Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread

[Turtletrekker]

I have far more interest and investment in the Strange New Worlds cast than I ever had in the Kelvin cast.

 

[comsol]

Onscreen graphics in this week's episode say the NCC-1701 is 442 meters long. Even the TOS version has to be that size. Look at cutaways like this one. Kirk's 1701 and Pike's are the same overall size.

This is not a 289-meter-long vessel.

I really liked this cutaway, unfortunately I can't find @ancient's thread where he developed this - I do remember liking that he had manage to make having curved corridors in the secondary hull work. If I remember correctly he had a length of about 1200 feet for his version of the Enterprise. Also Jim Botaitis came up with a length of 1341 feet for his version of the Enterprise when he took the ten foot high sets into account.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

No movies though. I think that is the big one. Even though I personally feel like Trek's natural home will always be tv.

You mean streaming or theatrical? I don’t think he really has much influence on the latter, despite his involvement in the Kelvin films. As for streaming, I think they never truly planned on branching out with those. SECTION 31 was supposed to be a series, and only happened because Michelle Yeoh still wanted to do it, and making it a movie was a reasonable compromise given how in demand she was. My understanding is the prospect of more streaming films depended on whether that film did well, and we know how that turned out.

 

[Jayson1]

Ummm... You seem to be forgetting that Mr. Kurtzman and the "new leadership" (Mr. David Ellison) already have a long standing relationship that goes all the way back to Star Trek-09.

I know but if Trek does great then lots of the credit goes to the people who hired Kurtzman. If he hires someone new and they do great then Ellison gets credit for hiring this new person who came in and saved Star Trek. If Trek just does okay which is what it's kind of doing right now, then the brand is not being maximized to it's full potential.

It makes sense to me you would want someone who will have the same kind of impact on Trek that James Gunn is having on the DCEU. Are they going to settle for just doing okay or do they want Trek to get back to where it was in the mid-90's.

 

[Jayson1]

You mean streaming or theatrical? I don’t think he really has much influence on the latter, despite his involvement in the Kelvin films. As for streaming, I think they never truly planned on branching out with those. SECTION 31 was supposed to be a series, and only happened because Michelle Yeoh still wanted to do it, and making it a movie was a reasonable compromise given how in demand she was. My understanding is the prospect of more streaming films depended on whether that film did well, and we know how that turned out.

Theatrical. I get the feeling lots of studios are realizing streaming wasn't what they thought it would be and want to start making money off movies again. Yet they can't get people to go, half of the time but Star Trek is brand name I think that could get people to show up. if it was made by the right people.

 

[The Wormhole]

One of the few things they have actually said, post acquisition, is that TV and Movies will not be operated separately. Ellison and Goldberg are on the record as being very frustrated by that back in 2015.

While there can be coordination between the TV shows and movies, it makes the most sense for the movies to have someone in authority over them who specializes specifically in movies, otherwise you end up with a situation like the TNG movies where they are basically just extended TV episodes on the big screen because (with the exception of Nemesis) all the production people are people with a background in TV with either no movie experience, or just the previous TNG movie as the extent of their movie experience.

I know but if Trek does great then lots of the credit goes to the people who hired Kurtzman. If he hires someone new and they do great then Ellison gets credit for hiring this new person who came in and saved Star Trek. If Trek just does okay which is what it's kind of doing right now, then the brand is not being maximized to it's full potential.

Star Trek is doing far better than "just okay" right now. They would not have invested nearly eight years of television content with guarantees of it going on for another two (meaning a full decade) if it were "just okay." Even the Current Era's only real failure, Section 31, has still done well streaming numbers. Star Trek does not need saving at the moment, in fact changing what it's currently doing would be the text book definition of fixing something which isn't broken.

they want Trek to get back to where it was in the mid-90's.

Star Trek's never going to be that popular again. Even then, the franchise itself wasn't that popular, but rather TNG was, as the popularity went into decline almost immediately after TNG ended. Even TNG's movies never reached the highs of the TV series.