You forget Star Trek Beyond which had a 185 million dollar budget... 30m more than 09. But you're right, prior to 09, only TMP had a big budget for the films.
Reveal: New transporter design!
- Thread starter Balok's Decoy
- Start date
You forget Star Trek Beyond which had a 185 million dollar budget... 30m more than 09. But you're right, prior to 09, only TMP had a big budget for the films.
By the way, every source I can find on DSC's budget is derived from this article:
http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/bryan-fuller-showrunner-star-trek-discovery-cbs-1201901398/
The pertinent quote: "The show’s budget is said to be approaching the $6-7 million per episode range." Obviously this is not from the horse's mouth, but it's a reputable magazine (Variety) so I'd believe it until I hear otherwise.
The $6m price tag puts it in the same range as other high-end shows like Game of Thrones, but not close to the $100m that HBO reportedly spent on the first season of Westworld (caveat: the pilot is said to have cost $25m, with the remaining 9 episodes coming in at around $7-8m per).
http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/bryan-fuller-showrunner-star-trek-discovery-cbs-1201901398/
The pertinent quote: "The show’s budget is said to be approaching the $6-7 million per episode range." Obviously this is not from the horse's mouth, but it's a reputable magazine (Variety) so I'd believe it until I hear otherwise.
The $6m price tag puts it in the same range as other high-end shows like Game of Thrones, but not close to the $100m that HBO reportedly spent on the first season of Westworld (caveat: the pilot is said to have cost $25m, with the remaining 9 episodes coming in at around $7-8m per).
I was using 1990 as a baseline. I don't think it was 1.3 for every episode, but the pilots and season openers were usually gifted more money. I"ll split the difference and call it 2.5 in todays dollars, which is less than half the reported budget of 6m per DSC episode.
Of course, its not apples to apples - today's TV is much more targeted, with big glossy sets and top dollars poured into attracting the most eyeballs, then selling it to Netflix, Amazon or Hulu followed by HD or BR releases.
Television standards change a lot in 30 years.
Generations suffered considerably from its low budget, which is why the rest of the TNG movies were so good looking; but suffered from bad writing and bad direction.
Pilots always cost more (and the amortize that cost over the run of the series.) I'm sure the ST: D pilot was a lot more than $6 million - but who knows. maybe the figure for the cost of the pilot will leak after the show is launched - or they'll mention it at STLV.
The pilot costs considerably more than 10m, even if you're amortizing set construction it still will hit 10-15 - more if its a 2 hour opener.
For years I thought First Contact was the best. These days I've separated TV Picard and Movie Picard [shudder] in my head canon.
Budget doesn't matter as long as the writing and performances are there. We're Star Trek fans, we're used to things looking crappy.
Of course I know the pilot cost more for DSC, but we have no listed cost of it to this point, so not really worth discussing in detail.
First Contact was the only one that looked decent, and even that one didn't look great. Nemesis and Insurrection looked cheap as Red Dwarf.
First Contact was the only one that looked decent, and even that one didn't look great. Nemesis and Insurrection looked cheap as Red Dwarf.
If only they were as well written. Waiting on Series 12!
Sometimes in my head I confuse Insurrection with a regular production run episode. Seriously.
It wasn't only the "look", but the entire execution of the movie just felt like a TV movie of the week at best. That's not to say that I didn't find it entertaining, but I expect a feature film to feel special -- not feel like a 2-part TV episode.
So everything then?
Hugo - bad because it was boring. And the singing. Fuck me, the singing...
TOS had no such thing, only six pads in a circle, pilots included.
No. The basic premise, the story, even much of the script was fine. The performances were very good, there were plenty of nice scenes, the interplay between the characters-- the cast, the settlers, even the villains-- was strong. But it should have been a 40 minute episode, instead of being stretched out to a 2 hour film.
Trek always works best on TV.
When I was a kid, I thought it was so flippin' awesome that the Ent-A's engineering was like the one in TNG. They had such advanced tech!^^^^
And then reuse those same TV sets (redressed a bit) for STV, STVI and STVII.
Ah, the follies of youth.
Kor
The EW weekly article said the $6 million per episode show went over budget, so that's a corroboration of the $6 million + figure.
Trek works best in any format where there is structure, thought and life in the story and characters.
Even at 47 minutes, given what was shucked up on screen, that would still have been a filler episode. Piller's original treatment for the film was much, much stronger. What we got was a heavily diluted version, capitulating to actor demands and studio mores, filled with trite comedy, a half-warmed romance and a tropey villain who "just wants to go home".
47 minutes or 103 minutes it wouldn't have mattered. The only thing that would have given it a touch of grace if it were a TV episode is I would have forgiven it for looking so cheap.
It's one of the most boring things that Trek has ever done. Only VOY's "Irish-Themed HoloPub" episodes were duller. It's not the worst thing Trek has done, but most of those Terrible Episodes gain enjoyment by being scoffed at.
Insurrection, not so much
Hugo - just can't stand dull
Was flawed.
Was dull.
A Mess.
Which ones?
Boobs? Chrysanthemums? Logitech flight sticks?
Were literally white-privileged hipsters squatting in a compound in northern California.
Was a huge waste of an all-time great actor.
That doesn't matter. The film represents a complete failure at every creative level and is easily the low-point of the franchise. It is the perfect touchstone of everything wrong of that era--or "style"--Trek. It's length and medium had nothing to do with it.
DSC has the the potential to be great. There is also an equal possibility that it ends up being awful. That would be no different if it was a film.
Weren't pretty much all of the 24th century sets just redress/rebuilds of the TMP framework?
I know I'll probably burn in Hell, but I liked the Gilbert & Sullivan bit. It was the only part of Insurrection that I did like.
They certainly got their money's worth out of the TMP budget.
Shocking, but I actually disagree, at least by what currently exists. There is actually no feature film I enjoy more than a good episode of any of the shows.
Well I never said it would make a GREAT episode, but I do think it would have made a very good episode. Lots of "run of the mill" episodes were very enjoyable, and this has a lot in common with, say, "Who Watches The Watchers" which one could consider by your argument filler, but is generally regarded as one of the show's best (though probably not top 10).
But it would have, because at 40 minutes, there's not time to shoehorn in a romance, action scenes, and all that singing.
No argument there. But what I found most frustrating was that as a story, it was the most Trek-like of the movie series with a lot of potential, and destroyed by the flaws we've both pointed out. Unlike let's say, Nemesis, which is terrible even when stripped down to its basic concept. Nothing saves that film, even a page 1 re-write.
Similar threads
