Movie Budgets?
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
...sounds legitimate to me. Why should someone be obliged to continue spending their limited leisure time viewing an entertainment product they no longer find entertaining in the hopes that it becomes entertaining? Or be required to return to the product on a regular basis to see if it has improved?
Why didn't you like it? Is a legitimate question, but "Why didn't you come back every year to each tv show and watch another three episodes of each?" seems less so, imo. I see this all the time with sci - fi, but imagine how you'd respond to someone asking that about Last Man Standing.
We're in a golden age of TV. If someone didn't want to sacrifice watching Deadwood in order to give Enterprise another shot, I don't think they need to be questioned on that decision
It drives me nuts when someone tries to criticize me for not seeing a movie that looks crappy to me. "How can you say it's bad if you didn't give it a chance? You're not making an informed decision!"
Well, let's see... I didn't like what I heard about the premise/plot, didn't care for most of the casting, and I thought the trailer was crappy when I watched it. So consequently, I didn't see the movie. I gave it a chance when I watched the trailer. If the trailer isn't doing its job of making me want to see the movie, that's on them, not on me.
Last edited:
I started watching Star Trek in 1970 when I caught the early wave of the TOS in syndication. The early 1970s were when Star Trek came into its own and grew in popularity. This is when NBC realized their mistake and tried to get the show back, but Paramount wasn't interested.
So I watched the "seventy-nine jewels" tirelessly in endless reruns. I bought books galore and lots of other stuff. When TAS debuted I ate that up even if it wasn't what we fans really wanted. I saw each of the first Trek films on their opening weekends if not their opening nights. And all the while still collecting syuff (which I still do, but now I'm more discerning about it).
I didn't much care for TNG when it debuted--that first season was rough. Things got better and while I watched TNG it never grabbed me like TOS. And it still doesn't. But after Season 4 I started to get bored with TNG. The word "sedate" comes to mind. I was finding it dull. I've mellowed some since, but Seasons 1-4 are all I ave of TNG (the enhanced versions) on Blu-Ray.
I liked DS9 when it debuted, but after three seasons it started to bore me. Thats when I discovered Babylon 5 and I never looked back. Later I started watching Stargate SG-1. At that point I found "contemporary" Trek boring as hell even though I still caught the occasional DS9 episode. While watching B5 and Stargate I found VOY and ENT were essentially dead to me. After sampling each I soon just ignored them as a waste of time.
I have a low opinion of all the TNG films, but I have seen them all on video. GEN is the only one I saw in the theatre and it wasn't on the opening weekend.
I wanted to like a rebooted Trek, but everything I saw coming out leading to the premier gave me cause for concern. I refused to see it when it was released, but did see it when it came out on DVD. I gave it a shot and found it even worse than I expected. I watched it twice and nothing got better.
As long as it's JJtrek Trek in film is dead to me. Maybe the next reboot will be better. I will check out the new series in 2017 and we'll see what we shall see.
So I watched the "seventy-nine jewels" tirelessly in endless reruns. I bought books galore and lots of other stuff. When TAS debuted I ate that up even if it wasn't what we fans really wanted. I saw each of the first Trek films on their opening weekends if not their opening nights. And all the while still collecting syuff (which I still do, but now I'm more discerning about it).
I didn't much care for TNG when it debuted--that first season was rough. Things got better and while I watched TNG it never grabbed me like TOS. And it still doesn't. But after Season 4 I started to get bored with TNG. The word "sedate" comes to mind. I was finding it dull. I've mellowed some since, but Seasons 1-4 are all I ave of TNG (the enhanced versions) on Blu-Ray.
I liked DS9 when it debuted, but after three seasons it started to bore me. Thats when I discovered Babylon 5 and I never looked back. Later I started watching Stargate SG-1. At that point I found "contemporary" Trek boring as hell even though I still caught the occasional DS9 episode. While watching B5 and Stargate I found VOY and ENT were essentially dead to me. After sampling each I soon just ignored them as a waste of time.
I have a low opinion of all the TNG films, but I have seen them all on video. GEN is the only one I saw in the theatre and it wasn't on the opening weekend.
I wanted to like a rebooted Trek, but everything I saw coming out leading to the premier gave me cause for concern. I refused to see it when it was released, but did see it when it came out on DVD. I gave it a shot and found it even worse than I expected. I watched it twice and nothing got better.
As long as it's JJtrek Trek in film is dead to me. Maybe the next reboot will be better. I will check out the new series in 2017 and we'll see what we shall see.
Don't shoot me, but you really should see Beyond in theaters. Yorktown is most impressive special effects work in the history of the franchise, in my opinion.
Not interested. This weekend I'm going to see Jason Bourne.
The answer to the OP is that a lot of Insurrection's budget went into the location filming. It costs a lot to take a film crew out like that, and Insurrection featured the most on-location filming of any of the TNG movies (and mostly likely parallels The Voyage Home in overall amount of stuff shot outside the backlot. It might even exceed TVH's location shooting overall.) Not just because location shooting requires moving the crew and cast out somewhere, accommodation, shooting schedules based around sunlight hours, getting filming permits from local governments.... all of this stuff eats into the money needed.
The likes of Generations and Nemesis had location shoots, but they were a small part of movies that were otherwise filmed almost entirely in the safety of Paramount's studio sets. The Veridian III surface in Generations was visually impressive but it was filmed on a shoestring (only a small crew, three actors and their stuntmen were required.) The Wrath of Khan by contrast was shot entirely on existing standing sets that were dressed and redressed just like any TV production, hence it came in costing relatively little to shoot compared to some of the other movies.
The likes of Generations and Nemesis had location shoots, but they were a small part of movies that were otherwise filmed almost entirely in the safety of Paramount's studio sets. The Veridian III surface in Generations was visually impressive but it was filmed on a shoestring (only a small crew, three actors and their stuntmen were required.) The Wrath of Khan by contrast was shot entirely on existing standing sets that were dressed and redressed just like any TV production, hence it came in costing relatively little to shoot compared to some of the other movies.
Last edited:
Similar threads
