Search results

@Tino has sometimes said that big budget movies probably need to gross something close to 3x their budget to be profitable. By that measure, none of the Star Trek movies starting in 2009 has been profitable. Probably with home theater and streaming the first two made modest profits, but Star...

From that article.... "Why Star Trek Movies Cost So Much Weintraub discussed a similar approach with Shakman, saying "I actually think that the way forward on a Star Trek movie is maybe to make one that's like $30 to $50 million, that's hard sci-fi, aimed right at the fans." The director...

If Paramount lost $150 million on Star Trek Beyond, then it's no wonder they can't figure out how to do another one with this cast. As has been talked about here many times, the "money people" keep wanting Star Trek to move beyond its base, to the point of them almost saying: "Look, it's less...

You might check out the new show Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. I really like it! It's almost as spectacular as the recent movies, and most of the screenplays for Strange New Worlds are really good.

2016's Star Trek Beyond cost 185 million + c. 75 million for advertising and overhead, which gives a total cost c. $260m. Worldwide box office $344 million, of which about half comes back to the studio, or 172m. So a loss of almost $90 million, which at best has maybe been cut in half by...

In other words, JJA mostly just lands a big payday as producer. I feel that Spielberg has done this better when he's a producer. When a project is produced by Steven Spielberg very often I like it. When a project is produced by JJA usually I don't care for it that much. Same for when they...

Overall, I haven't appreciated what JJA did with Trek. I'm sorry that he's still involved in it.

And maybe he could make it for c. $80 million? Aren't most of his recent movies somewhere around that (or under)? That's what needs to happen in terms of budget imho—under 100m. Although I guess most of his movies don't have the expensive sets and expensive effects that Star Trek needs. But I...

What if they asked him to do it PG-13? You can do quite a bit with PG-13.

Look at this quote from a big New York Times story on Paramount today..... "But Mr. Godfrey insisted otherwise. Imagine, for instance, Paramount giving “Star Trek” to Quentin Tarantino. “Suddenly people’s eyes light up,” Mr. Godfrey said. “Yours just did.”...

This video says that that total negative cost for Beyond was over $300 million once advertising was taken into account. Pine got $6m for Beyond. Total losses for Beyond are estimated at c.150m. Funding for future Trek on the big screen once the red ink dried collapsed.

Overall something like half of worldwide box office goes back to the studio, but clearly that varies.... Here's a quote from one article.... "So a studio might make about 60% of a film's ticket sales in the U.S., and around 20% to 40% of that on overseas ticket sales."...

Yes Paramount is responsible. But at this point Paramount made perhaps the only logical choice—admittedly driven by their own epic mismanagement of Star Trek—to stop the production of future super-expensive Trek movies. The first two new Trek movies as has been demonstrated with production...

Beyond lost big money, but I think Star Trek Into Darkness arguably underperformed as well. When Hollywood makes a movie like Into Darkness with a reported $190 million dollar production budget they are hoping for something more than $500 million worldwide—and into Darkness got to $467. Since...

Salaries sometimes get renegotiated in Hollywood. In any case, the big money for salaries is part of the reason Trek on the big screen is dead for now.

Star Trek Beyond was beyond bad for me. Into Darkness doing Khan again was also a major flaw. 2009's Trek destroying Vulcan and the original time line? I wan't so happy about that either. Making Star Trek movies so many years apart and each with c. $180 million dollar budgets? Neither of those...