Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: George Lucas: "The Blockbuster Is Dead"

This is topic George Lucas: "The Blockbuster Is Dead" in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004538

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 03-07-2006, 10:36 AM:

From www.imdb.com daily headlines, 3/7/06
Lucas: "The Blockbuster Is Dead"

Movie mogul George Lucas predicts Hollywood will soon start shifting away from mega-budget blockbusters in favor of making more independent films for less money. Alongside Steven Spielberg, Star Wars creator Lucas is cited as being chiefly responsible for the blockbuster phenomenon that has gripped the movie industry for the last three decades. But he now believes big-budget films can no longer be profitable and are going out of fashion, as evidenced by this year's Academy Award nominees, including independent movies Crash and Good Night, And Good Luck. Lucas tells the New York Daily News, "The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie. Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong. I think it's great that the major Oscar nominations have gone to independent films. Is that good for the business? No - it's bad for the business. But movie-making isn't about business. It's about art. In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies. I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-07-2006, 10:57 AM:

Big movies are out of fashion? I have doubts.

Sure, all the best picture nominees were lower budget movies. Lots of indie stuff dominated the Oscars. Before anyone can call that a new trend, consider the fact the Oscars telecast had much lower ratings than last year (2nd worst viewership in the last few decades).

However, George Lucas could be right in the long term. I can see most movies costing only $15 million or less to be made once they're all MADE FOR TV movies. The issue of collapsing windows between theatrical and video release could kill off most movie theaters and make Hollywood a mere made for TV movies cottage industry subserviant to major broadcast networks.

The increasing corporate trend to try to repackage old movie ideas as sequels, remakes, send ups, retoolings of TV, etc. is one terrible problem. The suits don't want to risk investing in new ideas. They stupidly think they can sell more of what' sold in the past.

Now, lots of indie movies are great for being new and inventive. But most have very limited budgets for both production and marketing. Many also have very limited appeal. For every 1 indie flick that grosses $50 million or more in theaters, there's a good 100 or more that don't do squat. Most indie movies are lucky if they can get a second life on DVD or cable.

Balance is really the key. Movie companies want to whine about high costs. But then they'll pay what passes for an A-list actor these days $30 million or more to star in a mediocre sequel. How about developing a good, new idea and using not quite as well known (and less expensive) talent?

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-07-2006, 11:23 AM:

It looks like the "Easy Rider" syndrome from 1969. When this little film changed what the studios made. No longer were the Big Blockbuster films making them money anymore. The public's taste and the way they released films had changed they no longer went to those large musical films (Doctor Dolittle, Hello Dolly, Paint Your Wagon...). During that time smaller more independent films were being made by the studios and returning nice profits. There will always be Blockbusters and those tentpole type movies for the summer seasons.

This all happened back in 1969 and look at all those Great films that came out in the 1970's to early 80's. The film maker changed what we saw and what the studio made. Today film making is by comittee and thats the major problem with film making of today. The independent film take us back to those early films of the 70's, when there was stories to tell and not these overloaded, overbudgeted products for the masses.

Only time will tell.

There are two good documentaries about this time in Hollywood.
"A Decade Under the Influence" and "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" .

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-07-2006, 11:32 AM:

Does anyone find it ironic that he says the big event movie is dead, but yet he's been involved with (produced directed written etc) 3 of them with huge budgets within the last 6 years or so? Oh yeah I forgot, he's independent.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-07-2006, 12:49 PM:

Studio types say the same type of thing all the time, then they go right on producing huge expensive blockbusters when a couple of their small artsy films flop. Remember "Blair Witch Project?" The small, cheap, handheld-shot film was going to take over the world back then -- the blockbuster was dead, but somehow it came back to life.

The key to lowering the cost of films is not paying someone like Tom Cruise $30 million. Pay an unknown guy $1 million and spend more money on a good-enough story that you don't need the "name" to draw a crowd. Did anyone go to "The Sixth Sense" because it had Bruce Willis in it?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-07-2006, 02:22 PM:

...or, we could go back to last year's sleeper, "Napoleon Dynamite" - less than half-million to make with an unknown cast and production team, shoot it to Sundance to advertise, FOX got interested in it and let their Seachlight division release it, grossed alomost 60 mil, shoot it to DVD and let it gross almost 110mil in sales.

Not too bad for an indie "no-blockbuster" hit.

Now, we have to see if "Superman" for this summer and "Spidey III" for next summer can hold their own.

..think Mel Gibson will go for "Lethal V" ?

-Monte

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-07-2006, 02:54 PM:

quote: Steve Scott
I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million."

Only if there's no payroll.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 03-07-2006, 03:26 PM:

Lucas is so full of himself.
He's also the one that said we would all be showing movies via DLP long before now.

Anything he says isn't even worth printing.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-07-2006, 05:10 PM:

I often think of the old saying: "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

Don't forget that the oscars have nothing to do with the public. They are the industry patting itself on the back. The oscars do not reflect what the public wants or likes. The only reason the oscars are even broadcast is that someone is making money on it.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 03-07-2006, 05:51 PM:

King Kong is going to lose money? It was dissapointing in the States but did very well overseas, last numbers I remember seeing were that it was going to do over 500 million worldwide. Add in the DVD, cable, ect and they probably made some dough.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-07-2006, 05:56 PM:

Brad Allen, you are exactly right. Geo. Lucas no longer speaks for anyone other than himself; cedrtainly not for ant other part of the industry. Louis

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 03-07-2006, 06:26 PM:

Oscar quote for me was... No-one ever looked at a shot and said, That'll look great on DVD.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-07-2006, 06:34 PM:

The problem with King Kong is that it was a decent movie, but not a great movie. It didn't live up to the hype or live up to expectations audiences had of Peter Jackson matching the thrills of the LOTR trilogy. The movie will turn a decent profit. It's certainly no bomb.

quote: Bill Gabel
The independent film take us back to those early films of the 70's, when there was stories to tell and not these overloaded, overbudgeted products for the masses.

Y'know something, I don't agree with that.

Call me cynical, but I find the whole "indie film" scene extremely far from being "indie." Many of those outfits (Focus, Lions Gate, Fine Line, Miramax-Weinstein, etc.) are part or wholly owned by major studios and just as bound by corporate repackagings as anything.

The indie film scene has a lot of its own conventions where many films have a disturbing sameness to them:

You have the road trip movies. Nuff said.

Then there's the high school coming of age movie with the "I'm a misfit but too cool for anyone" angle -sometimes thrown back 20 or 30 years to make old music fashionable again (and possibly to save money since it can be cheaper to get legal clearances of vintage music).

Many low budget action movies seem to be ripping on Resevoir Dogs or The Usual Suspects or maybe Luc Besson. At least if they're ripping off people, thank God not many are copying John Woo (I'm not a fan of that guy's work).

There's what I call the "Emmanuelle" kind of film where at least one or more characters use and hurt people and then try to justify it as though they are somehow more correct, smart and aware than everyone else. However, I haven't seen very many movies with that sort of rationale lately since Hollywood seems horribly scared of exposed titty nipples and female pubic hair.

And there's others. I'm sure many here can think of more indie conventions to add to the list.

My point with that is to warn the indie crowd about congratulating itself and thinking their current group is equal to the ground breaking films of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Sorry, but they're not.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 03-07-2006, 09:10 PM:

King Kong is perceived as a failure because it didn't become the biggest grossing movie of all time or have the biggest opening weekend, because we have become obsessed with numbers and "being #1", but it is far from a failure. One of the worst things that has happened to the movie business is the public's awareness of movie grosses.

As of last week, Kong grossed $543 million worldwide in 11 weeks. Before completing its theatrical run, it will probably do close to $700 million. Then there's TV sales, cable sales and DVD sales. In the end, it will probably gross anywhere from $1 to $2 billion.

I also hear people saying how Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire wasn't a complete success. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know if it was a good movie or not, but so far it's grossed $890 million worldwide. And Narnia has grossed over $666 million.

These are not failures and it demonstrates that showing movies in theaters can still be a spectacular business. The problem is that expectations have risen to a level of complete unreality.

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 03-07-2006, 10:19 PM:

OK, George, now that you've wrung the final dollar out of your STAR WARS (blockbuster) franchise, NOW "the blockbuster is dead."

Or, as my Bible teacher used to say, "God, we're finally on the ark - you can start the rain now."

That's just for those of you who hadn't ALREADY caught on the basic cynicism of Lucas's protestations about cinematic art, way back around RETURN OF THE JEDI.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-07-2006, 11:21 PM:

If any of us were in their shoes, I'm sure we'd be asking $30 mil if we had their kind of star power. No way would I want the studio to get all the money off my work!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-07-2006, 11:48 PM:

Only an egomanical actor would think he deserves 1/3 of the film's entire budget, thinking the movie is "his work." What about the rest of the cast and the dozens of people in the crew?

The only time an actor is "doing all the work" is when he is performing a one man show on the sidewalk. I sure don't see any of those guys making $30 million.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 03-08-2006, 12:49 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Many of those outfits (Focus, Lions Gate, Fine Line, Miramax-Weinstein, etc.) are part or wholly owned by major studios and just as bound by corporate repackagings as anything.

Which of the majors owns Lion's Gate?

From what I know of the company, they went from indie art films and Z-grade crap movies (back when they were called CF/P) to being the newest 'mini-major', the Orion of the 2000s if you will...

-Aaron

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2006, 10:03 AM:

Unless something has changed, Universal Studios holds a big stake in Lions Gate. A decent number of Lions Gate releases have been later released on DVD under the Universal banner. Shadow of the Vampire is one that immediately comes to mind.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-08-2006, 10:25 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Unless something has changed, Universal Studios holds a big stake in Lions Gate.

That was a past video deal that Lion's Gate had with MCA for the USA market. A few years ago Lion's Gate merged with Artisan Entertainment. So Lion's Gate picked-up the entire catalog of Artisan which was Live video label.

Universal Studios (MCA) has Focus and Rogue Films as their indie labels. I handle Focus and Rogue screenings here in NYC. Lion's Gate is a whole different company that is not a Universal holding at this time.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-08-2006, 10:46 AM:

Universal used to distribute home videos for Lions Gate until a number of years ago, but I don't believe they held a major equity in the company.

Currently, 2929 entertainment (everyone's favorite guy - Mark Cuban) owns a substantial stake in Lions Gate, along with 100% of Magnolia Pictures and Landmark Theaters.

Focus features was the result of the merger of October Films with USA Films.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-08-2006, 11:00 AM:

Mega salaries are what they are for three reasons:

1. Ego ("I make more money than Tome Cruise.")

2. They can't make a "points" deal with the film company since they don't trust the accounting of the profits to be honest.

3. Less money now is better than more money later. Louis

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-08-2006, 07:13 PM:

Last night I watched "Back to the Future III". Ok, this is not a great movie, but after it was over, I felt like I had just seen a better movie than anything I have seen lately. I think that the reason is that this movie had a decent story line, with a few twists and turns. The special effects added to the movie, but did not overwhelm it. The "blookbuster" films I have seen lately have a very thin story line, and the movie seems to be more about the computer-crap effects, then about a real human story. This gets boring very quickly. Maybe the studios should look into making movies that have a good story line, instead of trying to see how many computer-crap effects they can string together.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-08-2006, 08:50 PM:

Oh, didn't you get the memo? All the good story-lines have been done already. [Big Grin]

That's why remakes and adaptations are blockbuster fodder these days. And remakes, of course, will bomb unless they have CG-everything. And since half-wit dweebs can render close to pseudo-realistic effects on home computers for the promise of pocket change and a pocket protector, the investment is a no-brainer. And after the fact, by calling the resulting cinematic "tour de force" a failure, regardless of any actual attendance figures or dollar amounts, you can get away with only paying the dweebs the pocket protector next time, thus pocketing the pocket change and coming out ahead. [thumbsup]

That said, Back To The Future III kicked ass! It was just okay, up until the CG flying train ... and then it was awesome!

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 03-09-2006, 10:17 PM:

Where is John Hughes when you need him. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2006, 12:43 AM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
"Back to the Future III". Ok, this is not a great movie

That's where you're wrong....BTTF-III is a great movie. So was the origianl. #II wasn't all that great but was still pretty good.

Posted by Jason Miller (Member # 2341) on 03-10-2006, 03:05 AM:

They ARE running out of stories... soon they will make more movies based off of Prime Time sit-coms...

Will and Grace - The Movie
Friends - the movie
Sanford and Son - the movie
Threes Company - the movie (although an R rated version might be fun...)

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-10-2006, 06:18 AM:

The Three's Company movie would definitely end up a teen, gross-out comedy, in the vein of American Pie ... and it would star Jessica Simpson, Mandy Moore, and Jason Biggs.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-10-2006, 06:23 PM:

I'd pay to see that. [thumbsup]