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

[jk82]

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.

It made 127 million overseas, half of what it made in the US. It did great in UK, respectable but not so great in Germany, rather disappointing in Italy, France and pretty bad in Asia and Latin America. Basically it did not do well in non-English-speaking countries.

I am not planning to contribute to the next movie's theater income since I basically see maybe one movie a year in cinema. Besides it's going to be a huge hit in the US anyway so it does not need my money (unless Mr. Shatner is in it, then I will go see it in cinema). But I sure hope it's going to be more successful in other markets. I would like to see more people all over the world become aware of ST, and maybe they will end up seeing ST:TOS as well.

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.

It just doesn't make sense that even terrible movies like Green Lantern can cross 100 million internationally while ST:XI barely made more. Cannot be all about marketing right? I mean ST:XI has special effects, fast and furious cars, spaceship battles, fist fights, more fist fights, sword fights, gun/phaser fights and more explosions than any recent film that I can remember, why didn't it attract more international audience? The only reason I can think of is its lack of star power. For an audience less familiar with the subject, star power is unfortunately still somewhat important.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

For an audience less familiar with the subject, star power is unfortunately still somewhat important.

Who was the star power in "Green Lantern"?

Ryan who?

I am not planning to contribute to the next movie's theater income

Why not? Not even curious?

 

[jk82]

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

For an audience less familiar with the subject, star power is unfortunately still somewhat important.

Who was the star power in "Green Lantern"?

Ryan who?

Exactly. How did it manage to make over 100 million?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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

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

It's not. No offense to people like Ian, who are overseas and who are fans, but Star Trek doesn't have an international draw. Star Trek XI, as you noted, underperformed internationally compared to other blockbusters, which in recent years have made more money internationally than domestically, while Star Trek XI was the reverse. However, Paramount doesn't expect Star Trek to perform internationally, because it never has, so that's factored into budgeting and marketing.

 

[JarodRussell]

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.

I disagree. Production value matters a lot in science fiction and fantasy films. Just compare the successful visual spectacle of the Star Wars Prequels to the rather dull stuff in Insurrection and Nemesis. They simply couldn't compete because they had a really low budget. Nemesis was extremely laughable. The alien planet they found B4 on? Just overexpose the image and put a yellow filter on it, that'll do.

 

[Maurice]

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

Comparing JJ to B&B is silly, because the latter were producers, whereas JJ was a producer-director, and has influence on more of the production than a producer-only, He knows how to shoot stuff in an exciting way (whether you like it personally or not), which adds a lot of oomph that the other Trek films don't have. Even with a lesser budget, he'd have made something far more mainstream than the rest of the Trek films, and I think it still would have been more successful than average.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

No offense to people like Ian, who are overseas and who are fans, but Star Trek doesn't have an international draw.

Well pardon me for being "overseas" and "a fan". What does that make you? Not a fan? More able to give an unbiased answer?

Maybe Australia has a tiny population compared with the US, but it seems to me that a very similar percentage of Australians call themselves ST fans as is represented in the US. Our bookshops devote a similar amount of shelf space to ST as US stores, sometimes more (and the ratio of ST to non ST media tie-ins usually varies according to what's on the air). At one popularity spike of ST fandom, around the time of "First Contact", the NSW club had 1000 members (and rising). There were clubs in every other mainland state (no firm idea on numbers, but several had 300-400 members each). When the Official ST Fan Club of Australia was launched (essentially destroying the old NSW club), it boasted 3000 members. Our population was 14 million at the time.

Certainly, TOS didn't get the five-days-a-week-in-early-evening-prime-time treatment Down Under that US markets received all through the 70s. Here, ST was treated as an adult show, with 39 of the episodes rated "NRC" (not recommended for children), so it only had one run in adult prime time, then selected episodes repeated for the introduction of colour TV here in 1975. ST didn't get a proper colour run, on a new network, till just before ST II came out.

But ST movies aren't made for the fans, and ST is seen as a very "American" franchise. While ST might not be a blockbuster phenomenon in international markets, it does have a certain predictability for its distributors, and that's partly why the movie budgets have generally been smaller than other franchises. Paramount knows what return it will get for its bucks, and more bucks spent doesn't necessarily mean more bucks in return. I think the biggest surprise to me, in the 80s, was that ST III did not get much of a European release, which is why the UK and European posters for ST IV had to promote itself as a SF comedy called "The Voyage Home".

Paramount doesn't expect Star Trek to perform internationally, because it never has, so that's factored into budgeting and marketing.

Yep. Paramount's Australian arm generally does a good job of knowing exactly what the market will bear, and each of the films (even "Nemesis") have seemingly performed Down Under to their expectations. Smaller population, but not necessarily that much of a smaller ratio of ST fans vs the general Australian populace.

Sadly, I can't speak for the rest of the world because I am from Australia and "a fan".

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

Just compare the successful visual spectacle of the Star Wars Prequels

Those prequels were awful. I must be out of the demographic they were made for. The effects were so busy I never knew where to look.

The alien planet they found B4 on? Just overexpose the image and put a yellow filter on it, that'll do.

I actually thought that was very effective. Most of that sequence was very misguided, but the overexposed glare was... different. Everyone should have squinted a bit more more, except Data.

 

[JarodRussell]

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

The alien planet they found B4 on? Just overexpose the image and put a yellow filter on it, that'll do.

I actually thought that was very effective. Most of that sequence was very misguided, but the overexposed glare was... different. Everyone should have squinted a bit more more, except Data.

Yeah, compared to the worlds seen in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and similar films, overexposing a desert is seriously impressive.
They got that right in Trek 2009, but they could have done that already two movies before.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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

No offense to people like Ian, who are overseas and who are fans, but Star Trek doesn't have an international draw.

Well pardon me for being "overseas" and "a fan". What does that make you? Not a fan? More able to give an unbiased answer?

Sorry, Ian. Didn't mean to touch a raw nerve there. The only thing I was trying to say was that, as an international fan, you're atypical and that Paramount thinks that any money you spend on the franchise is bonus since you're not the target market. It's like me as a Doctor Who fan. I'm not the target audience insofar as the BBC is concerned.

Just compare the successful visual spectacle of the Star Wars Prequels

Those prequels were awful. I must be out of the demographic they were made for. The effects were so busy I never knew where to look.

You were out of the demographic. Lucas has said that he always made the Star Wars films for kids.

Which is a little bit disingenuous on his part, because he also knew that the adult fans were going to give the films legs.

No insult was intended. I'm sorry that insult was taken.

 

[sonak]

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

No offense to people like Ian, who are overseas and who are fans, but Star Trek doesn't have an international draw.

Well pardon me for being "overseas" and "a fan". What does that make you? Not a fan? More able to give an unbiased answer?

Sorry, Ian. Didn't mean to touch a raw nerve there. The only thing I was trying to say was that, as an international fan, you're atypical and that Paramount thinks that any money you spend on the franchise is bonus since you're not the target market. It's like me as a Doctor Who fan. I'm not the target audience insofar as the BBC is concerned.

Just compare the successful visual spectacle of the Star Wars Prequels

Those prequels were awful. I must be out of the demographic they were made for. The effects were so busy I never knew where to look.

You were out of the demographic. Lucas has said that he always made the Star Wars films for kids.

Which is a little bit disingenuous on his part, because he also knew that the adult fans were going to give the films legs.

No insult was intended. I'm sorry that insult was taken.

yeah, that "Lucas always said the SW films were for kids" claim only came out from him after TPM wasn't received well due to its perceived childishness, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

as an international fan, you're atypical and that Paramount thinks that any money you spend on the franchise is bonus since you're not the target market.

I am also atypical in that I spent over a decade as president of a large ST club - and had irregular, but numerous conversations, with execs and publicists from Paramount Aust., CIC-Taft Home Video, Simon & Schuster, several TV networks owning or wanting to own the rights to ST, and cinema chains trying to maximise their audience numbers for each ST film. And they used to seek me out for my input.

 

[T'Girl]

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

"Nemesis" was trounced in its opening US weekend by J-Lo's "Maid in Manhattan". Embarrassing.

I went to Maid in Manhattan instead of Nemesis when they both opened, a big piece of my extended family was there, 45 of us in all (maybe it's a Latin thing?). I was 15 years old and wanted to be Jennifer Lopez.

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

Nemesis and Maid in Manhattan cost about the same, Nemesis was badly reviewed and made 67 million, Maid received wonderful reviews and starred Lopez at the height of her popularity, her movie made 155 million.

The bums weren't absent, they were in the next theater over.

Who was the star power in "Green Lantern"?

The first (only?) Green Lantern film really should be compared to the first Star Trek film, there was a large amount of comic fan anticipation for this film, some of the people I go to school with were talking about it for six months prior to the opening. We went to the first midnight showing, and it was packed.

 

[jk82]

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

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

It's not. No offense to people like Ian, who are overseas and who are fans, but Star Trek doesn't have an international draw. Star Trek XI, as you noted, underperformed internationally compared to other blockbusters, which in recent years have made more money internationally than domestically, while Star Trek XI was the reverse. However, Paramount doesn't expect Star Trek to perform internationally, because it never has, so that's factored into budgeting and marketing.

Many big-budget movies don't necessarily have built-in audiences overseas, yet they still manage to make huge amount of money. Why are they different from ST?

I am not planning to contribute to the next movie's theater income

Why not? Not even curious?

Ever since I went to an observatory and was told by the guide there that with the same amount of money for a big budget Hollywood film, NASA could send a few probes into space, I sorta stopped going to the movies. Besides once I get addicted to something, it's difficult for me to break the habit. Right now I am addicted to TOS and its captain and nothing else.

I still have Netflix though. I am sure I will catch the new movie at a later time.

 

[RAMA]

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

I think this has been answered...but I think I can summarize:

1)STTMP: The studio panicked at the budget. They installed a TV producer(s) to bring it back on track to a small SF film consistent with the time period. ST movies had budgets less than $30 million. SW was $9 million, SW:TESB: $20 million, SW:ROTJ: $30 million.

2) The movies had a pattern of grosses that the studio budgeted the films for. This wound up being pretty accurate.

3) ST:Nemesis had the first decent budget ad it DID look better than anything since STTMP.

4) ST09: All bets were off...new budget and grosses pattern. Now there should be no real limit. I expect ST13 to make at least $500 million worldwide.

 

[JarodRussell]

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

3) ST:Nemesis had the first decent budget ad it DID look better than anything since STTMP.

Hm. Personally, Generations and First Contact look a lot better than Nemesis.

 

[sonak]

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

3) ST:Nemesis had the first decent budget ad it DID look better than anything since STTMP.

Hm. Personally, Generations and First Contact look a lot better than Nemesis.

agreed. If that's true about the budget for "Nemesis," that's pretty disappointing results.

 

[22 Stars]

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

3) ST:Nemesis had the first decent budget ad it DID look better than anything since STTMP.

Hm. Personally, Generations and First Contact look a lot better than Nemesis.

agreed. If that's true about the budget for "Nemesis," that's pretty disappointing results.

Disappointing enough to reboot a franchise I bet

 

[RAMA]

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

3) ST:Nemesis had the first decent budget ad it DID look better than anything since STTMP.

Hm. Personally, Generations and First Contact look a lot better than Nemesis.

agreed. If that's true about the budget for "Nemesis," that's pretty disappointing results.

In terms of outdoor "scenery" there was more of it in the first 3 films...but as far as looking like a movie with a budget like a contemporary SF movie, ST:Nemesis was far superior...better sets, better lighting, better FX, space FX on a far greater scale. I guess that was the key, it had some scale and didn't feel as much like a TV show as ST:Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection. All directly attributable to having twice the budget of most of those movies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

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

In terms of outdoor "scenery" there was more of it in the first 3 films...but as far as looking like a movie with a budget like a contemporary SF movie, ST:Nemesis was far superior...better sets, better lighting, better FX, space FX on a far greater scale. I guess that was the key, it had some scale and didn't feel as much like a TV show as ST:Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection. All directly attributable to having twice the budget of most of those movies.

Too bad re the director inflicted upon it.