Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[jmc]

They specifically mentioned that they think there's going to have to be fewer movies released in the future. I don't know how that wouldn't be referencing competition, specifically that more movies means that the studios are worse off.

And I think their idea of a few huge budgeted flops is not new, nor do I understand why they think it's new. We've had that this year, last year, and every single year that movies have existed. We've had movies like Cutthroat Island bankrupt an entire studio. We've lost many movies studios over the decades, and new ones have risen in their wake. That's not new, nor will it ever be new. That's business. Studios always run the risk of hurting themselves, and losing everything, but, contrary to what Spielberg and Lucas believe, that is something they have and will always contend with, and is not a new phenomenon. I think it's a mistake to take Lucas and Spielberg at their word simply because they are big names. True, Lucas is an insanely successful businessman on his own terms. That does not qualify them as experts on economics, and how businesses run.

It's also a little bit silly to ignore them at the same time. The difference is now we're at a time where Hollywood is going to have to fight to ensure people still want to see their movies due to the way people consume content nowadays. The current business model is unsustainable, the question is have all those billion dollar movies clouded judgement?

 

[hammerhedd11]

I don't think ignoring is right either, but neither is taking their word as gospel which, in this case, many have.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think studios need to take a closer look before they green light these projects. Christopher Nolan wants a bunch of money to make a dream project with Leonardo DiCaprio leading an all-star cast is a good investment. An animation director wanting a big budget to film a movie based off a hundred year old novel that nobody remembers starring Taylor Kitsch is not.

We don't even need to see the final product to know the former is far more likely to pay off than the latter.

Sure there are projects that sound promising but fail, but there are far too many Battleships out there that never had any chance and should never have been made.

 

[Rocketman]

Fewer movies (Hollywood could probably cut their releases in HALF).

Smaller budgets.

Better scripts. BETTER SCRIPTS.

More original material.

Fewer franchises.

Problem solved.

 

[Rocketman]

I think studios need to take a closer look before they green light these projects. Christopher Nolan wants a bunch of money to make a dream project with Leonardo DiCaprio leading an all-star cast is a good investment. An animation director wanting a big budget to film a movie based off a hundred year old novel that nobody remembers starring Taylor Kitsch is not.

We don't even need to see the final product to know the former is far more likely to pay off than the latter.

Sure there are projects that sound promising but fail, but there are far too many Battleships out there that never had any chance and should never have been made.

Agreed 100%.

The most obvious, glaring examples are immediately:

John Carter
The Lone Ranger
Prince of Persia
Battleship
After Earth


^ The combined budgets of these 5 movies would cure cancer. I'm not kidding. I'm not.

 

[MrMaooz]

Fewer movies (Hollywood could probably cut their releases in HALF).

Smaller budgets.

Better scripts. BETTER SCRIPTS.

More original material.

Fewer franchises.

Problem solved.

 

[Rocketman]

Yeah, god forbid better writing.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Fewer movies (Hollywood could probably cut their releases in HALF).

Smaller budgets.

Better scripts. BETTER SCRIPTS.

More original material.

Fewer franchises.

Problem solved.

Gotta disagree with that one. Torpedoing successful franchises like The Avengers or James Bond would be beyond stupid for their respective studios.

For the most part you are right. Fewer releases, lower budgets for those non-can't miss franchises, and better scripts.

As for originality, I agree in the sense that 'original' films need to be more unique as opposed to a cheap imitation of more successful films, not in discontinuing successful franchises. Making Hunger Games sequels given the success of the original is a good thing. Making a bunch of Hunger Games clones under other names is not.

 

[jmc]

Gotta disagree with that one. Torpedoing successful franchises like The Avengers or James Bond would be beyond stupid for their respective studios.

Half of the problem is them trying to create a franchise. The studios are trying so hard to find a steady income from one or two particular film series instead of just making good movies. The old mentality was if a movie was successful then a sequel would get made a couple years later, now studios are planning 2-3 movies ahead which more often than not screws up the film at hand. A film series should evolve naturally, it should be forced upon us.

 

[Octoberist]

It's true. Any sort of genre film (outside of thrillers) are now franchises. It's a miracle that films like Inception or Gravity made it through the gates.

 

[Octoberist]

Fewer movies (Hollywood could probably cut their releases in HALF).

Smaller budgets.

Better scripts. BETTER SCRIPTS.

More original material.

Fewer franchises.

Problem solved.

Chris Hardwicke on Nerdist once said that the problem with Hollywood is usually middle management. That's mostly dealing creative execs who are scared of losing their jobs so they tend to play it safe...and they'll water down a spec script if need be.

But his theory is that, if you cut them out and presented your project as intended (without the studio notes, without all the cooks in the kitchen) to the Studio Head, they'll greenlight it right away.

The thing that is challenging the system is just the internet in general. And it will change, but it'll be a slow ass process. The problem with this change is the potential loss of money and jobs. But if things don't change, I suppose they'll fall behind hard.

What do I know?

 

[dude stannis]

Jobs of the middle management guys? Seems like a good thing. They'd probably all find their feet in advertising/marketing anyway.

 

[Octoberist]

The problem is that it's a system that has been in place for a long time, so I can understand their unwillingness to change. They'll take a hit for sure...but they'll have to eventually.

But things are getting outdated. Like for example, the Neilsen Ratings board is so archaic in how to measure anything in this day and age.

I mean, look at TV. To me, it's a growing landscape that has so much good stuff going on. Stuff like Breaking Bad is almost mimicking a storytelling style that a mainstream film from the 70's had. Of course, you're dealing with hundreds of channels and lower investments than a Hollywood tentpole, so they can get away with certain things.

 

[Lord]

Half of the problem is them trying to create a franchise. The studios are trying so hard to find a steady income from one or two particular film series instead of just making good movies. The old mentality was if a movie was successful then a sequel would get made a couple years later, now studios are planning 2-3 movies ahead which more often than not screws up the film at hand. A film series should evolve naturally, it should be forced upon us.

I tried to say that about the MCU in one thread, most said i was crazy by saying it

That process has actually been done before this whole system, the James Bond films were Basically ready to be filmed (or had already been filmed in some cases) right before the previous one came out, and they even advertised each other.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Fewer movies (Hollywood could probably cut their releases in HALF).

I'm not sure why this is a desirable goal for anyone. For the audience I know I'd rather have more to choose from in terms of films to see. If we're talking about better business practices for movie studios, this idea would be directly the opposite of what we'd want either. It'd be exactly the same principle as studios of the '70s blockbuster boom after Star Wars; instead of a lot of mid-range budgeted features, studios would focus on a few big budget blockbusters. In terms of risk, this would fall directly in line with what Lucas and Spielberg warn of, that of studios hedging their bets on a few astronomically budgeted blockbusters.

 

[Mr.M]

I would move these lesser known properties to the cable networks if they can be produced at a manageable fee. You can't really put the heavier CGI stuff on the TV networks. Other than that, I don't see what can be done. Buy rights to intellectual properties and treat them with care. I think adaptations of recent works without the creative force behind them are at a severe disadvantage. You want to build off the fanbase, and many authors these days are looking for big bang for their buck (see Game of Thrones).

As far as tentpoles, unless you have the right people in place, or it is a sure fire property, it's going to be a risky proposition any way you cut it. Sticking to remakes and sequels is the safe play, sometimes the only play. There are only a handful of directors that are going to take on something truly unique. For every Nolan, you have another ten hacks like Sommers, Wiseman, Mark S. Johnson, Shamylan, etc.

I still think we are far from the day that studios will charge different prices for different films. You simply have to cut content and produce more quality. But mainstream movies aren't going away any time soon.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Fewer movies (Hollywood could probably cut their releases in HALF).

Smaller budgets.

Better scripts. BETTER SCRIPTS.

More original material.

Fewer franchises.

Problem solved.

Yeah, I was wondering if they'd have to make better movies instead of big noisy vapid ones.

 

[Wheels]

Countdown to 2015.

 

[jmc]

I tried to say that about the MCU in one thread, most said i was crazy by saying it

That process has actually been done before this whole system, the James Bond films were Basically ready to be filmed (or had already been filmed in some cases) right before the previous one came out, and they even advertised each other.

Where I think Bond has differed is that the series has always been very much episodic compared to other movies series. The Bond franchise has never made a big deal about continuity or connecting films, in fact the first and only direct sequel to a Bond film happened recently with Quantum of Solace. Bond's longevity comes from that episodic treatment of the character.

 

[Lord]

Where I think Bond has differed is that the series has always been very much episodic compared to other movies series. The Bond franchise has never made a big deal about continuity or connecting films, in fact the first and only direct sequel to a Bond film happened recently with Quantum of Solace. Bond's longevity comes from that episodic treatment of the character.

Actually it's not the first time, the first seven films (with the exception of Goldfinger) were indeed connected and sequels to each other, dealing with the SPECTRE storyline, otherwise Blofeld would have been caught as soon as in From Russie With Love and Dr No would have signaled the end of Spectre itself. The begining of Diamonds are Forever also seemed like the aftermath of In Her Majesty's secret Service with Bond's quest for Blofeld looking very personal.

I think studios need to take a closer look before they green light these projects. Christopher Nolan wants a bunch of money to make a dream project with Leonardo DiCaprio leading an all-star cast is a good investment. An animation director wanting a big budget to film a movie based off a hundred year old novel that nobody remembers starring Taylor Kitsch is not.

We don't even need to see the final product to know the former is far more likely to pay off than the latter.

Sure there are projects that sound promising but fail, but there are far too many Battleships out there that never had any chance and should never have been made.

In that case Star Wars and Lord of the Rings wouldn't have been made, even Avatar and Titanic (the highest grossing films of all time) had as leads actors who weren't such big names, Leo was relativelly popular and rising in popularity, but not the kind you would put in such a big project like that. What you're asking is for studios to be even safer than they are right now. Sure John Carter and The Lone Ranger seemed like they were going to bomb, but let's not Forget why Disney gave those projects a go, to reward the minds who wanted those films to be made in the first place, Johny Depp and Andrew Stanton. To me it just shows that Disney can afford to take risks and reward those who have worked hard for them.

I like Nolan films, but when it comes to casting he just goes with already extablished actors who will surelly pull their roles, it's rare for him to take a noname with talent, even with Heath Ledger the actor already had a varied resume.

 

[jmc]

Actually it's not the first time, the first seven films (with the exception of Goldfinger) were indeed connected and sequels to each other, dealing with the SPECTRE storyline, otherwise Blofeld would have been caught as soon as in From Russie With Love and Dr No would have signaled the end of Spectre itself. The begining of Diamonds are Forever also seemed like the aftermath of In Her Majesty's secret Service with Bond's quest for Blofeld looking very personal.

Dude, come on, those first seven were loosely connected to one and other at best, the stories were never interconnected in any great way with the lone exception being the beginning of Diamonds are Forever. The fact still remains that the series is and has been episodic in its nature since day one which is vastly different to how movie franchises are made these days. You will never find any self respecting Bond fan call any of the next 6 films after Dr No as sequels.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

From Russia with Love is just as much a direct sequel to Dr. No as Quantum of Solace is to Casino Royale. SPECTRE's whole plot in FRWL is to get revenge on Bond for what he does in DN. IT builds off of DN in the same way QoS builds off of CR.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

In that case Star Wars and Lord of the Rings wouldn't have been made, even Avatar and Titanic (the highest grossing films of all time) had as leads actors who weren't such big names, Leo was relativelly popular and rising in popularity, but not the kind you would put in such a big project like that. What you're asking is for studios to be even safer than they are right now. Sure John Carter and The Lone Ranger seemed like they were going to bomb, but let's not Forget why Disney gave those projects a go, to reward the minds who wanted those films to be made in the first place, Johny Depp and Andrew Stanton. To me it just shows that Disney can afford to take risks and reward those who have worked hard for them.

Avatar and Titanic both had interesting concepts with a big name attached (James Cameron). Star Wars as already explained, did not have a gigantic budget so it doesn't fit. The Lord of the Rings (unlike John Carter) was based of a book that was still hugely popular, especially among the nerd set.

Not the same thing. John Carter had no chance without a big name attached, and other films have borrowed so much from it that it was no longer original. Lone Ranger did have a big name, and I can kind of see some potential there after the success of POTC, but POTC itself is on the decline and the script has so many major problems that they were in no way ready to start filming. And seriously, how many people here when they first heard of The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp as Tonto thought it was a good idea? Probably not many. Some things are just common sense.

 

[Lord]

Yeah John Carter was no longer original due to so many films having borrowed from it, which is almost criminal, but the film itself was a prize to the director for giving them so many successes, he deserved it, and while it didn't make much money he still did a good job with the film.

Star Wars's budget wasn't gigantic but it was still relativelly big and a huge risk, at the time there weren't as many giang budgeted films like we have today but for the time it was still a lot of money, not as much Superman for example but still a risk, and just like with John Carter's director it was almost a reward to Lucas for the money he got them with American Gaffiti.

The Nerd set isn't exactly the whole public and a fantasy film then was a huge risk, let alone making 3 in a row shot back to back, based on a trilogy of novels considered unadaptable, and directed by a cheesy horror films director, if the studios were that careful they would have dropped Jackson, put stars and a bigger name director, and just film the first film, but we have that amazing trilogy because a studio took a risk, it wasn't the first time and it better not be the last time.

And Titanic and Avatar? Both were expected to make the studio lose money, and Disney is arguably a bigger name than James Cameron.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm not saying not to take risks, but to take reasonable risks.

Star Wars was a favor to Lucas, but even if it flopped it wouldn't have been that big a deal because the budget wasn't enormous. Not like The Lone Ranger.

Lord of the Rings was a risk, but it also had a ton of potential. Nothing like that had ever been done before and as I said Lord of the Rings was a marketable franchise.

Avatar and Titanic only got into potential problems because James Cameron spent money like a drunken sailor. Those were production problems, not concept problems.