Steven Spielberg, George Lucas Predicts 'Implosion' of Film Industry
[quote]Steven Spielberg on Wednesday predicted an "implosion" in the film industry is inevitable, whereby a half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.
This is what the moguls predicted when the film industry was threatened by:
-The Paramount Decrees
-The MPAA Rating System
-Cable & satellite television
And yet I got my ass to AMC Aventura to see Man of Steel last night. So STFU guys.
Cool, maybe Hollywood will go back to making movies about people like the '70's instead of constant boom boom.
Haha ... Spielberg and Lucas ushered in the era of the mega blockbuster with their crappy movies.
He must be nuts if he thinks people will cough up $50 to see a movie.
Well, George Lucas is too corrupt, egomaniacal and lazy to even try to make another film, and Steven Spielberg is being disingenuous saying he couldn't get a feature, even a Lincoln biopic, developed into a feature.
Sounds like Spielberg's still bitter over "Lincoln"s near-shutout at the Oscars.
[quote]Steven Spielberg, George Lucas Predicts
One predicts. Two predict.
Three pee oh!
It's bound to happen with all the junk they're making.
It's Spielberg and Lucas's fault - they started the trend of crap ultra-marketed movies and reporting on grosses.
r9 is totally right on. Before the crap that Spielberg did there were real movies in the 70's & 60's. With stories about people. Not dumbed down pos which BOTH of them started.
IMHO they're right to worry about the future, because I don't see how the movie theaters are going to stay in business over the long term. Theaters are already so expensive that families can rarely afford to go, and so many of us would rather wait until we can see films at home.
Movies will still get made, but they'll be distributed by streaming, cable, DVD, whatever. Their industry will lose its independence, such as it is.
[quote] Haha ... Spielberg and Lucas ushered in the era of the mega blockbuster with their crappy movies.
Seriously. These two have NO right to bitch.
Won't foreign markets save the US film industry?
$7 for Lincoln? It's only $4 or $5 on certain weekdays to see flicks in Vegas.
They're planning on foreign markets saving them but how much can people in China afford to pay for movies?
I could see differential pricing, i.e., one movie will be a $10 ticket and another will be $6 and another will be $20. The price could change, too. It would be a way of getting people into a movie that's underperforming--cut the ticket price.
I would put five bucks in a box for there never to be any more Jonah Hill/Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg/etc comedies. Put it in the lobby of the theatre. It'll be full by dusk.
Fine. Let the industry implode and then maybe it will rebuild itself into something sensible.
They have nobody to blame but themselves.
I want to put money in R16's lobby box.
Kickstarter campaigns for people NOT to make movies.
Get behind me R18.
Ugh, the comments there. A bunch a freepers decided to turn the conversation into politics. I wish these people would DIAF. Please, the discussion should be kept to filmaking and the topic. My 2 cents, too much money is spent on promotion and there is far too much attention to foreign markets. People cannot afford to go the movies anyway, no wonder the industry is dying.
AS long as it lasts until I get 4 and 5. I don't really care.
The mess we have now is due to too much money at the top. They moved production out of Hollywood because they claimed crews were too expensive when the fact is the crew cost was less than 20% of the expense to make the movie. You have actors making 20 million right off the bat just because you THINK they are the ones selling the movie. Well I don't know if you can say that in every instance now.
This is what you get when you let accountants decide what movies you make. Start paying a sane amount to actors while giving them a point or two and stop with all the money waste above the line.
Lucas predicted a shift to digital or streaming theaters 20 years ago. He wasn't totally off base there.
And if these two hadn't done it/ said it, someone else would have. They just got there first, regardless of what you think of their films.
oops r22 was me, of course.
r11 is right about taking a family to a movie.
It's over $100 to take a family to a movie! Is it worth it? I don't think so.
I don't get riding the foreign markets dick. Some American films WILL earn in a foreign market if they are good films. Just the same way outstanding foreign films break through to the American market. If you are not trying for quality and if you are not telling stories with universal themes, then of course you are not going to reach people.
I will never forget when Speilberg accepted the award for Schindler's. He said that he never realized the incredible power of film until that moment. I wanted to kick him in the face. How blind do you have to be to have gotten to that point in your career and not have seen the reach, power, impact that film has to influence, awaken, effect people? I guess it has just been all about him and his creative masturbation. Fuck him.
[quote] A bunch a freepers decided to turn the conversation into politics.
I think you maybe on the wrong thread.
[quote]It's over $100 to take a family to a movie! Is it worth it? I don't think so.
Only a fat family.
Stay away from the snack bar and the per-person cost plummets.
They make BAD films to appeal to the foreign market.
Serious film is dead. Sad.
So 24 you think they are just beating the drum to promote their new media theaters with this dialog?
I knew the family was fat!
The freepers were at Hollywood Reporter.
the story was linked on Drudge. That brings out the wingers.
Who needs a movie theater? I worked theaters for twenty years. I LOVE movies but I hardly go anymore. If you have a 65" 3D TV and surround sound, a picture opens and three months to the day it's released on Blu-ray for almost the price of a single ticket. Glad I got out in time.
I predict collectively-run rep theaters funded by memberships, like a food co-op, might become a new thing in the future. Bring people of like minds together for more ambitious, interesting fare from all over, indie and studio films. A niche marketing goldmine. Maybe these movie co-ops could eventually fund features. The drooling shit head sheeple will have their Transformer movies. Produced by the likes of Spielberg and Lucas.
I will NEVER pay $25 to see a movie. And they need to start making them better because they're not worth $10 to go see. Crap writing, terrible unfunny plots to comedies, reworked sci-fi, comic book characters becoming big budget movies... garbage. And that "Oz the Great and Powerful" movie was terrible. Terrible writing, terrible acting. CGI OK. But don't buy it. It's just lousy, the whole accursed thing.
I would also like to see the return to using actors as opposed to movie stars. The balance has gone too far in the direction of looks good posing in front of camera, makes the right expressions while running, shooting firearms, fighting and evading explosions.
1. Movies used to magical to me. Even as a young adult, I loved the whole ritual. Not now. It's so over marketed, expensive, ridiculous that I don't get lost in the story or the characters. Going to a movie feels like work and summer flicks? I can just see where a set piece was forced into the story. And that fiftieth explosion. And the product placement. Ugh.
2. I absolutely still see Oscar fare. That won't change for me, but I don't think Spielberg cares about the economic prowess of Perks of Being A Wallflower.
3. Television is better than 95% of film now. I'd rather watch Justified, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Good Wife for good, taut storytelling, the occasion "wow" moment, and fantastic acting. Plus, I can DVR it all.
[quote]I worked theaters for twenty years.
Back-row balcony or men's room?
I still think that the best way to see a movie is on the big screen.
That said, I hate going to the movie theaters, because of people texting during movies.
The only times I have an enjoyable experience is at an art house, or where old people go, like MOMA and Lincoln Center.
I'm with you R42. The best movie theaters in the city are around Lincoln Center because of all the old people.
Of course, IFC and Angelika are pretty safe too, but texting is a massive problem in most of the theaters.
I do try to see everything in movie theaters though, because even the smaller fare like Before Midnight is better on the big screen.
The texting people are idiots
I'm in LA and I never notice anyone texting, maybe it's a New York thing.
Count me as another who loves the theater experience. There are some I'll watch at home but most I want at big screen and the group experience.
I hardly go to the movie theaters these days. But, it is fun to go when it is an anticipated film, or something excellent and you can hear the group reaction (gasp, laughter, etc).
But R29, if everyone stays away from the snack bar, then the theater owners lose their profit margin! Seriously, it's said that the cost of booking popular movies is so high that the profit margins comes from the snack bar where everything has a 10x markup.
Movies used to be a cheap night out that everyone can afford, but now it's expensive and less pleasant than waiting for the DVD. Nobody goes regularly except teenagers with a good allowance and a need to get out of the house, the rest of us don't want to go to movie theaters or can't afford to.
And that's why I think movie theaters won't last for long.
More 'intelligent' or 'mature' films would be made if the public turned up to see those that are being released already. Not every town has an arthouse theater, but if Amour or even something like Before Midnight was released in multiplexes, nobody would go.
The type of film I really long for are the Sidney Lumet films of the 70s, and other guys like him, including Frankenheimer, Friedkin etc. Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Network. Movies don't really go after any big topics anymore it seems.
And that is because of Spielberg and Lucas r48
I prefer those videos of kittens riding roombas.
[quote]He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.
And that's a bad thing, why? Lincoln was hardly dynamic film-making.
I haven't purchased candy at a theatre concession stand in over 20 years. Even when I brought my kids, we would stop at Walmart for a bag of mixed candies and sneak it in with us. The money I saved sent my daughter through Vassar.
M, is that you? You were always pretty tight with a penny. How is Louisa enjoying Vassar? Will she work for a living or become an "actress" like the other two?
I don't go to the movies because I don't like to sit close to strange people eating food. It makes me feel uneasy. If I have to go I will book 3 seats and sit in the middle but I can still feel the presence of people all around me, in my space.
Flying anything but first class internationally is a nightmare as well, I just don't want strange people in my space, eating food and invading my personal wellbeing.
You really need to stay in more, r54.
I do not see plays, because I can nap at home for free. And I don't see movies 'cause they're trash, and they got nothin' but naked people in 'em! And I don't read books, 'cause if they're any good, they're gonna make 'em into a miniseries.
TV is better. Lesser chance of being part of a mass murder.
I "predicts" OP will never match a subject with the correct verb.
They blame illegal downloads for this but the truth is that they make too many, too expensive movies and 90% of what they make is pure shit that isn't worth paying a ticket to watch.
Maybe if they stop paying millions to "stars", stop wasting many millions on promotion and start making good movies again, they won't be losing money.
I talked to an Asian friend recently and he said that in Hongkong movies only cost $5 if you go before noon. The last 2 movies I saw in the theatre were not that good and if I had known before hand I would have not paid the $25 and I would have waited until they come available online or rent them at blockbuster. Lost of movies are shit and not worth paying lots of money for. Sophisticated movie making is being replaced by generic blockbusters. (Not that EVERY blockbuster is stupid and EVERY indie is smart) If they reduce the ticket price for those little but smart and quality movies even better. More people will go see them and studios will invest more money in making them.
Ive been in the motion picture industry for 30+ years. I've seen a lot come and go in that time, but I think they're on to something here.
Is H'wood too big too fail? Maybe they can get a bailout. They probably already get plenty through tax breaks and sketchy accounting.
I have to admit theaters are bad today.
I went to see Fast 6 at an IMAX screen, the first movie I have gone to the theater to see in over 5 years. The IMAX screen was about the same size as the old regular movie screens used to be AND they charged $6 extra for it.
Extremely disappointed. I won't be going to any new releases anytime soon.
I agree about most movies being shit today. Too many brainless comic book/action hero epics. And I'm only in my 30s. I wish we had more character-driven movies. The really good stories are all on tv these days. HBO makes outstanding films, the kind that used to be shown in theaters. Their Liberace film that just aired is a good example of this.
And LOL at going to Lincoln Center to see movies to avoid the riffraff! I thought that was a little secret only my friends and I knew. The LC theater audience is much better (read: older and Jewish) and there's very little talking/texting going on. An all-around pleasant movie-going experience.
The fucking texting during a movie drives me NUTS! The light emanating from peoples' phones is so damn distracting. WTF is wrong with people that they can't go an hour and 45 minutes without their phones? I hate them.
They're going to need to cut costs, and FYI actors are not the real problem. Very few actors get $20 mil and a big cut, and those that do aren't going to get that for long. No actor reliably draws butts to the seats these days, not even publicity whores like Brad Pitt, and sooner or later Hollywood is going to see reality and give up the star-based business model.
The star-based business model is already fading, which is why young actors come and go so quickly - they're discarded as soon as the suits realize they're not reliable draws. Soon what's left of the $20 mil club will go as well, they're aging and are not being replaced. And lots of big tentpole films are being shot without stars, the franchise is a bigger draw than any actor.
So where's the money going? If it's not crews, and it's rarely actors, is it too much CGI? Too many producers? Too much location shooting?
[quote]the cost of booking popular movies is so high that the profit margins comes from the snack bar where everything has a 10x markup.
It has been that way since the beginning. In the 20s, one chain owned their own farms to grow corn for their theaters.
Films are better today than they've ever been. They're just not made by Hollywood. Stop relying on Hollywood to entertain you. Hollywood is scooping up indie films and buying the distribution rights. They can't make their own films anymore, besides action films. Foreign films are amazing!
I will put money in that jar.
[quote] In the 20s, one chain owned their own farms to grow corn for their theaters.
Another chain owned farms where they had cows so they could make Milk Duds.
Whomever greenlit that new Seth Rogen dick flick should be shot.
Spielberg is 66 years old.
By the time he got his start directing features 40 years ago, many directors from the "Golden Age of Hollywood" were has-beens when they were in their sixties or seventies.
Except for maybe John Huston, most "Golden Age" directors struggled for decades to get any financing for a movie deal - Frank Capra, Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, Elia Kazan, George Cukor, Vincente Minnelli, William Wyler, Alfred Hitchcock, etc.
Spielberg is talented, but he should have a better sense of film history and consider himself lucky to get an A-list picture like LINCOLN made at all.
I think r37's idea is visionary and would love to see it come to fruition.
[bold]R2[/bold] makes a very good point!
I haven't seen any film in the theaters since February 2011. And I am glad for that.
Trot out the Oscar contenders at the end of a year and into the first couple months of a new year (because of the Academy rules and connection with Los Angeles, Calif. versus the rest of the country). It's not fooling me.
At least 90 percent of the movies released annually in U.S. theaters are unworthy.
This is amusing coming from the two men mostly responsible for the popcorn movie blockbuster or nothing mentality.