• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

Figs

Avenger
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
26,630
Reaction score
3
Points
31
I have to laugh at Lucas being surprised that Red Tails almost didn't make it into theaters. Just from the trailers it looked pretty bad, I wouldn't have been surprised at all if it went straight to TV or home video.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

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.
OUR EDITOR RECOMMENDS

Crystal+Lucy Awards Toast 'Mad Men's' Women … and George Lucas

Richard Attenborough Tribute: Steven Spielberg Praises Film Legend's 'Divine Inspiration'

Steven Spielberg to Produce Live-Action 'Halo' TV Series

Cannes: Oscar Rivals Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee Bury Hatchet for Jury Duty
George Lucas agreed that massive changes are afoot, including film exhibition morphing somewhat into a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher. His prediction prompted Spielberg to recall that his 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial stayed in theaters for a year and four months.

PHOTOS: Cannes: Steven Spielberg, Nicole Kidman Attend Awards Ceremony
The two legendary filmmakers, along with CNBC anchor Julia Boorstin and Microsoft president of interactive entertainment business Don Mattrick, were speaking at the University of Southern California as part of the festivities surrounding the official opening of the Interactive Media Building, three stories high and part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts.

Lucas and Spielberg told USC students that they are learning about the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters. Some ideas from young filmmakers "are too fringe-y for the movies," Spielberg said. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."

Lucas lamented the high cost of marketing movies and the urge to make them for the masses while ignoring niche audiences. He called cable television "much more adventurous" than film nowadays.
PHOTOS: THR's Oscar Nominees Night: Jennifer Lawrence, Steven Spielberg, Naomi Watts Celebrate
"I think eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television," Lucas said. "As mine almost was," Spielberg interjected. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close."

"We're talking Lincoln and Red Tails -- we barely got them into theaters. You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater," Lucas said. "I got more people into Lincoln than you got into Red Tails," Spielberg joked.
Spielberg added that he had to co-own his own studio in order to get Lincoln into theaters.

"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," Lucas said.
Mattrick and Spielberg also praised Netflix, prompting Boorstin to ask Spielberg if he planned to make original content for the Internet streamer. "I have nothing to announce," said the director.
Lucas and Spielberg also spoke of vast differences between filmmaking and video games because the latter hasn't been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters. Which isn't to say the two worlds aren't connected. Spielberg, in fact, has teamed with Microsoft to make a "TV" show for Xbox 360 based on the game Halo and he is making a movie based on the Electronic Arts game Need for Speed.
 
Red Tails was awful. I'm sorry but Lucas is not a good director or whatever he did with Red Tails.
 
The irony is they are in part responsible for the existing setup.
 
What sucks was that Red Tails was Lucas's passion project. He's been wanting to make that film for decades. The man should just have sticked to writing because he is one of the best ever.
 
The studio system has become diseased. The accumulated filth of all their PG-13 and brand regocnition will foam up about their waists and all the producers and accounts will look up and shout 'Save us!' And Spielberg will look down, and whisper 'No'"
 
What sucks was that Red Tails was Lucas's passion project. He's been wanting to make that film for decades. The man should just have sticked to writing because he is one of the best ever.

If it was his passion project he should've directed it. The movie was all kinds of awful.
 
Movies are staying theaters for shorter amounts of time, not longer.
 
If it was his passion project he should've directed it. The movie was all kinds of awful.

Lucas knows he isn't a great director. He will be the first to tell you that. Hence to why he hired the guy to direct it
 
hollywood is changing. it costs a lot of money. but at the same time a lot of people get a lot work in hollywood. what is the number?

is it about money? well i ask you why isnt Nolan making a 50 million Interstellar?
 
This isn't surprising actors, writers, producers, critics have been saying the industry has been going through a big transition for a while.

Studios make fewer movies and they make most of their profits from the summer blockbusters which have mass a appeal and effectively subsidies any of the smaller budget movies they make. Even with the summer blockbusters some of the major studios co-produce and co-finance with a production company like Legendary Pictures as they couldn't afford to make it on their own.

Even Brad Pitt told the BBC in a interview not too long ago this
Brad Pitt says the days of actors getting multi-million dollar salaries are over.

"Yeah, that thing died," Pitt laughed when asked if it was possible for stars to still command a price tag upwards of $10m (£6.2m) per movie.

"That arithmetic doesn't really work right now... that deal's not flying these days."

Pitt has been a familiar fixture on lists detailing the highest paid actors.

The most recent Forbes list for 2012 was topped by Tom Cruise, with an estimated yearly salary of $75m (£47m).

Meanwhile Pitt is thought to have earned $25m (£16m).

Balancing economics
As for what state Hollywood is in, in general, Brad Pitt concedes: "It's a really interesting time.

Balancing economics

As for what state Hollywood is in, in general, Brad Pitt concedes: "It's a really interesting time.

Continue reading the main story
You take the roles for the roles and you've just got to balance economics like everyone does

Brad Pitt on the decline of star salaries
"A lot of the studios have been challenged because of the economic downturn as well so they've been betting on bigger, more tent pole kinds of things.

"At the same time that opens up a vacuum for really interesting new film makers to come in."

So-called 'tent pole' films take the biggest budgets but their profits are expected to prop up other movies for the major studios.

Brad Pitt's acting work over the past few years has ranged from the Oscar nominated Moneyball, to the children's animation Happy Feet 2 and most recently the crime thriller Killing Them Softly.

"You take the roles for the roles," Pitt says, "and you've just got to balance economics like everyone does."
 
Last edited:
I think that Lucas and the 'Berg have a point about some sort of catalyst being in the near-future. It will revolve around escalating costs, both for development and ticket sales, but it's harder to pinpoint what that catalyst will ultimately be. I think Steven is on the right track with thinking that it would take multiple $250m flops in a year, but I think it will be a more complex series of circumstances. It will likely be a perfect storm of ticket prices, 3D imploding, Netflix faltering, piracy out of control, and current genres and trends coming to the end of their life cycles. The last thing I can think of of the top of my head is the '70s and '80s, with westerns dying and the emergence of sci-fi, action movies, and the true 'blockbuster". I think the other thing will be a clamoring for more original content - either 100% original screenplays, or works from previously unadapted sources. Remakes, franchise reboots, sequels, and the like are going to overstay their welcome.
 
The larger comic books movies aside, the studios are already back away from the 250 millioin dollar budgets for things.
 
This kinda happened in 2012 with John Carter and Battleship.
 
But only to Taylor Kitsch and Disney who then promptly went and blew $4 billion buying the Star Wars franchise. Maybe Taylor and/or Disney will be the first to implode?
 
What sucks was that Red Tails was Lucas's passion project. He's been wanting to make that film for decades. The man should just have sticked to writing because he is one of the best ever.

Lucas is a terrible writer. He openly admits to hating it and is primarily concerned with getting from A to B regardless of how awkward or stilted the dialogue becomes.

He's a better director than writer which is saying something really...
 
Lucas has a great ability to conceptualize and he's valuable in the editing room, but a writer and director he is really not. There's a great deal of irony that his best work has been done in the studio system, not outside of it.

That's all I'm going to say on the off-topic topic.

Going back and rereading the original post, I don't think we'll ever get back to the truly massive event movie that lasts forever in theaters. I don't think that's really happened since Titanic, even though I recall Avatar lingering for quite a while. That used to be the norm, but prior to the proliferation of VHS. With the turnover to home video being so much faster in today's "Now! Now! Now!" society, we'll never get back to long runs in theaters.
 
The ironic thing is... both of them are contributing to this 'implosion.'
 
There's also been an influx of movie actors jumping to TV in recent years. Also a recent number of film actors heading back to their roots so to speak and taking up theater by doing Broadway. Both moves make sense. If a TV show does very well, it could last 5 or 6 years and go 100+ episodes. Broadway is 8 performances a week for however long the Broadway run lasts (could be a few months, or it could last a long time). Both give movie actors stability.
 
Would someone explain to me why exactly PG-13 is some kind of horrible evil thing?
 
Would someone explain to me why exactly PG-13 is some kind of horrible evil thing?
PG-13 isn't bad in itself. I think people have a problem with studios making films PG-13 that don't really suit that rating and by making it have a lower rating it hurts the movie because they waterdown or cut things from the film.

If a studio/producers tell a director/screenwriter that the movie is PG-13 before filming making it then its fine but what happens some times is the studios say a film has a certain rating and then change their minds when the movie is already filmed and sometimes edited.
But only to Taylor Kitsch and Disney who then promptly went and blew $4 billion buying the Star Wars franchise. Maybe Taylor and/or Disney will be the first to implode?

Disney has also given Lone Ranger a $250 million dollar budget despite almost pulling the plug before because the budget was too high.
 
If it was his passion project he should've directed it. The movie was all kinds of awful.

Lucas knows he isn't a great director. He will be the first to tell you that. Hence to why he hired the guy to direct it

Actually, he technically co-directed. He just wasn't credited. Either way, Lucas reminds me of Goyer. Goyer can make fantastic concepts/stories. It's the screenwriting where Lucas isn't strong at.

Disney has also given Lone Ranger a $250 million dollar budget despite almost pulling the plug before because the budget was too high.

Which completely blows my mind. The film was almost done for then a year later, you pour much more into it than you originally did before. Disney's got it like that apparently. Of course, this film could make over 600 million worldwide and I'll just shut the f*** up.
 
They ain't wrong.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"