Why was the budget for The Final Frontier reduced?

[indycar]

All of the previous four films were financially successful and were among their year's top 10 highest-grossing films. Also, The Next Generation was airing by this point and was proving to be successful. So Star Trek was an established franchise. I just don't understand why the budget was reduced. I know that there was a writer's strike during the film's production, but this wouldn't have effected the budget.

 

[Khan 2.0]

It was VI that had its budget reduced (at least initially. Think it might've eventually had the same budget as V) . V had an increase from IVs budget (as IV had from III, and III from II) I think Shatner wanted more for the climax of the movie but it wasn't granted.

 

[indycar]

I think Shatner wanted more for the climax of the movie but it wasn't granted.

I think that's what I was thinking of, in addition to the fact that effects looked cheaper.

 

[mos6507]

Based on how the film came out, and how poorly it was promoted, it really looked as though Paramount saw the TOS film franchise as irrelevant and rudderless after TNG debuted. Things seemed to wrap up pretty well in a bow by the end of Trek IV so they needed a compelling reason to continue and the storyline of Trek V just wasn't it.

 

[ItIsGreen]

It was VI that had its budget reduced (at least initially. Think it might've eventually had the same budget as V) . V had an increase from IVs budget (as IV had from III, and III from II) I think Shatner wanted more for the climax of the movie but it wasn't granted.

Yeah that was for the 'Rockman' sequence, where 'God' would cause an army of fire breathing rockmen to rise up out of the floor and chase/fight Kirk, but the prototype cost $250,000 to make and looked awful so they binned it. I love this little snippet from Wikipedia:

Effects personnel smoked cigarettes and blew smoke into the suit's tubing, loading it with smoke that it would slowly emit, obscuring some obvious rubber parts.

Sounds like something they'd have done in the 60s, not the late 80s!

I think that's what I was thinking of, in addition to the fact that effects looked cheaper.

ILM was busy doing other projects and couldn't fit them in, so they got another effects house with a much more 'low-tech' approach than ILM to do the work. The effects house was in New York vs the film being made in Hollywood and Shatner insisted on seeing and approving every shot, with changes made if he wasn't happy, which all added to the cost. I think in the end the budget ended up going UP from what it was originally, and the studio had to step in and make cuts to stop it getting too high. Which is probably why VI had a smaller budget.

 

[Maurice]

For those who haven't seen it before....

 

[CommanderRaytas]

It's amazing how much better-looking and generally more compelling STVI was, given that STV nearly ruined the franchise. STV was already greenlit during IV's run due to the latter's success, and VI nearly didn't get off the ground due to V's box office failure. Still, VI had a much more coherent story. A bigger budget does not a better movie make.

 

[Nightowl1701]

ILM was busy doing other projects and couldn't fit them in, so they got another effects house with a much more 'low-tech' approach than ILM to do the work. The effects house was in New York vs the film being made in Hollywood and Shatner insisted on seeing and approving every shot, with changes made if he wasn't happy, which all added to the cost. I think in the end the budget ended up going UP from what it was originally, and the studio had to step in and make cuts to stop it getting too high. Which is probably why VI had a smaller budget.

Can't really blame Shatner for riding herd on Bran Ferren & Co., knowing up front he wasn't dealing with a top of the line FX house and having lived through TMP's post-production nightmare with Robert Abel & Associates. Imagine how bad it could have been if he hadn't exercised some quality control...

 

[indycar]

Can't really blame Shatner for riding herd on Bran Ferren & Co., knowing up front he wasn't dealing with a top of the line FX house and having lived through TMP's post-production nightmare with Robert Abel & Associates. Imagine how bad it could have been if he hadn't exercised some quality control...

I think had ILM been used, Shatner would at least be viewed as a better director and the film would be considered better. It would still have some flaws, but it would have been respectable enough.

 

[mos6507]

I think had ILM been used, Shatner would at least be viewed as a better director and the film would be considered better. It would still have some flaws, but it would have been respectable enough.

Delivering some spectacle would have been a saving grace.

I just wish they hadn't tried to use humor the way they did. When dealing with actors that had already aged to the point of straining credulity, having them perform Naked Gun style slapstick like Scotty banging his head was very sad to see. In Trek IV, you laughed with them. In Trek V, you laughed AT them. The Uhura feather dance was probably the worst offender as far as showing these actors in the most unflattering way.

If the Trek V plot had just been played straight-laced and sincerely it would have been a fairly decent film (pretty much just a stretched TOS episode with no greater pretensions) instead of a bad one.

 

[Dukhat]

Based on how the film came out, and how poorly it was promoted, it really looked as though Paramount saw the TOS film franchise as irrelevant and rudderless after TNG debuted. Things seemed to wrap up pretty well in a bow by the end of Trek IV so they needed a compelling reason to continue and the storyline of Trek V just wasn't it.

Yeah, it's too bad that Paramount didn't have the foresight to just have the reveal of the Enterprise-A at the end of STIV be the ship that they used for TNG (set a decade or two after STIV to explain the cast changes, instead of 75+ years) and just stopped producing TOS films.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Not getting ILM was the knock out blow to the film. Remember reading Bennett or Winter saying if they'd hired ILM they'd have got a much lesser team working on the film as all the best ILM teams were working on Indy, GB2, BTTF2 etc (theyd obviously left It too late to book them) but I'm pretty sure even ILMs 'D' team would've produced better stuff, and made the movie seem more realistic (surely the ship FX would've been up to the standard of the other films).

When the budget was being reduced for VI one of the cut backs suggested by someone was not having ILM but no one wanted to do that after V.

 

[urbandefault]

I guess I'm just weird, but I really don't have a problem with TFF. It's one of my top 6 original cast movies.

 

[jaime]

It could still be fixed with cgi, including the ending with shatners original cherubim and seraphim turning to demons. Between that and fixing the fx and well...the deck numbers while they are at it, I think it would be reappraised. Shatner is a very cinematic director, more so than nimoy, and this film really suffered because of when it was made and for how much (teamsters strike, writers strike, re use the tng sets etc)
It would have come in at a lower budget if things had gone well (including getting ILM) and been better regarded.

Maybe they can cgi in some colour swaps on the set while they were at it.
(Scott banging his head sort of makes sense. It's not the enterprise. It's the enterprise A. Similar, but with low hanging differences.)

 

[CommanderRaytas]

How much difference would all of that make, though? The script was problematic even after numerous re-writes. The story and the characterisation are what gets critiqued the most.

 

[jaime]

I would hold that the story and characterisation are very much in keeping with TOS, and the film actually contains more characterisation and development than any of the other films except for Kirk himself ironically. (that mostly happened in the other films)
The biggest concerns about the story seem to come from prejudices boiling down to 'its too atheist/not atheist enough/it's too religious' or complains about the lack of space action or a clear villain. To be honest, its by far the most similar to TOS plot wise, nd sadly fx wise.
That it wouldn't be excellent with a cgi fix is certain, as only popping in scenes that couldn't be written in because of the writers strike would make it live up to full potential. (clarifying Syboks calling, it being similar to spocks own contact with v'ger....sorting out the Klingons motivation a little more)

I actually think VI has a much poorer story, and much worse characterisation, saved only by decent visuals and some strong performances. And VI is lauded.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Actually, the main complaints are "it makes no sense", "it's pretentious", "it's out of character", "Shatner's ego", "it's dull and drab". Now, you might not agree, which is totally legit, but criticisms of the film should be acknowledged for what they are - the story and the way everyone in it is portrayed are the main reasons the movie tanked badly enough to nearly kill the franchise. Bad special effects don't really matter so much if the rest appeals to people, which - for the most part - it really didn't. The production troubles show in every single scene, but the story itself felt nonsensical and outdated to a majority of consumers.

 

[jaime]

Three of those things aren't really quantifiable as balanced criticisms though, the characterisation is the only thing that could be discussed. Perspective from my corner of the universe at the time was quite different (probably helped by the fact we had seen so little of tng that we didn't notice the horrible shots using those sets)
In fact, IV was probably least favourite as...Nothing much really happens and where are the starships? Why am I watching police academy? (very specific corner 1989 is)
I think objectively looking at its components...the money, the effects, the palaver during filming are all the problem, and the things we criticise in it are not atypical of the entire film series. (including the nebulous idea of shatners ego)

 

[jaime]

I'd actually say the troubles don't show in every scene, and that the one thing that does show shatners relative inexperience behind the camera is that the film starts well, and then you can see the money running out as the film goes on, as well as anything obviously done in post.

 

[Dukhat]

Sorry, but the movie was fundamentally flawed, and no amount of new and awesome special effects would change that.