L
Lord Garth
Guest
?!
I do?
Moviehole reports Trek budget at 150-160 million...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
?!
I do?
No one here has those kind of connections, and no one here knows what's a reasonable amount for the studio to spend on a film.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Shhhhh!!!!! Shhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
Im sure with loadsa special effects, action and big production values that Star Trek XI can get a respectable overseas return regardless of how well it does in North America. I mean even Poseidon managed $121 million dollars overseas - double its NA gross and that's not a good movie whereas we must assume Trek XI is.
It has the budget of a blockbusting comic book movie and if it is marketed as such overseas then I can't see their being an issue - I mean look at Transformers, South Korea alone paid $50 Million big ones out to see it and they had probably never seen a millisecond of the cartoon.
Has any Trek film had a major overseas release? I mean everywhere? I am not sure, previously I think they only bothered with the English speaking nations & Western Europe and didn't release it in the rest.
Look at Transformers, a huge percentage of its overseas gross came from the Far East, somewhere Trek has never registered in. If it looks cool and 'big' surely it must register something, and that would be more than it managed previously.
Thats why I think they are making this gamble. I think they are onto a winner.
It has the budget of a blockbusting comic book movie and if it is marketed as such overseas then I can't see their being an issue - I mean look at Transformers, South Korea alone paid $50 Million big ones out to see it and they had probably never seen a millisecond of the cartoon.
Has any Trek film had a major overseas release? I mean everywhere? I am not sure, previously I think they only bothered with the English speaking nations & Western Europe and didn't release it in the rest.
Look at Transformers, a huge percentage of its overseas gross came from the Far East, somewhere Trek has never registered in. If it looks cool and 'big' surely it must register something, and that would be more than it managed previously.
Thats why I think they are making this gamble. I think they are onto a winner.
Not necessarily true. If the movie doesn't cover its production cost domestically but still make substantial business (say, $120M), then Paramount will be disappointed. But they will also note that there are $100M+ to be made in Trek movies.
The result will be another movie, only this time on a much tighter budget (like the TMP-TWOK dynamic).
The only way that there won't be another Trek movie is if this film makes NEM-like business. In which case a $80M budget wouldn't make a difference.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I'm going to correctly or incorrectly assume the question was serious.
I work at a college where I produce programming for their TV studio and teach students. On the side I'm involved with public access. I've never worked in a movie and have no connections with Star Trek (2008). I'd step down from moderating if I were involved with the movie because I think it would be a conflict of interest.
You must be thinking of PowderedToastMan because he has connections though I don't think he's involved in the film.
A $80 million film will still leave $70 million for Star Trek 11 if Star Trek 10 does poorly or just breaks even or is moderately successful.
More chance of it doing 3x$80 million=$240 million then 3x$150 million=$450 million.
A film must make 3 times the cost to be profitable.
Spending more on a film does not make it successful but less successful.
"Star Trek 10" was called "Nemesis" and it did do poorly.
It's not like the producers can bank 70 million dollars and spend it on a second film if the first one is unsuccessful. That's the studio's money, and if they don't like the performance of ST 11 they're not going to bankroll ST 12 to the tune of almost as much (70 as opposed to 80) just because.
The studio should spend like drunken sailors on this movie, IMAO. Even if it bombs it should be a spectacle, and better for Trek to go out with a bang than with another whimper.
It's not like the producers can bank 70 million dollars and spend it on a second film if the first one is unsuccessful. That's the studio's money, and if they don't like the performance of ST 11 they're not going to bankroll ST 12 to the tune of almost as much (70 as opposed to 80) just because.
The studio should spend like drunken sailors on this movie, IMAO. Even if it bombs it should be a spectacle, and better for Trek to go out with a bang than with another whimper.
I do believe that the studio is throwing a load of money here. I'm pleased to see so much backing from the studio. Not exactly what Trek movies have been used too in the past.
I'm happy to see the budget around 150, certainly we'd not have location shooting in Iceland if the budget were around 60 or 80. Not to mention the huge task JJ and Company face in reinvisioning all of this.
I'm happy to see the budget around 150, certainly we'd not have location shooting in Iceland if the budget were around 60 or 80. Not to mention the huge task JJ and Company face in reinvisioning all of this.
I don't think we should ask for a smaller budget under the logic that it'll 'bomb less' and therefor not kill Trek 'as much'.
I can picture it now:
EXEC: "So you want a smaller budget, eh? And why is that?"
ABRAMS: "So that if it bombs we won't loose as much money."
That wouldn't go over too well, I think. Of course, I'm not an expert or anything.
I can picture it now:
EXEC: "So you want a smaller budget, eh? And why is that?"
ABRAMS: "So that if it bombs we won't loose as much money."
That wouldn't go over too well, I think. Of course, I'm not an expert or anything.
I assume you are speaking as a fan.
I can't imagine that the studio would ascribe to this logic.
A rare and momentary lapse. It won't happen again soon, I promise.
Good. I was worried there for a minute.
this is good news, though money obviously isn't a guarantee of quality. Serenity only cost 40 million bucks and it was the best scifi flick in years.
True, but Serenity (like Star Trek) also didn't have any A-list stars. Much of the money spent on the movie was right there on the screen, and it showed--Serenity looked like a million bucks. (Forty million, actually.) Star Trek is finally getting the epic treatment it deserves, and I for one can't wait to see what J.J. does with all those shekels.
I was serious and could you please contact PowderedToastMan and ask to be a representative of concerned fans and ask Paramount to spend less.
Do you remember that film made with home video cameras costing only a $1000 or less to make but made at least $60 million.Something to do with forests and ghostly beings.
In other words vast budgets dont guarantee success and actually jeopardises future trek films.
