What will the budget be?

[Plum]

Star Trek is Harry Potter.

It's a new franchise. The past is rather irrelevant production wise. ENT was just like the previous trek shows and it's a big part of why it failed (blame UPN).

This is a completely new era. We are witnessing a new dawn... who the frack knows...

 

[Vektor]

Stormrage said:
Remember Enterprise? They tried appealing to the non trek fans. We all know how that ended.

Even if we grant your assertion that they tried to appeal to non Trek fans with Enterprise, which is debatable, the fact that the people in charge at the time were unable to do so with their particular brand of Trek does not mean that it can’t be done by anyone at any time in any form. If everyone subscribed to such limited thinking as that, we’d all still be living in caves.

 

[Sharr Khan]

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.

That's not why Enterprise failed, among other things it wasn't true to its premise.

You never, ever make art "for the fans", they are usually the smallest group around - your first concern is to make whatever you're working on memorable.

Trek will and has failed because people worried to much about the "fans". Its time to think in broader terms. That's not "pimping out" whatever that means - Star Trek isn't a special fan club meant for the elite (Thinking like that is part of Trek's problems and taking no real risks or playing agianst its own formula...)

If they did what they you want you'd be right back here complaining they didn't "put enough effort into it"

The only thing keeping Star Trek from being Harry Potter or even Star War's like is small thinking. Trek doesn't and shouldn't be about a niche.

Sharr

 

[Stormrage]

Star Trek is Harry Potter.
The only thing keeping Star Trek from being Harry Potter or even Star War's like is small thinking. Trek doesn't and shouldn't be about a niche.

Star Trek isn't going to be Harry Potter. Thats because it's seen has geeky. Unless that image is removed on the public it won't enjoy mainstream success.

 

[FordSVT]

Stormrage said:

Star Trek is Harry Potter.
The only thing keeping Star Trek from being Harry Potter or even Star War's like is small thinking. Trek doesn't and shouldn't be about a niche.

Star Trek isn't going to be Harry Potter. Thats because it's seen has geeky. Unless that image is removed on the public it won't enjoy mainstream success.

The perfect storm of a good script, some recognizable faces, effective advertising and good word of mouth might do a great deal to eliminate the issue.

There's nothing wrong with being geeky if it's seen as "cool" at the same time. Star Wars is geeky as all hell. Spaceships, light swords and puppets? Geeky as all hell! But no one cares, they go see it anyways because it's escapist and fun. And you know what? Trek was like that for a while in the 80s and early 90s, it can be that way again. But it takes good product to do it, you can't eliminate the stigma first and THEN put out a movie or show.

I predict a total production and advertising budget of about $150 million. If they can make that much domestically, plus 75% of that again overseas, plus DVDs and merchandising it will definitely make quite a bit of money for Paramount. And if they're looking at a new franchise or generating enough public interest in another series in a few years, it's doubly worth the expense.

But I totally disagree with those saying the could make a $40 million movie, that's insane. It's hard to make anything with more than a dozen SFX shots for less than $60 million these days, especially if you have even B-list actors on budget. This is a Trek movie, not Sideways. It's one of the most prominent sci-fi franchises ever, makes it far less excusable for it to have less than state of the arts effects. While Generations and First Contact had effects about on par with the industry at the time, I don't think many people here would argue Insurrection or Nemesis were up to the task. If you're going to go and throw your eggs into one basket with the intent to revitalize a franchise, you'd better not do it half-assed, the public will smell blood in the water and avoid it in droves. And like it or not, great spectacle is basically a requirement in today's entertainment atmosphere. Doesn't excuse a bad story, but then again a good story doesn't exclude a bit of spectacle, despite what some nay-sayers claim.

And you could TELL Serenity was a lower-budget movie, I've seen Stargate episodes with SFX as impressive. It was a small improvement over the TV show, but the whole budget went into the final scene and the actors cost nothing.

 

[Woulfe]

^ They could make the new film for $10 Mil....
If folks want 100% 1960's style TV FX in it....
And don't you folks dare say that they'll do just that....
- W -
* I expect this one to be a huge budget tentpole film, like Paramount keeps saying, that means a budget like POTC had *

 

[StarMan]

FordSVT said:
If you're going to go and throw your eggs into one basket with the intent to revitalize a franchise, you'd better not do it half-assed, the public will smell blood in the water and avoid it in droves.

You've got it in one. If you're wanting to hit a home run, you take the ball and smash the shit out of it.

So far as I'm concerned, it's all or nothing for the franchise at this stage.

 

[Woulfe]

^ I think he has the right idea as well, if you're gonna do it, go full-tilt, don't be afraid to pour cash into it like it's going out of style, give 'till it hurts !

- W -
* Seeing as Paramount has more then enough money to pour into this thing, why not just go for it ? *

 

[guardian]

I am stunned that some folks think we're going to get another 50-65 million dollar movie.

they wouldn't even bother with this project unless theywere trying to make it a mainstram hit.
For that to be the case, they need a large budget like other big scale action movies.

Even 92 minute FF 2 had a 130 million dollar budget and I doubt the movie will come in under 125 minutes.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

$120 to $140 million. And now that Stewart is gone (thank GOD) they won't have to give half the budget to him.

 

[RAMA]

Paramount usually has a formula for ST movies that they just might be flexible with this time out....I'd say $90-120 million for the budget, and they'll expect returns of $200-250 million. Whether it will do better than the traditional $80 million domestic, I don't know.

RAMA

 

[Lumen]

guardian said:
Even 92 minute FF 2 had a 130 million dollar budget and I doubt the movie will come in under 125 minutes.

But unlike FF 2, this movie will have dialogue.

So they ought to be able to make it for no more than $130 million.

 

[DaveyNY]

Woulfe said:
^ They could make the new film for $10 Mil....
If folks want 100% 1960's style TV FX in it....
And don't you folks dare say that they'll do just that....
- W -
* I expect this one to be a huge budget tentpole film, like Paramount keeps saying, that means a budget like POTC had *

I know I'm probably gonna feel really stupid for asking this but,

What the Hell is "POTC"????

 

[Jack Bauer]

Pirates of the Carribean ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[duranduran]

Sharr Khan said:

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

The budget should be capped at $55 million max and $40 million minimum.
Unknown actors should be hired so that they can be paid very little.

Struggling art directors used fo the art and set design.

Homeless people living in cardboard boxes should be used as extras.A $2 buffet and a beer will keep them happy.
They could save money by outsourcing the work to smll start up effects houses.Or even use CBS digital the in house people doing the TOS effects.This could save $30 million.

ILM effects as shown by the revenge of the sith were awfuly cartoonish looking and were fuzzy,blurry and lacked clarity.Also the film sucked.The 10 minute light sabre fight was like a Tom and Jerry cartoon without drama,dialouge or tension.


If too much is spent and it fails no more money will be left to make Trek 12.
I still want them to make a series of 22 episodes non-enterprise like episodes instead,then success will be guaranteed.

Abrams should be asked to work free unless the film makse a gross of $450 million and then he would get 35% of the extra.

The actors should also get 15% of the extra if it makes more than $450 million.
The homeless could be offered housing if it exceeds $500 million.
More money can be saved by making it just 80 minutes long.
This will make the story tight and appeal to people with short attention spans like teenagers.
The reason is a film must make 3 times the cost to be profitable.

 

[Woulfe]

^ Unfortunatly ^

There seems to be a lot of big names that want to be in this film, and they won't take a pay cut, so Para can't make the film on the cheap like folks keep asking.

If folks want Shatner in it even moreso they'll need to pay what he wants and as of late he wants a lot up front.

So no $55 mil budget if Shatner signs up for this.

As for running time, it depends on the story.

If the story can be told in 90 mins then that is that, if it needs more time then that does it really matter ?

I saw lots of Teenages watching all 3 LOTR films along with old fuddy duddy me, short attention spans my tail, they loved the films as much as I did.

I hate when folks pidgon hole whole groups of people just because a few are just like that.

Like how the Media says all Star Trek fans are uber nerds.

Are we all like that ?

Seriously if folks can sit through a nearly 3 hour pirate film, why not a 3 hour Sci-Fi film ?

- W -
* My $0.02 *

 

[Jack Bauer]

duranduran said:

Sharr Khan said:

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

The budget should be capped at $55 million max and $40 million minimum.
Unknown actors should be hired so that they can be paid very little.

Struggling art directors used fo the art and set design.

Homeless people living in cardboard boxes should be used as extras.A $2 buffet and a beer will keep them happy.
They could save money by outsourcing the work to smll start up effects houses.Or even use CBS digital the in house people doing the TOS effects.This could save $30 million.

ILM effects as shown by the revenge of the sith were awfuly cartoonish looking and were fuzzy,blurry and lacked clarity.Also the film sucked.The 10 minute light sabre fight was like a Tom and Jerry cartoon without drama,dialouge or tension.


If too much is spent and it fails no more money will be left to make Trek 12.
I still want them to make a series of 22 episodes non-enterprise like episodes instead,then success will be guaranteed.

Abrams should be asked to work free unless the film makse a gross of $450 million and then he would get 35% of the extra.

The actors should also get 15% of the extra if it makes more than $450 million.
The homeless could be offered housing if it exceeds $500 million.
More money can be saved by making it just 80 minutes long.
This will make the story tight and appeal to people with short attention spans like teenagers.
The reason is a film must make 3 times the cost to be profitable.

I really hope you're being sarcastic here.

 

[EyalM]

Quinto made a guess about the budget in a ComingSoon.net interview:

CS/SHH!: Since Spock is such an iconic figure, do you feel pressure to play the role?

Quinto: I really don't feel pressure. I feel nothing but support actually. It's kind of interesting. This experience has started off on such a profound energy of support from Tim Kring, the creators and the producers of "Heroes" who supported the idea from the beginning to Paramount who supported the idea and got behind me. That's a pretty big thing to go from never having done much film at all to being in this capacity and being in a $100 million film. I'm don't know what the budget is, but it's huge. Paramount has really been supportive. J.J. has really been supportive. Leonard's been supportive. I mean, I've got nothing but support and encouragement along the way. I've found all I need to do it is sort of look to my left and there's Leonard Nimoy and look to my right is J.J. Abrams. What more do I need to ask for? There's no pressure in that.

 

[Lumen]

I hope it's somewhere around that.

 

[Mordock]

duranduran said:
If too much is spent and it fails no more money will be left to make Trek 12.

Paramount's had some trouble, but a costly, unsuccessful Trek 11 won't sink them, or even necessarily prevent a sequel (with the outlay for sets and costumes already having been made, it might even make it likelier).

I still want them to make a series of 22 episodes non-enterprise like episodes instead,then success will be guaranteed.

A deficit-financed Trek series that has to be sold to a network and may not even last a full season is not necessarily a safer bet than a major-holiday-release Trek film just because less total money might be spent.

At this point in time, TV sci-fi that depends on a heavily stylized future full of heavy-makeup aliens is only attracting a niche cable audience (and even there it's throughly saturated; it would take close to a day and a half to watch all the weekly US cable broadcasts of the various Trek series).

Conversely, the film business is in voracious hunt for familiar properties to turn into FX blockbusters, and Trek can fit into that mold nicely. At this particular time, any filmed Trek is something of a risk, but the opportunities have coalesced in such a way that getting a film made is easier than getting a series made, so why shouldn't they take it?