Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The DU Lounge

bitterross

(4,066 posts)

2. I never knew that. I knew Trek had a shoe-string budget though.

Reply to rpannier (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 10:20 PM

Apr 2019

Everything I've ever read about Star Trek seems to make mention they had a very constrained budget. So this isn't a real surprise.

$350k? Back in the 60s? That's a HUGE amount.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The spacecraft from Lost in Space was more expensive than the Enterprise (TV) [View all] rpannier Apr 2019 OP

I always thought the Jupiter 2 sdfernando Apr 2019 #1

I watched both (70's. Morning TV Lost in Space. Afternoons Star Trek) rpannier Apr 2019 #3

I never knew that. I knew Trek had a shoe-string budget though. bitterross Apr 2019 #2

Artists cost less than sets. hunter Apr 2019 #4

Check out the new Lost in Space on Netflix... targetpractice Apr 2019 #5

Thanks...I will have to check that out. sdfernando Apr 2019 #6

I was happy the series had nothing to do with that movie OriginalGeek Apr 2019 #7