious Robert Kazinsky has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Yes, but Network Executives want to do streaming.

That's fine, but the release schedule should still follow Broadcasts weekly appointment style of slow drip release.

Dropping everything at once is bad from a strategy PoV. This keeps subscribers in for the long haul since they can't binge watch your new season until it's all out or gives people who follow weekly something to come back for.

Allowing all the eps to build up in the library and anybody to catch up is fine for Streaming/VOD services.

That weekly water cooler talk is critical to help build up support over the long term by word of mouth.

 

[Vger23]

What blows this particular argument out of the water is that this rumor seems to be nothing more than … well, a rumor. According to a recent interview with Robert Kazinsky the movie actually had the budget of “essentially two episodes of Strange New Worlds”, which would come down to something like $14 million, not $80 million.

There’s no way it was that cheap. The 31 movie needed all new costumes, sets, make up designs, digital models, etc. Not to mention Yeoh’s salary. SNW doesn’t need all that on a per episode basis.

 

[Char Kais]

If you said Cameron Diaz instead of Jamie Foxx, I'd agree.

But Jamie Foxx has had a longer successful career in Hollywood than Michelle Yeoh.

While Cameron Diaz isn't anywhere near her maximum Star Power like in her prime.

While Michelle Yeoh is still going up, slowly but steadily.

Jamie Foxx has an Oscar for "Best Actor".