Discovery and a comparison of inflation adjusted budgets.

A few years ago there was a question of how the newly announced $8.5 million Discovery budget stacked up with previous Trek shows. Some speculated they were equal when inflation was taken into account.

I took the final year of each show, and based the number off of the best information available. In one case, the avg pattern budget per episode is actually slightly higher in earlier seasons (STNG).

In some cases, the numbers were controversial. Enterprise's budget was said to be anywhere from $800,000 to $5 million per episode! Both my recollection from the time and some research (including asking Trek archivist Larry Nemecek to corroborate), suggests Enterprise's budget was actually $1.3 to $1.5 million, so I went with the greater figure. The situation was not helped by Wikipedia, IMDB and some other sources posting a repeated, inaccurate figure!

Here are the actual figures, updated for 2019.

1. TOS(1969): $186,000 per episode ($1,459,307.78 in 2019, inflation adjusted)
2. STNG(1994): $1.4 million( Started at $1.3 million)($2,401,368.42 in 2019)
3. DS9(1999): $1.5 million ($2,288,733.49)
4. VOY(2001): $1.8 million( $2,585,105.08)
5. ENT(2005): $1.5 million ($1,952,396.31)

 

Interesting. Weren't the budgets cut in the final years of TOS and ENT?

 

I couldn't find evidence of that actually happening in ENT. There were reports but no corroboration at all.

TOS also was supposedly slashed, but I've seen no proof. The only solid number we've ever seen is 186k. It's possible this meant the number was not increased for inflation rather than actually reduced.

RAMA

 

So, by those numbers, the Disco, and probably Picard budget is 3 times the amount of the old shows.
and from some quick google-fu prices for other shows are up past 5 million an episode, with stuff like The Crown up around 13 million per.. wow...
I understand something like Big Bang Theory or last season of Freinds becasue the actors are getting over a million per episode themselves. Wonder what the breakdown of costs is for Disco and Picard. is Actor cost more than it was? Is that the reason for the Balooning?

 

Well then Discovery does well with the budget it has! It’s SFX and sets are comparable, or even greater, than shows like The Crown and Game of Thrones that’s budgets are far greater.

Regardless of your thoughts on DSC writing, you’re literally blind if you think it’s FX, make up and wardrobe are poor.

 

As I recall, I believe ENT's Budget wasn't reduced per se, It just wasn't increased season over season for inflation. That said when they went to digital HD in the fourth season (IE they abandoned using actual film, meaning they didn't have to pay for film processing, etc.); They achieved some savings, that allowed them to do more with the budget they had.

 

Well.. I will complain about the choices made for the vfx , the ships were never properly lighted to where we can see them, and texture/ paint was abysmal.. But thats my opinion..

 

According to Pixomondo artists, they chose a Rembrandt style, painterly look to the VFX in order to differentiate the show from other hardware scifi shows. While the result is interesting and often beautiful (resulting in several VES noms) they weren't seen as being that popular, and season 2 was more traditional.

 

Season 2 was an improvement, but the enterprise being metallic like disco an the Nx was a nope.
And the enterprise texture was all messed up. Something I hope they fix in SNW.

 

So you want a digital model to simulate a painted wood/plastic model instead of actual metal? No digital model would look like the old ones unless they put digital paint on them. That would imply Startfleet paints their ship hull parts. Why would they do that? It's not like the metal is exposed to the environment.

I am also not clear as to how a ship in space could be fully illuminated like the Enterprise in TOS or any past show for that matter. When you render the scene based on digital models you need to define the light sources. It forces you to think about the physics. When you have a physical model you are moving the lighting around similar to how you'd film actors. The aim is to make something that shows up well on screen, not something remotely accurate.

I don't see anyone clamoring to "fix" any of these issues in the future, because simulating outdated, inaccurate filming practices to preserve the look of the 60s-90s is silly.

 

Stop that. People want their old Star Trek back.

 

Well, ST09 jjprise was textured and illuminated just fine. And was all digital.
Lit well, not fake like tos etc. More like Tmp and Twok with self illumination and real sun lighting.

To me the textures(paint, aztecing pattern) looks like crap for the disco enterprise. And the readers look grainy.
And its just a personal opinion on the metallic. Tos was Grey.

 

I agree with you about the space visual effects shots. Badly lit, badly framed, ultra constrasty, I'm not a fan at all. I think season 2 might have been slightly better but not by much.

You'll have to excuse RAMA, he tends to pass off his opinions as fact. So when he says "While the result is interesting and often beautiful", he means "I think the shots were beautiful".

Excuse me? You think Discovery sets and visual effects are on par or better than Game of Thrones? Seriously?

(Putting aside the fact that most of GOT's budget will have gone into the casting)

 

The three lead actors on The Big Bang Theory recieved a million per episode for a few years, with the other regular actors recieving less.

In later seasons the three leads negotiated contracts where they took pay cuts with the contracts stipulating that the money from the cuts would be spread among the other regular actors.

I see it as white with a hint of blue.

All that location shooting was expensive too.

 

Eh, a very small number of unimaginative, uninteresting fans want their old Trek back.

 

I post lots of facts and back up what I say and I'm almost always right (and admit when I'm not). Tyvm

RAMA

Correct, and at least I can see modern Trek,unlike a lot of the artificially tinged modern shows.

RAMA

 

Saying something "looks beautiful" is not a fact. It's an opinion.

And saying you're "almost always right" is (apart from being a douchey thing to say), is pretty funny given the last time I saw you post "facts" it was your own personal episode scores for Discovery, and the time you pointed out the differences in the USS Copy Paste, that was followed by almost everyone saying you were wrong.

 

If a thousand believe one thing, and a sole voice the opposite, the majority do not make the minority in error through the weight of their numbers.

 

I'm just replying to someone who actually said the words "I'm almost always right"