Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
Wasn't that Star Trek 09?
I meant a direct continuation of that story.
Calling it an "analysis" is debasing the term. It's just playing arbitrary games with numbers in order to prove something that ain't so.
silliness or not, big budgets don't make a great movie. TWOK and TUC were shot on small budgets and are two of the best films in the series.
Nah. Did the comments also include the other chestnut? CBS needs to offer money and support to the fanfilm producers, get them all to work together, and start airing their efforts in prime time.
No argument there, but as it relates to Trek on the big screen?
The studios have found a system that works for them on the money making end and it doesn't look like lower budgets are coming anytime soon.
What we need is cheap ass reality science fiction.
And here I was making a snarky comment about Trek 09 and forgot it was technically the sequel in progression.
Those movies were made 20-30 years ago.
And what would that be?
^Since the last few pages of this thread have centered around folks trying to prove Into Darkness was unsuccessful, I'm going with that.
I'll just leave this here...
The next film might have a smaller budget than STID, maybe more on par with ST (2009)
This is my feeling as well. Even though STiD did better box office numbers all around it wasn't a run away blockbuster by current standards.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went back to the same ST09 budget for the next Trek film.
I may be in the minority here, but I cannot tell any difference FX-wise on a movie with a $150m budget (Star Trek), $190m (Into Darkness) budget or even a $225m (Man of Steel) budget.
As many have mentioned here and elsewhere, the reported budget is a "funny money" number. Studios do things like pay themselves to rent studio space and equipment, so who knows how much the studio actually paid out of pocket hard cash.
Except that hasn't happened. All I've seen is people posting facts.
I think you have more people on this thread that seem to have a problem with the numbers not supporting "best movie evah!!1!" That's okay though. I think the last comment I read was about how someone doesn't think the $190 million budget was actually really spent on making the film, lol.
Into Darkness was converted to 3D and shot in IMAX, so presumably that added some expense (in addition to some cost of inflation). Man of Steel also shot in IMAX and converted to 3D; on top of that it had actors like Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner who presumably demand more of a salary than the more unknown cast of the Abrams films.
Of course, Opus is right that these reported numbers don't tell the whole story.
Unless you work for or know someone at one of the studios, how do you know what numbers are correct?
$450m+ added to what will no doubt be stellar home video sales equals another Bad Robot Trek with a similar budget, which, even if slightly reduced, will probably not be noticed on screen.
Honestly, this is all I'm concerned about. I don't need Avengers box office numbers to validate my opinion the movie is f**king awesome.
Separate names with a comma.