|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 3, 2020 0:54:12 GMT
Apparently it's because they don't make the money the studio wants them to. It's too bad, I did really enjoy the Abrams/Lin reboot series a lot.
“The fact is, ‘Star Trek’ movies don’t make Marvel money,” Pegg told the magazine. “They make maybe $500 million at the most, and to make one now, on the scale they’ve set themselves, is $200 million. You have to make three times that to make a profit.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 2:52:09 GMT
That's why ST IV fell through. The plan was to have Pine's Shatner meet his Dad Chris Hemsworth via time travel. But after the money Beyond made, or didn't make, the studio told everyone that they'd have to take a major pay cut regardless of what their contracts guaranteed them. That would have hit Pine and Hemsworth especially badly, and they both said "nope" and walked away.
Since then they've talked about a new movie at least a couple of times, but always the plan is to make it cheap in the expectation that it will only make Beyond-level box office. And potential investors say "nope" to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 3, 2020 3:41:35 GMT
Why do they think they have to make these things for $150-200 million?
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Mar 3, 2020 5:26:30 GMT
Time for a new direction for Trek, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Mar 3, 2020 6:05:09 GMT
Fuck Trek.
Do something new.
|
|
|
|
Post by azzajones on Mar 3, 2020 6:52:44 GMT
Star Trek should stick to the small screen, although screens aren't that small nowadays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 13:37:15 GMT
Star Trek should stick to the small screen, although screens aren't that small nowadays. They're making even more of a hash of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 3, 2020 14:44:27 GMT
Apparently it's because they don't make the money the studio wants them to. It's too bad, I did really enjoy the Abrams/Lin reboot series a lot.
“The fact is, ‘Star Trek’ movies don’t make Marvel money,” Pegg told the magazine. “They make maybe $500 million at the most, and to make one now, on the scale they’ve set themselves, is $200 million. You have to make three times that to make a profit.”
Hopefully he just means the franchise he was involved with won't continue. Noah Hawley is hopefully still going ahead with his own. A Hawley look at Trek would be based on characters and ideas and wouldn't need to cost 200 million.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 16:47:02 GMT
That's a shame tbh but I'm not surprised really. The ST films didn't make a big profit for Paramount last time I checked. I actually enjoyed the new Star Trek films way more than the new Star Wars films over the years. It helped that the cast had great chemistry and were highly likable (Pine & Quinto especially) .
|
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Mar 3, 2020 17:54:05 GMT
If studios wants to make "Marvel money", then not a lot of movies will be made in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 19:27:27 GMT
If studios wants to make "Marvel money", then not a lot of movies will be made in the future. Not all do. Blumhouse turns out cheap but interesting movies, so even making 50 million at the box office is a huge return. But the draw of sci-fi is often spectacle, and spectacle costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 3, 2020 19:53:39 GMT
If studios wants to make "Marvel money", then not a lot of movies will be made in the future. Not all do. Blumhouse turns out cheap but interesting movies, so even making 50 million at the box office is a huge return. But the draw of sci-fi is often spectacle, and spectacle costs. Or the actors involved. Hollywood accounting does make me suspicious when District 9 cost what, like $25-30 million compared to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen costing $200M.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Mar 3, 2020 21:22:01 GMT
Not all do. Blumhouse turns out cheap but interesting movies, so even making 50 million at the box office is a huge return. But the draw of sci-fi is often spectacle, and spectacle costs. Or the actors involved. Hollywood accounting does make me suspicious when District 9 cost what, like $25-30 million compared to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen costing $200M. Well that's not just to do with quality, with ROTF they filmed in 31 locations over 7 months, finishing filming just 9 months prior to release of the movie, District 9 however filmed in 5 locations over 6 months and finished filming 16 months prior to release, that's a money saving method, to get the shit done right with CGI you either need the time or the money to do it because those man hours don't change so you pay through the arse for those man hours to be made up.
Also Transformers is an IP which brings in additional cost before you even start filming and then you have actor costs, Shia cost $5m alone for ROTF, then you add in a bunch of writers, Bay's directing salary, every other actor they hired, didn't Spielberg also get cut a cheque for those films? that shit all just mounts up, and it's Bay so theirs loads of needless gratuitous splurges on money for any old thing also, I mean shit the fireworks budget for ROTF could probably have come close to half the overall cost for District 9.
It's ridiculous also just how much a movies budget can be for behind the scenes stuff, I mean think about it a production the size of a Transformers movie is going to be hundreds of people who you have to feed and house for 6 months as well as get work visa's for when you go overseas, fly the fuckers out and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 22:51:30 GMT
Or the actors involved. Hollywood accounting does make me suspicious when District 9 cost what, like $25-30 million compared to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen costing $200M. Well that's not just to do with quality, with ROTF they filmed in 31 locations over 7 months, finishing filming just 9 months prior to release of the movie, District 9 however filmed in 5 locations over 6 months and finished filming 16 months prior to release, that's a money saving method, to get the shit done right with CGI you either need the time or the money to do it because those man hours don't change so you pay through the arse for those man hours to be made up.
Also Transformers is an IP which brings in additional cost before you even start filming and then you have actor costs, Shia cost $5m alone for ROTF, then you add in a bunch of writers, Bay's directing salary, every other actor they hired, didn't Spielberg also get cut a cheque for those films? that shit all just mounts up, and it's Bay so theirs loads of needless gratuitous splurges on money for any old thing also, I mean shit the fireworks budget for ROTF could probably have come close to half the overall cost for District 9.
It's ridiculous also just how much a movies budget can be for behind the scenes stuff, I mean think about it a production the size of a Transformers movie is going to be hundreds of people who you have to feed and house for 6 months as well as get work visa's for when you go overseas, fly the fuckers out and so on.
Excellent points all. I also wonder if everyone involved doesn't bump up their prices some when they know they're dealing with something like a Transformers movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Mar 3, 2020 23:53:44 GMT
Time for a new direction for Trek, anyway. ^^This.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 4, 2020 17:58:03 GMT
Good, those movies sucked anyway.
|
|
