|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Steven Spielberg Predicts Implosion
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 06-12-2013 11:10 PM
The following is from The Hollywood Reporter
quote:
Steven Spielberg Predicts "Implosion" of Film Industry
2:55 PM PDT 6/12/2013 by Paul Bond
George Lucas echoed Spielberg's sentiments at an event touting the opening of a new USC School of Cinematic Arts building, saying big changes are in store.
Steven Spielberg on Wednesday predicted an "implosion" in the film industry is inevitable, whereby a half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.
The two legendary filmmakers, along with CNBC anchor Julia Boorstin and Microsoft president of interactive entertainment business Don Mattrick, were speaking at the University of Southern California as part of the festivities surrounding the official opening of the Interactive Media Building, three stories high and part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts.
Lucas and Spielberg told USC students that they are learning about the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters. Some ideas from young filmmakers "are too fringe-y for the movies," Spielberg said. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. 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."
Lucas lamented the high cost of marketing movies and the urge to make them for the masses while ignoring niche audiences. He called cable television "much more adventurous" than film nowadays.
"I think eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television," Lucas said. "As mine almost was," Spielberg interjected. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close."
"We're talking Lincoln and Red Tails -- we barely got them into theaters. You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater," Lucas said. "I got more people into Lincoln than you got into Red Tails," Spielberg joked.
Spielberg added that he had to co-own his own studio in order to get Lincoln into theaters.
"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," Lucas said.
Mattrick and Spielberg also praised Netflix, prompting Boorstin to ask Spielberg if he planned to make original content for the Internet streamer. "I have nothing to announce," said the director.
Lucas and Spielberg also spoke of vast differences between filmmaking and video games because the latter hasn't been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters. Which isn't to say the two worlds aren't connected. Spielberg, in fact, has teamed with Microsoft to make a "TV" show for Xbox 360 based on the game Halo and he is making a movie based on the Electronic Arts game Need for Speed.
And the following is from The Atlantic Wire
quote:
Steven Spielberg, Struggling Filmmaker
ABBY OHLHEISER JUN 12, 2013
Of all the people to sound the alarm on the decline and fall of the film industry, Steven Spielberg might seem like an improbable choice. But the director, speaking with George Lucas at a ceremony celebrating the opening of a new building at University of Southern California's film school, said that an "implosion" of his industry is inevitable.
Case in point, for him: Lincoln, which was a commercial and critical success, was apparently almost an HBO exclusive. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close," he said in response to Lucas's comment that "eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television." Spielberg, he said, only got the film into theaters in the first place because he basically owns his own infrastructure.
As documented by the Hollywood Reporter, Lucas added, "You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater."
Spielberg's advice for the aspiring USC filmmakers was, well, straight out of a disaster film script:
"Eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. 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."
That scenario, presumably, leaves established directors like Lucas and Spielberg to fight for their creative lives in a new and unforgiving world. But here's the thing: even as Lucas and Spielberg lamented the fall of their industry, they made a good case for more or less ignoring the demarkations between traditionally different forms of digital media — television, the internet (i.e. Netflix, which Spielberg specifically praised), and even video games, which both Lucas and Spielberg have dabbled in. An example: while lamenting that his industry doesn't take to kindly to riskier work these days, Lucas called cable television audiences "much more adventurous." So while the big coming implosion will be a big deal to the industry itself, it's less clear what the two famous filmmakers think it means for the people who just want to watch their work.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-13-2013 03:21 PM
The comment about video games is really off topic. Comparing movies to video games is pretty silly since both mediums are so extremely different. Watching movies is a passive form of entertainment. Video games are interactive. I happen to prefer video games that are as light on story as possible. I just want to launch the game and start blowing up shit. I can do without a 3 minute "cinematic" intro getting in the way of my trigger happy fun.
Regarding the actual topic, I'm surprised a lot of movie-makers (they're hardly film-makers anymore) haven't sounded the alarm about this situation earlier. It's easy for anyone to see the potential of the movie theater business being changed radically and changed for the worse.
Premium cable has offered more creative freedom for writers, actors & directors than Hollywood movies has for perhaps more than a decade. They can explore more kinds of subject matter and they can push the boundaries a lot harder than they can in the Hollywood 2-hour movie format. There is a LOT of stuff on premium cable that would get a NC-17 rating if shown in a Hollywood movie. We're not just talking simulated sex scenes either. Some of the violence in the Starz series Spartacus is more graphic than anything I've seen in a theatrical release.
Entertainers on cable are not bound by the 2 hour limit. Granted, they don't have $200 million production budgets and $100 million marketing budgets. However, technology is allowing a lot of TV shows to get far more elaborate than they've been in the past.
I doubt if the cable networks, at least not the premium networks, are worried about viewers watching shows at a specific time. Millions of viewers have DVRs. Or they watch shows online via streaming services like HBO GO. Or they get other streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. and catch up on series TV that way. This is allowing writers and directors to create shows of any length, be it a 2 hour movie or a mini-series that runs however many parts needed.
Conventional Hollywood movies are becoming increasingly stale. Viewers are already sick and tired of endless sequels, remakes and ports from other story sources (TV shows, comic books, video games, etc.). Because so much money is being invested in these movie productions via Wall Street investor demands will only force Hollywood movies to become even more stale. It's pretty damned bad if an original major production from a proven filmmaker can be called risky. Inception is one very good example of this. Not a sequel. Not based on any previous work. But it's from a very good film-maker with a proven track record of making good or great movies. And yet it's still seen as "risky."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Compound the investor-forced stale-ness with the limits the MPAA throws up at movie-makers. The only thing Hollywood movies have over cable movies and mini-series is the production budget. That's all.
Movie theaters are going to force conventional 2-hour Hollywood movies to work more and more as amusement park rides loaded with ridiculous action rather than tell a real story. Theaters are shifting more and more to a higher priced, premium theater experience. They'll top load new releases on these theater screens and allow the standard priced auditoriums to grow cob webs. It won't be long before we see new multiplex theaters built with only premium priced auditoriums. And they may only need to do that before long if Wall Street investors force "risky" original movies not based on a previous source out of theaters and to other platforms (cable, online streaming, etc.)
Let's not forget about the never ending push from some in Hollywood to release movies into theaters and on home video at the same time. That'll go over really well. A customer can look at paying $20 to see the movie in fake IMAX or pay $20 to buy the Blu-ray (or $2 to rent it).
The feature movie business and commercial movie theater business is poised to shrink to a far smaller size.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-13-2013 03:42 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
They should not speak of things which they do not know.
I said on Facebook about this same article, that Spielberg and Lucas should leave the exhibition business to the people who run it. They know NOTHING about it and they don't really seem to care how it works.
Spielberg's Lincoln movie would have been on HBO if they had ponied up enough money for it. He's no idiot; he knew it would be fine as a theatrical release so that's where it went. Any studio would have been happy to release that movie. Historical dramas often do quite well when promoted properly, and that movie was a masterpiece of marketing to its intended audience. Disney hit that out of the park.
Lucas, meanwhile, is still pouting about the relative flop of "Red Tails," a movie about a little-known event, with a low-budget cast, an unknown director, cheesy special effects and bad writing. The ONLY reason that thing wasn't direct-to-The-History-Channel is because it had George Lucas's name on it as a producer. If it had actually been good, any filmmaker would have been able to get it into theaters. As it was, even the war-film buffs around here said it was "OK, not great."
They make it sound like all the studios are interested in is action blockbusters, while in reality that's just not true. A lot of critics considered last year to be a very good year for movies, and ticket sales were actually up over the previous year...apparently they forgot about that.
These guys should just concentrate on making good movies and let us exhibitors show them. If they stay out of our business we will stay out of theirs (although we might have to reserve the right to bitch about Star Wars edits, re-releases etc.).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-13-2013 06:12 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The comment about video games is really off topic. Comparing movies to video games is pretty silly since both mediums are so extremely different. Watching movies is a passive form of entertainment. Video games are interactive. I happen to prefer video games that are as light on story as possible. I just want to launch the game and start blowing up shit. I can do without a 3 minute "cinematic" intro getting in the way of my trigger happy fun.
Well, kudos go to Valve on this one (known for e.g. the Half Life and Portal series)... They happen to be able to combine story and gameplay into one package and mostly get along without that cinematic intro.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I doubt if the cable networks, at least not the premium networks, are worried about viewers watching shows at a specific time. Millions of viewers have DVRs. Or they watch shows online via streaming services like HBO GO. Or they get other streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. and catch up on series TV that way. This is allowing writers and directors to create shows of any length, be it a 2 hour movie or a mini-series that runs however many parts needed.
While a fully featured multi-season series is not suited for cinema presentation, why would it not work for a mini-series that can be roughly divided into 2-hour chunks?
Digital production and distribution actually has made the cinema a much more attractive target for lower budget and independent productions, it's a shame its full potention is not being used here.
quote: Aaron Garman
I've had this discussion with others as to when films started really getting bad. Sure, Jaws and Star Wars kicked off this new age we live in today, but many films throughout the 80s and 90s were still pretty awesome.
My girlfriend told me the other day that the music in the 90s and "nillies" (or whatever it's called) was so much better than the shit they produce today. The day after the other day she started to go trough the hitlists of all those years, going "way back" to the 80s. She concluded that the shit-to-good ratio has remained pretty much consistent over all those years. I'm pretty sure that's no different for movies.
Time heals all wounds... You just happen to forget all the shit you've encountered in the past.
quote: Aaron Garman
Was it the Phantom Menace? The Matrix? Perhaps even X-Men, which kicked off the comic book craze after Batman and Robin nearly killed it.
Maybe I missed something, but what's the connection between Phantom Menace, The Matrix and "the comic book craze"? Neither Phantom Menace nor The Matrix started as a comic.
quote: Aaron Garman
Or maybe it was the Internet that killed Hollywood as we knew it...
Hollywood as we knew it has been killed many times before, but like many zombies (especially those from Hollywood), it is very hard to eradicate.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 889
From: Freehold, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-13-2013 06:48 PM
Since my exit from the industry a little over a year ago, I have had time to watch the HBO, Showtime, etc. fare. A lot of it is damned good entertainment. Many of the mini series (Game of Thrones, Borgias, Homeland, Boardwalk Empire to name just a few) are very well written, with great acting.
Compared to what has been in theaters in terms of product, I find it superior for the most part.
I have to agree with Spielberg. And, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for exhibitors to get by. In years past, studios treated exhibitors as partners. Not any more.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 06-14-2013 10:05 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe I missed something, but what's the connection between Phantom Menace, The Matrix and "the comic book craze"? Neither Phantom Menace nor The Matrix started as a comic.
No. I was trying to pinpoint a tentpole blockbuster that inspired many and began another trend in Hollywood. Star Wars in 77 sure did that. Everyone still wants to be Star Wars.
One could argue that visual effects were ramping up in the 90s, still blending it with traditional film making techniques (see True Lies, Terminator 2, even Jurassic Park) but the Phantom Menace went berserk on the use of digital, as did each prequel. It was almost proof of concept for many. Bad writing, actors doing it all in front of green screen, and loads of digital effects. Phantom Menace was the first film I can remember that did that AND had a lot of success. The trend continues today.
The Matrix I think got it right: excellent story and acting, some traditional filmmaking technique, and a heavy but effective use of digital effects. It also, if I remember, came out of relative nowhere and had huge success.
As for X-men, it wasn't the best film ever, but it had all the elements of the modern comic book movie. Some camp but not Batman and Robin camp. Some darkness but not the Dark Knight darkness. Had decent effects. A large, relatively well known cast. It was also Marvel's first truly successful comic book movie. In the next few years we got Spider-Man, Hulk, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and of course all the Avengers related films. You could even say Blade kicked it off. But Blade was no Stan Lee derived work like the rest of those were.
Maybe we're living in the age of Stan Lee...
AJG
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 06-14-2013 12:05 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
There are big differences between that list of movies and movies released today. Even though a good number of the titles are forgettable crap, there's only one sequel among that list, Jaws 2. None of those movies are remakes, blow-ups of TV shows or other forms of movie-making where the movie is lifted from another source.
Well....you're missing part of my point, which is that the environment is so much different today.
- Back then, movies were much cheaper to make than they are now. If you're an investor, what are you going to want to put your money into? A movie based on a well-known property virtually guaranteed to be a hit and give you a solid return on your investment, or a risky unknown concept which, if it fails to catch on, could cost you your job?
- Almost 35 years have passed since that list. Life on this planet has been sliced, diced, and dissected by entertainment every which way. You have movies, TV, podcasts, webcasts, games, amateur video, etc., all running at a pace about 20 times faster than it was then, in terms of how long the product will last in the marketplace. I think it's just HARDER to come up with an original idea, that's appealing to a good large slice of the public, that can get made and marketed correctly, just because so many of the "stories" of life on this planet have been told already.
So they tend to go with the tried and true.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic