re: Spielberg, Lucas predict "implosion" of film industry

quote:

---

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.

---

That really is the problem is that the whole industry right now seems to be built around the success or failure of blockbusters. Regardless of quality.

quote:

---

PT Anderson

---

I agree - I still need to see The Master, though.

quote:

---

Fincher

---

He still has the stink of Alien 3, for me, but he has redeemed himself, considerably.

quote:

---

Scorsese

---

For me one of the GOAT - every time I think he's done, he makes a movie that reminds me how good he was.

quote:

---

Tarantino

---

I don't know if he's made anything since Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction that equals those, although IB was pretty good.


Back to Whedon - I guess being a Firefly/Serenity fan, and, while not a fan of either Buffy or Angel, I recognize how good they were - I have some perspective on him, but Avengers so far exceeded my expectations, maybe I'm giving him points he hasn't earned.

quote:

---

Oh completely, just saying, if Baloo can eviscerate someone we know he respects like Spielberg, think of the fireworks had Wes Anderson said something so hypocritical.

---

I mean, I like Spielberg, but seriously, STFU. You just made a two and a half hour movie about a friggin' horse set in WWI. And it still made $79 million.

I do think the blockbuster model is toxic, but here's the thing, "boutique" studios have moved from that model for about 25 years. That's pretty much what Fox Searchlight and Miramax were all about -- making good movies for decent budgets without swinging for those $200 million home runs. The movie distribution business HAS ALREADY CHANGED you jackass. It just hasn't changed for you, because you're Steven f'n Speilberg and studios will do pretty much whatever they can to put out one of your movies.


Yeah, I hate his movies, but Wes Anderson makes critically acclaimed films for a pittance. Moonrise Kingdom cost $16 million and grossed $45 million. Yet Hollywood somehow can't out out quality films for a small budget anymore? bullshite. Many, many guys are doing it.

Hell, even by blockbuster standards, Nolan and Whedon work cheap. The Dark Knight cost $185 million, but grossed $533 million. The Avengers cost $220 million but made $623 million. Raimi's first Spider-Man cost $139 million and grossed $403 million. Those guys aren't the problem. Their big budget movies make money.

Or I could just pay for the cheap movie and walk into the expensive one like I do with 3d now. Also, if they didn't pay the Will Smiths of the world 20 million a movie, maybe they'd be able to afford it.

quote:

---

you just won't see those insane profits

---

What you won't see is insane revenue. A movie that costs $15M to make that grossed $30M is more successful than a movie that costs $200M to make and grossed $300M.

quote:

---

Yeah, I hate his movies, but Wes Anderson makes critically acclaimed films for a pittance. Moonrise Kingdom cost $16 million and grossed $45 million. Yet Hollywood somehow can't out out quality films for a small budget anymore? Bull shite. Many, many guys are doing it.

Hell, even by blockbuster standards, Nolan and Whedon work cheap. The Dark Knight cost $185 million, but grossed $533 million. The Avengers cost $220 million but made $623 million. Raimi's first Spider-Man cost $139 million and grossed $403 million. Those guys aren't the problem. Their big budget movies make money.

---

On average a movie has to double it's budget before it starts making a profit. Often it's even more because the advertising costs are not included in the budget. So if you make a movie for $15 million, and it makes $25 million at the box office, you better hope it does well on DVD or else you just lost money.

Also, summer blockbusters like Iron Man are refereed to as tent pole movies b/c their anticipated profits usually support the entire studio for that year. If a tent pole movie bombs it can kill many smaller projects and in some cases sink the studio completely.

quote:

---

What you won't see is insane revenue. A movie that costs $15M to make that grossed $30M is more successful than a movie that costs $200M to make and grossed $300M.

---

correct. $30 million on a $15 million budget means the movie has a chance to turn a small profit.

$300 million on a $200 million budget means the studio just lost their arse.

quote:

---

What you won't see is insane revenue. A movie that costs $15M to make that grossed $30M is more successful than a movie that costs $200M to make and grossed $300M.

---

yea I was about to say something similar.

What are the margins like on PTA, Wes Anderson, and Fincher's projects, et al.

Those blockbusters have massive production and marketing costs in comparison

quote:

---

I'm looking forward to the Lone Ranger

---

I'm not.

I'm tired of Johnny Depp playing Jack Sparrow/Willy Wonka/etc.

it's all the same to me

quote:

---

cost $250 million to make

---

did it really??

quote:

---

Smaller movies and studios get absolutely wiped out by pirating.

---

I don't recall Avatar being considered a small movie?

Furthermore, I think you completely missed the point of my post

And i have no idea what smaller movies suffering from pirating has ANYTHING to do with pricing blockbusters at higher prices, and lower budget movies at smaller ticket prices.

please explain

quote:

---

I don't recall Avatar being considered a small movie?

Furthermore, I think you completely missed the point of my post

And i have no idea what smaller movies suffering from pirating has ANYTHING to do with pricing blockbusters at higher prices, and lower budget movies at smaller ticket prices.

please explain

---

first I made a mistake, I should have said it kills smaller production houses more so than studios.

but anyway

the more people who watch a blockbuster for free, the less chance it has at turning a profit. The lesser the profit for a tent pole movie, the less said studio is willing to invest in smaller projects.

again, charging $25 for a movie in theaters will just drive more people to pirate or wait until video. This would absolutely cut into potential profits. People already hate paying $15 for a 3D movie. They are not going to drop $100 for a family of 4 to go see Iron Man in 2D before they even buy popcorn, candy, and drinks.

plus, movie theater operators would NEVER go for that. You aren't going to get a huge uptick in customers for $3 off a flick like Lincoln but you will lose a shite load of people if you charge $25 for Iron Man when they could simply wait to own it on video for the same price, if they even pay at all.