This is difficult to say. Star Trek Nemesis (2002) was made for around $70 million and it was abominable. I realize that $20m of that if not more went to Patrick Stewart and Data's salaries. But they already had some of the sets needed. I looked back recently and Jurassic Park was made on a fairly small budget by today's standards. I think it really depends on the film to be told and the director. If it's effects heavy, the budget will rise quickly but a budget minded producer and skilled director (look what Harve Bennet & Nicholas Meyer did with Star Trek II) can put together a solid outing. Frankly, Nemesis had neither, imho. The key is the story. If done like the X-Men, this would have to be an "introduction" film since there are huge numbers of young movie goers who were too young to see BSG in 78 or even the 80 edition.
Still, I think $50m is a reasonable budget for a good BSG feature, with plenty of effects, considering the original cast can't justify huge paychecks and there are definitely sets which need building. The benefit is that a successful BSG feature could mean at least a sequel, perhaps a trilogy. And that would mean larger budget. If the fans are patient with Larson & DeSanto if they end up doing a more "introductory" film than we'd hope, I think we'd benefit in the long run with perhaps a second or third big screen adventure.
With LOTR finished next month, Star Wars all but finished and Star Trek all but box office poison, I'd love to see BSG become the breakout sci-fi/mythos epic it had the potential of becoming.
|