Spoilers STAR TREK: SECTION 31 - Grading & Discussion

[Alex1066]

A bad movie can certainly make money. particularly with a name like Star Trek attached. The problem is it damages the brand, which means they generally make less money next time. Considering the critical and audience reception, it didn’t add fans eager to return for the next adventure. The opposite is much more likely true.

Further, when a franchise has as many entries made over half a century as Star Trek, and they make something that is generally considered the worst or near worst film, then that should be a wake up call. It is a pretty loud and clear signal that they moved in the wrong direction.

Surely, Star Trek can weather a bad movie or two. But I would argue that it would be ill advised to give the creative team another shot at Star Trek. At the very least, something with the expectations and challenges of a movie. I mean, Stuart Baird is a great editor but after Star Trek Nemesis, his phone hasn’t exactly been ringing off the hook for for more directing jobs.

It’s something of a misconception that the money a film makes is the only measure of success in this franchise obsessed reality. What they want is to make money AND have fans clamoring for more so they can make even more money next time. On the second criteria it certainly missed the mark.

My own subjective opinion is that the film was technically unimpressive, poorly directed, and poorly written. My opinion falls fairly in line with the general consensus among fans and critics alike. From that perspective, I would not be eager to hand them the franchise again. It seems that no one was really up to the task of making a medium budget sci fi movie. Why would anyone think they would do a better job next time? The world is full of talented people who HASN'T made a trainwreck of a Star Trek film.

 

[The Wormhole]

The problem is it damages the brand,

That hasn't stopped Transformers movies, which are still going strong after eighteen years of bad movies. To say nothing of the Fast and Furious series.

I would argue that it would be ill advised to give the creative team another shot at Star Trek.

Fortunately we don't need to worry as like I said, the movie's writer is now showrunner of a successful CBS show and therefore isn't likely to be available to do Star Trek in the near future. The movie's director will probably continue to direct episodes of the various Trek shows, which he has done on many of the popular episodes of the modern shows.

I mean, Stuart Baird is a great editor but after Star Trek Nemesis, his phone hasn’t exactly been ringing off the hook for for more directing jobs.

Which probably has more to do with the reports of him being rude to the cast than the movie's quality. He's the guy who argued with LeVar Burton claiming Geordi is supposed to be an alien.

You'll note John Logan continues to get steady work as a movie writer even after Nemesis, even getting scooped up by the James Bond franchise to write Skyfall.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

A bad movie can certainly make money. particularly with a name like Star Trek attached. The problem is it damages the brand, which means they generally make less money next time. Considering the critical and audience reception, it didn’t add fans eager to return for the next adventure. The opposite is much more likely true.

We've been seeing this with Marvel and DC, who are having to re-establish their reputations after losing the confidence and interest of their fans.

That hasn't stopped Transformers movies, which are still going strong after eighteen years of bad movies. To say nothing of the Fast and Furious series.

Transformers and Fast and Furious both found a thing that worked for them and that audiences responded to. It doesn't matter if a movie's getting trashed on Rotten Tomatoes, if the audience gets what they expect and want from a film, then the brand is delivering as promised.

I'm not a Transformers fan, I don't know how that's been going, but I loved Fast and Furious 5-8. I always got what I wanted from those movies. But when I saw that 9 and 10 got a bad reception I decided to quit while I was ahead. I doubt I'll be returning to that franchise now, except to maybe rewatch some of the old films.

 

[Tosk]

That hasn't stopped Transformers movies, which are still going strong after eighteen years of bad movies

There are several underperforming instalments, especially the last two which is a shame because IMO the last three are the only remotely good ones.

Furious' box office numbers have also been trending downward ever since Part 7. Not to the point of calling any of them a bomb, but enough that they are apparently pulling way back on the budget for the final one.

 

[fireproof78]

bad movie can certainly make money. particularly with a name like Star Trek attached. The problem is it damages the brand, which means they generally make less money next time. Considering the critical and audience reception, it didn’t add fans eager to return for the next adventure. The opposite is much more likely true.

What damage?

Are people less interested in Star Trek because of this movie? Are less people going to watch SNW because of this?

Sometimes you have bad movies. You continue on. Look at Marvel. If they have up after a bad movie we would never have gotten to Endgame.

 

[Turtletrekker]

What damage?

Are people less interested in Star Trek because of this movie? Are less people going to watch SNW because of this?

Sometimes you have bad movies. You continue on. Look at Marvel. If they have up after a bad movie we would never have gotten to Endgame.

I mean, you don't even have to go to Marvel. You can just keep looking at Star Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

Star Trek didn’t die after TFF bombed. Heck, it got better. Of course, the same can’t be said about Nemesis.

 

[Noname Given]

Why? Bad movies can still make insane amounts of money. People are only fired over a movie's performance if that bad performance caused the studio to lose money. And while Section 31 clearly didn't help anyone buy a golden bathtub or anything, it must have been profitable enough to satisfy Paramount as if they had in fact lost money on it, there would already have been high profile firings. No one's been fired, the only consequences we can expect from this are not getting anymore streaming Star Trek movies.

Seriously, Section 31 may not be the best movie around, but it is not the disaster everyone makes it sound like, and it most certainly is not grounds to get anyone fired, particularly given everyone involved in the production side of things have proven their wort on other projects, Star Trek and otherwise.

Section31 made top 10 in the Nielsen streaming ratings for at least two reports.

That's something neither Daredevil Born Again nor ironheart managed to do for Disney Plus.

I bring the above up because that's one thing the suits consider when considering doing more. In other words I don't think we've seen the end of streaming Star Trek films.

The film seem to perform well enough for Paramount Plus.

And yeah I even I don't think it's the worst Star Trek film made. For me that dishonor goes to Star Trek V The Final Frontier.

I also found it more washable than any of the Next Generation feature films with the exception of Star Trek: First Contact which was itself a good film.

YMMV.

 

[The Wormhole]

That's something neither Daredevil Born Again nor ironheart managed to do for Disney Plus.

Well, Ironheart hasn't premiered yet.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Don't you know companies pay for their views in advance as well as their review scores.

 

[cooleddie74]

If one bad MCU movie would have tanked the entire franchise then The Dark World would have been its swan song.

 

[Tosk]

I also found it more washable than any of the Next Generation feature films with the exception of Star Trek: First Contact which was itself a good film.

Section 31 definitely needs to be washed away.