[kevin]

But on a vastly sharpened budget!!

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by kevin

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.

True, but here's the reason why we can never directly equate budget with box office performance: you say you'd love to see TREK have the success of IRON MAN, fine.

IRON MAN cost only ten million LESS to produce than TREK has. Yet no one is considering it a flop by any means. It's already passing $225 million domestically a month after release, and it's worldwide take is over $520 million (it's currently ranked #52 in worldwide box office of ALL TIME, and climbing).

TRANSFORMERS: budget $150 million, US box office total over $318 million, worldwide over $700 million. IRON MAN is more than halfway to beating those stats in four weeks of release.

If a film hits audiences right where they want it, a high budget is not at all prohibitive of the film being very profitabe, successful and prolific for sequels. TREK can succeed wildly, if it's good and audiences like what they see... truly the sky is not the limit for the crew of the Enterprise.

[kevin]

Yes, but both those films are the start of a brand new franchise. They had nothing to which anyone could refer to previously as an indicator, and IRON MAN surprised a lot of people with it's success. All that I'm saying is that Hollywood is a business, a numbers game. We won't know what the end result will be, in terms of the film itself of it's ultimate financial success but it's just very lavish expenditure when there is a track record that although the films can be very successful these sums haven't been spent before, even FC made only around $150 million and that was by far the most successful of the TNG films (I know adjusted VOYAGE HOME would beat it). If you were at a racecourse would you bet all your money on a horse that had slowly finished further back in each of it's last few races, or would you think 'wait a minute, some prudence might work'>

[omegaman]

I think the film will be successful in its own right.

[Glacial]

There was a Transformers movie before Michael Bay's one. Let us pray we can all forget it.

The fact that Viacom execs, having seen the dailies, have moved the film into summer blockbuster territory from the safer-but-less-profitable end of the year means they expect it to compete with mega-films like Transformers 2, the new X-Men movie, Terminator 4, and Fast & the Furious 4. I don't know of any Star Trek movie that's had that sort of executive confidence.

I suspect ST is going to kick a fair amount of ***!

[Chris Fawkes]

Executive producer is the money. Nothing wrong with that.

[Gunny1]

Originally Posted by Chris Fawkes

Executive producer is the money. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, in theory... sometimes 'no', in execution. Depends on what said EP has demanded in return.

How many people here have seen 'Lucky Number Slevin?' Seven 'Executive Producers', seven 'Producers', and one 'co-producer'.

(No, I'm NOT joking...)

The movie...? Well, pretty durned good - everybody involved in it was interested in making a 'good movie'. There is, however, many other cases where it's, sad to say, 'business as usual', - which means politics, Hollywood-style; "I'll dump X-number of dollars into this production, if you'll make sure my second wife's third cousin, twice removed, gets a role in the film..."

(...a very wry *Grin*)

[kevin]

To be fair i don't think Abrams works in that way, although a lot of movies do. I think he has a team of people he knows and is comfortable with, such as the composer, writers, editors etc I do think if anyone can give it the mainstream appeal while keeping fasn happy it's him.

[sean4000]

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.

+1

I have felt like this from the start of the project. I am willing to swallow a few tweaks if the film can perform and resurrect Trek. We NEED this movie to be a hit.

[omegaman]

Originally Posted by sean4000

+1

I have felt like this from the start of the project. I am willing to swallow a few tweaks if the film can perform and resurrect Trek. We NEED this movie to be a hit.

I agree. Go and see it regardless. Numbers through the door is what counts! Not whether it caters to everyone or not! Thats the way to continue the adventure!