Because Midnight's Edge is so often full of shit and bias, take with a huge grain of salt. Some of these claims just don't add up. An $80 mil budget? I highly doubt that.
Last edited:
Midnight's Edge - Star Trek 4 has lost investor funding
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
- Status
another? Anyone can make me a summary? I mean, I watched the other video and while some aspects may be on point, I felt like I wasted my time listening to a series of speculations about behind the scenes stuff and production details getting passed as facts when they aren't. Maybe to some the narrative might be convincing but to me it really isn't.
I don't think these people truly know what happens behind the scenes and how productions like these work. Some aspects are more complex but others also are far more simple and lame than the 'conspiracy theories' tone they use.
I don't think these people truly know what happens behind the scenes and how productions like these work. Some aspects are more complex but others also are far more simple and lame than the 'conspiracy theories' tone they use.
I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I did see seemed like more of the same: speculations and such dressed up as fact without any support.
I don't know anything about the people behind the "Midnight's Edge" label. They sound like guys who'd really like folks to believe they've got inside info, but they're basically making most of it up. And the YouTube comment thread, oy — it does not paint a flattering picture of their audience for this stuff.
Midnight's Edge cite Doug Fitz and Leslie Owen as sources. That's is all anyone needs to know
So, while ST4 appears to have vanished and died post-Chris'-exodus, I won't ever, ever take their word as to why.
So, while ST4 appears to have vanished and died post-Chris'-exodus, I won't ever, ever take their word as to why.
First of all: I don't actually know much about "Midnight's Edge", but I can't stand these types of "insider" Youtube video channels... They're usually highly annoying, super biased, and it's hard to seperate facts from speculation. Also - most of the personalities doing such videos are really annoying....
Which is kind of a shame. The Trekyards-guys often really do have cool behind-the-scenes stuff: Original concept art for DIS' klingon starships, lots of interesting stuff that I would LOVE to check out. But they don't make jpgs available or write up the info. You have to watch the videos. And I just... don't.
That being said:
An 80 mil. budget is actually very believable. The Kelvin-franchise is in a weird limbo-situation, where people definitely went to check it out, but not enough to warrant a big budget blockbuster. I actually thought about a potential ST4 being in the 100 mil prize range, but 80 sounds plausible as well. Lots of previous Trek movies were made for cheap as well, and you can actually make interesting movies in that prize range - Ron Howards' undeservedly tanked "Rush", Deadpool, probably DC's Shazam - I always suspected we would slowly see a return of the mid-budget movies, after the last decade basically was huuge-blockbusters-only, and quite a few of them tanked.
A 80 mil budget makes sene, and is actually in the perfect prize range for a Star Trek movie. It's just weird seeing that inthe same franchise that tried to tap into the big-budget blockbuster line - but it didn't really succeed on that scale. And it would also explain why they were being such cheapskates about Hemsworth and Pine.
Not watching, but from the comments here.
$80 million is abit low, especially for a effects heavy film, however, the return is low as well, the last movie made $340 million back, so to make a proffit your looking at trying to stay under $150 million budget with advertizing, so, $100 million and change. You can still do a great movie, just can't get some heigher priced stars, or go all out on the effects ( to me in beyond, making the planet have sharp rock mountains in all the shots was un nessesary and a waste of money. just film in the rockys.. ) You can still get a great movie for that price point!
$80 million is abit low, especially for a effects heavy film, however, the return is low as well, the last movie made $340 million back, so to make a proffit your looking at trying to stay under $150 million budget with advertizing, so, $100 million and change. You can still do a great movie, just can't get some heigher priced stars, or go all out on the effects ( to me in beyond, making the planet have sharp rock mountains in all the shots was un nessesary and a waste of money. just film in the rockys.. ) You can still get a great movie for that price point!
$80 million isn't much, but if they pick the right story, I think they could do it. No huge CGI or VFX scenes, but they don't necessarily make for a good movie anyway. I'd much rather they tell a good story and have it look like Vancouver than tell a crap story and have it look amazing.
Star Trek II had a budget of $11.2m in 1982. Adjusting for inflation gives just under $30m in 2018. Not sure that would even cover the marketing campaign costs now :-)
The Motion Picture's budget of $35m in 1979 would equal $121m now...
I would watch an $80 million Kelvin movie in a heartbeat. I think the characters are easily strong enough to carry a more intimate adventure.
I wonder though if a less effects-heavy movie might suffer when up against the high-TV budget Discovery? My only concern is that it might look to the casual viewer like a long episode of a TV show which you have to pay even more for on top of the CBS-AA/Netflix subscription.
I wonder though if a less effects-heavy movie might suffer when up against the high-TV budget Discovery? My only concern is that it might look to the casual viewer like a long episode of a TV show which you have to pay even more for on top of the CBS-AA/Netflix subscription.
I'm hoping a slashed budget might actually result in a good movie - I haven't liked the others.
Concentrate on story character, save the VFX for where it's really required. No annoying swarms of anything...
I know it has its share of detractors, but 'Dredd' was a fantastic movie, made for approximately $40m in today's money. Just enough CGI to give a decent impression of MC1, and it still felt very cinematic to me. As others have said, if they pick a more intimate storyline that negates the need for expensive guest stars and massive, CGI-heavy set-pieces with hundreds of extras, they could do it.
I don't think Star Trek XIV is happening anytime soon... whatever the reason.
Wikipedia puts the budget of TMP at 46m, which I'm assuming is including the phase II costs which equates to around 160m in todays money.
Agree 100%. Fandom's become way too black and white in the last few years. Either you have to love something to a religious degree, or hate it with all your soul. What happened to accepting something is imperfect, but enjoying it nonetheless?
I know, I love Beyond, but it's not seen nearly as well here.
Like you said, Dredd is a good movie on a low budget. With the right talent behind the camera, Trek 4 could easily give us something entertaining with twice that much money to spend.
- Status
Similar threads
