my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » George Lucas: "The Blockbuster Is Dead" (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: George Lucas: "The Blockbuster Is Dead" Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 03-07-2006 10:36 AM                     From www.imdb.com daily headlines, 3/7/06 Lucas: "The Blockbuster Is Dead" Movie mogul George Lucas predicts Hollywood will soon start shifting away from mega-budget blockbusters in favor of making more independent films for less money. Alongside Steven Spielberg, Star Wars creator Lucas is cited as being chiefly responsible for the blockbuster phenomenon that has gripped the movie industry for the last three decades. But he now believes big-budget films can no longer be profitable and are going out of fashion, as evidenced by this year's Academy Award nominees, including independent movies Crash and Good Night, And Good Luck. Lucas tells the New York Daily News, "The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie. Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong. I think it's great that the major Oscar nominations have gone to independent films. Is that good for the business? No - it's bad for the business. But movie-making isn't about business. It's about art. In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies. I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million."  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-07-2006 10:57 AM                     Big movies are out of fashion? I have doubts. Sure, all the best picture nominees were lower budget movies. Lots of indie stuff dominated the Oscars. Before anyone can call that a new trend, consider the fact the Oscars telecast had much lower ratings than last year (2nd worst viewership in the last few decades). However, George Lucas could be right in the long term. I can see most movies costing only $15 million or less to be made once they're all MADE FOR TV movies. The issue of collapsing windows between theatrical and video release could kill off most movie theaters and make Hollywood a mere made for TV movies cottage industry subserviant to major broadcast networks. The increasing corporate trend to try to repackage old movie ideas as sequels, remakes, send ups, retoolings of TV, etc. is one terrible problem. The suits don't want to risk investing in new ideas. They stupidly think they can sell more of what' sold in the past. Now, lots of indie movies are great for being new and inventive. But most have very limited budgets for both production and marketing. Many also have very limited appeal. For every 1 indie flick that grosses $50 million or more in theaters, there's a good 100 or more that don't do squat. Most indie movies are lucky if they can get a second life on DVD or cable. Balance is really the key. Movie companies want to whine about high costs. But then they'll pay what passes for an A-list actor these days $30 million or more to star in a mediocre sequel. How about developing a good, new idea and using not quite as well known (and less expensive) talent?  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 03-07-2006 11:23 AM                     It looks like the "Easy Rider" syndrome from 1969. When this little film changed what the studios made. No longer were the Big Blockbuster films making them money anymore. The public's taste and the way they released films had changed they no longer went to those large musical films (Doctor Dolittle, Hello Dolly, Paint Your Wagon...). During that time smaller more independent films were being made by the studios and returning nice profits. There will always be Blockbusters and those tentpole type movies for the summer seasons. This all happened back in 1969 and look at all those Great films that came out in the 1970's to early 80's. The film maker changed what we saw and what the studio made. Today film making is by comittee and thats the major problem with film making of today. The independent film take us back to those early films of the 70's, when there was stories to tell and not these overloaded, overbudgeted products for the masses. Only time will tell. There are two good documentaries about this time in Hollywood. "A Decade Under the Influence" and "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" .  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 03-07-2006 11:32 AM                     Does anyone find it ironic that he says the big event movie is dead, but yet he's been involved with (produced directed written etc) 3 of them with huge budgets within the last 6 years or so? Oh yeah I forgot, he's independent.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-07-2006 12:49 PM                        Studio types say the same type of thing all the time, then they go right on producing huge expensive blockbusters when a couple of their small artsy films flop. Remember "Blair Witch Project?" The small, cheap, handheld-shot film was going to take over the world back then -- the blockbuster was dead, but somehow it came back to life. The key to lowering the cost of films is not paying someone like Tom Cruise $30 million. Pay an unknown guy $1 million and spend more money on a good-enough story that you don't need the "name" to draw a crowd. Did anyone go to "The Sixth Sense" because it had Bruce Willis in it?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 03-07-2006 02:22 PM                     ...or, we could go back to last year's sleeper, "Napoleon Dynamite" - less than half-million to make with an unknown cast and production team, shoot it to Sundance to advertise, FOX got interested in it and let their Seachlight division release it, grossed alomost 60 mil, shoot it to DVD and let it gross almost 110mil in sales. Not too bad for an indie "no-blockbuster" hit. Now, we have to see if "Superman" for this summer and "Spidey III" for next summer can hold their own. ..think Mel Gibson will go for "Lethal V" ? -Monte  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 03-07-2006 02:54 PM                        quote: Steve Scott I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million." Only if there's no payroll.  |  IP: Logged Brad Allen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 688 From: Evansville, IN, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-07-2006 03:26 PM                     Lucas is so full of himself. He's also the one that said we would all be showing movies via DLP long before now. Anything he says isn't even worth printing.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-07-2006 05:10 PM                     I often think of the old saying: "the more things change, the more they stay the same". Don't forget that the oscars have nothing to do with the public. They are the industry patting itself on the back. The oscars do not reflect what the public wants or likes. The only reason the oscars are even broadcast is that someone is making money on it.  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 03-07-2006 05:51 PM                     King Kong is going to lose money? It was dissapointing in the States but did very well overseas, last numbers I remember seeing were that it was going to do over 500 million worldwide. Add in the DVD, cable, ect and they probably made some dough.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-07-2006 05:56 PM                        Brad Allen, you are exactly right. Geo. Lucas no longer speaks for anyone other than himself; cedrtainly not for ant other part of the industry. Louis  |  IP: Logged David Favel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 764 From: Ashburton, New Zealand Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-07-2006 06:26 PM                     Oscar quote for me was... No-one ever looked at a shot and said, That'll look great on DVD.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-07-2006 06:34 PM                     The problem with King Kong is that it was a decent movie, but not a great movie. It didn't live up to the hype or live up to expectations audiences had of Peter Jackson matching the thrills of the LOTR trilogy. The movie will turn a decent profit. It's certainly no bomb. quote: Bill Gabel The independent film take us back to those early films of the 70's, when there was stories to tell and not these overloaded, overbudgeted products for the masses. Y'know something, I don't agree with that. Call me cynical, but I find the whole "indie film" scene extremely far from being "indie." Many of those outfits (Focus, Lions Gate, Fine Line, Miramax-Weinstein, etc.) are part or wholly owned by major studios and just as bound by corporate repackagings as anything. The indie film scene has a lot of its own conventions where many films have a disturbing sameness to them: You have the road trip movies. Nuff said. Then there's the high school coming of age movie with the "I'm a misfit but too cool for anyone" angle -sometimes thrown back 20 or 30 years to make old music fashionable again (and possibly to save money since it can be cheaper to get legal clearances of vintage music). Many low budget action movies seem to be ripping on Resevoir Dogs or The Usual Suspects or maybe Luc Besson. At least if they're ripping off people, thank God not many are copying John Woo (I'm not a fan of that guy's work). There's what I call the "Emmanuelle" kind of film where at least one or more characters use and hurt people and then try to justify it as though they are somehow more correct, smart and aware than everyone else. However, I haven't seen very many movies with that sort of rationale lately since Hollywood seems horribly scared of exposed titty nipples and female pubic hair. And there's others. I'm sure many here can think of more indie conventions to add to the list. My point with that is to warn the indie crowd about congratulating itself and thinking their current group is equal to the ground breaking films of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Sorry, but they're not.  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 03-07-2006 09:10 PM                        King Kong is perceived as a failure because it didn't become the biggest grossing movie of all time or have the biggest opening weekend, because we have become obsessed with numbers and "being #1", but it is far from a failure. One of the worst things that has happened to the movie business is the public's awareness of movie grosses. As of last week, Kong grossed $543 million worldwide in 11 weeks. Before completing its theatrical run, it will probably do close to $700 million. Then there's TV sales, cable sales and DVD sales. In the end, it will probably gross anywhere from $1 to $2 billion. I also hear people saying how Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire wasn't a complete success. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know if it was a good movie or not, but so far it's grossed $890 million worldwide. And Narnia has grossed over $666 million. These are not failures and it demonstrates that showing movies in theaters can still be a spectacular business. The problem is that expectations have risen to a level of complete unreality.  |  IP: Logged Wayne Keyser Master Film Handler Posts: 272 From: Arlington, Virginia, USA Registered: May 2004 posted 03-07-2006 10:19 PM                     OK, George, now that you've wrung the final dollar out of your STAR WARS (blockbuster) franchise, NOW "the blockbuster is dead." Or, as my Bible teacher used to say, "God, we're finally on the ark - you can start the rain now." That's just for those of you who hadn't ALREADY caught on the basic cynicism of Lucas's protestations about cinematic art, way back around RETURN OF THE JEDI.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.