In general its probably not a bad idea to cut budgets as it seems "fix it in post" is leading to lazy storytelling. I still wouldn't mind returning to the old days where it was one big blockbuster about every two weeks with smaller films clustered around them. It created a pace that a movie fan could keep up with and didn't break the bank in the process (average movie ticket = average cost of a DVD buy three months later). This summer I had to throw in the towel and just give up on trying to keep up with not only the sheer volume of movies but the expense and I am usually up for going every single weekend.
In regards to Star Trek 3:
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." (Abrams, busy with Star Wars, is unavailable for the third Trek.)In short, the new director will have to be willing to film in tax incentive friendly locations and I suspect a budget in the $125 to $150 million range. That sounds worse then it is considering the old (often better) Trek films were made on $50 million and less budgets. As usual, at the end of the day the story is king and the budget just makes it easier to tell the story. A bigger budget doesn't really mean a better story with better characters. If the core isn't there, a movies' problems were just more expensive but still there regardless of budget size.