Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi movies

[The Overlord]

Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi movies? At first it seemed like the budgets were in line with what other sci fi movies had, when discussing Sci fi movies from the late 70s and early 80s. But in the late 90s and early 2000s it seems like Star Trek budgets were smaller then other sci fi movies of the time.

Star Trek: nemesis was competing against Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers and there is no contest over which was the more visually stunning movie. Heck 2002 was filled with movies that out did Nemesis in terms of visuals.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi movies? At first it seemed like the budgets were in line with what other sci fi movies had, when discussing Sci fi movies from the late 70s and early 80s. But in the late 90s and early 2000s it seems like Star Trek budgets were smaller then other sci fi movies of the time.

Star Trek: nemesis was competing against Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers and there is no contest over which was the more visually stunning movie. Heck 2002 was filled with movies that out did Nemesis in terms of visuals.

I think it was because up until Star Trek XI, star trek films had kind of a built-in ceiling of box office earnings.

I-X, only TVH was a big blockbuster hit. Starting around TFF, there seemed to be a range from around 55-80 million dollars that the films would fall between so there was no need to kick the budget up a notch for films that weren't going to be making 200 million or more.

Plus Patrick Stewart was eating up a lot of budget on the later TNG films anyway.

 

[Sandoval]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

Star Trek isn't really mainstream, and despite people's best efforts, Star Trek isn't cool.

"I like Star Trek," is never going to be an admission that improves your street cred, and following on from that Star Trek films will generally have a limited appeal and therefore be given smaller budgets. That's not to say a hell of a lot of people didn't go to watch all the films, but not as many as 'true' blockbusters.

That said, the Abrams film had a budget of 150 million, not far off the combined budgets of First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis all together. Of course this was necessary to bring Star Trek 'up to date' and reinvent it for the current viewing public, but since the OP seems to be referring to the movies featuring Kirk's crew and subsequently Picard's, I'll direct my reply towards those.

 

[22 Stars]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

As someone who worked at Paramount Distribution during this time, the simple answer is 'to maximize profits'. Because Trek films really had a life of 2 weeks (although we tried to keep them on screen for longer) all but ST IV really petered out after that initial 2 week engagement. They rarely grossed much after that, and in distribution, films make less and less money for the distributor as time goes on, and more for the exhibitor.

 

[22 Stars]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

The new regime at Paramount realized that if they did inject a bigger budget and hire fresh new producers that Trek could cross over and that is exactly what JJ Trek did.

Hopefully this will hold true for the foreseeable future, and Trek will be given the budget and respect it deserves to keep it mainstream and fresh and exciting.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

Star Trek isn't really mainstream, and despite people's best efforts, Star Trek isn't cool.

"I like Star Trek," is never going to be an admission that improves your street cred, and following on from that Star Trek films will generally have a limited appeal and therefore be given smaller budgets. That's not to say a hell of a lot of people didn't go to watch all the films, but not as many as 'true' blockbusters.

That said, the Abrams film had a budget of 150 million, not far off the combined budgets of First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis all together. Of course this was necessary to bring Star Trek 'up to date' and reinvent it for the current viewing public, but since the OP seems to be referring to the movies featuring Kirk's crew and subsequently Picard's, I'll direct my reply towards those.

Had they given Berman such a budget, even he would have produced blockbuster after blockbuster. Nemesis cost 60 million, and half of that went into the actor's salaries. Abrams had 150 million, and probably only 10% of it went into the actors.
Had they given Abrams the same budget as Nemesis, the movie would have bombed badly as well. Especially had they done the same amount of advertising as they did for Nemesis. That movie was so badly advertised it's not even funny. It's like they actually wanted to drive TNG movies into the ground.

 

[22 Stars]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

Star Trek isn't really mainstream, and despite people's best efforts, Star Trek isn't cool.

"I like Star Trek," is never going to be an admission that improves your street cred, and following on from that Star Trek films will generally have a limited appeal and therefore be given smaller budgets. That's not to say a hell of a lot of people didn't go to watch all the films, but not as many as 'true' blockbusters.

That said, the Abrams film had a budget of 150 million, not far off the combined budgets of First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis all together. Of course this was necessary to bring Star Trek 'up to date' and reinvent it for the current viewing public, but since the OP seems to be referring to the movies featuring Kirk's crew and subsequently Picard's, I'll direct my reply towards those.

Had they given Berman such a budget, even he would have produced blockbuster after blockbuster. Nemesis cost 60 million, and half of that went into the actor's salaries. Abrams had 150 million, and probably only 10% of it went into the actors.
Had they given Abrams the same budget as Nemesis, the movie would have bombed badly as well. Especially had they done the same amount of advertising as they did for Nemesis. That movie was so badly advertised it's not even funny. It's like they actually wanted to drive TNG movies into the ground.

I think you have that half right... Berman and PS/BS would not have made a blockbuster with that money I'm afraid.... But JJ Trek would have been hard pressed to be as successful with the older budgets, that I agree with.

You have to have both the budget and 'vision' to make a successful tent-pole film.... you can't have one and not the other. JJ Trek had both the budget and the vision/attitude. The Berman Trek films had barely the budget and barely vision to be marginally successful, but no where near a blockbuster for any of the films.

 

[22 Stars]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

Oh, and it wasn't advertised/promoted BECAUSE that is expensive, and the film didn't deserve it. Trek was not considered a priority at Paramount and Paramount was struggling at the end of the TNG run. The whole studio changed hands at this time remember.

 

[Broccoli]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I thought I remembered reading that Nemesis was, at that point, given the biggest marketing push that a Trek film ever had.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I thought I remembered reading that Nemesis was, at that point, given the biggest marketing push that a Trek film ever had.

Maybe they planned one, but the marketing strategy for ST:TMP was huge, and built momentum over several years (including a year or so of monthly articles in "Starlog" magazine). I seem to recall "First Contact" being heavily promoted.

"Nemesis" was trounced in its opening US weekend by J-Lo's "Maid in Manhattan". Embarrassing. "Nemesis" was seemingly the only ST film not to have queues 'round the block to buy tickets on opening night. Movies are made for the general public, but something is wrong if not even the fanbase is curious enough to see a brand new ST film on opening night.

 

[chardman]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I thought I remembered reading that Nemesis was, at that point, given the biggest marketing push that a Trek film ever had.

It was. The film did poorly, not because it was poorly advertized, but because it sucked. It sucked so bad that even the hype of a major advertising campaign failed to camouflage the obviousness of its suckitude in any way.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

It was. The film did poorly, not because it was poorly advertized, but because it sucked.

That doesn't explain the absence of bums on seats on opening night.

Nobody organised any theater parties? Our club used to have 200 tickets booked - weeks in advance - for premiere night, and often did a deal to get a block of seats for preview night (the night before) as well.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I still remember the Entertainment Tonight segment that focused on Riker's and Troi's wedding rings and that Data got to sing.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I still remember the Entertainment Tonight segment that focused on Riker's and Troi's wedding rings and that Data got to sing.

In Australia, we got the "Entertainment This Week" compile show, delayed by weeks and often very late at night, and it was a given that John Tesh - or others - would bring all the latest news and goss on each and every new ST movie. My US penpal once airmailed us little sketches of the scenes she saw on ET's coverage of the Klingon bird of prey splashing into San Francisco Bay (for ST IV), because we wouldn't see it Down Under till a few weeks later in the compile show.

There was a "Making of ST Nemesis" documentary, but it ran here on a pay-TV channel.

 

[Neutral Zone]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I think though Trek is popular worldwide and has a folowing, it is still more of a fan-based thing so why spend cash on something that will not get an Oscar

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I think though Trek is popular worldwide and has a folowing, it is still more of a fan-based thing so why spend cash on something that will not get an Oscar

Groups of dating teenagers don't choose movies based on Oscar potential. Paramount estimates that 10% of people attending a ST movie are avid fans. 1% buy tie-in merchandise.

You really think movie goers thought "Maid in Manhattan" had Oscar potential?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

Had they given Berman such a budget, even he would have produced blockbuster after blockbuster...

Yeah...no chance.

Lots of movies that are made with huge budgets tank badly; "more money" is so rarely the answer. What limited Trek's appeal had very little to do with the production values.

 

[sonak]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I don't remember either INS or NEM being promoted that much, but GEN and FC got some marketing and hype. I think the meeting of the captains and the Borg thing helped out the marketing.

 

[jk82]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

I think though Trek is popular worldwide and has a folowing, it is still more of a fan-based thing so why spend cash on something that will not get an Oscar

How popular is ST really in the rest of the world?

ST XI was a hit in the US but it did not make a lot of money overseas. Nowadays if a film with over 150 million dollar budget does not gross over 200 million internationally, it can hardly be considered a success.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: Why did Star Trek movies have smaller budgets then other sci Fi mo

ST XI was a hit in the US but it did not make a lot of money overseas.

Sure it did. Not as much as it could have, but still lots.

Nowadays if a film with over 150 million dollar budget does not gross over 200 million internationally, it can hardly be considered a success.

Still a success, though, because it made profit no matter where it played. International distributors were still happy with it, and it certainly brought in better numbers for them than "Nemesis". If anything, the international promotion of ST XI was a little hesitant and frugal; I reckon you'll find the next one does much better in its OS markets.

Keep in mind that, although "Nemesis" was surpassed on its opening weekend in the US by "Maid in Manhattan", it still won its opening weekend in Australia and other locales, even though it opened weeks later and had to weather all the negative US press and online reviews.