What will the budget be?

[Bad Atom]

What kind of money do you think they're going to put into this project, with a big name like Abrams attached?

I'm keeping in mind that a big budget can be a bad thing - just look at the financial disaster of TMP for evidence. (Yes, I know that it was caused in part by Phase II expenses, and they still made a sizable return in the end.)

And a smaller budget could be either a good thing (TWOK was the most economical of the films) or a bad thing (reuses of sets/effects in TFF, TUC and GEN really cheapened the whole thing).

Thought$?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It will have a decent "Hollywood blockbuster" sized budget, along the lines you'd expect for, say, the upcoming Iron Man or Hulk movies; to go cheap would simply guarantee failure. If they weren't going to do this right, they wouldn't be doing it at all. The point here is to resurrect a famous name-brand that has plenty of potential still left in it. You don't do that on the cheap. Everything I've read about Trek XI suggests that the people behind it know what they are doing.

 

[Lumen]

I'm guessing between $80 and $120 million for the production budget.

 

[Sec31Mike]

I was thinking in the $125-145 Million range. They are going to have to advertise the shit out of this. Possibly even as much as $165 Million all said and done.

I think they spent $200 Million on Spider-Man 3 and close to that on Transformers.

They will have to build every single set from scratch, all the uniforms need to be recreated, all new special effects (ILM isn't cheap), nd lord knows how many more things.

 

[Opus]

I don't think you need to worry about the "Big Budget" syndrome a la TMP since that movie had a release date and a very incomplete script. Seems the Abrams team has done their work in the correct order with a finished script before the release date was set.

Actually, the budget should be sizable for this movie if it is going to be the small-bang film Nimoy and others are saying it is and the fact they are starting from scratch in regards to all the sets and costumes. Every film had the benefit of recycling the work of previous productions. Since all of it is gone to auction and the dumpster, and the stages completely cleared out, they need to start fresh. That'll cost a bit.

 

[Lumen]

Oh, set design for this movie will cost no more than set design for an ordinary flick of this scale. There's no reason to inflate the production budget on that basis.

Really, it all depends on how much they want to spend on visual effects and CGI. They could make this movie for as little as (but not less than) $80 million. $150 million would probably be overkill.

It also depends on where they see their box office ceiling. The largest possible domestic gross for any film of this kind is $250 million domestic, and Star Trek isn't likely to do that kind of business -- few films do, and most that do are direct sequels to something.

Nemesis had a production budget of $60 million and an advertising budget of $30 million. I'm guessing that's at least what they'll spend this time around.

The last Harry Potter film and Transformers are both reported to be budgeted at $150 million. The last Fantastic Four had a budget of $120 million. I don't expect Star Trek XI to have as much action or effects as any of those movies, and given the box office ceiling and the limited penetration of Trek into international markets, I wouldn't spend more than $120 million if I were Paramount. I'd probably want to see if it could be produced on $80 million.

Shooting starts in a few months, so we ought to see a confirmed production budget sometime soon.

 

[Jack Bauer]

It should be pretty substantial since they're apparently considering filming part of the movie in Iceland instead of confining the filming to Southern California.

 

[Woulfe]

I was thinking about this as well.

Let's say they spend just $80 mill on the film itself, even taking location film into the cost, okay, fine.

Let's also say Paramount spends another $80 mill on promotion, tie-ins, ect ect ect.

I hope they premote the heck out of it as well, after all we're talking about re-starting the franchise here, after all it's not just 'another' Star Trek film, it's the restart of the franchise we're talking about here.

If Paramount fails to premote this thing we better start digging that grave for Star Trek right away.

Who knows when the next time they'll try this if it fails ?

- W -
* Who thinks we'll get a good film, but if Paramont doesn't do a good job premoteing it, it's done for, well for now anyway *

 

[Stormrage]

I hope $40 million for the film and £40 million + for promotion. Star Trek doesn't need big budget given that it isn't a Harry Potter.

 

[Woulfe]

^ Unfortunatly Hollywood can't even make an Animated film for $40 mill these days, due to the rampent piracy going on the cost of makeing films has gone syrocketing.

However Hollywood does see each film as a long term investment, TV showings, books, games, clothes, toys, cross permotion with fast food chains, DVD's, ect ect ect.

This more then anything is why they pour more money into the inital product, so they can get a long term return in their investment, the turn around time from film to DVD has also gotten shorter, due to filming with digital cameras more and more.

All this new digital equpimet is part of the cost as well.

I think only Indy films can be made under $40 mill nowadays.

- W -
* That's what i've learned anyway about whay it costs more to make a film as of late then it used to cost *

 

[Lumen]

Serenity was shot for $40 million. It isn't impossible, but it isn't likely or wise for a film like this, either.

$40 million is a suitable figure for an advertising budget.

 

[guardian]

I think that they will feel that for a 2007 version of Star Trek they'll need to have enough set-piece action sequences that it will push the production budget to about 130 million.

Casual moviegoers and young people won't forgive the small scale low budget look of the old trek movies.

Just as the current TOS fans won't forgive a lack of charactor development and that phase of the movie.

 

[Flake]

I'm guessing $120 million.

 

[Hermiod]

I doubt the film itself (not the promotion of it) will cost much more than $60m.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I hope $40 million for the film and £40 million + for promotion. Star Trek doesn't need big budget given that it isn't a Harry Potter.

Why think so small? It would be better over all for Star Trek to think big and grand and Harry Potter like.

Sharr

 

[EyalM]

If there are no 20 million dollar actors in it, then the movie shouldn't cost much more then 100-120 million.

 

[Sec31Mike]

I think JJ is in it for a significant percentage of the profits, so I don't think it's going to be the profit powerhouse that Paramount thinks it's going to be.

 

[Aragorn]

No matter what the budget is, some people here will bitch and moan about it. In fact, it'd be rather funny to see an alternate universe Trek BBS to see the same people complaining about the same thing at both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Russ]

The highest budgeted Trek film is Insurrection at $70 million. Inflation adjusted that's about $85-90 million.

Paramount has never been one to hand out large budgets for the Trek films, so I don't expect anything different with this new one. Well, perhaps it'll be a little higher given they seem to have a greater desire to make a bigger and more high profile film.

I'm going to predict a budget in the range of $90 to $125 million.

Anything above that is overkill.

 

[Plum]

... I think it's safe to say the studio is REALLY looking to make this a big deal movie... I'm thinking they will cough up more dough than any other Trek production... easy.