• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Moviehole reports Trek budget at 150-160 million...

A

Admiral Buzzkill

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
...which is roughly what "Superman Returns" cost and is considered both a major commitment and a major risk for Paramount.

"Nemesis" had a budget of about 60 million. TWOK - 12 million. Even inflation doesn't get that one in the same ball park.

They'll be able to buy a lot of resin "jellybean" buttons and cheap cotton velour for that. :thumbsup:
 
Here is the linky.

It cost $40 million to bring Star Trek: The Motion Picture to theaters back in 1979, which according to the Inflation Calculator would translate to about $120 million in 2006 dollars. So Paramount's investment in the 2008 iteration of Star Trek is unprecedented in Trek history.

While throwing a lot of money at a movie is by no means a barometer of future success (hello, Waterworld, I'm looking right at you), the fact that Paramount is making such a major commitment in this era of studio belt-tightening is especially heartening.
 
Interesting - that calculator would put TWOK at about 26 million.

So, let's do this:

TMP (45 million in 1979): 134 million
TWOK (12 million in 1982): 26 million
TSFS (18 million in 1984): 35 million
TVH (24 million in 1986): 43 million
TFF (30 million in 1989): 49 million
TUC (27 million in 1991): 40 million
GEN (38 million in 1994): 51 million
FC (46 million in 1996): 59 million
INS (70 million in 1998): 86 million
NEM (60 million in 2002): 67 million

Parenthetically, at least ten million dollars (thirty million, now) worth of previous development costs - for earlier film development and the aborted revival TV series - were supposedly rolled into the budget figure for TMP.
 
And with no A-listers in the cast (Eric Bana is close but not quite there) all that money can go up on the screen.
 
For all the palaver about how Star Trek is one of Paramount's "crown jewels", it's really remarkable how little money, relatively speaking, the studio has spent on 90% of the Trek movies released to date.
 
When comparing the budget of XI to the previous movies, we need to remember that most movies didn't have to build their sets from scratch. If TWoK wasn't able to recycle TMP sets (and effects...) it would have cost significantly more.

Does the budget include the cost of marketing?
 
No - marketing and a whole bunch of other things, including striking and distributing prints of the finished film, are additional to the budget.
 
I think this movie needs the budget. EyalM makes a good point that the previous Trek films saved money by re-using existing sets, and costumes, and props, etc. Trek XI is a whole new ball game. New costumes, new sets, new props, new effects, new EVERYTHING. Add to it the fact that this film is supposed to be something "epic", and that pretty much explains why the budget is so large.
 
Starship Polaris said:
The Stig said:
That's what I like about you, your optimism.

$150 is an awful lot to spend on Trek though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if the ticket price is much over $8 or $9 I might have to wait a bit myself.
Click to expand...

Proofreading, kids. It's important. :lol:
 
Wow...big money, looks like they aren't kidding.

How many shatner wigs can they buy with that? :eek:
 
I think this is a great news. Let face it, Paramount haven't been spending lot of money on Star Trek movie franchise(specially TOS movies) and it is about time Paramount are interesting spending a big bucks on Star Trek XI that is unprecedented in Trek history since TMP. Star Trek ,,the motion picture,, did have serious production problem but least back then, it was the last time Paramount showed any ambitious making big screen Star Trek movie..

(hello, Waterworld, I'm looking right at you),
Click to expand...
Good movie indeed :p
 
Starship Polaris said:
...which is roughly what "Superman Returns" cost and is considered both a major commitment and a major risk for Paramount.
Click to expand...
Superman Returns cost, minus the years of failed expense, about $204-210 million. The SR cost seen most common is $270, this includes the nearly 2 decades worth of wasted money.

So Star Trek:XI isnt' going to cost roughly near anything that Superman Returns did.
That said if this is true they are setting themselves up for big time failure I fear.
As Trek fans we all know what these movies return and for them to balloon this budget says alot about either the faith in Abrams script or commitment to the franchise, maybe both.

*Crosses fingers* for success
 
Starship Polaris said:
No - marketing and a whole bunch of other things, including striking and distributing prints of the finished film, are additional to the budget.
Click to expand...

very true - BUT it IS also well know that reuse of costuming; and doing TV set redressing; and use of some of the same folks they had doing design and production work for the various Star Trek TV series DID lower the previous movie costs quite a bit. But but I also agree that given the situation, they will be throwing MORE money at marketing and advertising for this film.
 
I'd better start seeing Star Trek toys in McDonald's happy meals.

...if I ate at McDonald's that is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top