Steven Spielberg & George Lucas Warn Of Movie Industry 'implosion'

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/steven-spielberg--george-lucas-warn-of-movie-industry-implosion-its-the-end-of-hollywood-as-we-know-it-8658179.html

It will come as little comfort to young filmmakers that even Steven Spielberg has difficulty getting a movie financed.

Speaking to film students this week, Spielberg warned of an imminent “implosion” in the industry, saying several successive blockbuster box-office flops would radically alter the Hollywood business model. In future, the director suggested, audiences will be expected to pay more to see large-scale films than their more understated counterparts.

“You’re gonna have to pay $25 [£16] for the next Iron Man,” he said. “You’re probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln.” Spielberg also revealed that Lincoln, his Oscar-winning 2012 biopic of the 16th US President, had come “this close” to being an HBO television film, and only earned a theatrical release because the director co-owns his own film studio, Dreamworks.

Although charging high ticket prices is going to guarantee even bigger failures. Mention in the article is the latest Will Smith film, which having seen some of the trailer looks poor.

Independent film makers releasing it on Youtube going to be the way forward?

[200p]

Think of the (old) Star Wars films, Aliens, Total Recall, Jaws, Die hard, Terminator 2, Some of the original Star Trek films, James Bond films, Monty Python films, the first 3 Indiana Jones films etc.

Any film buffs know if these films broke new barriers in costing to make at the time? Or are the CGI, studio hire, actors, script writers, just asking too much?

[Tin Foil Hat]

Well with the already high cost of tickets, incredibly high cost for drinks and snacks and incredibly bad behaviour from your fellow film-goers left unchecked I can't see why I would go to the cinema.

Or am I old fashioned in expecting the cinema to be a place where you watched the film and listened to the big soundtrack?

[dances with sheeple]

http://www.independe...it-8658179.html

Although charging high ticket prices is going to guarantee even bigger failures. Mention in the article is the latest Will Smith film, which having seen some of the trailer looks poor.

Independent film makers releasing it on Youtube going to be the way forward?

Will Smith just looks like a past it`s sell by date performing seal trying to get a gig or two for it`s offspring before they shut the fairground. Anyone paying £16 to see any Iron Man film is off their rocker, the first one was just bearable, the rest are just shite IMO. Ms Paltrow really starting to grate on me now as well.

[okaycuckoo]

They're only talking about the block-buster market. Hard to see how that will end up in a Broadway-style experience - they must have something up the sleeve to match live performance. I doubt it. [edit: maybe celebs on tap? the red carpet treatment if you pay enough.]

R4 was talking today with a film maker who crowd-sourced his finance. Good stuff will still get made, but it must be painful for professionals who go into the game expecting to earn a living.

Edited June 13, 2013 by okaycuckoo

[StainlessSteelCat]

Lincoln didn't really deserve a cinema release over here. I can see why Americans might watch at the cinema - but it felt like a TV movie to me and I was just fine watching it at home.

They are absolutely dreaming if they think people will pay $50-$150 to see a movie (ie theatre prices). They might if the cast actually turned up to the screening like some gala screenings for charity. What's more likely to happen is that a new generation of filmmakers will be born who'll use Kickstarter for finance, YouTube for distribution and their computers to produce stuff which looks as good as Hollywood (or at least good enough) and has a decent plot. Alex Cox's Bill the Galactic Hero could be a trail blazer here for example.

I notice John Carter was mentioned as a flop in the article. It was actually pretty good. Some really inventive visuals, likeable leads and quite fun overall. I think Disney might have deliberately killed that one. Possibly because buying Star Wars was in the offing.

[The Eagle]

I don't see any reason why actors should get paid millions for what is rather easy work, it's about time this whole 'moviestar' culture implodes. Good movies don't need to cost millions.

[Guest eight]

They are absolutely dreaming if they think people will pay $50-$150 to see a movie (ie theatre prices).

I wouldn't even sit through Iron Man if you paid me $150.

At the end of the day you can't put a price on dignity.

[The Masked Tulip]

Will Smith just looks like a past it`s sell by date performing seal trying to get a gig or two for it`s offspring before they shut the fairground. Anyone paying £16 to see any Iron Man film is off their rocker, the first one was just bearable, the rest are just shite IMO. Ms Paltrow really starting to grate on me now as well.

I think ordinary people - you and I - are fed up with the super rich now trying to foister their sons and daughters on us as the next big pop stars, actors, models, etc.

Take a look at the Daily Mail homepage on almost any day and there are nearly always several sons and daughters of the rich and famous being promoted as the next big thing. These people have obviously made so much money, and had it so easy, that their want to hand the entire gravy train to their off-spring.

As for Hollywood now - it is killing itself. Lots of actors/actresses are now trying to get into big TV series because there are so few films being made. The studios are, with an aging demographic, going for younger and younger audiences... so they remake Superman and if it is a flop they simply go out and recast, get a new director and remake it.

Disney has invested so much into buying Marvel that we are going to have no end of Marvel style films. I suspect when Robert Downey Jnr calls it a day as Ironman the studios will wait about a year before casting a younger actor in his role and simply remaking all the films again.

Then again, when was the last time you watched a really good British made drama on the BBC - one that is not a period drama?

[mfp123]

TV is where its at now, a lot of the old hollywood actors are moving into high quality TV series when years ago they wouldnt be seen dead doing it.

programmes like house of cards are getting budgets of $100million, and thats being shown on netflix.

also people now have 50" screens and home cinema systems at home, whilst japan is now starting on 4k video which is 4 x sharper than HD.

going to the cinema almost seems inconvenient now when everything else is on demand.

[Venger]

As for Hollywood now - it is killing itself. Lots of actors/actresses are now trying to get into big TV series because there are so few films being made

Some more competition for casting as well, in the movies.

For a Bigger Chinese Box Office, Hollywood Hires Chinese Actors

May 22, 2013

...Marvel Studios recently released Iron Man 3, partly financed by China’s DMG Entertainment, which featured a cameo by Chinese actress and pop singer Fan Bingbing. The Chinese version of the film also featured a product placement for a Mongolian milk drink called Gu Li Duo, and the film’s villain, called the Mandarin, was, for obvious reasons, given a new identity. New name: Man Daren. (Very tricky, Marvel.)

... All this brown-nosing seems likely to pay off; Bay’s last Transformers movie, Dark of the Moon, pulled in $165 million in China to become the country’s fourth-biggest box-office hit.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/for-a-bigger-chinese-box-office-hollywood-hires-chinese-actors

[inflating]

TV is where its at now, a lot of the old hollywood actors are moving into high quality TV series when years ago they wouldnt be seen dead doing it.

programmes like house of cards are getting budgets of $100million, and thats being shown on netflix.

also people now have 50" screens and home cinema systems at home, whilst japan is now starting on 4k video which is 4 x sharper than HD.

going to the cinema almost seems inconvenient now when everything else is on demand.

Is that better than Ultra HD? I ask because I saw Ultra HD in a shop here in Poland, on demo. Didn't look much better than my own HD TV to me, and the price for a 84in was approx 17K.

[The Masked Tulip]

Is that better than Ultra HD? I ask because I saw Ultra HD in a shop here in Poland, on demo. Didn't look much better than my own HD TV to me, and the price for a 84in was approx 17K.

Try affording a UK house which is big enough to house an 84 inch TV let alone to watch that 84 inch TV in comfort.

[zugzwang]

Marvel productions. A man in tights holding up a bridge with his eyelash. How many times can you sit through that? Truly bizarre.

[Errol]

Frankly with shows like Game of Thrones the film industry is fast becoming irrelevant.

[Horridbloke]

Think of the (old) Star Wars films, Aliens, Total Recall, Jaws, Die hard, Terminator 2, Some of the original Star Trek films, James Bond films, Monty Python films, the first 3 Indiana Jones films etc.

Any film buffs know if these films broke new barriers in costing to make at the time? Or are the CGI, studio hire, actors, script writers, just asking too much?

Terminator 2 was supposedly a "most-expensive" at the time. Most of your list (Aliens, many Star Trek films, Monty Python) were not monster-budget jobs.

I watched the recent Judge Dredd film the other week and was surprised it was around 50 million to make. I enjoyed it, but it looked pretty low budget.

[mfp123]

Is that better than Ultra HD? I ask because I saw Ultra HD in a shop here in Poland, on demo. Didn't look much better than my own HD TV to me, and the price for a 84in was approx 17K.

the price is always more expensive for new technology. a 40" HD used to cost that price at one point, but ultimately when they start becoming the norm and available for £500 not many people are going to say no to it.

but like with other industry's rather than consumers going out to buy products they want products to go to them.

home entertainment is getting to the point where it surpasses the cinema especially in terms of convenience.

i suspect blockbusters will always have a place because its something to do, but in terms of the more arty and dramatic films, a TV series that spreads it out over a season is far more engaging than a film that tries to cram it all in under 2 hours.

the reality is that the quality of American TV series now has hit a new level that a film that tries to tell a story in a such short time frame almost feels lightweight.

you might have been able to get away with it a decade ago, but new TV series' have started to become like a 12 episode film, which surpasses it as a medium for storytelling.

Edited June 13, 2013 by mfp123

[mfp123]

Frankly with shows like Game of Thrones the film industry is fast becoming irrelevant.

game of thrones has raised the bar to a whole new level. the current series only covers half of one of the books, imagine cramming the whole book into 2 hours.

[okaycuckoo]

you might have been able to get away with it a decade ago, but new TV series' have started to become like a 12 episode film, which surpasses it as a medium for storytelling.

I enjoy watching movies on TV, but my TV shows are rarely over 1/2 an hour - happy to watch comedy panel shows, some news. I binge occasionally on Come Dine With Me re-runs.

CSI was good because of super production values {given up watching that because of the Big Brother vibe). But other TV dramas don't grab me, and I have never even thought of watching a box-set. And compared to the US, dramas from the UK are so amateur.

Maybe the audience is divided. Maybe different ways of telling stories. I still prefer drama through the movie.

[mfp123]

I enjoy watching movies on TV, but my TV shows are rarely over 1/2 an hour - happy to watch comedy panel shows, some news. I binge occasionally on Come Dine With Me re-runs.

CSI was good because of super production values {given up watching that because of the Big Brother vibe). But other TV dramas don't grab me, and I have never even thought of watching a box-set. And compared to the US, dramas from the UK are so amateur.

Maybe the audience is divided. Maybe different ways of telling stories. I still prefer drama through the movie.

id say more stuff like game of thrones, boardwalk empire, homeland, mad men, breaking bad, rather than CSI.

it started off with things like 24 and sopranos, but now theyre creating a lot of good stuff across the board now. the quality has been upped considerably as has the budgets. its those types of productions that films have to compete with now.

as i say, house of cards has a budget of $100million and you can only watch that on netflix!

Edited June 13, 2013 by mfp123

[Ulfar]

The Hollywood gravy train is coming to an end, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Costs have been allowed to balloon out of control. This is especially true of actors.

Maybe this is why Lord of the rings used lesser or unknown talent, for instance Vigo Mortenson is rumoured to have come out of all 3 Lord of the rings films with 10.5 million dollars. Which is still quite a lot but did involve 3+ years of his life.

Robert Downey Jr being paid $50 million for Avengers is outrageous, he is a good actor but this level of money is obscene.

As for milking the audience, that is not going to happen, there is a limit as to how much you can charge for a movie seat. This is especially true when you consider 4k TVs are on the way, never mind home cinema projectors. Once these sorts of technologies reach the mainstream, cinema will be very hard pressed to be relevant.

TV shows also are a threat, game of thrones is a brilliant example, but again its is very noticeable how the show uses unknown actors. Some TV shows have the same problem as films with big names asking way too much and in the process killing the series. Ending a series is sometimes a good ting instead of dragging it out.

[The Knimbies who say No]

The Hollywood gravy train is coming to an end, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Costs have been allowed to balloon out of control. This is especially true of actors.

Maybe this is why Lord of the rings used lesser or unknown talent, for instance Vigo Mortenson is rumoured to have come out of all 3 Lord of the rings films with 10.5 million dollars. Which is still quite a lot but did involve 3+ years of his life.

Robert Downey Jr being paid $50 million for Avengers is outrageous, he is a good actor but this level of money is obscene.

As for milking the audience, that is not going to happen, there is a limit as to how much you can charge for a movie seat. This is especially true when you consider 4k TVs are on the way, never mind home cinema projectors. Once these sorts of technologies reach the mainstream, cinema will be very hard pressed to be relevant.

TV shows also are a threat, game of thrones is a brilliant example, but again its is very noticeable how the show uses unknown actors. Some TV shows have the same problem as films with big names asking way too much and in the process killing the series. Ending a series is sometimes a good ting instead of dragging it out.

It's been downhill all the way since talkies turned up-were silent era stars the richest of all?

[Ungeared]

http://viooz.co/

[wonderpup]

One of the big Special Effects houses was collecting an Oscar for it's work on Life of PI while it was going bust- so an artistic and technical success and a financial failure.

Where is all the money going?- certainly not to VFX people who are probably as important as the lead actors in the case of these blockbuster movies.

[StainlessSteelCat]

One of the big Special Effects houses was collecting an Oscar for it's work on Life of PI while it was going bust- so an artistic and technical success and a financial failure.

Where is all the money going?- certainly not to VFX people who are probably as important as the lead actors in the case of these blockbuster movies.

VFX seems to have suffered from two things: a globalised marketplace (a lot is now done in India and east Asia) and the general downturn (eg the Mill's TV department has closed due to work drying up, although seems to have spun off as it's own company).

Agree with others, TV is really on a roll at the moment. It's ability to tell slow burning complex stories is surpassed only by books. Plenty still get it wrong though ie not having a plan if the show is a success and dragging it on well past its sell by date/not bringing proper closure. I stay well clear of anything with Abrams name on it after Lost for example. Similarly, Wheldon seems to equal early cancelation so again best avoided.

Edited June 14, 2013 by StainlessSteelCat