FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4      Non-Film Score Discussion: Lucas & Spielberg predict movie industry implosion     1 2 3    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 12:15 PM     By:   Francis   (Member) http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=37811 "The big danger is that there’s eventually going to be a big meltdown", Spielberg said, "where three or four, maybe even a half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground. That’s going to change the paradigm again." They also apparently said that movie theaters will become more exclusive and ticket prices will be determined by the scope of the picture. "You're going to have to pay $25 to see the next Iron Man. And you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." Like Soderbergh, they pointed to the emergence of television as a threat to moviemaking, as well as an opportunity for up-and-coming talent. "The Lincolns are going to be on television," predicted Lucas, to which Spielberg added, "Mine almost was: ask HBO. This close." Thoughts?    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 12:23 PM     By:   Viscount Bark   (Member) Looks like they were reading Lukas Kendall's "Franchise Fatigue" essay.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 1:55 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) Say's, Lucas who made three of the biggest box office brain dead prequels in modern times. I agree with them, many of today's films suck. Are not personal. But I don't see doom and gloom for the industry. Hollywood will find it's root's in good storytelling, or it will invent another gimmick to keep the cinema experience alive and well. Television was supposed to kill the movie business since the 50's. Never happened.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 2:26 PM     By:   MerM   (Member) The blockbuster needs to go. And between streaming content, HDTVs and rising budgets/falling domestic B.O., the theatrical experience might go with it. And that's fine; I can't wait to see what happens when the big-budget franchise/tentpole bubble bursts. It's a brave new world we're living in.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 2:42 PM     By:   Ado   (Member) The blockbuster needs to go. And between streaming content, HDTVs and rising budgets/falling domestic B.O., the theatrical experience might go with it. And that's fine; I can't wait to see what happens when the big-budget franchise/tentpole bubble bursts. It's a brave new world we're living in. Kinda with you on that. I am ready for the chips to fall on them. But I would like some films to see at the theater. It might not be as many, not as many large ones for sure. But $200 million films is just absurd.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 3:26 PM     By:   Sirusjr   (Member) Blockbuster films will continue to make record profits as long as they keep making films that emphasize spectacle over anything else because it is the one thing that is hard to reproduce on home systems. To me there is very little difference between watching a small documentary on my computer or TV at home versus going to the theater. On the other hand, something like a bigger action movie has a certain draw to watch in theaters that you don't get at home even with today's home theater setups. Movies like Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel, and Fast and Furious 6 have reached that point and thus make good money. Though with the success of some big comedies it seems that another thing you can't really reproduce at home is the audience laughter that you get in the theaters. This is why if a comedy is supposed to be good people rush to watch it on the first weekend. The theater experience is not complete until you have a full audience behind you. What will happen going forward? Probably just a continuation of what we have already seen. Good stories will be produced as TV series (Game of Thrones, Pillars of the Earth, other epic stories based on novels) while spectacle will continue to be the driving force in big films. If After Earth is any indication, people still value acting somewhat even though the average person can't tell good acting from bad unless it is really bad.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 3:41 PM     By:   Mike_J   (Member) Spielberg has been saying the same thing since the mid-80s and he trots it out periodically, usually when he is peddling a non-event movie. I. 30 years he hasn't got it right. Blockbusters still cost gazillions and gazillion-dollar blockbusters are still being made inspite of mega-flops like the risible John Carter. Movie budgets may reduce over time but never drastically so. Even if the talent agree to take a substantially reduced wage, the sheer cost of mounting a big summer blockbuster isn't goi g to do anything but increase and that is just simple economics. Heck, even a home movie you could have made for 100 bucks a few years ago would now cost you five times as much.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 3:43 PM     By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member) There IS no 'movie industry' any more, hasn't been for quite awhile and never shall be (in its previous classic definition) again. The shell that remains now is almost as rarified as opera in everything other than its global audience. Careers don't evolve - they have their own mercenary formula. Anyone starting off nowadays would be well-advised to concentrate their evolving efforts on cable television (whose fibre, even in fantasy) has taken the place of what movies useta have - let alone Films, and forget about 'cinema'. The latter medium is far superior to viritually any of the McDonalds Rice Krispies emptiness so prevalent now at the mindlessly mined multi-plex'. Those Were the Days - and Film-Makers Department.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 3:53 PM     By:   Michael24   (Member) People have been touting "the death of the industry" (so to speak) for many years now. I don't see it ever changing much. Although I do agree that these $200 million budgets is more than a little crazy. Heck, I remember the controversy and outrage over Terminator 2's $95 million budget! Chump change compared to today's average budget it seems. Though with the success of some big comedies it seems that another thing you can't really reproduce at home is the audience laughter that you get in the theaters. This is why if a comedy is supposed to be good people rush to watch it on the first weekend. The theater experience is not complete until you have a full audience behind you. I agree. There's nothing like the experience of a good comedy in a packed theater.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 4:59 PM     By:   CinemaScope   (Member) I don't see that (the quote in the original post). It seems to me that it's very hard for a film not to make some money these days. I bet even a turkey like After Earth will end up in the black after the world-wide release (& remember, they don't have to make thousands fo prints these days), & then there's the DVD/Blu-ray sales. Although I don't know why cinema audiences are holding up so well, with rotten digital projection & souless multi-plexs. I think TV is better than cinema these days (American TV), & that's where the talent is going. I prefer The Game Of Thrones to The Lord Of The Rings.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 5:17 PM     By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member) I don't see that (the quote in the original post). It seems to me that it's very hard for a film not to make some money these days. I bet even a turkey like After Earth will end up in the black after the world-wide release (& remember, they don't have to make thousands fo prints these days), & then there's the DVD/Blu-ray sales. Although I don't know why cinema audiences are holding up so well, with rotten digital projection & souless multi-plexs. I think TV is better than cinema these days (American TV), & that's where the talent is going. I prefer The Game Of Thrones to The Lord Of The Rings. HBO and (to a lesser extent, perhaps) Showtime are producing or releasing high quality product (both films and continuing series) on a regular basis these days. A month of HBO costs less than tickets to one movie for my wife and I.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 6:11 PM     By:   Doc Loch   (Member) Ironically, this is also a time when there seem to be more outlets than ever for small-scale films in the form of local and regional film festivals. The Cinetopia festival was going on when I was in Ann Arbor last weekend featuring all kinds of independent, international and documentary productions that looked great. Unfortunately, unless you live in a city that can sustain one of these festivals or a town that has an art house theater where these types of films get a one-week run (if that) they tend to go right to streaming or cable on demand, which at least gives you a chance to see them but loses that big screen experience of getting immersed in a really great film. I was lucky enough to catch a film called Blancanieves recently when passing through a town that had an art house and it didn't need car chases and explosions to make me glad I saw it on a big screen and got to see it with an audience that was really into it.    Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 8:24 PM     By:   dan the man   (Member) TO SIRUSJR- I agree with you that there is nothing like seeing something big on the full screen. I don't care what they make for cable or what you see on your home system, it is another world.period.LES MISERBLES was a great experience seeing it on the full screen , it is never going to look as good at home. You may enjoy films both ways and I do, but there will never be anything like going to the movies.    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 4:48 AM     By:   jenkwombat   (Member) Say's, Lucas who made three of the biggest box office brain dead prequels in modern times. Not sure I follow. Even if you believe that, what does that have to do with the point he's making?    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 5:18 AM     By:   Francis   (Member) Anyone starting off nowadays would be well-advised to concentrate their evolving efforts on cable television (whose fibre, even in fantasy) has taken the place of what movies useta have - let alone Films, and forget about 'cinema'. The latter medium is far superior to viritually any of the McDonalds Rice Krispies emptiness so prevalent now at the mindlessly mined multi-plex'. Sad but true, I went to a theater last week, first time I went there this year, I remember other years going 2 times a month. The movies they've programmed are mostly popcorn fare, the movie we went to see 'Only God Forgives' was announced by the theater chain in a special clip before it started as 'alternative cinema', as if to point out you are not watching the other shit selection of movies. Only 1 movie out of 10 fits their alternative selection. I should be grateful they even bother. I miss the 'choice' of theaters in the big cities, where you'd still have one or two complexes that catered to all movie fans and not just blockbuster crowds.    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 6:21 AM     By:   Ado   (Member) Spielberg has been saying the same thing since the mid-80s and he trots it out periodically, usually when he is peddling a non-event movie. I. 30 years he hasn't got it right. Blockbusters still cost gazillions and gazillion-dollar blockbusters are still being made inspite of mega-flops like the risible John Carter. Movie budgets may reduce over time but never drastically so. Even if the talent agree to take a substantially reduced wage, the sheer cost of mounting a big summer blockbuster isn't goi g to do anything but increase and that is just simple economics. Heck, even a home movie you could have made for 100 bucks a few years ago would now cost you five times as much. Yeah Mike, But the income demand for these pictures to make any actual money, as in a profit, is just absurd. A picture like Man of Steel probably needs about $800 or 900 million in ticket sales to recover. It occasionally happens, not often though. So the result is that what was "mass appeal" 20 years ago has to be even more "mass appeal", so these films are less made by filmmakers, than engineered/marketed and cross promoted. It is more like selling vacuums door to door. I mean, it is rather odd that I have the Man of Steel glaring at me selling razor blades. I mean does he want to hurt me before or after he sells me the razors?    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 6:25 AM     By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member) Unless you've actually SEEN the film AFTER EARTH, I wouldn't knock it. I disregarded the publicity and went to see it, and found both film & score enjoyable and worth seeing. Screw critics. Usually anything I like is put down by them anyway. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg are just jealous of the success of AVENGERS-type event films.    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 6:27 AM     By:   Ado   (Member) Unless you've actually SEEN the film AFTER EARTH, I wouldn't knock it. I disregarded the publicity and went to see it, and found both film & score enjoyable and worth seeing. Screw critics. Usually anything I like is put down by them anyway. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg are just jealous of the success of AVENGERS-type event films. Well, no on your last line. The fact is that After Earth is a commercial bomb, you might like it, but it is a bomb. It probably will end with a $100 million write off for them, at least. That is a huge flop. Recall Heavens Gate? It was a studio killer, that is what they are talking about just a bigger scale. There are plenty of potential bombs this year that could damage a studio.    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 6:30 AM     By:   jenkwombat   (Member) Screw critics. Usually anything I like is put down by them anyway. I agree. Just about every film I enjoy has been merciliessly ripped apart by critics. (And if not by professional critics, by *somebody* on some website somewhere. You can't please everyone...)    Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 6:33 AM     By:   Ado   (Member) Well these guys were not talking about if films are liked or disliked by us, or the critics. That is off the path. They are talking about several films in a year that might be so costly that they cannot recover the investment. You can get all the critic haters in the world and make them pay to see some of these films and they are still broke as dirt.     Non-Film Score Discussion: Lucas & Spielberg predict movie industry implosion    < 1 2 3  > >>  Go to page:  1 2 3 4   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.