Started By
Message

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

Posted on 6/13/13 at 11:52 pm to
Posted by reb13
Member since May 2010
10905 posts
Posted on 6/13/13 at 11:52 pm to
What the hell is negative cost?
Posted by reb13
Member since May 2010
10905 posts
Posted on 6/13/13 at 11:55 pm to
quote:

you are, quite literally, talking out of your arse no offense


Or you just know nothing about accounting
Posted by boom roasted
Member since Sep 2010
28039 posts
Posted on 6/13/13 at 11:58 pm to
Try to figure out negative gross revenue.
Posted by Boudin
Lafayette
Member since Oct 2006
10133 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 12:08 am to
Blame America for being pretty frickin stupid.

I saw more status updates for the new Fast and the Furious movie than I have for a movie in years.

Posted by DURANTULA
Member since Jun 2013
1885 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 2:53 am to
The majority of these sequels started out as an original idea. When you find a good story, why not expound upon it?

Why would Disney stop at POTC and forgo billions when people obviously wanted to see the continuation of the story?

Same with The Fast and the Furious. How about Star Wars? Should Lucas have stopped after the first one?

Hell some of these movies are based on books with multiple volumes: LOTR, Harry Potter, etc. Hell even one of the best films of all-time, The Godfather, was originally a book.

I laugh my arse off when people say they hate the lack of originality in Hollywood because 1. Hollywood puts out dozens of non-sequels yearly and 2. Why the hell wouldn't you want to see the continuation of a story or character or whatever that entertained you?

I'll get off my soapbox now and go to sleep.
Posted by Pilot Tiger
North Carolina
Member since Nov 2005
74021 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 5:22 am to
quote:

Or you just know nothing about accounting
or you just know nothing
Posted by rondo
Worst. Poster. Evar.
Member since Jan 2004
77515 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 6:33 am to
Seeing as I never watch blockbuster big budget movies I give zero fricks.
Posted by VOR
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
68831 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 7:54 am to
I haven't read the entire thread so this may have been mentioned. One change, and not necessarily for the better, is that corporate ownership of most of the entertainment industry (film, television and music) now rests with larger conglomerates. The CEO's of studios now have to answer to people who don't have any real experience in or love for the filmmaking.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
95660 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 8:21 am to
quote:

The CEO's of studios now have to answer to people who don't have any real experience in or love for the filmmaking.


That would be forgivable - but they don't care, either. That want a return on investment, period. I appreciate that they're not in the business to lose money, but I am just not compatible with the current philosophy of all blockbuster/sequel/CGI/3D, just rererehash of the same stories we've seen.

I'm still on the lookout for quality films - I try not to hate everything, but it's difficult at times.

I just watched Moneyball - I thought it was excellent. That was a quality story, quality source material, not cheap for a drama at ~$50 million and returned a worldwide gross of ~$110 million - I don't have DVD or streaming revenue figures.

It appears that film didn't lose money, but it didn't make a lot either. My only consolation is that the big budget turd sandwiches that draw their target market in droves help get movies like Moneyball made.
Posted by JW
Los Angeles
Member since Jul 2004
5252 posts
Posted on 6/14/13 at 8:23 am to
quote:

but the film industry is failing


it is hardly failing.
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 7Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram