A Marvel Fanboy Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 That's just how they reduce the budget, not why. You expect they yell to tell you "hey, our STID sucked and underperformed so we are going to cut the budget down for the sequel". If you still believe in studios bullshit press release, you are young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted November 15, 2013 Author Share Posted November 15, 2013 That's just how they reduce the budget, not why. You expect they yell to tell you "hey, our STID sucked and underperformed so we are going to cut the budget down for the sequel". If you still believe in studios bullshit press release, you are young. Shooting outside of L.A. in a tax rebate State will offset the budget even if it was STID levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 he is being sarcastic. Referring to the revisionism and desperation to make STID's performance look good STID's performance was fine. Making more overseas than the first is always a plus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) STID's performance was fine. Making more overseas than the first is always a plus. It was a disappointing performance. It barely made a profit. Edited November 15, 2013 by John Marston 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) It was a disappointing performance. It barely made a profit. It made almost the same amount of its budget back as the first. How much profit it made for the studio, is entirely up to them. Edited November 15, 2013 by Fancyarcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 It made almost the same amount of its budget back as the first. How much profit it made for the studio, is entirely up to them. yes and that is obviously not what they wanted 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) yes and that is obviously not what they wanted However the fact that it increased overseas shows the potential of the franchise if they decided to make the next film in 3D as well (which they probably will). Edited November 15, 2013 by Fancyarcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 That's just how they reduce the budget, not why. You expect they yell to tell you "hey, our STID sucked and underperformed so we are going to cut the budget down for the sequel". If you still believe in studios bullshit press release, you are young. They not really cutting the budget since that 20m was going to taxes. So the amount is about the same plus the director is different most likely cheaper. They most likely want cheaper budget since make around 200m domestically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitik Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Thread title really needs to be fixed to Star Trek XIII, not III. Star Trek III came out in 1984. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Thread title really needs to be fixed to Star Trek XIII, not III. Star Trek III came out in 1984. This is a new series. Star Trek 3 is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 However the fact that it increased overseas shows the potential of the franchise if they decided to make the next film in 3D as well (which they probably will). Yeah, what a great achivement. Every sequel increases overseas nowadays, even some of the awful ones. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitik Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 This is a new series. Star Trek 3 is fine. It's clearly the same universe. Old Spock's presence proves that. This will be the 13th Star Trek film, not the 3rd. It's not that hard to count. Bizarrely, the Bond thread on this forum is called Bond 24. Shouldn't it be Bond 4 by that logic? Seems like you guys have it backwards. The presence of Leonard Nimoy indicates that all 13 Star Trek movies take place in the same altered continuity, yet there is no one connecting the current James Bond stories to the James Bond of old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 "Untitled Star Trek Film" works for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) Yeah, what a great achivement. Every sequel increases overseas nowadays, even some of the awful ones. Star Trek movies are never known for doing well overseas. It's perceived as an American Franchise through and through. Any Star Trek film that does better overseas than the previous films, is good as far as box office goes. I remember reading some article that said that Into Darkness underperformed overseas. Dude, it did better than the previous films in that regard. Edited November 15, 2013 by Fancyarcher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 The budget for STID was $190m so $20m cut isn't too bad considering JJ Abrams isn't directing and it'll likely not be in shooting in LA which will also save money, I imagine Pinewood or Shepperton would be an option as the UK has tax breaks. I still 2016 is more likely than 2015 but it'll be either summer or November. The 50th anniversary will boost the box office so it makes perfect sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloneWars Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 STID did pretty well actually. A lot of films decrease from the first one. This one did so by a little over 10%. Yes, people may have been expecting an increase but business for STID is actually reasonable for a sequel. As far as the budget thing goes, the first one had a $150M budget. I think the first film performed better than Paramount hoped. The second one had a $190 budget. For how well the film did, I would say it was in line with its budget by modern standards. Just think of how many bombs we have these days with budgets even bigger than that. People need to stop acting like STID was a flop because it wasn't. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 STID did pretty well actually. A lot of films decrease from the first one. This one did so by a little over 10%. Yes, people may have been expecting an increase but business for STID is actually reasonable for a sequel. As far as the budget thing goes, the first one had a $150M budget. I think the first film performed better than Paramount hoped. The second one had a $190 budget. For how well the film did, I would say it was in line with its budget by modern standards. Just think of how many bombs we have these days with budgets even bigger than that. People need to stop acting like STID was a flop because it wasn't. There is a difference between flop and a disappointment. STID was definitely the latter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) Yeah, what a great achivement. Every sequel increases overseas nowadays, even some of the awful ones. Smurfs 2 decreased 150M OS from the original. Edited November 15, 2013 by CJohn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 There is a difference between flop and a disappointment. STID was definitely the latter This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) Smurfs 2 decreased from the original. poor comparison. STID was following a film that was extremely well liked and was adding 3D to the series for the first time. I find it interesting how people rag on movies like Pirates 4 or ASM for decreasing from their predecessors despite 3D yet when the same thing happens to STID people go "Oh, it was never expected to surpass the original, only loonies thought so" Edited November 15, 2013 by John Marston 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
