Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[Ultimatehero]

Wow... a small popcorn to go with your $50 purchase of a ticket, a DRM'd digital copy of the movie and some cheap glasses and a poster. Is this really worth it? Nope, but it does tell you the desperation is high to sell tickets to people who have more money than sense.

I guess it depends on where you live. After living in LA, what that's saying is beyond normal to me...

 

[Carnotaur3]

Spielberg isn't part of the problem. And Lucas doesn't even put out films anymore. The last film he put out was Red Tails and he barely got it to theaters. Spielberg hasn't made a blockbuster film since 2005.

 

[:eek:]

Spielberg isn't part of the problem. And Lucas doesn't even put out films anymore. The last film he put out was Red Tails and he barely got it to theaters. Spielberg hasn't made a blockbuster film since 2005.

The latest Indiana Jones was released in 2008, and no matter what people think of that movie it certainly made blockbuster money...

 

[Teelie]

And they're looking to do at least one final Indiana Jones movie although I hope it doesn't take another 20 years and come out half-baked like the last one.

 

[:eek:]

This summer looks to have its share of expensive flops: After Earth, White House Down, The Lone Ranger.

While it probably isn't a sign of an imminent implosion it maybe will get some people in Hollywood thinking about the future. Disney are probably very happy for now that they have Marvel and Pixar.

 

[Teelie]

Although Disney also has The Lone Ranger and the more infamous John Carter flop so they are very much on the edge here. They have The Avengers through their aquistion of Marvel so really they have not had a good adaptation of their own in a while. Even Brave is through a bought out subisdary. One can only hope Star Wars VII-IX are successful for them.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Disney IS without a doubt looking at a VERY bright future and are in no danger once so ever. They currently have Pixar, Marvel, and now Star Wars. If you turn this clock to 2015, they will literally own most of the summer box office and then from there (seeing as whoever is behind the helm loves to buy things) they'll probably be able to make more acquisitions. Now, for the first time in history - that at least I know of - depending on which way Disney wants to go, in ten years time they'll have a monopoly over the industry when it comes to "owning" these key summer and winter months due to its acquisitions. I'd say buying out MARVEL and LUCASFILM may very well be only the beginning, and if it is, I'm sure your imagination can fill out what happens from there. I, for one, would actually be thrilled to see this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Although Disney also has The Lone Ranger and the more infamous John Carter flop so they are very much on the edge here. They have The Avengers through their aquistion of Marvel so really they have not had a good adaptation of their own in a while. Even Brave is through a bought out subisdary. One can only hope Star Wars VII-IX are successful for them.

Tangled, Wreck-it-Ralph, and soon Frozen. Pirates still makes them great money. Not good, but great money.

Disney IS without a doubt looking at a VERY bright future and are in no danger once so ever. They currently have Pixar, Marvel, and now Star Wars. If you turn this clock to 2015, they will literally own most of the summer box office and then from there (seeing as whoever is behind the helm loves to buy things) they'll probably be able to make more acquisitions. Now, for the first time in history - that at least I know of - depending on which way Disney wants to go, in ten years time they'll have a monopoly over the industry when it comes to "owning" these key summer and winter months due to its acquisitions. I'd say buying out MARVEL and LUCASFILM may very well be only the beginning, and if it is, I'm sure your imagination can fill out what happens from there. I, for one, would actually be thrilled to see this.

Going to own half the world soon.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Going to own half the world soon.

Whoever they have running Disney right now is beyond smart with all of these acquisitions they're attaining. They're going after the KEY powerhouses in cinema today, and as said come 2015 - I wouldn't be surprised if they buy some more very huge properties. A monopoly in the film industry would be a startling new development. But, Disney's also a really strong creative company so I'd have no problem with them owning the majority of blockbuster films.

 

[Snow Queen]

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?

Because it's a movie that requires a budget larger than that. I don't see why this is a question. Movies require different budgets, Interstellar requires more than 50 million. It's not a smaller sci fi like Looper which cost (if memory serves) 30 million.

 

[Rocketman]

All of the "potential" and "mediocre" franchise movies are the ones causing the implosion. They're either not making enough money, they're bombing, they're critically panned, and so on. These are the ones they just churn out and crank out like clockwork (or attempted to):

Prince of Persia
The Lone Ranger
John Carter
Battleship
After Earth
The Last Airbender
G.I. Joe
Fast & Furious
Oz the Great and Powerful
Tron Legacy
Percy Jackson and the Olympians
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Green Lantern

^ This is the stuff that either needs to go away, or stay away, or not be made anymore.

And it's all being caused by this:

Twilight Saga
The Hunger Games
Transformers
Pirates of the Caribbean
Harry Potter
Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit
Chronicles of Narnia
Nolan's Batman
The Avengers

^ Luckily, the majority of this list is either over with, or is about to be over with.

They really need to stop the mentality of, Let's throw $200 million at the wall and see if it sticks, or the mentality of, This movie was successful, so let's throw $200 million at something similar so we can cash in on it. It's too much focus on raking cash in, raking it in, raking it in, raking it in, don't worry if it's a well-made movie, don't worry about the director, don't worry about the script. It. Needs. To. Stop. Spielberg is 100% right. I think audiences are seeing right through it, too.

Luckily, your Nolans and your Spielbergs and your Whedons haven't been totally reeled in by the studio system yet.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Whoever they have running Disney right now is beyond smart with all of these acquisitions they're attaining. They're going after the KEY powerhouses in cinema today, and as said come 2015 - I wouldn't be surprised if they buy some more very huge properties. A monopoly in the film industry would be a startling new development. But, Disney's also a really strong creative company so I'd have no problem with them owning the majority of blockbuster films.

Well said. They look like a bunch of geniuses right now, and who can really complain. They let those who know what they are doing handle their respective properties.

 

[Rocketman]

Disney IS without a doubt looking at a VERY bright future and are in no danger once so ever. They currently have Pixar, Marvel, and now Star Wars. If you turn this clock to 2015, they will literally own most of the summer box office and then from there (seeing as whoever is behind the helm loves to buy things) they'll probably be able to make more acquisitions. Now, for the first time in history - that at least I know of - depending on which way Disney wants to go, in ten years time they'll have a monopoly over the industry when it comes to "owning" these key summer and winter months due to its acquisitions. I'd say buying out MARVEL and LUCASFILM may very well be only the beginning, and if it is, I'm sure your imagination can fill out what happens from there. I, for one, would actually be thrilled to see this.

I don't really agree. Paramount and Marvel Studios are getting their hands in that action too. And I think Pixar will become its own entity... at least it should. Disney isn't really making the sole profit of most of their properties.

If anything, they should be concerned. If they're going to continue cranking out stuff like Planes (seriously, wtf), or John Carter, Prince of Persia, or The Lone Ranger, they're not looking good.

 

[dark_b]

Because it's a movie that requires a budget larger than that. I don't see why this is a question. Movies require different budgets, Interstellar requires more than 50 million. It's not a smaller sci fi like Looper which cost (if memory serves) 30 million.

like every 250 and 300 million movie.

 

[Rocketman]

Well said. They look like a bunch of geniuses right now, and who can really complain. They let those who know what they are doing handle their respective properties.

In terms of making money, sure. But making really high quality films? Not so much.

They're making a lot of money because they have money flying in hot from every which direction. There are some areas that are really not working. This Avengers train isn't going to chug along forever.

If you look at Man of Steel, the majority of people think it's either a failure, or it's a critical failure... yet it's made over $100 million more than Thor or Captain America.

What chance does Thor 2 or Cap 2 really have...honestly.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I don't really agree. Paramount and Marvel Studios are getting their hands in that action too. And I think Pixar will become its own entity... at least it should. Disney isn't really making the sole profit of most of their properties.

If anything, they should be concerned. If they're going to continue cranking out stuff like Planes (seriously, wtf), or John Carter, Prince of Persia, or The Lone Ranger, they're not looking good.

You do know that Warner Bros. isn't the sole company behind any of their films either right? There you're looking at Warners just having their hand in the films made by Legacy, previously Silver Pictures, among other companies. EVERY SINGLE FILM STUDIO OPERATES IN THIS FASHION. And usually there are additional companies in the mix.

So, really the accurate statement would be --

Disney is the film studio with the most successful production companies under it, with possibly adding more in the future.

No studio ever gets 100% from the films they distribute, it's never worked that way.

You mention Paramount, MARVEL and Disney. Well for the Batman and Superman films and DC films in the future - it's WB, Legacy (now another company), and DC. This isn't something that only applies to Disney.

 

[Snow Queen]

like every 250 and 300 million movie.

Not really. Sometimes directors just suck at handling budgets. Take The Lone Ranger for instance, I can understand the train track and such and I really like that but then they wasted it on a lot of pointless parts that just unnecessarily made the movie longer. It didn't use it's budget very well and did not need 250 million, at least in my opinion.

 

[Rocketman]

You do know that Warner Bros. isn't the sole company behind any of their films either right? There you're looking at Warners just having their hand in the films made by Legacy, previously Silver Pictures, among other companies. EVERY SINGLE FILM STUDIO OPERATES IN THIS FASHION. And usually there are additional companies in the mix.

So, really the accurate statement would be --

Disney is the film studio with the most successful production companies under it, with possibly adding more in the future.

No studio ever gets 100% from the films they distribute, it's never worked that way.

Okay, well that's great and all, but the focus is on $$$. I want high quality films.

 

[Rocketman]

Interstellar should be the least of anyone's concerns. That will be maybe one of five movies next year that truly matter. I'm not saying that as a fanboy or an idiot or whatever... but that can have a budget of 500 million for all I care. If it's a billion-dollar-making movie and it has no interest of being a franchise, then maybe (just maybe) *shock!-gasp!* it's actually concerned with being a damn good film with integrity and all that nonsense.

Inception made $825 million on a budget of $160 million.
No franchise. No sequel. These things aren't on the horizon and won't happen.
Don't worry about Nolan, for god's sakes. He has no place in this thread.

 

[dark_b]

Not really. Sometimes directors just suck at handling budgets. Take The Lone Ranger for instance, I can understand the train track and such and I really like that but then they wasted it on a lot of pointless parts that just unnecessarily made the movie longer. It didn't use it's budget very well and did not need 250 million, at least in my opinion.

what? Gore Verbinski doesnt know how to handle a budget? everything is on the screen.POTC3 got so expensive because they rushed a movie. less time means its more expensive. how is this his fault?

 

[Ultimatehero]

And the focus being on $$$ - Disney owns more successful production companies than any other studio.

As for high quality:

They currently have Joss Whedon who the critics and fans love being their guiding force behind Marvel.

And they currently have JJ Abrams who the critics and a lot of the fans love being their guiding force behind Star Wars.

And I'd say their guiding force behind Pixar is doing a great job as well.

These movies have been beloved by critics. So, there's your high quality. Don't act like Disney is the only company with a critically panned film every now and then - they have just as many and just as few as any other studio.

So, again, financially Disney owns more successful production companies over any other studio who usually only have one trojan horse in their pocket and not more than that that keeps getting them money. For Warners, that used to be Legacy.

 

[Rocketman]

So I'm confused... is this a good thing?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

In terms of making money, sure. But making really high quality films? Not so much.

They're making a lot of money because they have money flying in hot from every which direction. There are some areas that are really not working. This Avengers train isn't going to chug along forever.

If you look at Man of Steel, the majority of people think it's either a failure, or it's a critical failure... yet it's made over $100 million more than Thor or Captain America.

What chance does Thor 2 or Cap 2 really have...honestly.

Thor and Cap 2 will get that Avengers/Iron Man bump. They will do very well, especially if they are as good as they look.

And if you are talking quality, Disney has Pixar and their own animation studio made Tangled, Wreck-it-Ralph, Winnie the Pooh, and the fantastic looking Frozen. They made the Lone Ranger, which I think is great. They have JJ Abrams coming in to make Star Wars.

I am personally loving the quality.

 

[Snow Queen]

what? Gore Verbinski doesnt know how to handle a budget? everything is on the screen.POTC3 got so expensive because they rushed a movie. less time means its more expensive. how is this his fault?

Not with The Lone Ranger. POTC3 I can see since you have the big pirate battles and ships to make and such a huge cast but The Lone Ranger, even more than any of the POTC movies, needed to be cut down ages before. So much was unnecessary and you could have saved money instead of wasting it on those aspects.

 

[Ultimatehero]

So I'm confused... is this a good thing?

I don't know if this is easier for me to understand because I work in the business or not and walked around a sound stage (being sent around on errands and what not) seeing how big these companies actually are.

Every studio has production companies, no studio gets 100% of the profits because they have to share this money with the production companies they have under contract. So everywhere in Hollywood you are looking at a studio system where the studios pay production companies to make films, then they distribute them, and then they share the profits. This is how it works.

Disney has more successful production companies than any other studio. They have more companies likely to earn a serious box office over every other studio, therefore they are looking at a lot more money than any other studio.

You stated Paramount and MARVEL having their hands in Avengers, well one can just as easily say Warners has Legacy (yes, Legacy gets money) and DC.E (yes, DC gets money) having their hands in Superman and Batman. It's the same exact set-up.

One could also say PIXAR keeps some of the money from Disney, well Dreamworks Animation keeps some of the money from Dreamworks as well.

Do you get where I'm going with this? Every single studio shares its profits with their production companies. None of the top studios make films without this production company. So, they all share profits with those companies. Disney owns more successful companies than anyone else - so they are looking at more money than anyone else. The same amount of hands are in the profits as every single other studio. So, naturally the more successful cogs you have to your machine, the more successful the machine will be overall.