What will the budget be?
- Thread starter Bad Atom
- Start date
We can't win, can we ?
For years we've heard folks complaineing that Paramount was going cheap on Star Trek, lowering budgets for higher returns in shorter times.
Now we have a film were Paramount is saying money is no object, and folks are compaineing about that.
Seriously there is no way to please folks.
- W -
* Sigh *
For years we've heard folks complaineing that Paramount was going cheap on Star Trek, lowering budgets for higher returns in shorter times.
Now we have a film were Paramount is saying money is no object, and folks are compaineing about that.
Seriously there is no way to please folks.
- W -
* Sigh *
Since when was the TREK FAN BASE pleased
Paramount face a big problem about the budget cause it needs to look nice and have a good length but TREK movies do not make Star Wars type money so they have to be smart about it.
I would say including Ad's for it a $90 million budget for a 2 hour movie.
I wonder if a lot of trekkies around here just aren't getting that. The studio hired one of the hottest properties to do a new Trek, in fact, he ASKED to do it and though he wasn't sure he'd direct, the script was just "too good". Nimoy agreed! The studio, desperate to reinvigorate a dead "tentpole" franchise, is putting all it's marketing efforts into this. Holy crap... this has never happened!
I don't know about anyoe else... but it seems clear everyone and the studio is dead crazy about making this movie the biggest thing Christmas 2008. I find that exciting. Call me crazy.
Bigger budget does not equal bigger return with Trek.
With the hiring of J.J. Abrams, I think Paramount has forgotten this and are going to invest the type of money JJ wants to spend to satisfy himself.
Trek for the sake of Trek is not good Trek.
It's not like JJ came to them with an idea he's been tinkering with for the last 10 years, he is just trying to take the Trek era that he thinks was the most profitable and is trying to shoehorn something in there.
I think they should fire JJ and hire Steven Spielberg, I think Steven would be delighted to direct Trek, bring in some REALLY shit hot writers, and have 2008 be HIS year with Trek: XI and Indy 4 come out the same year. Spielberg does not make crappy failure movies.
With the hiring of J.J. Abrams, I think Paramount has forgotten this and are going to invest the type of money JJ wants to spend to satisfy himself.
Trek for the sake of Trek is not good Trek.
It's not like JJ came to them with an idea he's been tinkering with for the last 10 years, he is just trying to take the Trek era that he thinks was the most profitable and is trying to shoehorn something in there.
I think they should fire JJ and hire Steven Spielberg, I think Steven would be delighted to direct Trek, bring in some REALLY shit hot writers, and have 2008 be HIS year with Trek: XI and Indy 4 come out the same year. Spielberg does not make crappy failure movies.
Actually, that's more or less exactly what happened. Ten years is probably overkill, but Abrams has left us with the impression that he's nurtured a story in his head for quite some time. He asked for this opportunity because he wanted to tell us a story he thought would work.
Trek only exists for the "sake of Trek", it isn't food, water or housing. Trek is entertainment and exists for that purpose alone...
Actually it is, this is a project that JJ Abrams wanted and wouldn't be if he hadn't been at Paramount no Abrams no movie to complain about. JJ wasn't picked *for this project* JJ *picked this project*.
Well we don't know that but its likely to lead to larger returns. But you'll never know unless you dare to try.
Sharr
And no one is, since as I pointed out this isn't a film being made just to make a Star Trek movie, its being made because its a project Abrams has some artistic desire to make.
Its not a new series being rushed to the air because the studio thinks there must be Star Trek on tv or anything like that. If this was simply a case of making Star Trek just to make Star Trek there would be some new 24th Century Trek show on tv at the moment or a follow up to Picards clone being rushed to be made - but there it isn't that at all.
Its also a project that pulled a retired actor out of retirement to return to a role - that speaks alot for the artistic value of this movie.
Sharr
I may love Star Trek but that doesn't make me blind the reality. Star Trek isn't Harry Potter. People aren't going to flock to it and it isn't mainstream like Potter. If the budget is small the chances of it succeeding is higher. The high advertisement budget is to get those sitting on the fence. Warner Bros can afford to give Harry Potter a $100 million + budget (which they already have) because they know it's going to be a hit. There are films are guaranteed atleast $600 million in the box office. Star Trek will never have that kind of appeal.
I highly disagree. The problem is Trek films seldom treat themselves with grandiose notions, just as extended episodes. One must go into a production envisioning it as blockbuster material to ensure the end result is a blockbuster. Up until, well now really I don't think that has ever occurred on a Trek production.
Your expectations are way to low. People will flock to it if its treated like a real movie and not a "Star Trek Movie"
And if you think Harry Potter is mainstream... its popular yes but no less nerdy and genre then anything else.
Sharr
People are saying Star Trek isn't capable of big numbers, yet the first 4 movies when adjusted for inflation averaged 175 million dollars. I believe that and a further $125 million from overseas is Paramounts target.
Roberto Orci (I think) stated that previous movies where budgeted for the fans, and since the fans have dwindled or moved on they are aiming for a wide audience, therefore they must gamble with a big budget. If it bombs it bombs big, but the hope is to resurrect the glory days of old, that is the only justification I can think of for them letting Abrams loose on Trek with a big budget.
Roberto Orci (I think) stated that previous movies where budgeted for the fans, and since the fans have dwindled or moved on they are aiming for a wide audience, therefore they must gamble with a big budget. If it bombs it bombs big, but the hope is to resurrect the glory days of old, that is the only justification I can think of for them letting Abrams loose on Trek with a big budget.
No matter what the budget is, you know that the same hate-everything, glass-half-empty, self-fulfilling-prophecy-pushing miserable idiot will have a response for it:
High budget - Big budget does not mean big Trek. All they're doing is throwing money at it hoping for big names and big effects since there's nothing there. This will end up being a loud, dumb, typical Hollywood inflated budget movie, not Star Trek.
Medium budget - This is just them doing the same ho hum status quo that they've been doing all along where they're not willing to push the envelope and take risks with a larger budget that would all them to do more. It's going to be more of the same.
Low budget - They have no faith in Star Trek anymore and are just trying to make a quick buck off a brand name. They have no idea what they're doing and they just want to throw something out there and hope the Trekkies fall for it and part with their hard-earned money.
Of course, this same person will go see the movie 15 times to tell us in detail how right he was all along about it.
High budget - Big budget does not mean big Trek. All they're doing is throwing money at it hoping for big names and big effects since there's nothing there. This will end up being a loud, dumb, typical Hollywood inflated budget movie, not Star Trek.
Medium budget - This is just them doing the same ho hum status quo that they've been doing all along where they're not willing to push the envelope and take risks with a larger budget that would all them to do more. It's going to be more of the same.
Low budget - They have no faith in Star Trek anymore and are just trying to make a quick buck off a brand name. They have no idea what they're doing and they just want to throw something out there and hope the Trekkies fall for it and part with their hard-earned money.
Of course, this same person will go see the movie 15 times to tell us in detail how right he was all along about it.
If someone doesn't like a Star Trek film because it treated like a star trek. What make you think they are going to see a Star Trek film? Remember Enterprise? They tried appealing to the non trek fans. We all know how that ended. I say small film budget big advertisement budget. Something for the fans not crap attempts to pimp it out.
Similar threads
