I'm not sure it would be the same movie at $100 million.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
I'm not sure it would be the same movie at $100 million.
Don't think Paramount is getting what they wanted when they dumped another $40 million into the budget. This won't outgross 09 Trek from the looks of things, particularly from a domestic standpoint.
In fact, pay particular attention to the 10-day gross. It's far behind 09 Trek.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=trekshowdown.htm
Hopefully this spells the end of Lindelof, Abrams and Co!
In fact, pay particular attention to the 10-day gross. It's far behind 09 Trek.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=trekshowdown.htm
Hopefully this spells the end of Lindelof, Abrams and Co!
Since they have a contract for three films, I doubt it.
Star Trek's 12-day gross was $155,536,131. STiD's is $156,013,879. STiD will likely fall behind some after the third weekend domestically, but it's making significant gains in foreign box office.
They may well trim the budget, but I can't see them going below $150-160 million.
They will likely "mutually agree to go a different direction". It happens all the time.
Do you really believe that Abrams will go directly from Star Wars back to Star Trek in May 2015?
I certainly don't.
And they were better for it.
Abrams won't direct the next Trek film. His schedule won't allow for it. Bad Robot will still be involved, though.
Well, it's not just about how much it makes back. It's about how much it cost to make. Those two numbers, along with whatever was spent for advertisement, should always be considered when discussing the box office return.
Examples. If you spend 80 million on one movie, and then 120 million on the next, and your returns are 150 and 155 respectively, you've just barely gotten yourself out in front of your budget the second time, and hardly made any traction in expanding the audience. Some will respond to that by saying that the foreign markets are doing much better this time around. Yes, that's true, but they had to buy those numbers in advertisement. That could give the studio significant pause on putting another big budget down.
Examples. If you spend 80 million on one movie, and then 120 million on the next, and your returns are 150 and 155 respectively, you've just barely gotten yourself out in front of your budget the second time, and hardly made any traction in expanding the audience. Some will respond to that by saying that the foreign markets are doing much better this time around. Yes, that's true, but they had to buy those numbers in advertisement. That could give the studio significant pause on putting another big budget down.
To split hairs, Paramount didn't reduce the budget between the fifth and sixth features -- they just kept it the same. According to Nick Meyer's book, at least one higher up at Paramount (I forget who) regretted they didn't spend more money after seeing the finished movie.
I'd imagine it is cheapest for Paramount to film on their own lot in California 
If not that, then some states in the midwest are offering big tax breaks to bring in movie studios, but they would have to choose the right time of year, because it can get very cold in the upper midwest.
If not that, then some states in the midwest are offering big tax breaks to bring in movie studios, but they would have to choose the right time of year, because it can get very cold in the upper midwest.They should make it in another country instead of in LA. Maybe China? Gotta be cheap in China!
I doubt they would film it in China or any other country, it would likely be to expensive to ship all the sets.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country cost approximately $30 million to make which I'm not sure what the equivalent is today. Maybe $100 million?
That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.
My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.
I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.
That movie was so well written, and masterfully directed by Nick Meyer that it was a huge success. To me, from the score...sound and special effects and writing, it was really a beautiful movie...the best in the series IMHO.
My point is that you can do more with less if the movie is written, directed, and produced properly. What's sad to me, and I hope that I'm wrong, is that after Star Trek 3 is released, it will be a miracle to re-assemble this cast in it's entirety for a 4th Trek. There is always a sour apple or two in the group that won't want to come back, or will want an exorbitant amount of money to do so.
I loved Into Darkness but, $190 million to me is a ridiculous budget for a Trek movie. I hope this franchise goes on for many more movies but, it's not likely due to these escalating budgets. Again...I hope I'm wrong.