Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jun 16, 2013 - 11:34 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

No, he didn't do it all on his own. But many followed him. Lucas pretty much started the "Trilogy" phenomenon.

After the Star Wars trilogy we got, Indiana Jones Trilogy, Matrix Trilogy, Dark Knight Trilogy, Spider-Man Trilogy, Jurassic Park Trilogy, X-Men Trilogy, Men in Black Trilogy, LOTRs Trilogy, The Hobbit Trilogy, etc, etc, etc. (Usually a fourth film comes into the line up after some years when the stars of said trilogy's don't perform so well in other films.)

Many successful films received sequels. And films like The Three Musketeers and Superman were always planned as two consecutive films. But the trilogy is all Lucas's doing. wink


This argument feels a bit off to me, largely because I don't think some of these examples really count toward the "trilogy phenomenon" -- Indy was not conceived as a trilogy, it just happened to have a couple sequels before it petered out for more than a decade. The same can be said for Jurassic Park and Men in Black: neither were conceived as trilogies. They just happened to be films successful enough that a couple sequels got made. Spider-Man? Wasn't supposed to be a trilogy, to my knowledge. X-Men? Turned out to be a trilogy, but was that by design? In fact, your list omits one of the best examples, Back to the Future! It also omits The Godfather, of which the first two parts were made before Star Wars came along. And what of the Man With no Name trilogy, which entirely predates Star Wars?

While I certainly agree that George Lucas helped usher in the era of the modern effects blockbuster, the trilogy thing, I'd say, is incidental. A marketing gimmick. By framing a second sequel as the culmination of a trilogy, you can put more butts in seats than if it was just another sequel: it promises increased stakes and a sense of resolution.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 4:32 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

Solium may be the only one who knows what he means, but you apparently know what he really means, considering the massive amounts of presumptions in your post!


????

The only *possible* presumptions I made in the above post are in regards to Lucas and whether or not he had all this "Episodes", "Sequels", "Prequels", "Vader killed his father/Vader *IS* his father", "Kenobi is the last of the Jedi"/"Oh wait, there's another one living on Degobah" stuff. (I consider my doubts about those things an educated guess.) But, what does that have to do with making presumptions about Solium's posts? I've already apologized for any "misreadings" of any previous posts from Solium...

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 9:10 AM   
 By:   Michaelware   (Member)

They're right on every count, everything is changing and has to.
Admit their style of filmmaking is on the outs, maybe hint that the values they bring are too. (ppl who are good at that style of directing like JJ Abrams seem to get much less respect than the ones who just pander with video game visuals without dramatic/moral content. I don't like to use the word moral but I guess I mean films with positive humanistic values are less respected now. End of an era maybe, shrugs.)
They bring up lots of interesting issues about making technology more openly understood. Lots of good info in that talk.

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 9:44 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

With respect to L & S, seems to me the one single thing that has hurt theaters more than anything is the affordable (well, relatively) big screen TVs. A whole segment of the population don't see the point in going to the theater anymore. And they don't.

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 9:55 AM   
 By:   solium   (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...)


Yes, I miss the late Roger Ebert's 'bravery' to not bow down to elite criticism and just admit when he had a good time at the theater with a movie that isn't suppose to reinvent cinema but just entertain. It seems a lot of critics are afraid to speak out against the grain because it might lose their audience.

And yet with movies like Iron Man 3 they decide to go soft and let it slide simply because it's such a cow milking 'crowd' pleaser... I still can't get over the fact that Avengers & Iron Man 3 have been so successful while they are so mediocre films if you strip down the special effects.


Well, that is nice to hear someone else ding Avengers. It was like the holy grail when it came out. It was okay at best, too many moving parts and way too many characters with tiny little things to say. I found myself rooting for the good guys to be wiped out they are so annoying in that film, especially Iron Man. I do not understand why it was so successful.


Avengers was a "fun" film. It also had some honest to goodness laughs, that weren't toilet humor. I felt generally happy after leaving the theater. It was as close to "Star Wars" as a film has gotten in recent years. Though unlike Star Wars where by the end of the film, I cared about Luke, Lea, Han, the robots, I really didn't care about the Avengers. But you made the correct point. To many characters. Or should I say they needed to focus on one or two characters. Star Wars had many, but it was Luke's story. Avengers, so close yet so far.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 2:05 PM   
 By:   Nicholas_DW   (Member)

The blockbuster needs to go.

I agree, though it's an ironic thing to say in relation to an interview with Spielberg and Lucas, who basically created that idea with their near back-to-back blockbusters Jaws and Star Wars. Thanks a lot, asswipes! wink

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 6:54 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

Movie going is alot like life, the thousands of different roads we go down we will see things we love, don't care for, hate , like a little.But like life, the more things change the more they become the same. They say there are only 7 plots in this world[or something close to that] well in those plots the need for people in their leisure time to enjoy a story played out on film or with something else with possible reflections on our own lives will always be. The changes may seem important but in the long run they are nowhere near as important as we initially think they are. We realize in time and by the journey's end it was always the substance itself that matters most not the presentation. Like love everything else becomes second in importance.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 7:15 PM   
 By:   nipotente   (Member)

Zooba here (Thanks nipotente!):


I once saw a interview with Spielberg where he said Directors can't predict if a movie's going to be a hit or not. That they don't have "Crystal Balls".

Always thought that was really funny.

 
 Posted:   Jun 18, 2013 - 2:59 AM   
 By:   Diederik   (Member)

What Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Lucas are saying makes sense. When films start to cost more and more, the risk for the studio grows right along with it. Therefore, it would make sense that a studio wants its money back as soon as possible, so it would want its newest mega budget film in as many cinemas and on as many of screens as possible. This would make it harder for smaller films to be screened.
Now, if you add to this that a franchise consists a multiple mega budget films all being released in short intervals and all requiring financing and lots of cash, you can see the risk growing even larger. If a few of those films in a franchise fail, the studio will have a serious cash problem and might well go bankrupt.

 
 Posted:   Jun 18, 2013 - 5:31 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.



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.



Many films find new life after DVD/BR release. AFTER EARTH will likely be one when people discover it.

 
 Posted:   Jun 18, 2013 - 7:16 AM   
 By:   JJH   (Member)



Many films find new life after DVD/BR release. AFTER EARTH will likely be one when people discover it.




Is it really that good? I haven't seen it...just curious. It's an interesting take. They did what they could to not hype the M Night connection.


I know that Shawshank Redemption didn't gain any ground whatsoever until after its theatrical run and VHS release...all of a sudden people were WHERE HAS THIS BEEN ALL MY LIFE..so it's not impossible.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 18, 2013 - 8:15 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

And just to get to both sides, Solium said "He IS responsible for the large scale popcorn franchise business."

Now that is carrying things just a bit far don't you think? There have been a number of factors that generated the relatively mindless blockbuster business in general, and the blockbuster sequels as well. Lucas was certainly one of the prime players in creating that, but just one of them.


No, he didn't do it all on his own. But many followed him. Lucas pretty much started the "Trilogy" phenomenon.

After the Star Wars trilogy we got, Indiana Jones Trilogy, Matrix Trilogy, Dark Knight Trilogy, Spider-Man Trilogy, Jurassic Park Trilogy, X-Men Trilogy, Men in Black Trilogy, LOTRs Trilogy, The Hobbit Trilogy, etc, etc, etc. (Usually a fourth film comes into the line up after some years when the stars of said trilogy's don't perform so well in other films.)

Many successful films received sequels. And films like The Three Musketeers and Superman were always planned as two consecutive films. But the trilogy is all Lucas's doing. wink


Lots of those weren't planned as trilogies, but rather just ended at whatever point they happened to. Note that the third Men in Black movie also came at a point closer to fitting your description of where a fourth movie "usually" comes in. Note, too, that Lucas' own Indiana Jones series was never exactly a "trilogy" to begin with, even when it was just three movies (the "trilogy" labelling Paramount put on some older home video boxed sets notwithstanding) - the movies don't have the same level of interconnectedness as many of these others, being more episodic (if anything, though, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull might actually qualify as a loose trilogy, while Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom stands a bit farther apart); moreover, the original deal between Lucas/Lucasfilm, Spielberg and Paramount originally called for five movies, and they sort of fell behind along the way. Note further that The Lord of the Rings was originally published as a book trilogy long before Lucas even had the idea for Star Wars, and the LotR movies are adaptations of the books.

Lucas was complaining that the "franchise" business is killing the small personal film business. Considering his 35 year contribution to the franchise business, he is not one to complain. Which was my original point.

Actually, where does it say he was "complaining" at all? The wording used sounds like he's simply making an observation.

 
 Posted:   Jun 19, 2013 - 8:53 AM   
 By:   jackfu   (Member)

“Lucas & Spielberg predict movie industry implosion.”

And the bad news is….?

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 19, 2013 - 9:14 AM   
 By:   BossaNova2JazzSingers   (Member)

Related to this thread - from the New York Post newspaper, June 9, 2013, Maureen Callahan wrote an interesting article/ book review of "Sleepless in Hollywood - Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie Business" written by author Lynda Obst.

I did NOT read the book but the information stated regarding it I believe pretty much summarizes an overview of the current (sad?) state of movie films. Always reaching for the bottom line.

The article online is at:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/what_went_wrong_with_n0rJu0ygy4BMa7QEV3oc7H/0

Any opinions? Disagree or agree?

 
 Posted:   Jun 19, 2013 - 10:35 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

Business, any business is always about making a profit. But a business venture used to be an excepted gamble. It was a high stakes game where you win some, you lose some. Over the last 30 years, businesses developed a new model of "guaranteed win". Or as close to that as they can get. This has taken creativity and innovation out of the market. Sure there are some new innovative things, but companies tie everything together. You can't buy into just one of their products or services, but the whole industrial complex.

 
 Posted:   Sep 3, 2013 - 11:41 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Vin Diesel, speaking as producer as well as actor, responds to these predictions (and has some other insights into the way movie series now are being approached differently than movie series of a decade or two ago) here: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/09/03/vin-diesel-discusses-riddick-sci-fi-fandom-and-the-future-of-film/

 
 Posted:   Sep 3, 2013 - 2:37 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

He said Spielberg and Lucas got it wrong, then predicted a future they envisioned. confused

 
 Posted:   Sep 4, 2013 - 7:33 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

Yeah, I thought that was funny too - "They have it all wrong, studios are making great franchises and sequels all the time!" Good old Vinny Diesel.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 4, 2013 - 7:52 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Call me crazy -

If I have to pick a side I am going with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas against Vin Diesel.

Read Forbes most profitable films list, if you would like to understand the future of films.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2013/08/20/top-10-most-profitable-movies-of-2013-so-far/

With perhaps 2 or 3 exceptions these are pretty bad films, that are pretty profitable.
So this is a prediction for more of the same for the next years ahead, more junk.

 
 Posted:   Sep 4, 2013 - 8:05 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

That list is no surprise. The most profitable movies are the cheap ones that do surprisingly well. That's why there is never a shortage of cheap horror films.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.