[Worfdax]

This movie has 7 Executive Directors. Why? Too many cooks....etc. I can't remember any successful movie that had 7 Executive Directors.

[DNA-1842]

I can't remember any movie with 7 executive directors!

[MissionTrek08]

Actually they are Executive Producers, which is a very different thing (as there's no such thing as an exec director).

Two of them are the screenwriters, which has become more and more common with film projects of certain magnitudes -- especially so since the writers were approached to develop the film.

Also, in a franchise film with a $150 million budget, you need a lot of people to fund the film from various sources and make the project happen at a studio level. Seven is certainly more than usual, but not unheard of... and this isn't the usual film.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

Actually they are Executive Producers, which is a very different thing (as there's no such thing as an exec director).

Two of them are the screenwriters, which has become more and more common with film projects of certain magnitudes -- especially so since the writers were approached to develop the film.

Also, in a franchise film with a $150 million budget, you need a lot of people to fund the film from various sources and make the project happen at a studio level. Seven is certainly more than usual, but not unheard of... and this isn't the usual film.

You mean they won't be able to use standard backdrops and costumes???(Kidding)ROFL!

[kevin]

It's the rumoured $150 million budget that concerns me. Nowadays catering staff on TV shows can get a producer credit but let's look at the financial history of the franchise. Even adjusting TMP for inflation no Star trek film has ever had anything like $120 to $150 million spent on it and many have not earned close to those figures in box office (Nemesis only cost $60 something and didn't make it back). The usual Hollywood rule is that a film is expected to earn around 3 times it's budget in order to be profitable for everyone who gets a cut, that means Paramount is looking to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from this so if this flops this will literally kill Star Trek dead, not on hiatus or waiting for a breath, but dead in the water. (Superman Returns only did $400 worldwide on a $200 million plus budget). I'm not sure that it can make that kind of money - I hope it does but it would have to really break the mould to do it.

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by kevin

It's the rumoured $150 million budget that concerns me. Nowadays catering staff on TV shows can get a producer credit but let's look at the financial history of the franchise. Even adjusting TMP for inflation no Star trek film has ever had anything like $120 to $150 million spent on it and many have not earned close to those figures in box office (Nemesis only cost $60 something and didn't make it back). The usual Hollywood rule is that a film is expected to earn around 3 times it's budget in order to be profitable for everyone who gets a cut, that means Paramount is looking to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from this so if this flops this will literally kill Star Trek dead, not on hiatus or waiting for a breath, but dead in the water. (Superman Returns only did $400 worldwide on a $200 million plus budget). I'm not sure that it can make that kind of money - I hope it does but it would have to really break the mould to do it.

Inflation is what drive up those numbers, as well as new tecnologies, location shooting, saleries of cast and crew....ect ect ect....

[kevin]

Yes, but it's still a huge amount to spend when that kind of money hasn't been earned before from the previous films. And I know that everything will now be getting rebuilt from scatch, top notch CGI costs money etc but it just makes me a little bit uncomfortable. Of course the flip side is that someone somewhere at Paramount has a great deal of confidence in this film's potential, which is a good sign!

[MissionTrek08]

Kevin, I think the point is that they're not making this TREK film like any other in the series, so they're not using prior films' box office totals as a yardstick of 'how to make' this new film.

As noted before in this discussion, true no previous TREK film has earned $300 million... certainly not in dollar-values from 20-30 years ago. Then again, previous Trek films after TMP had budgets ranging from $11 million into the 20s or 30s... not $150 million... and at least two films FAR outearned their original budget by multiple times.

In short, good TREK films can be highly profitable investments. Bad TREK films were not, but then again bad films of any genre are bad investments.... it has nothing to do with "Trek" in the title.

[kevin]

I take your points and I understand them but i just can't help from thinking that they're going to have to substantially expand the fan base to make it profitable enough to relaunch the franchise. Don't get me wrong, i soooooo hope it does make that kind of money, I would love a Star Trek film to have the kind of box office success of Transformers or even Iron Man, because it would give the whole thing the stability and security it needs just now but I'm not really a gambler and to me it's a big financial risk.

[Yagami Crewman]

You should dig up the reviews for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The word was the picture would have 2 or 3 good weeks while the Trekkies binged and then .. "The Picture's a DOG! Once REAL movie goers know this it'll die..." It succeeded well enough that they made TWOK. Just imagine if they had the time to finish it and we had seen the Director's Cut in 1979!

Right now we have a patient dying a slow death. If this film fails Trek won't be in any worse shape. What this film just might do is "Turn death into a fighting chance to live."