Should the next Star Trek movie have a lower budget?

[The Overlord]

Beyond did okay business, bringing in 341 million dollars, but it cost 185 million dollars to make, it barely broke even.

Should the next Star Trek movie try to be profitable by having a lower budget or should they keep the budgets high for these films?

 

[PixelMagic]

I'd be fine with just about any lower budget as long as we actually get a new Star Trek movie. I'd prefer they don't go under $130 mil, but probably anything over $100 mil would be enough.

 

[Smellmet]

It simply has to be lower than the current 185-190million of the last two films. I can't see it getting much lower than 120-130 though. It needs a different 'hook' next time, as they went for broke with the spectacle in Beyond and it didn't quite work out for them.

 

[Tosk]

I'm all for it. The most expensive parts of a Trek film are often the least interesting anyway.

But with Trek finally returning to TV, I guess I'm not as worried about getting more movies.

 

[Relayer1]

I'm all for it. The most expensive parts of a Trek film are often the least interesting anyway.

But with Trek finally returning to TV, I guess I'm not as worried about getting more movies.

Exactly.

I don't want another big budget mindless blockbuster like Beyond. If Pegg can't make a decent Trek blockbuster, I doubt anyone can.

Either no more movies, or a much lower budget production concentrating on character, motivation and plot over spectacle, with the (more limited) budget saved for where it's needed might do the trick, although I have doubts that this cast could pull it off.

 

[BillJ]

It doesn't much matter to me what they spend. But, they may find they lose general audiences entirely by spending less money. Star Trek fans alone can't make even a $120-130 million dollar movie profitable on their own.

But, it is Paramount's money to spend.

 

[The Wormhole]

With better management at Paramount actually promoting the film, the next Trek movie should do fine regardless its budget.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Who can really tell the difference between $150m movie and a $200m one?

I'd be fine if they lowered the budget. Give me sequels.

 

[SPCTRE]

Who can really tell the difference between $150m movie and a $200m one?

I can, I'm an accountant

 

[fireproof78]

It doesn't much matter to me what they spend. But, they may find they lose general audiences entirely by spending less money. Star Trek fans alone can't make even a $120-130 million dollar movie profitable on their own.

But, it is Paramount's money to spend.

I don't think it matters how much money they spend. It comes back to characters. I thought Beyond did great with the characters, but that apparently didn't translate across audiences.

So, what is being sacrificed to do a smaller budget?

 

[BillJ]

So, what is being sacrificed to do a smaller budget?

Effects, sets, on location shooting, cast size. I would imagine you wouldn't get the amazing Yorktown Starbase on a smaller budget, you'd have to nix the on location shoot.

 

[BJ Wagner]

As much as I enjoy big-budget spectacle films when I'm in the mood for them, I find many lower budget ones make up for the lack of big effects with more intriguing stories and characters. Given the state of the last three movies, yes, I'd like to see what the next one would do with a lower budget and less pow, boom, zap and Beastie Boys.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm down with the less pow, boom and zap, but the Beastie Boys can't cost that much.

 

[The Wormhole]

the Beastie Boys can't cost that much.

They cost Star Trek its credibility.

 

[fireproof78]

They cost Star Trek its credibility.

That's sad.

 

[BJ Wagner]

They cost Star Trek its credibility.

Yes, but that credibility was starting to suffer thanks to Steppenwolf first.

 

[Shadowknight1]

Yes, but that credibility was starting to suffer thanks to Steppenwolf first.

Pretty sure "The Way to Eden"'s space hippies were the first to do that.

In all seriousness, a lower budget is a given after Beyond failed to meet expectation. Likely this will necessitate either a return to Earth or a very, VERY Earth-like planet to cut down on planetary CGI, fewer aliens to cut down on makeup prosthetics and/or CGI, a complete re-use of Beyond's Enterprise sets(meaning no new bridge for the 1701-A), and far fewer space shots of the ship in general. Other potential casualties of a lower budget? We might be bidding farewell to Zoe Saldana since her growing fame is likely increasing her paychecks for these movies. Pretty sure we're guaranteed Pine and Quinto, and I doubt Pegg and Cho would be bringing in that much, but Zoe's getting to be a pretty big star.

 

[Mudd]

They cost Star Trek its credibility.

Bah. The 21st century cost Star Trek its credibility.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They cost Star Trek its credibility.

Perhaps that accolade is best reserved for decon-chamber lube-up sessions in "Broken Bow"

 

[Shadowknight1]

Perhaps that accolade is best reserved for decon-chamber lube-up sessions in "Broken Bow"

And I say again. SPACE HIPPIES.