RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,690
Posts: 5,430,919
Members: 24,827
Currently online: 521
Newest member: Spectral


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28 2013, 11:53 PM   #1396
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

They should make it in another country instead of in LA. Maybe China? Gotta be cheap in China!
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 11:56 PM   #1397
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Well then can always follow SW and film in the UK.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28 2013, 11:59 PM   #1398
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Dream wrote: View Post
They reduced the budget from TMP to TWOK and also TFF to TUC. It's something Paramount in the past has been shown to do to cut costs.
To split hairs, Paramount didn't reduce the budget between the fifth and sixth features -- they just kept it the same. According to Nick Meyer's book, at least one higher up at Paramount (I forget who) regretted they didn't spend more money after seeing the finished movie.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:11 AM   #1399
Chrono85
Lieutenant Commander
 
Chrono85's Avatar
 
Location: USA
View Chrono85's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I'd imagine it is cheapest for Paramount to film on their own lot in California If not that, then some states in the midwest are offering big tax breaks to bring in movie studios, but they would have to choose the right time of year, because it can get very cold in the upper midwest.
Chrono85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:14 AM   #1400
StevenM
Ensign
 
Location: Dundas, Ontario, Canada
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Flake wrote: View Post
They should make it in another country instead of in LA. Maybe China? Gotta be cheap in China!

I doubt they would film it in China or any other country, it would likely be to expensive to ship all the sets.
StevenM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:16 AM   #1401
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Where did they film STID? At least they won't have to rebuild all the Enterprise sets if they kept them in storage, which saves a ton of money.
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:29 AM   #1402
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I predicted a $180 million international gross... But said if China made $30-35 million it could bring it up to $200 million.

wow stid only lost 32%....goaod reviews and wom!
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:30 AM   #1403
Robert_T_April
Captain
 
Robert_T_April's Avatar
 
Location: Yesterday's Enterprise
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.
Robert_T_April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:43 AM   #1404
USSPhilippi
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: West Virginia
View USSPhilippi's Twitter Profile
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Since I have not seen anyone else mention it:

In the daily breakdown for the long Memorial Day Weekend, The Hangover III fell to #4 on Monday, allowing Into Darkness to climb up to #2. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the week plays out, but at this juncture it would appear that word-of-mouth is hurting H3, but helping Trek.

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart...3-05-27&p=.htm

EDIT: Looking at the numbers again, Trek was actually #2 on Sunday as well, but by a smaller margin.
__________________
Edward

For Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made: for Thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it. Wisdom 11:25, Douay-Rheims Bible
USSPhilippi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:45 AM   #1405
StevenM
Ensign
 
Location: Dundas, Ontario, Canada
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

I think that if Paramount can't get this cast to sign on for more movies after the 3rd within budget they will likely do another re-boot or go in a different direction with Star Trek.
StevenM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 12:55 AM   #1406
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Robert_T_April wrote: View Post
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.
I didnt think so, it was a telegraphed plot, poorly paced, and very small scale. It also hasn't aged too well. I thin STID is superior in every way including the terrorist/assassination plot.

Im thinking a $150-160 million budget will be in place for the next movie.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 01:30 AM   #1407
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Robert_T_April wrote: View Post
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?

That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.

My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.

I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.

and unlike TFF, TUC (to me) doesn't look like a cheaply made movie. Meyer knew how to get a lot of movie out of a little money.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 01:33 AM   #1408
Out Of My Vulcan Mind
Vice Admiral
 
Out Of My Vulcan Mind's Avatar
 
Location: Wherever you go, there you are.
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Robert_T_April wrote: View Post
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?
It adjusts to about $50 million today. Hollywood budgets escalated dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s, outpacing general economic inflation by a wide margin. A lot of 1980s and early 1990s films that were considered big budget at the time adjust to what would now be low budgets for films of their scale.

For example, the budgets for the three 1980s Indiana Jones movies adjust to about $45 million, $61 million, and $88 million respectively in today's dollars, while Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a budget of $185 million (which adjusts to about $197 million today).
__________________
"I'll see you in another life, brother."

Last edited by Out Of My Vulcan Mind; May 29 2013 at 01:54 AM.
Out Of My Vulcan Mind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:05 AM   #1409
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Here's the sad fact about the current movie business: if they don't invest megabucks in the production to begin with, they won't spend the money on promotion and distribution to give it the best shot at success in a crowded release schedule. That money will go instead to a movie that they did spend a lot on and the success of which is therefore more crucial to them.

Frankly, Serenity was doomed as much by being a movie that Universal could afford to throw away as it was by any other single factor.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29 2013, 02:31 AM   #1410
ConRefit79
Captain
 
ConRefit79's Avatar
 
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

BillJ wrote: View Post
I wonder if a Star Wars movie runs during Summer 2016 if they'll push Trek to the holidays?
If they want an anniversary deal open on the same day that TOS hit the air.
ConRefit79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.