In an article released by The Hollywood Reporter earlier this fall titled “Summer Box Office Fallout: Studios’ New Fear of the $200 Million Tentpole” there was a little bit about Trek 3’s (and the previous Trek movie’s) production costs. Moving to a more film tax friendly location has long been the standard for movie companies. This year’s summer blockbuster season was bigger and more crowded than ever, with more disappointing domestic box office results for most movies this summer. It has already officially been confirmed that the follow up to Man of Steel, the as yet unnamed Batman/Superman movie will be filmed in Michigan for the tax credits. Moving production for the next Star Trek movie to a state or country more film tax friendly seems to be one of the main ways to keep costs in check for the 3rd Abramsverse movie, while still providing the excellent level of set design, visual effects, etc. Paramount also will look to save money on another Star Trek — a franchise, but not quite in the top tier. This summer’s $190 million production Star Trek Into Darkness has earned over $462 million worldwide; its international haul has exceeded expectations at $234 million, but domestically, its $228.5 million hasn’t matched the first film. Whereas the first two were shot in L.A., the next will be filmed in a more tax-friendly location. “We’re making it for what it should have been shot for last time if we had made it outside of L.A., which we would have done except that [director J.J. Abrams] didn’t want to,” says a studio source. “That was a $20 million issue.” — The Hollywood Reporter
