• 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!

The Domestic Box Office run is ending, International is kicking in.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Overlord said:
Deadpool proved you could make great sci fi movies on a lower budget with the right script. I think you can make a great Star Trek movie for 100 million dollars or even 80 million dollars, 180 million dollars seemed a bit high.
Click to expand...

I guess the studio had it's reasons for giving STB the budget it ended up with.

We don't know and can only make semi-educated guesses.

I do agree entirely that a good Star Trek movie can be made for less than $180m.

Let's say $130m.

What is entirely lacking is a longer term plan for the Star Trek franchise.

If I were to have a say in things, I'd be planning the next 3 Kelvin movies on budgets of $130m (2019), $145m (2022) and $160m (2025).

I'd also green light another series of Star Trek films, not involving the Enterprise, to be release in between the Kelvin movies.

These could be smaller in scale and budgeted like a glorified 90 minute TV pilot for about $85m to $100m a piece.

All I'm saying is whatever Paramount is or isn't planning, continuing to think that a mega-budgeted film every 3 years is the way to do things, is clearly not the best way to increase cash flow.
 
photon70 said:
I guess the studio had it's reasons for giving STB the budget it ended up with.

We don't know and can only make semi-educated guesses.

I do agree entirely that a good Star Trek movie can be made for less than $180m.

Let's say $130m.

What is entirely lacking is a longer term plan for the Star Trek franchise.

If I were to have a say in things, I'd be planning the next 3 Kelvin movies on budgets of $130m (2019), $145m (2022) and $160m (2025).

I'd also green light another series of Star Trek films, not involving the Enterprise, to be release in between the Kelvin movies.

These could be smaller in scale and budgeted like a glorified 90 minute TV pilot for about $85m to $100m a piece.

All I'm saying is whatever Paramount is or isn't planning, continuing to think that a mega-budgeted film every 3 years is the way to do things, is clearly not the best way to increase cash flow.
Click to expand...

Given Hollywood's track record of a super expensive bombs released this summer, I don't think we can assume there a good reason for Paramount spending money on things that were not important.

Suicide Squad did the same thing, they spent a bunch of money a generic comic book movie climax, when the movie would have been less expensive and more authentic in the climax had lower stakes that were personal and impactful, sometimes it seems like Hollywood spends money on spectacle for the sake of spectacle rather then having it serve the story.
 
I'd like to see the Kelvinverse continue. I can see a slightly smaller budget, and I think Beyond would've had a lower budget if they hadn't had to rewrite the script and change the movie.
 
I remember back when STID was in theaters and because of its lower box office Beyond was expected to have a lower budget but it appears the budget went higher than originally planned because the cast's original contracts expired and had to be renegotiated (with higher salaries) and Orci's original script was well into pre-production when it was thrown out and everything had to be restarted but the budget would have absorbed the costs that had already been spent.
 
Let's not forget that a notable chunk of the budget was likely spent on the first version and may well be subtracted from the rest of the budget calculations when setting the next one. In other words, if 30 million was spent on the first project, then this was really a 155 million production on its own merits. Creative accounting can deal with the overages and then, for the next one, the actual budget can remain roughly flat (which amounts to a small reduction owing to inflation).

Or maybe Paramount slashes a good chunk and a smart production team makes due. But be careful what you wish for (those who think a smaller budget would be better), the results may prove disappointing.
 
Ovation said:
Let's not forget that a notable chunk of the budget was likely spent on the first version and may well be subtracted from the rest of the budget calculations when setting the next one. In other words, if 30 million was spent on the first project, then this was really a 155 million production on its own merits. Creative accounting can deal with the overages and then, for the next one, the actual budget can remain roughly flat (which amounts to a small reduction owing to inflation).

Or maybe Paramount slashes a good chunk and a smart production team makes due. But be careful what you wish for (those who think a smaller budget would be better), the results may prove disappointing.
Click to expand...

Yes you're right, pre-production was well underway for Orci's script when they scrapped it and started fresh. I know that artistic design (including set design) was underway and that location scouting had taken place in South Korea. When Paramount, for whatever reason, decided to cut Orci lose and start again they would have had to pay all the writers and crew involved up to that point and I'm sure Orci got some kind of partial payment for being hired and then fired as the movie's director. $30 million seems to be the common thought about how much pre-production, writing etc. would have cost up to that point. Justin Lin confirmed money had been spent before he came on board. I agree that the Beyond we saw in theaters was not a $185 million dollar looking film.
 
Ovation said:
Or maybe Paramount slashes a good chunk and a smart production team makes due. But be careful what you wish for (those who think a smaller budget would be better), the results may prove disappointing.
Click to expand...
Amen. Those calling for smaller budgets may not know exactly what a smaller budget film would look like. A smaller budget Beyond most certainly would have had a far more generic looking Yorktown station.
That would have been a tragedy.
 
From my understanding no one here is "wishing" for a small budget Trek film. Heck, they even can throw $245 million (The Force Awakens budget) of their money into the sequel for all I care!

All I care about is more Trek movies being made and that they are quality films.
 
So, how to reduce costs and maintain the quality? budget special effects? Locations? Pre-production? equipments and supplies? Marketing? Salaries? Big sets?
I read in Wikipedia a list of tactics for cutting costs: film in another region (tax incentives), eliminate night scenes, avoid location filming in famous or commercial areas, film action scenes early on Sunday morning, use unknown, non-famous actors instead of well-established movie stars, use a non-union crew.
 
Last edited:
Captain of the USS Averof said:
From my understanding no one here is "wishing" for a small budget Trek film. Heck, they even can throw $245 million (The Force Awakens budget) of their money into the sequel for all I care!

All I care about is more Trek movies being made and that they are quality films.
Click to expand...
Perhaps no "wishing" but plenty of "recommending" and "this would be best" kind of comments.
 
I certainly think there are places the new movies could cut back without hurting themselves. One example would be, we don't need ten thousand different uniforms. Yeah, it's nice to see variety, but that's one area where they could cut back.

Pull a Wrath of khan and double-up the use of standing sets. Spend more time on the ship, and less time doing location shooting. Focus on a more personal story for the length of the run time. There are ways to cull back the budget, and tell a good Star Trek story on the big screen.
 
Meh... the exotic planets are a part of what makes the nuTrek films so much fun - it's hard to have a sense of wonder when the crew visits Planet Vasquez Rocks VII
 
Jedi_Master said:
Meh... the exotic planets are a part of what makes the nuTrek films so much fun - it's hard to have a sense of wonder when the crew visits Planet Vasquez Rocks VII
Click to expand...

I didn't say they couldn't or shouldn't do a creative alien planet scape, i'm just saying they could consolidate other locations. The Enterprise in the JJ verse is damn big, there's a lot to see and do on the ship. Make the planet stuff really count.
 
I just received an e-mail message from Amazon.com that Star Trek Beyond is releasing on 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray on September 20th... less than two months after release in theaters. That's... not good. :\
 
I'll take a smaller budgeted film that makes up for the lack of expensive spectacle with an engaging story and interesting characters any day. Heck, some of my favourite movies and TV shows have low budgets and had to do things creatively with what little they had. Star Trek is not Star Wars. It doesn't need massive digital sets and CGI characters. In a perfect world, it would be nice to have it all, but I'll take a lower budgeted Star Trek over no Star Trek at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ZapBrannigan
Let Me Count the Ways... I Watched Star Trek
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Cryogenator
Cryogenator
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top