$150 million budget? Really?

[darkwing_duck1]

http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/to-boldly-go/

According to the people who talked to John Eaves, Abrams filmed his Engineering shots in a brewery because he LITERALLY didn't have the budget to build a set. Abrams' sources hint that the shooting budget was far less than we've been told, and most of it went to actors.

 

[Lumen]

I doubt most of it went to actors.

 

[OtterVomit]

Spent too much on the iBridge?

 

[Squiggy]

CG is expensive.

Good CG is even more expensive.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I doubt most of it went to actors.

The NORMAL people I saw it with (not trek fans) loved the new engineering. It actually looked real and not like hallways on the love boat.

Rob

 

[darkshadow0001]

If so, isn't that significantly less then Superman Returns' budget? I think I remember it being around $230 million and the movie didn't hit off very well.

 

[The Doctor]

http://johneaves.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/to-boldly-go/

According to the people who talked to John Eaves, Abrams filmed his Engineering shots in a brewery because he LITERALLY didn't have the budget to build a set. Abrams' sources hint that the shooting budget was far less than we've been told, and most of it went to actors.

Given the sheer number of effects shots in this movie, I have no problem believing that they spent $150 million on the picture. Also, as Lumen pointed out, the actors are all virtual unknowns. They wouldn't command much in the way of 'premium' salaries.

 

[MvRojo]

I can see how they spent $150 million on it. The CGI was amazing and beautiful.

The bigger question for me is how they spent $150 on Wolverine, which had really, really bad CGI for parts of it.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I can see how they spent $150 million on it. The CGI was amazing and beautiful.

The bigger question for me is how they spent $150 on Wolverine, which had really, really bad CGI for parts of it.

Ummm...yeah...that is a good question..

totally agree with CGI comment. Best SPACE effects ever, for CGI, IMO. I actually got sea-sick with how they did some of the camera angles!!!!

Rob

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I thought CGI was supposed to make FX work CHEAPER, since you didn't have to build models, light models, film models, etc...

 

[StCoop]

I thought CGI was supposed to make FX work CHEAPER, since you didn't have to build models, light models, film models, etc...

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. The CGI in this film has more detail than in any physical model ever built. Do you think that just pops up fully formed with no effort?

 

[Mr. B]

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. The CGI in this film has more detail than in any physical model ever built.

I couldn't agree, especially with regard to the enterprise. A well-crafted model would have had more detail.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I thought CGI was supposed to make FX work CHEAPER, since you didn't have to build models, light models, film models, etc...

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. The CGI in this film has more detail than in any physical model ever built. Do you think that just pops up fully formed with no effort?

No, but with computers doing all the actual work it's SUPPOSED to be faster and easier to do more.

 

[Phily B]

Its worth noting that some of the budget will be them spending so much time trying to re-develop, and re-imagine the franchise. I remember Superman Returns budget being so high, not because of the actual movie, but because of all the failed scripts, the failed attempts at production and they even paid a director 10 million or so to do it, but then changed their mind after the contract.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

CG is not cheaper. Your dealing with numerous people either working on numerous individual systems or tied in to a supercomputer. There is a great deal of man hours and expensive hardware involved.

 

[Mr. B]

...not to mention the electric bill

 

[RobertScorpio]

CG is not cheaper. Your dealing with numerous people either working on numerous individual systems or tied in to a supercomputer. There is a great deal of man hours and expensive hardware involved.

Then it begs the question...why switch to it? If it wasnt to save money then why? Certainly couldn't have been for quality, since IMO, Nemesis and Insurrection had crappy CGI. So...why the switch?

I have been at conventions where J M Strezinski (BAB-5 dude) said he went to CGI to cut cost. So which it?

Rob

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

No, but with computers doing all the actual work it's SUPPOSED to be faster and easier to do more.

Perhaps. If they were content with TMP-level detail, then it would be cheap. But the CGI sequences today have a lot more detail then that.

 

[SonicRanger]

According to the people who talked to John Eaves, Abrams filmed his Engineering shots in a brewery because he LITERALLY didn't have the budget to build a set...

There was plenty of money to build an engineering set that looked like, say, the TNG set: a room with neon tubes and blinky lights. The TNG/DS9/VOY-style engineering room hasn't aged well. Trekkies might see neon tubes as a believable "engine" or core or whatever, but most people won't.

The key is that Abrams didn't have the money to build an entire engineering section that would've been satisfying and believable to him. It was a balancing act, just as everything else is. He didn't have the money to build the huge, complex set he wanted, so he had to adapt something else to fit that purpose. Welcome to the real world.

 

[RobertScorpio]

According to the people who talked to John Eaves, Abrams filmed his Engineering shots in a brewery because he LITERALLY didn't have the budget to build a set...

There was plenty of money to build an engineering set that looked like, say, the TNG set: a room with neon tubes and blinky lights. The TNG/DS9/VOY-style engineering room hasn't aged well. Trekkies might see neon tubes as a believable "engine" or core or whatever, but most people won't.

The key is that Abrams didn't have the money to build an entire engineering section that would've been satisfying and believable to him. It was a balancing act, just as everything else is. He didn't have the money to build the huge, complex set he wanted, so he had to adapt something else to fit that purpose. Welcome to the real world.

Well..I think doing what he did added to the realism of the movie. Kind of how Meyer put Fire extinguishers in scenes...or Kirk's glasses...these are things our eyes grab hold of and anchor us to a scene or movie...

The brewry as the engineering set was a great idea. I like it...my friends liked it...and that is all that matters to me...

Rob