Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[Tanin]

an obvious joke.

As much as everyone says he uses lens flares I thought it'd have to be that bad.

 

[Snow Queen]

I like J.J but i didn't really want to see him do Episode VII because i don't want Star Wars to look like this

Good thing it won't, there won't be any people on the internet editing the final print to make a point.

Spoiler

 

[jmc]

Brad Bird didn't direct John Carter. It was Andrew Stanton, of Nemo and Wall-E fame.

What are we talking about here? The company has made Tangled, Wreck-it Ralph, Winnie the Pooh, John Carter and the Lone Ranger the last 4 years. The have Frozen coming out at the end of the year. I personally think they are doing great.

And the point stands. Critics and those that think themselves critics in the general audience in the here and now might not like those films. But the same applies to a lot of Disney films in the past. Many now revered as classics.

Disney will always be fine with animation, but they are kidding themselves if they think their name in live action movies isn't in bad shape. The reason they purchase Marvel and Lucasfilm is because they were missing that important 18-30 demographic. They struck gold with Pirates and have been trying to recapture that magic ever since and all that's resulted is a string of failures or disappointments that don't lead anywhere.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Disney will always be fine with animation, but they are kidding themselves if they think their name in live action movies isn't in bad shape. The reason they purchase Marvel and Lucasfilm is because they were missing that important 18-30 demographic. They struck gold with Pirates and have been trying to recapture that magic ever since and all that's resulted is a string of failures or disappointments that don't lead anywhere.

That have never been strong at live action in general. Though I have found a couple of those "disappointments" in John Carter and the Lone Ranger to be films I really enjoy, or in the Lone Rangers case love.

 

[jmc]

That have never been strong at live action in general. Though I have found a couple of those ''disappointments'' in John Carter and the Lone Ranger to be films I really enjoy, or in the Lone Rangers case love.

Whilst that is true capturing the bottle that was Pirates changed things a lot. I dare say without Pirates there's no way Disney buys Lucasfilm.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Whilst that is true capturing the bottle that was Pirates changed things a lot. I dare say without Pirates there's no way Disney buys Lucasfilm.

Why? In what way to they correlate?

Disney doesn't make most of its money from the box office of their films. They make it from television, their theme parks and the merchandise they sell from all their properties. Star Wars is one of the greatest merchandise franchises there has ever been. They have had theme park rides based off Star Wars and Indy for years now.

 

[jmc]

I understand where the company get it's money from, but Star Wars and Marvel filled in that demographic that Disney was missing. It had kids, preteens in their pocket, but they were missing that all important 18-30 demographic, especially the male demographic. Pirates was a flash in a pan that hit that demographic unexpectedly.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I understand where the company get it's money from, but Star Wars and Marvel filled in that demographic that Disney was missing. It had kids, preteens in their pocket, but they were missing that all important 18-30 demographic, especially the male demographic. Pirates was a flash in a pan that hit that demographic unexpectedly.

But how does that mean they bought Stars and Marvel because of Pirates?

 

[Solidus]

Well it kinda does. Pirates was their first PG-13 movie, and I remember hearing that internally there was lots of controversy over that. Some felt they could still be Disney and go into a more young-adult audience with Pirates, while others thought that Disney simply meant young family fun and that Pirates would ruin their family friendly image. Pirates was a gamble for them, and their name/reputation, it did beyond wild expectations, so Disney realized it is plausible to keep the Disney reputation and younger family stuff still intact and doing well while doing young-adult stuff. Sometimes that can ruin a message/image of a company, it was a risk, but it did work in their favor, so they have really expanded that now.

 

[jmc]

But how does that mean they bought Stars and Marvel because of Pirates?

Because Pirates opened a new demographic for them. They've been trying to emulate the success of Pirates ever since with no success. The only other film aiming for the same demographic to garner a sequel has been National Treasure. Look at their list of failures and under-performers - Prince of Persia, Lone Ranger, Tron Legacy, Sorcerer's Apprentice, John Carter, these are all attempts to capture the same demographic as Pirates and Disney has failed at each attempt. They couldn't emulate the success so they did the next best thing, purchased other production houses who have been successful at those demographics, which is the same thing they did with Pixar. Pixar was the only thing keeping Disney's animation success going, had Pixar left which almost happened due to Steve Jobs having issues with getting Pixar a fairer deal Disney animation would have been in a crap load of trouble because their animation department was well and truly on the decline.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm with JMC. He knows his stuff!

 

[jmc]

I've kinda read an absurd amount regarding Disney, Apple, Pixar and Steve Jobs. lol.

 

[:eek:]

"Star Wars: Ep. VII" To Make 1.2 Billion?

By Garth Franklin Tuesday July 9th 2013 11:19AM
Talk about getting your predictions in early.
Despite it being revealed that "The Lone Ranger" was going to lose $150-190 million for Disney yesterday, the studio's stock price actually went up 1%.
Why is that? It's apparently all due to J.J. Abrams "Star Wars: Episode VII". Variety reports that, even though we're two years out, some fairly specific estimates have been issued regarding the profitability of the new film.
Credit Suisse’s Michael Senno says he expects Disney to generate around $733 million in profits and $1.2 billion in global theatrical receipts. That's just for this first film on its own.
It's also expected to make a bundle on consumer products and other tie-in revenue which will lift the stock to a new target price of $74 (it reached $64.66 yesterday).

 

[:eek:]

PACIFIC RIM: ANOTHER MEGAMILLION-DOLLAR FLOP?

July 10, 2013

That cloud of dust kicked up last weekend by the great horse Silver may now cloud the opening of another megabudget film, Pacific Rim, which opens on Friday. With several analysts suggesting that audiences are becoming inured to multimillion-dollar special effects, the latest $200-million blockbuster, featuring a plethora of digitally created robots and monsters, may open with as little as $25-35 million, according to Daily Variety. Early reviews have been decidedly mixed. Joe Neumaier in the New York Daily News suggests that nine-year-old boys might “go crazy” for the robots and sea monsters in the movie, but if you’re “old enough to buy alcohol, Rim will “likely be as gripping as watching a Transformer toy battle in a bathtub with a rubber dinosaur.” Rex Reed in the New York Observer wasn’t even impressed by the film’s costly special effects. “I suppose some effort should be made to extend at least a one-star rating for computer graphics, since that is all this incredible waste of time and money is about,” he wrote, “but even the special effects are cheesy and stupid.” But Lou Lumenick awarded four stars to the movie in the New York Post, commenting, “This ultimate geekfest will remind you of at least two dozen earlier movies. And I loved, loved every second.” And Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune concluded: “It’s noisy, overscaled fun, this picture, and now and then a little poetry sneaks in to tantalize.”

 

[Hyde]

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.

-After Earth
-White House Down
-The Lone Ranger
-Pacific Rim
-RIPD

 

[:eek:]

Viacom CEO Says Flood Of Summer Tentpoles Hurt Film Profits

Philippe Dauman jumped on the bandwagon of media execs lamenting the oversupply of big budget films competing with each other this summer. http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp...1/Philippe-Dauman-head-shot__120131213247.jpgAlthough he told analysts this morning that Viacom will see “significant profitability” in the current quarter from its recent films which include Star Trek Into Darkness and World War Z, the numbers will be lower than execs expected. “This summer had a particularly high volume of tentpole pictures from all the studios combined,” he said. That’s a problem: “We hope to drive the viewing of tentpoles for a longer period of time, and the crowded schedule limited a lot of pictures — ours included.” He assured analysts that it’s “not going to happen every year.” DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg made a similar point this week to explain the disappointing performance of his film Turbo. This summer included 50% more tentpole releases than in the same period last year, he said. What’s more, “we’ve seen more animation this summer by about 100% than we’ve ever seen before.”

 

[Teelie]

The concern is spreading. And with several prominent flops/bombs/underperformers already this summer, it looks like this is going to only get worse the more they pump money into excessively large budgeted movies.

 

[Lord]

He's talking about this year having too many high profile movies, then he would take a better look at 2015, any film trying to be different that summer will be canibalised by the likes of Star Wars, World's Finest and Avengers 2

 

[Teelie]

And in turn their profits will be harmed by the other giant tentpoles coming out too. Imagine the money any one of these could make if they had no other large-budget competition like this? There are so many of them now that people aren't seeing them all.

I would but I don't have the time, the money or the inclination to sit in a theater with a bunch of other people where the odds are at least one or two will have a mobile phone lighting up the room, people talking loudly and not about the movie more often than not (or fussy babies/children) and of course finding a place to sit that is optimal.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't know, maybe the theaters here in St. Louis are just chill as hell but I never have many problems going to the theater, as I do on an almost weekly basis. Tickets in St. Louis are certainly cheaper than in most other cities though.

 

[Teelie]

Cost is only one factor. There's also the free time to go see movies. The more you have work, school, children, other obligations, etc. the less there is to go see movies in a theater.

I could go two or three times on a weekend but that quickly adds up in money I can spend elsewhere, and I can also wait for these movies to come out on Netflix where I can watch 6-8 times the movies I'd get for the cost of one movie ticket in a month. More if they are streaming instead.

All kinds of factors are going into this including blockbuster burnout. So many blockbuster movies, so little time to see them all and feeling bombarded by them you get tired of the next over-hyped movie(s) of the week.

 

[warhorse78]

Well, I know one of the reasons why I am not enjoying the movies no more. My local theaters have decided to put in these D box seats, and they stick them in the 2 best rows in the theaters. That's annoying enough. Then there is the texting that is going on that is my biggest pet peeve.

 

[:eek:]

http://www.thewrap.com/response-ste...onse-steven-spielberg-george-lucas-guest-blog

 

[MrMaooz]

What's funny though is that Spielberg and Lucas started this whole thing.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

What's funny though is that Spielberg and Lucas started this whole thing.

More like the imitators trying to leech off of their success. Spielberg did let the budget of Jaws get out of control, but he's never had the same difficulties since. Star Wars was in no way a big budget film.

But then every studio had to have their own Star Wars and they started spending a ton to try and get it. Now you have a bunch of terrible (and terribly expensive) blockbusters each summer and most of them bomb.