ST4 budget: How low will you go?

[F. King Daniel]

I'm not jumping to conclusions about Beyond being a success/failure (we'll wait and see how it does in China first), just curious what fans would be willing to accept as a budget for the next Star Trek movie.

Would you still see a Trek movie continuing the adventures of these characters if the movie had only one or two big action set pieces? Or even none?

As much as I love the amazing visuals and crazy action in the Kelvinverse Trek movies, what I love most about them is the characters. While my first choice for ST4 would be more of the same we've had in movies 1-3, I'd happily watch this version of the Enterprise crew on a much more modest adventure too.

 

[The Doctor]

They're not going to make another one of these movies on the cheap. It'll be a big summer movie, or nothing at all.

 

[BillJ]

Would you still see a Trek movie continuing the adventures of these characters if the movie had only one or two big action set pieces? Or even none?

I paid to see The Final Frontier, Generations and Nemesis, of course I'll pay for another Abrams film even if it is down-sized due to a lower budget.

 

[photon70]

We don't know what the studio's thinking process was for STB or will be for ST4.

By the time 2019 rolls around, $172m will be about equivalent to $150m for ST09's budget.

I think Paramount would happily spend that much on ST4.

If they had to trim it, $165m for the next one.

 

[Desert Kris]

I'm confident that a film making team can be creative with money, and make a film that looks good. Firstly, looking good is in the eye of the beholder. Production design people are, I hope paid well for their contribution; on the other hand, I had serious problems with the Enterprise design under Abrams team, it doesn't look good.

I'm not going to enable the dichotomy of style or substance. I've enjoyed spectacle, and I've enjoyed really wild story concepts, and I've enjoyed movies that have both. TOS and the old Doctor Who never bother me because of special effects. And I've been a fan of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas pushing the innovation of special effects. And movies like Inception have a nice fill of both.

There are tricks to get around reliance on special effects (and I'm sure there are other ways of cutting costs). You can lead into a brief, jaw dropping special effects set piece by building up a scene. More tension and suspense, and reliance on actor's performance. Witness the lead-in to the swarms attack on the Enterprise. A nice sense of how eerie deep space exploration can be, and that build up to when the characters realize how dangerous things are. Actor's performance, and music, and maybe some clever, simple camera tricks to convey a build up. Also, sometimes special effects can distract from meaningful character drama, so streamlining the visuals can be helpful.

It can be tricky to make sure money is spent wisely. Sometimes luck is involved. I can't remember the exact details, but I think Star Trek V: The Final Frontier had some unlucky breaks that cost money. The Wrath of Khan cut costs by reusing ship exterior shots of Enterprise, for most of the first half of the movie; it shows and is a disappointing aspect of an otherwise very entertaining movie...and yet it gets the job done.

I've also read plenty of behind-the-scenes stuff where writers and production people have said that the creativity needed to tell the best possible story, while also having to be restrained with the use of money, has sometimes lead to better decisions (and a better production, in some sense). I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, by I know I've read that sentiment in several making-of books.

 

[photon70]

I'd happily watch this version of the Enterprise crew on a much more modest adventure too.

Me too. I don't think Trek can continue to try and be the biggest gorilla in the room.

Not when the franchise cannot seem to excite the general public and the fan base cannot turn out to give a Trek movie anything close to a massive opening weekend, one needed because of the massive budget.

Short of Paramount bringing a multi-crew movie onto the big screen for the next movie and spending big ($225m) ala Avengers.

You can have a more modest adventure. That doesn't mean it'll be boring or slow.

I've said elsewhere that a smaller movie made up of 3 or 4 acts, each act a new captain's log and an exciting mission, can work if there is an overarching theme.

Star Trek has so many stories to tell and this is the best way to do it.

We cannot wait 3 or 4 years just to get another 'kill the villain' story because guess what, that's the same story in every summer blockbuster.

We need to differentiate ourselves and truly be the 'thinking' franchise.

 

[johnjm22]

Would love to see them cut the budget significantly. It would force them to keep the action sequences to a minimum and have the movie mostly be character stuff.

 

[Ovation]

Which then would bring in a fraction of the already apparently dwindling audience and pretty much mothball the series for a long time. Might be an attractive option to some people but not to the studio.

 

[C.E. Evans]

If they go low, I really doubt it'll be a penny less than $170 million.

 

[EndeavourCrew]

Agree, can't see them making it for much less than 170 mil..........

That being said, if the story revolves around George Kirk it very well could be a tighter film in scope and thereby be cheaper. Will that be enough to make the studio happy? Who knows. If it is a JJ story then maybe.

 

[johnjm22]

If The Martian costs 100M to make, I don't see why a Star Trek movie should cost 185M+.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Because when it's a cheap sci-fi movie, it really shows.

 

[photon70]

Because when it's a cheap sci-fi movie, it really shows.

Who knows. Maybe some of the more cheesy effects from the earlier Star Trek movies were part of the attraction.

'Cheap' sci-fi movies like The Martian should clearly now be part of Paramount's future considerations for Star Trek.

They've had 3 tries at making Star Trek a juggernaut.

That a movie like The Martian can be made for $108m and take over $600m at the box office IS what the Star Trek franchise could be, should be, needs to be.

I'm willing to bet a lot of Trekkers and Trekkies go to these 'cheaper' sci-fi flicks, enjoy the heck out of them and wonder why Star Trek can't do something similar.

 

[JeffinOakland]

ST4 will take place entirely on a large rubber raft. The filming will be "on location" in the pool at the Los Angeles YMCA and Scotty will be played by a trained housecat.

 

[One Lucky Red Shirt]

Sometimes movies come out bigger n better if they have to go by a limited budget. Sometimes with a big budget the film makers play too much. Even though BVS broke even and made a small profit, the film makes i feel sometimes had a big head. It shows too to a point. After the backlash of that film, warner brothers stepped in and assigned people specifically to control the future dc extended universe films.

I think a budget of $125 they could make a good trek film. Or maybe film 2 films with budget of about $200/250. Paramount knows they have an audience. Instead of huge special effect space battles they can ground the next film or films more on a planet. Im pretty sure if there is a trek 4 paramount will lower the budget and bring in screen writers to try their hand at trek. It could work. I heard the rule of thumb for a movie to make a budget is that the box office has to be at least twice the $ as the budget. So STB has to make at least about $400 million to be considered a profit.

 

[donners22]

That a movie like The Martian can be made for $108m and take over $600m at the box office IS what the Star Trek franchise could be, should be, needs to be.

But can't be.

The Star Trek name comes with baggage, unlike a film like The Martian.

It certainly has a floor on its takings, but it also has a ceiling. Some people aren't comfortable jumping into something with such a long history, others are put off by a negative perception of Trek. I've been trying to get colleagues to see Beyond, but almost all have been disinterested because of either or both of those reasons.

Even the best-reviewed, most iconic Trek films have not been at that level, even with the support of an audience built over years through a popular TV series.

 

[donners22]

I can't imagine that they'd go below $150 million.

They're going to be hit by the same problem as the later TOS and TNG films in that the cast take up more and more of the budget. It will be even more pronounced, as this cast is actually in demand for other films, unlike most of their predecessors.

What's more, they'll be held to the standards of their own series. While a few expensive action scenes can be left out, they still have to have generally high production values - and that comes at a cost.

If Beyond falls well short of its predecessors at the US box office - and it looks likely that it will - I wouldn't be too sure about a sequel.

 

[F. King Daniel]

ST4 will take place entirely on a large rubber raft. The filming will be "on location" in the pool at the Los Angeles YMCA and Scotty will be played by a trained housecat.

This adds depth to and explains Scotty killing Archer's dog.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Because when it's a cheap sci-fi movie, it really shows.

Yeah, and then we get the immediate complaint that it comes across like just a two-part TV episode.

 

[Dales]

150 million will be the best tag price and paramount should put more effort in promoting the movie.