RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,882
Posts: 5,329,452
Members: 24,556
Currently online: 639
Newest member: EvyR55

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 November 17 2013, 01:22 PM   #31
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

captainkirk wrote: View Post
His car was stolen and he was locked in the boot (trunk for Americans). I believe he was held captive for a whole night.
OH my god I remember that now
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17 2013, 02:54 PM   #32
captainkirk
Commander
 
captainkirk's Avatar
 
Location: South Africa
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Dream wrote: View Post
This is for the best. STID cost a little too much, and had a little too many huge action scenes. I'm ready for something more small scale and more personal movie.
This isn't actually what Paramount is talking about. When they say that it would cost $20 million less that's just in taxes. The money spent on the movie itself would probably be identical.
__________________
My Vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/adrparkinson
captainkirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17 2013, 03:30 PM   #33
LOKAI of CHERON
Commodore
 
LOKAI of CHERON's Avatar
 
Location: Post-apocalyptic ruins of my once mighty Homeworld.
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Dream wrote: View Post
This is for the best. STID cost a little too much, and had a little too many huge action scenes. I'm ready for something more small scale and more personal movie.
As stated previously, the budget cut will probably be relatively small, and is extremely unlikely to lead to a "small scale personal movie."

IMHO, you can expect to see much of the same - possibly delivered in a fresh style contingent on the new director.
__________________
YOU MONOTONE HUMANS ARE ALL ALIKE... FIRST YOU CONDEMN, THEN ATTACK.
LOKAI of CHERON is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 17 2013, 07:24 PM   #34
Caretaker
Commodore
 
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
View Caretaker's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Caretaker Send a message via AIM to Caretaker
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Maybe Georgia? It evidently works for The Walking Dead and The Vampire Diaries for television and many movies.
__________________
Watch the I've Got Munchies podcast.

Caretaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17 2013, 11:11 PM   #35
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

LOKAI of CHERON wrote: View Post
Dream wrote: View Post
This is for the best. STID cost a little too much, and had a little too many huge action scenes. I'm ready for something more small scale and more personal movie.
As stated previously, the budget cut will probably be relatively small, and is extremely unlikely to lead to a "small scale personal movie."

IMHO, you can expect to see much of the same - possibly delivered in a fresh style contingent on the new director.
Yeeeeup. With a smaller budget, looks would like dominate more than story. Unless you're dealing with Asylum level budgets, you're not going to get a small, low key, Star Trek film. They'r going to put then money into the look and visuals of the movie first.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 02:14 AM   #36
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
LOKAI of CHERON wrote: View Post
Dream wrote: View Post
This is for the best. STID cost a little too much, and had a little too many huge action scenes. I'm ready for something more small scale and more personal movie.
As stated previously, the budget cut will probably be relatively small, and is extremely unlikely to lead to a "small scale personal movie."

IMHO, you can expect to see much of the same - possibly delivered in a fresh style contingent on the new director.
Yeeeeup. With a smaller budget, looks would like dominate more than story. Unless you're dealing with Asylum level budgets, you're not going to get a small, low key, Star Trek film. They'r going to put then money into the look and visuals of the movie first.
Most of the story writing budget for ST11 and 12 seems to have gone in to researching previous trek and other SF. It seems to me that if the budget was reduced enough, they would have to improve the story writing to make up for the reduced "look and visuals". It would be nice to have both improve but it seldom seems to work out that way. The story is usually left behind as the budget increases. Just off the top of my head, I would guess the budget for the next film should be about $70m.

Now those who believe money is the best criteria for how "good" a movie is might like to consider the following which lists Star Trek films in order of their profitability (Total Box Office divided by Production Cost, which is what investors are most interested in right?). The data can be found at the-numbers.com (if there is a more reliable site please let me know).

Profit Ratio / Name / Production Cost
8.1 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan _________ $12,000,000
5.5 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home _________ $24,000,000
4.5 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ______ $18,000,000
4.0 Star Trek: The Motion Picture ___________ $35,000,000
3.6 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country __ $27,000,000
3.3 Star Trek: First Contact ________________ $46,000,000
3.2 Star Trek: Generations _________________ $38,000,000
2.8 Star Trek ___________________________ $140,000,000
2.5 Star Trek Into Darkness _______________ $190,000,000
2.3 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier __________ $30,000,000
1.7 Star Trek: Insurrection _________________ $70,000,000
1.1 Star Trek: Nemesis ____________________ $60,000,000

(Please forgive the poor formating)

I am no expert and I realise a few things aren't accounted for such as advertising costs, the fact ST2 benefited from sets etc from ST1, DVD/Blu-Ray sales etc and possibly other factors. But I find the results interesting. Both ST1 and ST11 are probably a little high due to the "Wow, a Star Trek movie, I never thought that would happen (again)" factor. But generally speaking it would seem the smaller budget movies were more profitable. Yes, we live in a different world now (to some degree) but I would be happy with a much smaller budget.

Also, it seems to me, this order is not far from a reasonable list of best to worst. The only exceptions being (probably) ST3 and 5. Does anyone know of a inflation corrected box office list? It would be interesting to see how it compares to the above and whether I have to eat humble pie.

While I am at it I want to thank teacake for mentioning Moon. Just saw it. Great movie and it cost only $5m to make! Unbelievable. It used models to a large extent too. Way to go.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 02:22 AM   #37
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

^Those budgets aren't corrected for inflation, are they? In which case it isn't a clear comparison.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 02:32 AM   #38
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Those budgets aren't corrected for inflation, are they?
Adjusted for inflation, STXI still made more money than TMP.
__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 02:36 AM   #39
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Those budgets aren't corrected for inflation, are they? In which case it isn't a clear comparison.
No, but neither is the box office, so the ratio is correct (excluding advertising I think).

Edit: However you are right about the relationship between budget values. Not sure how much effect that has. My guess is a factor of around 2.5 or so for TMP
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 03:15 AM   #40
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Dream wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
^Those budgets aren't corrected for inflation, are they?
Adjusted for inflation, STXI still made more money than TMP.
That's completely unrelated to the point here. The intent of the post seemed to be to assess the relationship, if any, between a film's budget and its quality, or at least its popularity. In order to make that comparison effectively, we'd need to have the budgets corrected for inflation. If you want to compare variable X against variable Y, then you need to filter out all other variables -- in this case, the third variable of inflation -- so that you can focus exclusively on the relationship between those two.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 06:03 AM   #41
UFO
Captain
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

Christopher wrote: View Post
Dream wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
^Those budgets aren't corrected for inflation, are they?
Adjusted for inflation, STXI still made more money than TMP.
That's completely unrelated to the point here. The intent of the post seemed to be to assess the relationship, if any, between a film's budget and its quality, or at least its popularity. In order to make that comparison effectively, we'd need to have the budgets corrected for inflation. If you want to compare variable X against variable Y, then you need to filter out all other variables -- in this case, the third variable of inflation -- so that you can focus exclusively on the relationship between those two.
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.
UFO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 03:05 PM   #42
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

^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.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 03:58 PM   #43
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

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.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 05:32 PM   #44
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
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.
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18 2013, 05:35 PM   #45
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: Budget cut/location change for Trek 3

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!

__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus 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 10:41 PM.

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