Entertainment

Are Steven Spielberg and George Lucas right? Is the movie industry about to implode?

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 4th, 2016 2:52 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 14, 2003
14325 posts
1241 upvotes

Are Steven Spielberg and George Lucas right? Is the movie industry about to implode?

http://www.newser.com/story/169469/spie ... ouble.html

[QUOTE]"There's eventually going to be a big meltdown," Spielberg predicted, "where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen of these mega-budgeted movies go crashing into the ground." When that happens, Lucas jumped in, there will be mass movie theater closings. "Going to the movies will cost 50 bucks, or 100 or 150 bucks, like what Broadway costs today,"[/QUOTE]

The Lone Ranger - Budget - $215 Million - Worldwide Gross - $148,260,456
RIPD - Budget - $130 Million - Worldwide Gross - $20,960,195
White House Down - Budget - $150 Million - Worldwide Gross - $92,654,476

How many more are going to flop, or trip this summer?
Science
is the new
rock 'n'
roll.
115 replies
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 6, 2004
6902 posts
586 upvotes
GT'eh
What about Pacific Rim, didn't that cost about 200 mill to make, I know they haven't come close to recouping yet.

But I think they are on to something, if hollywood keeps cranking out these turds, bootlegging and digital releases will reign supreme and soon those theaters will shut down..
Ne0's Bio:
➡Retired G@mer & t3<h <0nn0!ss3ur ??? Spitting t3<h lingo since the early 90's ➡Member of Crazy Group Buys ??? ➡ Feedback: rFD | 500+
Deal Expert
Dec 26, 2010
25986 posts
10378 upvotes
Neovingian wrote: What about Pacific Rim, didn't that cost about 200 mill to make, I know they haven't come close to recouping yet.

But I think they are on to something, if hollywood keeps cranking out these turds, bootlegging and digital releases will reign supreme and soon those theaters will shut down..
PR hasn't opened in places like Japan or China yet. You can't look at individual pics anyway but the overall costs per year for the studios that are making the films. If they have one or two bombs (even expensive ones) does that affect their end of year profitability? For the majors, probably not. For indies...maybe. If this is all so worrisome you'd have to ask Spielberg why he continues to associate with outfits making horrid TV series and movies? Or films that just don't make it in the US domestic box office (like Tin Tin)? Yet he is still cranking them out...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 30, 2006
3579 posts
2985 upvotes
Markham
Pacific Rim is tanking domestically but i think it is doing ok internationally. No idea if it is breaking even. Too bad because it was awesome.

No surprise about the other 3. Whoever authorized $215 to make a western is probably fired, Tatum's female fan base have no desire to see him as an action hero, and most guys don't buy him as one. RIPD is an unknown commodity and the trailers did look meh. I think many felt it was Ghostbusters meets MIB.

Iron-man 3, Man of Steel and World War Z made money. I think if audiences are familiar with the product, they will go. Still don't know why Pacific Rim isn't doing better. Guess people would rather watch Grown Ups 2.

I do think Wolverine will do decent, but not MOS numbers.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 14, 2003
14325 posts
1241 upvotes
Neovingian wrote: What about Pacific Rim, didn't that cost about 200 mill to make, I know they haven't come close to recouping yet.

But I think they are on to something, if hollywood keeps cranking out these turds, bootlegging and digital releases will reign supreme and soon those theaters will shut down..
I was going to include Pacific Rim, but it's budget was 190 million, and globally it has taken in 180 million without Japan and China. Also After Earth, but it some how killed in the foreign market.
Science
is the new
rock 'n'
roll.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 24, 2005
9454 posts
1013 upvotes
N/A
pacific rim sucked.
“Children see magic because they look for it.”
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
11677 posts
3489 upvotes
Victoria
Hollywood seems to only focus on the big blockbuster super action packed and super special affect movies. IE they need to make 500 million just to make their 250 million back. It's ***** . Surely you can make and promote low budget movies and turn a profit too. IE how risky is a 10 to 20 million dollar movie?

I think its going to have impacts. It already impacts the way I watch movies. I see about 5 tentpole movies a year in the theatre. Most seem to be sequels, comic book based movies, or well I guess that's it. Not much originality coming out. How can movie theatres survive when they get 5 or 6 big movies a year and the rest of the time it's quiet.

They've got all their eggs in a few baskets.. I don't think that ends well. Can you imagine what happens when people get tired of superhero movies....
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 7, 2007
21265 posts
6248 upvotes
Poormond Hill
Spielberg and Lucas forgot to take into account funding services like kickstarter. Much like video games, studios will ask for donations to fund the project. They may not get enough to fund the entire project but enough to entice major investors.
A life spent making mistakes is not only more memorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 15, 2006
4042 posts
1202 upvotes
Kingston
Hollywood (studios, actors, etc) have forgotten how to make a movie a success. There is so many problems with today's movies it's not even funny any more.

1) Lack of Storyline
2) Actors are paid way too much
3) Theater prices are way too high for us middle class folks, thus we don't watch or wait for DVD/Blu-ray release
4) Remakes...... Where is the originality?
5) Torrents/Usenet
6) Social Media..... Reviews

I can go on and on here. The biggest issue is that theaters charge way too much for tickets. How is a family of 4 suppose to afford that? Tickets alone are roughly $40 to $50 for 2 adults and 2 kids. Then you have popcorn/drinks/etc which yes you don't need to buy, but you still do. You could easily walk out of there having spent $70+ for just 1.5 hrs entertainment. If ppl can't afford to go to the movies, how do studios and theaters expect to make money? Lower your prices and ppl will attend, simple concept, right, well apparently not according to Hollywood.
Member
User avatar
Jun 23, 2013
402 posts
56 upvotes
Whitby
kcorscadden wrote: 4) Remakes...... Where is the originality?
Agree with this 100%. For example, Superman has been rebooted twice in the last seven years. Once in 2006 and now in 2013.

I'm still waiting for the Back To Future reboot and The Godfather reboot

GO HOLLYWOOD~!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 30, 2006
3579 posts
2985 upvotes
Markham
GardenGuy wrote: Agree with this 100%. For example, Superman has been rebooted twice in the last seven years. Once in 2006 and now in 2013.

I'm still waiting for the Back To Future reboot and The Godfather reboot

GO HOLLYWOOD~!
Or another movie based on a TV show. I want my Facts of Life and Growing Pains $200 million epics.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Aug 20, 2012
13879 posts
3290 upvotes
Pacific Ocean
Movie industry has been crashing at the theatre level for years. Now you're left with large multi-plexes held by an oligopoly much like robellus has done to the telecommunications industry. Individual theatres no longer exists and viability has been terminated over a decade ago. This isnt new. What's happening to the music industry is creeping up at higher speed within the movie business. What spielberg fails to realize is that movie budgets and production costs, escalating artists costs/unions, increased technology has not lowered costs as you would expect in an economies of scale industry but rather increased costs over the last 20 yrs. It's no secret 70% of an average budget is used to pay actors salaries. The remaining 30% is typical of production costs. However in large budget sci-fi flicks the reverse seems to be true. Special effects, animation, graphics account for 70-80% of total budget whilst actors salaries account for 20% or less. This explains why in majority big budget sci-fi flicks you dont have big name actors. Usually those actors are introduced in the sequel barring the first part was highly successful on a global scale. The run-time in theatres per flick has also lowered. Back 20yrs ago profitable flicks stayed in theatres for 2-3 mos runs. Today with shortened attention span movies are in and out of theatres in 3-4 weeks. If they fail to match or exceed profit levels per week, the theatre chains dump the flick leaving any flick to make money on dvd/blu ray world wide or alternative platforms like freebie versions, netflix, itunes, et al. In any new release of a flick 50-75% of profits go to the theatre owners for the first 3-4 weeks to cover costs, advertising, and promos. After that the remaining revenue goes back to the studio. So you can imagine the churnover effect with losses at both theatre and studio level in a unsuccessful flick.

Having said that I can see where Speilberg is heading with in his comment. Less successful movies means less profit for theatre owners; therefore, less run-time in theatres before being yanked. More individual theatres will go bankrupt and close shop leaving the large chains in charge. Thus, creating an oligopoly and driving up prices. However, realistically I see the movie industry heading the way music business has... more people will take to the net and other online sources to get the latest cut of the flick costing studios and theatre chains billions of dollars per annum. Thus, eventually forcing the major chains to cut prices. Why pay $10-12-15 bucks a ticket when I can wait a couple of weeks after official release to see the dvd/blu version off piratebay?? Unlike robellus, the movie theatres dont and cant monopolize the distribution channels like robbers can by owning the wireless networks or cable lines or their subs. Eventually all these cuts mean producers and studios have to be meaner with project financing, skimpier production budgets, outsourcing to other countries to save on production costs (hell, tv series have been doing this for over a decade by filming in canada), and ultimately actors have to work for less for good parts. Sure, the big name actors will always get their 10-15-20+ mil per flick but the average character supporting actor will face a much tougher competitive sphere. Economics 101.

Bottom line... why wont hollywood studios lower costs; thereby, more net profit for longevity of the movie industry in the long run creating a more generous break-even point for theatre chains and lower ticket prices for the public?? Greed, point blank! People get used to living in those fancy 20-30 mil mansions with maids, butlers, groundskeepers and 4-5 cars in the garage down in Bev. Hills whilst not giving 2 f--ks about the general public who pay for their lifestyle.
If the glove don't fit you must acquit! #WINNING
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 9, 2003
25310 posts
2536 upvotes
Markham, ON
not a surprise....next up...the hobbit 2...making a 3 parter for a single book?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 9, 2003
25310 posts
2536 upvotes
Markham, ON
GardenGuy wrote: Agree with this 100%. For example, Superman has been rebooted twice in the last seven years. Once in 2006 and now in 2013.

I'm still waiting for the Back To Future reboot and The Godfather reboot

GO HOLLYWOOD~!
you forgot spiderman too lol
Deal Guru
User avatar
May 9, 2006
12805 posts
3477 upvotes
GardenGuy wrote: Agree with this 100%. For example, Superman has been rebooted twice in the last seven years. Once in 2006 and now in 2013.

I'm still waiting for the Back To Future reboot and The Godfather reboot

GO HOLLYWOOD~!
I really hope not... I'm probably in the minority, but Back To Future was my favorite trilogy. Or if they do... then I hope that they are sequels and not a re-imagining of the first movie.
Member
User avatar
Jun 23, 2013
402 posts
56 upvotes
Whitby
HDawg wrote: Or another movie based on a TV show. I want my Facts of Life and Growing Pains $200 million epics.
That would be awesome.... bringing back Allan Thicke. Maybe they can have Allan's real son take over the role of Kirk Cameron and sing Blurred Lines while hanging out with Boner.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 6, 2004
6902 posts
586 upvotes
GT'eh
Same here i'd pay to se a Back to the future reboot, considering the future is already here, who are they going to get to play McFly? will they bring back the Delorean? and more importantly why kind of sneakers will Marty have since Nike already released the Air Mags.

As for Pac Rim was a 6.5 - 7 out of 10 at best, heard from people who worked on the set it did cost over 200M due to effects and editing but they got a few tax breaks. It had potential but the execution was wrong + acting was piss poor. Who says a sci fi flick can't have decent acting and be within budget. Was hard to watch, at times it was almost like watching a parody of a sci fi robot slash poorly done godzilla flick.

As for the choice of actors, Ron Perlman can't take this dude serious but he had some killer shoes tho? Also Idris Elba is not proven as a bankable action / sci fi star must have it in his contract that he be killed in every one of his flicks.., Thor, Prometheus, Pac Rim ...if he can't make it out alive he won't be around for the sequels.

One thing they forgot to leaveout in the previous post is in addition to the theatre industry crashing, theatre monopolies are trying to make up the losses by shoving 3D /Imax releases they are down consumers throats. Thats part o fthe reasons for the increases and the margins are higher on 3D/Imax movies which is why you will see more options for showtimes for those movies. In order to save hollywood and delay the implosion effects studios and execs are trying to limit how much actors can make. So you won't see to many actors demand 40-50 mill per flick. Some actors also get royally shafted like Jennifer Lawrence paid 500K for Hunger Games that made over 700M, but she will be making upwards of 10M in sequel.
Ne0's Bio:
➡Retired G@mer & t3<h <0nn0!ss3ur ??? Spitting t3<h lingo since the early 90's ➡Member of Crazy Group Buys ??? ➡ Feedback: rFD | 500+
Member
User avatar
Jun 23, 2013
402 posts
56 upvotes
Whitby
I was speaking tongue in cheek in regards to BTTF and The Godfather reboots... I **DO NOT** want them to ruin great films.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 6, 2004
6902 posts
586 upvotes
GT'eh
BTTF if done properly could actually work given the technology available now, there's talk of MJFox being involed as well. As for Godfather you just don't touch classics like that plus and it won't go over too well with current generation. But I thought it was going to be a spinof and not a reboot. Heard the same thing about Scarface.
Ne0's Bio:
➡Retired G@mer & t3<h <0nn0!ss3ur ??? Spitting t3<h lingo since the early 90's ➡Member of Crazy Group Buys ??? ➡ Feedback: rFD | 500+
Member
User avatar
Jun 23, 2013
402 posts
56 upvotes
Whitby
[QUOTE=Neovingian;17166176.... As for Godfather you just don't touch classics like that plus and it won't go over too well with current generation.....[/quote]

You're right. Unless you see Don Corleone tweeting his next mafia hit to his fellow mobsters, the Gen Y's will think the movie sucks.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)