Star Trek: Section 31

Toggle sidebar
This has one of those 'This would have been a great idea... but they shouldn't have made the movie' feels. I have only seen Section 31 referenced in DS9. Is it elsewhere in the shows as of late (last 15 years)?

Section 31 feels like it is better kept to the imagination.
 
TheKrell said:
It was featured prominently in one of the Discovery seasons, including the main character played by Michelle Yeoh. This movie is a Discovery spinoff.
Click to expand...

It was originally meant to be a series but I expect recent economics got in the way. Hopefully a 2-3 hour movie can give us a tighter story. Probably have a year or 2 to wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard Simmons and TheKrell
klang said:
It was originally meant to be a series but I expect recent economics got in the way. Hopefully a 2-3 hour movie can give us a tighter story. Probably have a year or 2 to wait and see.
Click to expand...
It was going to be a series, Michelle Yeoh said she did not want to do another series, hence we get a movie.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: Howard Simmons and TheKrell
Bruce said:
It was going to be a series, Michelle Yeoh said she did not want to do another series, hence we get a movie.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Michelle can’t be expected to be everywhere, every time, all at once… ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yespage
long_time_DNC said:
Would like to see a Kelvin universe movie...been over 8 years...
Click to expand...
The first two did not become profitable until they hit the home market, hence why there have not been any new movies.

Star Trek-
Budget-$150M + marketing of $100M
Final Box Office-$385M

Star Trek Into Darkness
Budget-$190M + marketing of $100M
Final Box Office-$467M

The 3rd one lost a lot of money.

It cost $185M + about $100M in marketing, it needed to make about $600M to break even, Box Office was $343M Worldwide.

In those days, there were discs sales and VOD (PPV) to help make a movie profitable.

In today’s world, both disc sales and VOD buys barely exist, everyone waits for a movie to be on Paramount+, MAX, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howard Simmons
Bruce said:
The first two did not become profitable until they hit the home market, hence why there have not been any new movies.

Star Trek-
Budget-$150M + marketing of $100M
Final Box Office-$385M

Star Trek Into Darkness
Budget-$190M + marketing of $100M
Final Box Office-$467M

The 3rd one lost a lot of money.

It cost $185M + about $100M in marketing, it needed to make about $600M to break even, Box Office was $343M Worldwide.

In those days, there were discs sales and VOD (PPV) to help make a movie profitable.

In today’s world, both disc sales and VOD buys barely exist, everyone waits for a movie to be on Paramount+, MAX, etc.
Click to expand...
Damn bean counters anyway... :D
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Howard Simmons

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 47)

Share this page

Share this page
Top