Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[Rocketman]

I said that Disney has sunk a lot of money into movies that failed directly from their own studio. Their aquisitions suceeded. That's hard to understand, okay then.

I'm not saying they can't recover from them now but the original point of this thread is eventually it will result in studio losses they can't recover from. How many of you are saying Spielberg is wrong for basically stating the same thing on a larger (Hollywood) scale?

Disney has been buying up a lot of (sometimes very expensive) properties and while they're successful today they are also making large failures that are similar to the bigger Hollywood ecosystem where continued failures are going to begin to affect the bottom line.

Spielberg was saying this is what's happening to Hollywood as a whole, I am saying it's going to happen to Disney directly if their bigger films aren't more successful. The major success they have had is all been stuff they bought, not created.

If all you're going to do is call me a Disney hater and say it makes no sense then there's really not much more to say, is there?

They're probably buying other companies because they can't figure things out on their own, really. That's a smart move.

 

[Rocketman]

Ok make up your mind. Are you talking about quality or whether the films make money? A flop is about profits, about money. It is not about the quality of the films. I have seen plenty of great films that didn't make money at the box office.

You sit here and talk about all you care about is quality, and then bring up dollars and cents again.

Stick to something.

You need to calm yourself down a little bit.

I haven't strayed from anything. I've stuck to what I think.

Flops = no money
Crappy movies = I won't see them

If someone makes a flop and I happen to like it, I don't really care if it flopped. But flops are usually not good movies. Rule of thumb: If the film is of high quality - people will usually respond to it. You've got your Fight Clubs and your Blade Runners, but that's not all the time.

Now, the opposite is the thing I'm concerned about. Crappy, awful movies raking in billions. That's my whole problem.

 

[Rocketman]

Did you like any of these movies? I liked about 4 of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I said that Disney has sunk a lot of money into movies that failed directly from their own studio. Their aquisitions suceeded. That's hard to understand, okay then.

And in what way is this a problem? They are making far more money then they are losing, so they are in no danger.

I'm not saying they can't recover from them now but the original point of this thread is eventually it will result in studio losses they can't recover from. How many of you are saying Spielberg is wrong for basically stating the same thing on a larger (Hollywood) scale?

It could happen to the majority of Hollywood. It won't happen to Disney.

Disney has been buying up a lot of (sometimes very expensive) properties and while they're successful today they are also making large failures that are similar to the bigger Hollywood ecosystem where continued failures are going to begin to affect the bottom line.

Spielberg was saying this is what's happening to Hollywood as a whole, I am saying it's going to happen to Disney directly if their bigger films aren't more successful. The major success they have had is all been stuff they bought, not created.

Which only makes sense if you avoid what Disney is. They are far more then a film company. They have profit coming from more directions then most could imagine. Disney has been at this for a long, long time, and they have made money for a long, long time.

How they acquire material is irrelevant. What matters is they have it and make huge money off it. You say their own films aren't profitable. They are. Pirates, the new Disney Renaissance, they make money. They can balance their books at the end of the day easily. They rain money with Pixar and Marvel.

If all you're going to do is call me a Disney hater and say it makes no sense then there's really not much more to say, is there?

Because your argument makes no sense. You are arguing that they acquire profitable material and then hold it against them. As if that stops the material from being profitable. It makes no sense.

You take those two little Plane movies. They are dirt cheap really. The merch, home media sales and box office will allow for another two John Carters all by themselves.

 

[Rocketman]

They rain money with Pixar and Marvel.

BUT, I don't think they're doing very well without Pixar and Marvel... which is why they probably own them in the first place.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It could happen to the majority of Hollywood. It won't happen to Disney.

Which only makes sense if you avoid what Disney is. They are far more then a film company. They have profit coming from more directions then most could imagine. Disney has been at this for a long, long time, and they have made money for a long, long time.

Exactly. Spielberg was talking about the film industry as a whole. BUT no other film industry has as many branches as Disney. The only that has similar branches is Universal and still I'm pretty sure Disney brings in more park-wise and merchandise-wise than Universal. Fox is going to sink because it's not as far spread. Disney's an empire in the way they have it set up. Basically due to the way it's set up - every other film company will fall before Disney falls, which in turn would just give Disney an even greater advantage from that.

First Fox is going to fall, then Sony is going to fall, then Universal is going to fall -- you'll still have Disney left and Disney being really the only one left will basically pass the ball in their favor.

 

[Rocketman]

You take those two little Plane movies. They are dirt cheap really. The merch, home media sales and box office will allow for another two John Carters all by themselves.

This is where I'm confused. If they're making all that money, is it then okay to make two more John Carters? Why is it okay to make more crappy movies that will flop because you have the money to do it? By that logic, with all their money, they could just make John Carter 2 and John Carter 3 and then we'll have an awesome trilogy of flops. Why the hell not?

See, this is my whole problem with Hollywood, and I'm befuddled by why anyone like you would support this or look at it in a positive light. We should be charging down hills in packs with torches demanding better movies.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You need to calm yourself down a little bit.

I haven't strayed from anything. I've stuck to what I think.

Flops = no money
Crappy movies = I won't see them

If someone makes a flop and I happen to like it, I don't really care if it flopped. But flops are usually not good movies. Rule of thumb: If the film is of high quality - people will usually respond to it. You've got your Fight Clubs and your Blade Runners, but that's not all the time.

Now, the opposite is the thing I'm concerned about. Crappy, awful movies raking in billions. That's my whole problem.

Why do you care if people enjoy what you consider to be "crappy movies"? How is that in anyway a problem? Not like movies you like will suddenly just stop existing or being made.

In this instance it is all about your enjoyment, your taste?

Did you like any of these movies? I liked about 4 of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

I found 10.

But lets consider Martin Scorsese for a moment.

Raging Bull cost $18 million, made $23 million.

The King of Comedy, cost $19 million, made $2.5 million.

The Last Temptation of Christ cost $7 million, made $8 million.

Goodfellas cost $25 million, made $46 million.

Just because something doesn't make the "Bombs" list, doesn't mean it didn't lose money. 3 great films up there, and another very good one. Didn't even cover budgets.

Raging Bull lost a lot of money. Raging Bull.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm pretty sure what Darth was getting at is it will allow them to continue to make movies they want to see regardless of what the box office is. Walt had a philosophy back in the day that he never cared about what the critics had to say or how the films performed at box office, he just wanted to make the films he wanted to see and everyone just happened to find them and love them years later. Disney was always on the brink of financial destruction. As the years passed, Disney became more and more successful but how films are made and how important the box office is changed too. And now they can continue taking risks with just the movies they want to see rather than being dictated by box office. They're big enough to go back to the "screw the critics, screw the box office, I just want to see this and I think some people will love them too" way of thinking about things which it seems Disney Pictures is more about these days - just making films they themselves want to see because their acquisitions are powerful enough to let them play around. I'd say that's an excellent thing because it's back in many ways to the experimental approach Walt had (other than a couple of his films, the critics were never on his side and many of them believe it or not flopped or disappointed at box office initially only later to go on to become CLASSICS), what other studio would put that level of money towards a huge sci-fi film and a huge western? These risks are ones that currently no other studio are making, so to me that's saying that they're going after the unexpected and it's creatively free like it used to be in the past. In my books, that's a really wonderful and amazing thing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

BUT, I don't think they're doing very well without Pixar and Marvel... which is why they probably own them in the first place.

The Pixar partnership started doing the Disney Renaissance. Pixar has never had a film released that wasn't released by Disney. They just made the deal permanent. The man who runs Pixar also runs Disney's animation studio.

This is where I'm confused. If they're making all that money, is it then okay to make two more John Carters? Why is it okay to make more crappy movies that will flop because you have the money to do it? By that logic, with all their money, they could just make John Carter 2 and John Carter 3 and then we'll have an awesome trilogy of flops. Why the hell not?

See, this is my whole problem with Hollywood, and I'm befuddled by why anyone like you would support this or look at it in a positive light. We should be charging down hills in packs with torches demanding better movies.

Personally, really liked John Carter. The lack of sequel, especially with that ending, kills me. But I love that they made and I love that they could afford to make it. It was a passion project for a man who has made them billions.

It is the same with Pacific Rim and The Lone Ranger. Loved The Lone Ranger and I am very excited for Pacific Rim. Both are probably going to end up being bad business. But for me, I don't care because they are movies I want to see.

That the companies who make those films can eat the cost is a good thing, not a bad one.

I'm pretty sure what Darth was getting at is it will allow them to continue to make movies they want to see regardless of what the box office is. Walt had a philosophy back in the day that he never cared about what the critics had to say or how the films performed at box office, he just wanted to make the films he wanted to see and everyone just happened to find them and love them years later. Disney was always on the brink of financial destruction. As the years passed, Disney became more and more successful but how films are made and how important the box office is changed too. And now they can continue taking risks with just the movies they want to see rather than being dictated by box office. They're big enough to go back to the "screw the critics, screw the box office, I just want to see this and I think some people will love them too" way of thinking about things which it seems Disney Pictures is more about these days - just making films they themselves want to see because their acquisitions are powerful enough to let them play around.

Yes, life is truly wonderful in the Magical Kingdom.

 

[Lord]

What the hell was even that bad about John Carter? People sometimes act as if it was a hollow studio film.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What the hell was even that bad about John Carter? People sometimes act as if it was a hollow studio film.

It didn't make money, and thus it was horrible? I don't know, I really like it and it was clearly a passion project from its director. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Rocketman]

in this instance it is all about your enjoyment, your taste?

Yes.

 

[Ultimatehero]

What the hell was even that bad about John Carter? People sometimes act as if it was a hollow studio film.

Yeah, it was a really great film. In modern times, I've never seen a movie like that before outside of Star Wars and Star Trek. And it was enjoyable. So they made an enjoyable film and took a huge risk due to its genre. The primary factor in that to me is - they took a risk, it is seriously hard to find a studio these days to do that.

Most of Hollywood would run the other direction when a sea-based or western-based film is brought up because they're deemed to be box office poison. No, Disney can charge right in and say they'll give it a shot. I just love that there's one studio out there that can and isn't afraid to take those risks. Especially since I'm the kind of writer who says screw the rules, screw the preconceptions, I want to see this because I think it's cool (!) and innovative and interesting and think others will too! So, creatively, to possibly have old-Disney back with Disney Pictures? To me? There couldn't be anything greater than that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes.

In which case you aren't discussing the topic at hand in the least. You are just complaining about Disney having money to do what they want.

 

[Lord]

It didn't make money, and thus it was horrible? I don't know, I really like it and it was clearly a passion project from its director. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, and it shows. I think it's a real shame there won't be a sequel, but if i remember correctly there was going to be a comic book sequel to the film.

 

[warhorse78]

I'm pretty sure what Darth was getting at is it will allow them to continue to make movies they want to see regardless of what the box office is. Walt had a philosophy back in the day that he never cared about what the critics had to say or how the films performed at box office, he just wanted to make the films he wanted to see and everyone just happened to find them and love them years later. Disney was always on the brink of financial destruction. As the years passed, Disney became more and more successful but how films are made and how important the box office is changed too. And now they can continue taking risks with just the movies they want to see rather than being dictated by box office. They're big enough to go back to the "screw the critics, screw the box office, I just want to see this and I think some people will love them too" way of thinking about things which it seems Disney Pictures is more about these days - just making films they themselves want to see because their acquisitions are powerful enough to let them play around. I'd say that's an excellent thing because it's back in many ways to the experimental approach Walt had (other than a couple of his films, the critics were never on his side and many of them believe it or not flopped or disappointed at box office initially only later to go on to become CLASSICS), what other studio would put that level of money towards a huge sci-fi film and a huge western? These risks are ones that currently no other studio are making, so to me that's saying that they're going after the unexpected and it's creatively free like it used to be in the past. In my books, that's a really wonderful and amazing thing.

I'm fine with this analogy. I also read somewhere, that despite not so great ratings, Disney, which owns ABC, has decided to renew Once Upon a Time, and I'm glad to see a broadcast studio to tell the nielsens to go f themselves. I hope they do it more and more, because it's a bit ridiculous that tv is dicated to by a 20,000 member monopoly.

 

[Rocketman]

I'm fine with this analogy. I also read somewhere, that despite not so great ratings, Disney, which owns ABC, has decided to renew Once Upon a Time, and I'm glad to see a broadcast studio to tell the nielsens to go f themselves. I hope they do it more and more, because it's a bit ridiculous that tv is dicated to by a 20,000 member monopoly.

I can't believe the Nielsen ratings even matter anymore. TV has changed so much in such a short period of time, it's impossible to understand who's watching what and how many. Netflix, Hulu, Crackle, XBOX, PS3, YouTube, Amazon, iTunes, and those are all the legal examples. We're not even talking about the "other" methods.

I don't even have cable. I have no channels on my television at all, yet I'm able to watch everything I want. It's crazy.

 

[warhorse78]

I can't believe the Nielsen ratings even matter anymore. TV has changed so much in such a short period of time, it's impossible to understand who's watching what and how many. Netflix, Hulu, Crackle, XBOX, PS3, YouTube, Amazon, iTunes, and those are all the legal examples. We're not even talking about the "other" methods.

I don't even have cable. I have no channels on my television at all, yet I'm able to watch everything I want. It's crazy.

I would think the closest way to tell the true popularity of something is with DVD sales. NCIS is always the number one scripted show according to nielsens, but that doesn't even crack the top 100 in DVD sales. It's mostly HBO stuff that's number one.

 

[mclay18]

See, this is my whole problem with Hollywood, and I'm befuddled by why anyone like you would support this or look at it in a positive light. We should be charging down hills in packs with torches demanding better movies.

Hollywood is just retreating into the reliable formula of sequels, remakes/reboots, or adaptations of previously existing materials. If anything, we need to demand Hollywood film more of those original scripts gathering dust on those various 'Black Lists'.

And they really need to stop spending pennies or sinking tons of money into properties that may not turn out a franchise. There needs to be more $20M-$75M films instead of the $1M-5M 'microbudget' and $150M-$250M 'tentpole' films we're being blitzed with.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I don't think you need to stop spending pennies on the more expensive films. They just need to stop relying on property after property after property. It's gotten to the point where as a writer even with contacts, I've just resigned to the fact that very little of my original work will get picked up and instead it will act as samples to place me onto an adaptation because largely - and unfortunately - that's how Hollywood is working now. If they like your original script, they buy you not the script and place you onto something to adapt. It's just... really tiring. And there are great expensive original films out there that can be tent-poles, it's just Hollywood isn't going for them.

 

[Lord]

To tell the truth adaptations were allways Hollywood's top priority, look at both the Godfather and Jaws, two of their most successful films of all time and they were based on books, most original works come from smaller scale directors, while studios give more successful directors the oportunity to try their oun things, as was the case of Inception, most Steven Spielperg films and James Cameron.

 

[SoulManX]

i don't think you need to stop spending pennies on the more expensive films. They just need to stop relying on property after property after property. It's gotten to the point where as a writer even with contacts, i've just resigned to the fact that very little of my original work will get picked up and instead it will act as samples to place me onto an adaptation because largely - and unfortunately - that's how hollywood is working now. If they like your original script, they buy you not the script and place you onto something to adapt. It's just... Really tiring. And there are great expensive original films out there that can be tent-poles, it's just hollywood isn't going for them.

 

[metaphysician]

The reason why its good that Disney can afford to make a John Carter or two? It allows them to take risks. They aren't making a John Carter expecting a flop, they are making it hoping for a big hit. And having the kind of resources to tolerate big flops like that, means they can take the risks.

 

[Hyde]

To tell the truth adaptations were allways Hollywood's top priority, look at both the Godfather and Jaws, two of their most successful films of all time and they were based on books, most original works come from smaller scale directors, while studios give more successful directors the oportunity to try their oun things, as was the case of Inception, most Steven Spielperg films and James Cameron.

.....Is it bad that I didn't know Jaws was based on a book?