How expensive were Enterprise episodes vs. VOY/DS9/TNG?

[Gary7]

I know the "canceled" subject has been debated to death... mediocre ratings matched to a very expensive budget per episode spelled the death of Enterprise. Although I'd question how effective the rating systems really are, outside of "grand slam" showings.


Anyway, since the budget was noted a number of times as being very expensive, I'm wondering what made it so and how it ranked next to other Star Trek series. I have to admit, season 3 and 4 were more elaborate than season 1 and 2. The show seemed to be hitting its stride by the 2nd half of its run. But what are the aspects of production that are the most expensive? Would the show have gone to season 5 if the staff had been a little more conservative, made more with less to keep the budget down?

 

[JiNX-01]

Actually, the budget was cut for S4. That why we only got 22 episodes.

As for the other seasons, no idea.

 

[I am Surak]

The sets on ENT were magnificent. There is a probable reality created that the other shows lack. Plus the cast is better looking and better looking people command more pay in Hollywood

 

[number6]

Actually, the budget was cut for S4. That why we only got 22 episodes.

As for the other seasons, no idea.

That was at the behest of Scott Bakula, who wanted to spend more time with his family and preferred a shorter 3rd and 4th season.
The budget was reduced by using DV instead of film and using two cameras instead of one to save setup time.

 

[Middleman]

I think that form a production, special effects and sets standpoint, Enterprise was far superior to any of the other previous series and I'm certain that would have contributed to the higher overall costs. There were fewer recurring characters in Enterprise vs. the other series and I'm sure this was done to save cost, particularly towards the end. If Enterprise's overall costs were higher, it was worth it.

 

[Winterwind]

I fully agree about the sets being superior. Watching TNG or VOY, it's obviously, visually, a set. Watching ENT, you could almost believe it was a real ship.

 

[Reanok]

I remember reading I think it was StarTrek.com or Cinefantastique special Startrek issues of Enterprise The Broken Bow pilot cost 2 million dollars.That the First few seasons shows each cost about a million dollars each, then season 4 budget was slashed to something like 850,000 for the filming of the 22 shows.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

While I'm sure that the shorter season pleased Bakula and was an inducement for him to participate it's really unlikely that this drove the network and corporate decision to offer a network-standard season of 22 rather than continue with the extra four episodes that Trek had always produced. The number crunching on this kind of thing - budgets, licensing fees, expected returns on DVD sales and ancilliary markets - is pretty specific and often drives creative decisions rather than the other way around. If they'd thought a 26 episode package was the way to go that would have more likely affected the casting decision or the producers would have been inveighed upon to find a way around Bakula's participation in three or four episodes a year.

I remember reading I think it was StarTrek.com or Cinefantastique special Startrek issues of Enterprise The Broken Bow pilot cost 2 million dollars.That the First few seasons shows each cost about a million dollars each, then season 4 budget was slashed to something like 850,000 for the filming of the 22 shows.

Not nearly that low, in any of those cases. Hell, Warners couldn't produce an episode of B5 for less than around 850,000.

 

[Noname Given]

I read somewere (and I can't recall and don't have a link); that costs ran (on average) between 1.1 and 1.3 million dollars (U.S.) per episode. And yes, the budget was reported to be lower for season 4 prompting the change to a digital HD (tape) Sony camera - but in the end they discovered:

1) I actually had better color reproduction in HD.

2) Saved on film processing costs, and the 'dalies' were instanly watcable.

3) The Cameras were smaller and lighter, meaning they had more (and esier) options for a wider variety of shots.

 

[BillJ]

I thought it had cost them $13 million to produce 'Broken Bow' and that part of that cost was spread out against the budget of the other episodes produced in season one. Because part of the expense was for sets, costumes and props that would be used throughout the series.

 

[JoeD80]

^
Yeah I think the Broken Bow budget was about $12 million or so. The budget per episode was around $3.3 million IIRC; similar to the later seasons of Voyager. Don't know what the season four budget got cut to though.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The first season of TNG, produced in 1987, was - according to Variety at the time - budgeted at 36 million dollars. The reported pattern episodic budget was around 1.2 million dollars.

Star Trek did not become less expensive to produce with successive seasons and series.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Yeah, there's no way in hell "Broken Bow" was only $2 million. An average episode of Stargate Atlantis approached that kind of figure, for crying out loud.

 

[Gary7]

I can't believe "Broken Bow" was actually $12-$13 million. That's huge. But it is amazing how a single episode of a Star Trek series would typically run $1 million. That seems so enormous, especially when you factor in so many reused sets and costumes. I wonder where the biggest parts of the cost come in from? Certainly salaries are a big piece. And on-set SFX. However, given how much CGI is done, you'd figure that would help control costs on that front.

In any case, I agree with what a number of people have said--that Enterprise production quality was excellent. Almost all of their sets had a strong believability about them. Plus, very entertaining to look at as well. Really a shame that it couldn't garner more ratings, as the show was picking up stride rather nicely in season 3. Word of mouth wasn't strong enough I guess.

 

[SPCTRE]

The first season of TNG, produced in 1987, was - according to Variety at the time - budgeted at 36 million dollars. The reported pattern episodic budget was around 1.2 million dollars.

Star Trek did not become less expensive to produce with successive seasons and series.

Are these values inflation-adjusted? Because if not, a TNG episode budget would have been about 2.3 million (2010) dollars. Woah.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

These are the numbers as reported at the time.

 

[LeadHead]

I do remember there being mentions of budget cuts for season 4 and that they stopped using film and went digital for that season.

 

[Who1]

I know the "canceled" subject has been debated to death... mediocre ratings matched to a very expensive budget per episode spelled the death of Enterprise. Although I'd question how effective the rating systems really are, outside of "grand slam" showings.


Anyway, since the budget was noted a number of times as being very expensive, I'm wondering what made it so and how it ranked next to other Star Trek series. I have to admit, season 3 and 4 were more elaborate than season 1 and 2. The show seemed to be hitting its stride by the 2nd half of its run. But what are the aspects of production that are the most expensive? Would the show have gone to season 5 if the staff had been a little more conservative, made more with less to keep the budget down?

"Broken Bow" cost as much as $15 million before the mainstay sets were even factored in. "Caretaker" cost as much as $25 million, all in. Each episode cost something like $3 million, sometimes more, so it was not cheap for anyone involved. Because a lot of costs (namely CGI) came down over time, "Enterprise" seemed to do more with the same budget DS9 and Voyager had.

 

[Trek Survivor]

I think that form a production, special effects and sets standpoint, Enterprise was far superior to any of the other previous series ... If Enterprise's overall costs were higher, it was worth it.

I fully agree about the sets being superior. Watching TNG or VOY, it's obviously, visually, a set. Watching ENT, you could almost believe it was a real ship.

Completely agree with both of you. Whatever money was spent, it was all up there on the screen. Enterprise looked fantastic.

 

[MacLeod]

I can't believe "Broken Bow" was actually $12-$13 million. That's huge. But it is amazing how a single episode of a Star Trek series would typically run $1 million. That seems so enormous, especially when you factor in so many reused sets and costumes. I wonder where the biggest parts of the cost come in from? Certainly salaries are a big piece. And on-set SFX. However, given how much CGI is done, you'd figure that would help control costs on that front.

In any case, I agree with what a number of people have said--that Enterprise production quality was excellent. Almost all of their sets had a strong believability about them. Plus, very entertaining to look at as well. Really a shame that it couldn't garner more ratings, as the show was picking up stride rather nicely in season 3. Word of mouth wasn't strong enough I guess.

Well bear in mind it was a feature length episode, new sets had to be built, build the CGI models etc, Pilots tend to be a bit more lavish than the usual epidoes location filming, maybe a big name guest star etc... all of thes put up costs, and if it was around US$2.5-3m per episode then it's only around double the usual cost