I was gonna say the same thing.
Should Paramount put a mid-budget Star Trek film into theaters?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Whilst you’re engaging in your usual fantasy tinged bloviating, could you actually answer the question I asked?
How do you figure that a Lower Decks movie would cost $3M to make?
Last edited:
The average LD episode costs around $500K to make, each episode being around 20 minutes
From those figures, a 2 hour movie - equivalent to 6 LD episodes - is $3M .
Ugh...
I thought that's how you worked it out.
Making a LDS movie would not be a matter of just multiplying the cost of an episode x6.
As usual, you display such naiveté in understanding how any of this works.
For a start, the animation would have to be much higher in terms of definition to hold up on a cinema screen. For an example, see the difference between the average episode of The Simpsons and The Simpsons Movie.
In 2011 the average episode of The Simpsons cost 5M to make. The Simpsons Movie cost 75M. It is most certainly not just a case of taking that original 5M and multiplying it by 6.
And that's just the start. The Simpsons Movie had the financial clout behind it to cast Tom Hanks in a guest role and an LDS movie would have to do the same. Jack Quaid and Tawny Newsome are fine actors but they aren't a big enough draw for a cinema movie.
Not to mention the fact that an LDS movie would be a niche interest for ST fans only. There's no way I can imagine one of the uninitiated general public even thinking about watching it.
Anyway, as you were.
I thought that's how you worked it out.
Making a LDS movie would not be a matter of just multiplying the cost of an episode x6.
As usual, you display such naiveté in understanding how any of this works.
For a start, the animation would have to be much higher in terms of definition to hold up on a cinema screen. For an example, see the difference between the average episode of The Simpsons and The Simpsons Movie.
In 2011 the average episode of The Simpsons cost 5M to make. The Simpsons Movie cost 75M. It is most certainly not just a case of taking that original 5M and multiplying it by 6.
And that's just the start. The Simpsons Movie had the financial clout behind it to cast Tom Hanks in a guest role and an LDS movie would have to do the same. Jack Quaid and Tawny Newsome are fine actors but they aren't a big enough draw for a cinema movie.
Not to mention the fact that an LDS movie would be a niche interest for ST fans only. There's no way I can imagine one of the uninitiated general public even thinking about watching it.
Anyway, as you were.
Last edited:
Ugh...
I thought that's how you worked it out.
Making a LDS movie would not be a matter of just multiplying the cost of an episode x6.
As usual, you display such naiveté in understanding how any of this works.
For a start, the animation would have to be much higher in terms of definition to hold up on a cinema screen. For an example, see the difference between the average episode of The Simpsons and The Simpsons Movie.
In 2011 the average episode of The Simpsons cost 5M to make. The Simpsons Movie cost 75M. It is most certainly not just a case of taking that original 5M and multiplying it by 6.
And that's just the start. The Simpsons Movie had the financial clout behind it to cast Tom Hanks in a guest role and an LDS movie would have to do the same. Jack Quaid and Tawny Newsome are fine actors but they aren't a big enough draw for a cinema movie.
Not to mention the fact that an LDS movie would be a niche interest for ST fans only. There's no way I can imagine one of the uninitiated general public even thinking about watching it.
Anyway, as you were.
…
This was the example you went with?
The Simpsons is a long running series that has been running for decades. It costs what it does because they must give the voice actors pay increases to keep them on the shows.
Lower Decks has not even reached half a decade on the air. Not to mention that episode wise, it has less then half of a full season of Simpsons episodes. LD also does not pull in celebrity guests like the Simpsons, which likely affects the budget.
Did I mention that at minimum, you would be spending about $2M for marketing a Lower Decks movie? Or what it cost to make 4 episodes of Lower Deck. In other words, it would cost a full season just to make a 2 hour Lower Decks movie and get the word out.
Also, the $70M, that would be the estimate cost to get the casts for the rest of the Trek series involved and not just use voice recordings lifted from past episodes. And if we are being honest, that $70M is just for DS9, VOY, ENT, DIS, SNW, and PRO casts and various guest stars from those shows; getting Shatner, the TNG cast, and the Kelvinverse cast involved would likely lead to spending like its another Kelvinverse movie, even though its just voice recordings, because it is a feature film. And they all have been in feature films before, and successful ones at that.
But I’m the one showing “naiveté” and engaged in “fantasy tinged bloviating?”
Okay, buddy. Whatever helps you sleep at night and gets you through your day.
Fasten your seatbelts everybody. We are now leaving what is known as reality and heading into the world of fantasy. Have a safe trip.
This.
Even more post Covid, there is no call for anything but big budget extravaganzas in the theatre - it has to be something that requires the huge screen / audio system. And even many those are failing.
Trek works best on TV. The experience of the TNG and Kelvinverse movies proves that.
Free them from the pressure to compete. Write smaller more plot driven features and save the effects budget for when it's really needed. I'd rather have a few excellent effects pieces than a load of so-so ones.
Eveything you've said is nonsense.
Par for the course.
And yet, they keep going to the TWOK well and to an extent, the TUC well. More than even the BoBW well or any number of other episodes.
Star Trek movies tend to create iconic stuff. They just haven’t done so in a very long time.
Maybe you just don't understand my post.
If you need me to simplify it for you, I can.
Last edited:
Because they're not trying iconography anymore. They are trying to recapture the past.
ST 09 had some excellent moments and beautiful character work but the only thing discussed is the action or Prime Spock. Into Darkness went to the Khan well despite an excellent performance by Pine.
What Trek film has been iconic in a way that sticks since TUC? Now, ignore that and create something new to be iconic.
It’s a fact that mid budget movies are between $4M and $75M. The latter if what it cost to make INS.
I’m not quite sure why you think I have no awareness of that.
Answer the first part.
No.
I knew you wouldn't. The answer demolishes the premise underlying your proposals.
Others have already pointed out that much of what you've posted is nonsensical in the context of how and why films are produced and marketed for the current theatrical environment. Your proposals tend to be pie-in-the-sky notions that aren't workable for a variety of reasons that others have also pointed out.
You pretty thoroughly conceded those points by trying to get by with answering my question with a question - and one that evaded one of the primary issues with your ideas, at that. All of your claims to have answers to making Trek successful in theaters simply fall apart in the face of basic questions.
No. I’m just tired of 21 Questions. It rarely, if ever, is to my benefit.
No, you're just incapable of supporting the ridiculous points that you make. You continually repeat fallacy as fact, then get nasty when others point out the obvious and egregious flaws in your reasoning.
You don't have a leg to stand on in other words. This is not your first rodeo on the BBS. We are all totally used to your MO by now.
Last edited:
Gareth Edwards' upcoming sci-fi film The Creator apparently has a budget of $85 million and the visuals look far better than the recent crop of $300 million superhero movies. So I think that would be a good budget to aim for with a Star Trek movie.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
