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

[Richard S. Ta]

There used to be a very wide gap between what could be achieved on a TV screen and what could be achieved on a cinema screen.

These days that gap is vanishingly small.

P+ is the perfect place for smaller scale Star Trek movies. It releases the producers from the pressure of the box office and ticket sales and allows them in all honesty to tell what could be far more interesting stories.

I stand by what I said above. The cinema is a heavyweight competition and if Star Trek can’t do heavyweight, it has no business being in the ring.

 

[FederationHistorian]

If they still want to do that Star Trek Justice League movie, where they get all of the heroes to go up against all the villains, then Lower Decks is their only chance. A Lower Decks movie would only cost $3M to make, leaving up to $70M to get at many names as possible. Not to mention the audio clips of various characters or respective actors & actresses that aren’t alive to reprise their roles.

Redo Riddick but with Jim Kirk in the lead role. Spock or whoever appears on viewscreen at the very end for beam-up. One main character, no expensive ship sets.

That sounds original. You think Paramount would make that?

 

[somebuddyX]

They could remake "Buried" but with Jim Kirk in the lead role. Spock and the crew calls him on the communicator every so often.

 

[F. King Daniel]

A Star Trek version of Devil, where 4 people are stuck in a turbolift for 2 hours.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

A Lower Decks movie would only cost $3M to make

I'm going to regret asking, but where did you pull that figure from?

 

[Set Harth]

the, er, lower deck

 

[somebuddyX]

A Star Trek version of Devil, where 4 people are stuck in a turbolift for 2 hours.

I feel like you made such a good point in another thread, about how Strange New Worlds kinda does everything a film could do but does it week to week, that it's kinda made me think we won't see a theatrical film while the live action shows are around.

 

[Dukhat]

A Lower Decks movie would only cost $3M to make, leaving up to $70M to get at many names as possible.

No one would go to see a Lower Decks movie in the theaters other than the small percentage of Star Trek fans who watch Lower Decks.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I feel like you made such a good point in another thread, about how Strange New Worlds kinda does everything a film could do but does it week to week, that it's kinda made me think we won't see a theatrical film while the live action shows are around.

Only the two Gorn episodes from SNW put together would be cinema worthy though.

No one would go to see a Lower Decks movie in the theaters other than the small percentage of Star Trek fans who watch Lower Decks.

Yes, they would. Especially if was a major crossover event involving the casts of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DIS, PIC, SNW & PRO were involved. That’s basically the only way to afford a major crossover like this in the first place.

It would basically be an adaptation of The Q Conflict comic, which itself was an adaption of the Star Trek Justice League idea that was floated as the sequel to NEM.

 

[Dukhat]

Yes, they would. Especially if was a major crossover event involving the casts of TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DIS, PIC, SNW & PRO were involved. That’s basically the only way to afford a major crossover like this in the first place.

It would basically be an adaptation of The Q Conflict comic, which itself was an adaption of the Star Trek Justice League idea that was floated as the sequel to NEM.

Yeah, that’s not going to happen. At least not on the big screen. A production that shoehorns in every character in Star Trek ever isn’t remotely a guarantee of success, and the only people who would want something like that are a tiny percentage of uber-fans. Casual moviegoers would be lost five minutes into the film.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Yeah, that’s not going to happen. At least on the big screen.

Not with that attitude.

 

[Dukhat]

Not with that attitude.

It’s called being realistic.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Only the two Gorn episodes from SNW put together would be cinema worthy though.

Extremely derivative cinema

 

[Ovation]

Not with that attitude.

It’s not a question of attitude. It’s a question of reality. There’s no way to sell that to a general audience sufficiently to cover the cost of such a project.

 

[FederationHistorian]

It’s not a question of attitude. It’s a question of reality. There’s no way to sell that to a general audience sufficiently to cover the cost of such a project.

The reality is you make a plan to figure what you need to make your plan actually feasible and to sell to a wider audience.

Literally business 101.

 

[Ovation]

The reality is you make a plan to figure what you need to make your plan actually feasible and to sell to a wider audience.

Literally business 101.

It’s the “actually feasible” part that renders the plan moot. Also “business 101”.

 

[Dukhat]

The reality is you make a plan to figure what you need to make your plan actually feasible and to sell to a wider audience.

Literally business 101.

You don’t make a two hour animated theatrical film with every character from every Star Trek series ever, and expect to get anyone to actually pay to see it other than extremely hardcore Trek uber-fans who love fanwank. That’s not how you run a movie business. That does nothing to bring in a wider audience.

 

[somebuddyX]

Only the two Gorn episodes from SNW put together would be cinema worthy though.

What I'm saying is, I feel that at the moment it doesn't matter if it's cinema worthy when to the normies they can get Star Trek at home for free.

 

[M'Sharak]

What I'm saying is, I feel that at the moment it doesn't matter if it's cinema worthy when to the normies they can get Star Trek at home for free.

Not sure what the arrangement is where you are, but Paramount+ is by subscription in the US. (i.e., not free.)

Unless you're talking about obtaining the programs by unauthorized means, in which case: please don't do that here -- it's against board rules and could potentially get us in trouble with Paramount Legal (who understandably don't have a sense of humor about that kind of thing).

 

[somebuddyX]

Not sure what the arrangement is where you are, but Paramount+ is by subscription in the US. (i.e., not free.)

Unless you're talking about obtaining the programs by unauthorized means, in which case: please don't do that here -- it's against board rules and could potentially get us in trouble with Paramount Legal (who understandably don't have a sense of humor about that kind of thing).

No I just mean if they already have Paramount for normal Trek I don't feel people are going to go out to the cinema and pay more for something when they already have it. Yeah I'm using free incorrectly probably but the point is if they get their fill with Paramount, why bother paying for a film that could just be mediocre. That's just my take on it, I might be wrong, but it's how I feel at the moment.