Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Ok, I have corrected for inflation and unless I have done that wrong, the table becomes:

Profit Ratio / Name / Production Cost (inflation adjusted)
8.1 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan _________ $29,000,000
5.5 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home _________ $51,000,000
4.5 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ______ $41,000,000
4.0 Star Trek: The Motion Picture ___________ $113,000,000
3.6 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country __ $47,000,000
3.3 Star Trek: First Contact ________________ $69,000,000
3.2 Star Trek: Generations _________________ $60,000,000
2.8 Star Trek ___________________________ $153,000,000
2.5 Star Trek Into Darkness _______________ $190,000,000
2.3 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier __________ $56,000,000
1.7 Star Trek: Insurrection _________________ $100,000,000
1.1 Star Trek: Nemesis ____________________ $78,000,000

That leaves only two movies, which have the forth and fifth largest budgets anyway, running significantly against the idea that smaller budgets make for more profitable (ST) movies. There are of course going to be exceptions.

I don't think I am really talking about popularity based on these figures, but I thought this order is similar to many people's views on which they like most with the exceptions already noted in my previous post.

The only concern I have is that my inflation adjustment puts TMP above ST09 and below ST13 in terms of total box office take ($421m/$448m/$466m respectively). So if Dream is correct, something is up. But they might be including DVDs etc.

Anyway, profitability seems a fairer way to compare these movies to me. But then I would say that.

 

^Thanks for the revised figures. Your conclusion is pretty much what I expected, that there's no clear correlation between spending less and making a better movie. Oh, I agree in principle that on the whole, having to make a smaller, less FX-driven movie can often result in more of a focus on character and story and ideas, but sometimes it just results in a cheap-looking movie.

It does really show how much more expensive tentpole films have gotten in recent years. Hollywood spending is really out of control these days.

 

When you realize that of the 60 million budget for Nemesis, 2 thirds went to Berman, Baird, Stewart, Spiner and Logan, and only 1 third was used for the actual production of the film, you get an idea why big tentpole films are so expensive.

 

Wow. Maybe thats another reason why there were no more TNG movies after NEM. The guys priced themselves out of the market.

When you compare TMP to STID you've got to include DVD/netflix/cable/etc sales or its not really a fair assessment. When TMP was shown, hardly anyone went out and bought the VHS. If you didn't see it at the box office you might not see the movie for a long time. Nowadays you can see the movie just months after the movie is finished at the cinema.

Also I'm not convinced studios are majorly concerned about ratios. I mean if ST09 makes say $500 million profit and TWOK makes say $200 million adjusted for inflation, maybe the studio says wow TWOK was a much better investment as it only cost $29 million to make or maybe they say ST09 made twice as much money as TWOK. I don't know.

 

Doesn't seem to be a big cut in the budget, nor does it seem that it will reflect in the overall quality we have come to enjoy in the latest Trek movies. Moving the location for shooting to a place more cost-effective and hiring a director whose salary will most likely (although we do not know for sure) be less than Abrams' going rate these days shaves off the bottom line without cutting into production.

I think it's safe to say we will get more of the same. That may bum some people out, but not me!

 

Not very much. They look at total dollars. Which is why we haven't had 45 Paranormal Activity movies and copycats, despite their truly gargantuan profit ratio.

 

Grat, more cheap movie like most of the series after The Wrath Of Khan, complete with cuts to great scenes simply because the budget wan't there.:roll eyes:

Any way you look at it, this is bad.

 

The Abrams movies are certainly more expensive after inflation, but it seems to me like that money is showing up on-screen. No more reused effects shots. No more sets borrowed from TNG and Voyager. Location shoots instead of the "Planet Hell" soundstage. All of that costs money, but it seems worth it to me.

 

You have actually read this thread, right? Once again, seemingly, Paramount are making a relatively minimal cut in the budget for the next Bad Robot outing - achieving the saving by means that allow pretty much the same money to go on screen.

I've got a feeling fans are going to fixate on this issue now, needlessly worrying about wobbly sets and dodgy FX.

 

Trekkies fixating on things of little to no importance? That almost never happens!

Also, Simon Pegg says there's talk of them filming in the UK!

 

To be fair, from The Voyage Home to Nemesis, there have always been location shoots.

And instead of borrowing sets from other TV shows, they borrow pre-existing locations like a brewery or a church.

 

You're so right!!!

 

I wonder if they're considering shooting it in the UK so that J.J. could be more involved even while working on Star Wars.

 

I think filming in the UK will have more to do with saving $$$$$.

 

Then they would be filming in Eastern Europe. UK is pretty expensive.

 

Even better, they can film the next movie(s) in Canada (particularly Toronto and Vancouver.) I want to have a scene set in a 23rd century Toronto so bad I can taste it (particularly a scene filmed at City Hall!)

 

I think they will skip the 3D this time.

 

Doesn't suprise me, with a British Director being the rumoured front runner to take over from JJ.

 

That would surprise me, seeing as how the 3D was an edict from Paramount last time.

 

No one will ever skip the 3D