I only started seeing this bandied about recently, so I figured I'd post it: $185 million, as opposed to $140 million for ST09.
So much money seems to be required to make the CGI look like they're still working with photorealistic models, miniatures and matte paintings. Makes me nostalgic for DVD documentaries where folks working on the previous TV shows and films, practically boast about their inventiveness at begging, borrowing and even stealing stuff, to put up there on the screen for a few bucks plus many hours unpaid overtime.
Most of the cost seems to be because JJ likes to shoot a lot of practical shots and less blue or green screen. I don't thonk the CGI is a much higher portion of the budget than traditional methods used to be. Plus, the actors prob got paid more.
Was reported by Digital Spy back in August, in fact. There was a thread about it here, but not too much has been made of it since.
And yet from the trailers of STID, you can certainly see all the models and effects are CGI - maybe even more than with 2009's movie? There seems to be an overstylized glow/lighting to objects which breaks the photorealism - it looks like they're aiming for 'SimCity 2013' style: http://www.critiques4geeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/simcity-2013-6.jpg http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/suicide_spock2a.jpg
Nice comparison there, well presented. I disagree though. Looking at the links still didn't change my mind. So what's the final Box office likely to be? I'd guess 20% more than ST09, but I haven't a clue.
I am thinking that the cartoonish look when spock is falling from the building may be a not finished effect.
Times certainly have changed. That's $140 million more than the budget for ST: TMP in 1979, which of course, went way over it's allotted budget and for brief period of time, was the most expensive film made to date.
Adjusting for inflation, TMP would have cost about $137 million in 2012. So it's not such a big difference.
Just FYI, the visual effects budget on big summer blockbusters is only about 30% or maybe 40% of the total budget. Cast and Crew fees, licensing agreements, prop and wardrobe, set construction, transportation, and food are all huge pieces of the puzzle. Everyone working on the movie is represented by a guild and gets their cut... except the VFX team. Every VFX company that works on film has to bid for the job, with few exceptions. There is a huge fight happening in Hollywood right now because these artists, whose medium lies in the digital world instead of the physical, are treated as an afterthought. They have no guild representation and are forced to low-ball themselves in order to secure jobs. Rhythm and Hues, an effects company that won this year's Oscar for Best VFX for "Life of Pi", just went bankrupt. They created Aslan for "The Chronicles of Narnia". Say what you will about that movie, but the work that went into that character is mind-blowing. And now those guys are going to all be without jobs. They create breath-taking imagery and transport us to other worlds, earning their respective films mountains of money, and Hollywood has the audacity to give them an Oscar and a pink slip at the same time. Not saying a big chunk of the budget isn't going to them, but considering all the extra hours and extra manpower these companies have to put in to meet these ridiculous deadlines, along with all the hardships both physical, emotional, and financial, the strain on their resources is considerable.
How much does location shooting factor into the overall cost? TMP only had one real location shoot (Spock on Vulcan) and the rest of the film was achieved on sound-stages. Both Wiki and IMDB list three locations shoots for STID, aside from the Paramount Studio. While I imagine it varies from location to location, I wonder just how much expense that adds to a film's budget when they shoot in places outside of the studio.
I think the TMP budget of $40 million has been debunked as being false because it included all the aborted attempts at making a Trek Movie or TV Show from the previous 5 years. I think the true budget is $25 million and the rest is from aforementioned aborted attempts. On top of all that they had to fire the VFX people they had hired initially and hire two more FX houses to get them out of the shit.
That's right, Robert Abel & Associates, though if memory serves there was at least one small sequence that Abel created that they were able to salvage and use, though Trumbull and Dykstra produced the bulk of the movie's visuals. And you're also correct that the costs of the aborted Phase II efforts were shuffled onto TMP's budget, as part of the total cost.
Ya no one doing those shots is aiming to make anything look like a miniature or a matte painting. The goal is to make it look real, within the context of the narrative. Period. And I guarantee that shot of Spock isnt finished. While I think it looks okay, not perfect but okay, it's only a temp version created for the trailer. Im sure the final shot will have a higher level or refinement and detail.