This is topic Steven Spielberg Predicts Implosion 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=006858
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-12-2013, 11:10 PM:
The following is from The Hollywood Reporter
quote:
Steven Spielberg Predicts "Implosion" of Film Industry
2:55 PM PDT 6/12/2013 by Paul Bond
George Lucas echoed Spielberg's sentiments at an event touting the opening of a new USC School of Cinematic Arts building, saying big changes are in store.
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. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.
The two legendary filmmakers, along with CNBC anchor Julia Boorstin and Microsoft president of interactive entertainment business Don Mattrick, were speaking at the University of Southern California as part of the festivities surrounding the official opening of the Interactive Media Building, three stories high and part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts.
Lucas and Spielberg told USC students that they are learning about the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters. Some ideas from young filmmakers "are too fringe-y for the movies," Spielberg said. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."
Lucas lamented the high cost of marketing movies and the urge to make them for the masses while ignoring niche audiences. He called cable television "much more adventurous" than film nowadays.
"I think eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television," Lucas said. "As mine almost was," Spielberg interjected. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close."
"We're talking Lincoln and Red Tails -- we barely got them into theaters. You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater," Lucas said. "I got more people into Lincoln than you got into Red Tails," Spielberg joked.
Spielberg added that he had to co-own his own studio in order to get Lincoln into theaters.
"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," Lucas said.
Mattrick and Spielberg also praised Netflix, prompting Boorstin to ask Spielberg if he planned to make original content for the Internet streamer. "I have nothing to announce," said the director.
Lucas and Spielberg also spoke of vast differences between filmmaking and video games because the latter hasn't been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters. Which isn't to say the two worlds aren't connected. Spielberg, in fact, has teamed with Microsoft to make a "TV" show for Xbox 360 based on the game Halo and he is making a movie based on the Electronic Arts game Need for Speed.
And the following is from The Atlantic Wire
quote:
Steven Spielberg, Struggling Filmmaker
ABBY OHLHEISER JUN 12, 2013
Of all the people to sound the alarm on the decline and fall of the film industry, Steven Spielberg might seem like an improbable choice. But the director, speaking with George Lucas at a ceremony celebrating the opening of a new building at University of Southern California's film school, said that an "implosion" of his industry is inevitable.
Case in point, for him: Lincoln, which was a commercial and critical success, was apparently almost an HBO exclusive. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close," he said in response to Lucas's comment that "eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television." Spielberg, he said, only got the film into theaters in the first place because he basically owns his own infrastructure.
As documented by the Hollywood Reporter, Lucas added, "You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater."
Spielberg's advice for the aspiring USC filmmakers was, well, straight out of a disaster film script:
"Eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."
That scenario, presumably, leaves established directors like Lucas and Spielberg to fight for their creative lives in a new and unforgiving world. But here's the thing: even as Lucas and Spielberg lamented the fall of their industry, they made a good case for more or less ignoring the demarkations between traditionally different forms of digital media — television, the internet (i.e. Netflix, which Spielberg specifically praised), and even video games, which both Lucas and Spielberg have dabbled in. An example: while lamenting that his industry doesn't take to kindly to riskier work these days, Lucas called cable television audiences "much more adventurous." So while the big coming implosion will be a big deal to the industry itself, it's less clear what the two famous filmmakers think it means for the people who just want to watch their work.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2013, 02:21 PM:
What movies is he predicting will bomb? We'll see, I guess.
quote: Steven Spielberg and George Lucas
There's differences between filmmaking and video games because the latter hasn't been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters.
First of all, why is this comment even in the article? Secondly, it's quite clear they've never played a videogame before other than Spielberg's own Boom Blox. Every RPG is about story. Other games like Shenmue really get you attached to the characters. They should not speak of things which they do not know.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-13-2013, 03:21 PM:
The comment about video games is really off topic. Comparing movies to video games is pretty silly since both mediums are so extremely different. Watching movies is a passive form of entertainment. Video games are interactive. I happen to prefer video games that are as light on story as possible. I just want to launch the game and start blowing up shit. I can do without a 3 minute "cinematic" intro getting in the way of my trigger happy fun.
Regarding the actual topic, I'm surprised a lot of movie-makers (they're hardly film-makers anymore) haven't sounded the alarm about this situation earlier. It's easy for anyone to see the potential of the movie theater business being changed radically and changed for the worse.
Premium cable has offered more creative freedom for writers, actors & directors than Hollywood movies has for perhaps more than a decade. They can explore more kinds of subject matter and they can push the boundaries a lot harder than they can in the Hollywood 2-hour movie format. There is a LOT of stuff on premium cable that would get a NC-17 rating if shown in a Hollywood movie. We're not just talking simulated sex scenes either. Some of the violence in the Starz series Spartacus is more graphic than anything I've seen in a theatrical release.
Entertainers on cable are not bound by the 2 hour limit. Granted, they don't have $200 million production budgets and $100 million marketing budgets. However, technology is allowing a lot of TV shows to get far more elaborate than they've been in the past.
I doubt if the cable networks, at least not the premium networks, are worried about viewers watching shows at a specific time. Millions of viewers have DVRs. Or they watch shows online via streaming services like HBO GO. Or they get other streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. and catch up on series TV that way. This is allowing writers and directors to create shows of any length, be it a 2 hour movie or a mini-series that runs however many parts needed.
Conventional Hollywood movies are becoming increasingly stale. Viewers are already sick and tired of endless sequels, remakes and ports from other story sources (TV shows, comic books, video games, etc.). Because so much money is being invested in these movie productions via Wall Street investor demands will only force Hollywood movies to become even more stale. It's pretty damned bad if an original major production from a proven filmmaker can be called risky. Inception is one very good example of this. Not a sequel. Not based on any previous work. But it's from a very good film-maker with a proven track record of making good or great movies. And yet it's still seen as "risky."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Compound the investor-forced stale-ness with the limits the MPAA throws up at movie-makers. The only thing Hollywood movies have over cable movies and mini-series is the production budget. That's all.
Movie theaters are going to force conventional 2-hour Hollywood movies to work more and more as amusement park rides loaded with ridiculous action rather than tell a real story. Theaters are shifting more and more to a higher priced, premium theater experience. They'll top load new releases on these theater screens and allow the standard priced auditoriums to grow cob webs. It won't be long before we see new multiplex theaters built with only premium priced auditoriums. And they may only need to do that before long if Wall Street investors force "risky" original movies not based on a previous source out of theaters and to other platforms (cable, online streaming, etc.)
Let's not forget about the never ending push from some in Hollywood to release movies into theaters and on home video at the same time. That'll go over really well. A customer can look at paying $20 to see the movie in fake IMAX or pay $20 to buy the Blu-ray (or $2 to rent it).
The feature movie business and commercial movie theater business is poised to shrink to a far smaller size.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2013, 03:42 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
They should not speak of things which they do not know.
I said on Facebook about this same article, that Spielberg and Lucas should leave the exhibition business to the people who run it. They know NOTHING about it and they don't really seem to care how it works.
Spielberg's Lincoln movie would have been on HBO if they had ponied up enough money for it. He's no idiot; he knew it would be fine as a theatrical release so that's where it went. Any studio would have been happy to release that movie. Historical dramas often do quite well when promoted properly, and that movie was a masterpiece of marketing to its intended audience. Disney hit that out of the park.
Lucas, meanwhile, is still pouting about the relative flop of "Red Tails," a movie about a little-known event, with a low-budget cast, an unknown director, cheesy special effects and bad writing. The ONLY reason that thing wasn't direct-to-The-History-Channel is because it had George Lucas's name on it as a producer. If it had actually been good, any filmmaker would have been able to get it into theaters. As it was, even the war-film buffs around here said it was "OK, not great."
They make it sound like all the studios are interested in is action blockbusters, while in reality that's just not true. A lot of critics considered last year to be a very good year for movies, and ticket sales were actually up over the previous year...apparently they forgot about that.
These guys should just concentrate on making good movies and let us exhibitors show them. If they stay out of our business we will stay out of theirs (although we might have to reserve the right to bitch about Star Wars edits, re-releases etc.).
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-13-2013, 03:49 PM:
I think he's right, it just has to eventually implode. The studio system did finally and the aftermath gave us a decade of unbelievably great films.
I've had this discussion with others as to when films started really getting bad. Sure, Jaws and Star Wars kicked off this new age we live in today, but many films throughout the 80s and 90s were still pretty awesome. Was it the Phantom Menace? The Matrix? Perhaps even X-Men, which kicked off the comic book craze after Batman and Robin nearly killed it.
Or maybe it was the Internet that killed Hollywood as we knew it...
AJG
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-13-2013, 06:12 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The comment about video games is really off topic. Comparing movies to video games is pretty silly since both mediums are so extremely different. Watching movies is a passive form of entertainment. Video games are interactive. I happen to prefer video games that are as light on story as possible. I just want to launch the game and start blowing up shit. I can do without a 3 minute "cinematic" intro getting in the way of my trigger happy fun.
Well, kudos go to Valve on this one (known for e.g. the Half Life and Portal series)... They happen to be able to combine story and gameplay into one package and mostly get along without that cinematic intro.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I doubt if the cable networks, at least not the premium networks, are worried about viewers watching shows at a specific time. Millions of viewers have DVRs. Or they watch shows online via streaming services like HBO GO. Or they get other streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. and catch up on series TV that way. This is allowing writers and directors to create shows of any length, be it a 2 hour movie or a mini-series that runs however many parts needed.
While a fully featured multi-season series is not suited for cinema presentation, why would it not work for a mini-series that can be roughly divided into 2-hour chunks?
Digital production and distribution actually has made the cinema a much more attractive target for lower budget and independent productions, it's a shame its full potention is not being used here.
quote: Aaron Garman
I've had this discussion with others as to when films started really getting bad. Sure, Jaws and Star Wars kicked off this new age we live in today, but many films throughout the 80s and 90s were still pretty awesome.
My girlfriend told me the other day that the music in the 90s and "nillies" (or whatever it's called) was so much better than the shit they produce today. The day after the other day she started to go trough the hitlists of all those years, going "way back" to the 80s. She concluded that the shit-to-good ratio has remained pretty much consistent over all those years. I'm pretty sure that's no different for movies.
Time heals all wounds... You just happen to forget all the shit you've encountered in the past.
quote: Aaron Garman
Was it the Phantom Menace? The Matrix? Perhaps even X-Men, which kicked off the comic book craze after Batman and Robin nearly killed it.
Maybe I missed something, but what's the connection between Phantom Menace, The Matrix and "the comic book craze"? Neither Phantom Menace nor The Matrix started as a comic.
quote: Aaron Garman
Or maybe it was the Internet that killed Hollywood as we knew it...
Hollywood as we knew it has been killed many times before, but like many zombies (especially those from Hollywood), it is very hard to eradicate.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2013, 06:33 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
She concluded that the shit-to-good ratio has remained pretty much consistent over all those years.
Yep, I've made that same conclusion myself here. One only needs to go look at the old calendars section of my website, which has a few calendars going back as far as the 30s. Pick any month and year you want, and every single time you might see one great movie, a couple of pretty good ones, and the rest without fail are solid crap.
I'll just list the titles from one randomly-selected month as proof.
DECEMBER 1978 (we played two changes a week in those days):
Coming Home (Jane Fonda)
Mystery of the Sacred Shroud (one of those TV-promoted documentaries)
High Anxiety (Mel Brooks)
The End (Burt Reynolds)
House Calls (Walter Matthau)
The Norseman (Lee Majors)
Take Down (a PG-rated sports film about wrestling)
The Boys In Company "C"
Jaws 2 (Roy Scheider)
Pete's Dragon (Disney live action/animated)
The Buddy Holly Story (Gary Busey)
There's not a movie in that list I'd watch again even if it came up on the "free" list on Amazon Prime. (Maybe "High Anxiety"...which I think actually IS on the free list right now.)
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-13-2013, 06:48 PM:
Since my exit from the industry a little over a year ago, I have had time to watch the HBO, Showtime, etc. fare. A lot of it is damned good entertainment. Many of the mini series (Game of Thrones, Borgias, Homeland, Boardwalk Empire to name just a few) are very well written, with great acting.
Compared to what has been in theaters in terms of product, I find it superior for the most part.
I have to agree with Spielberg. And, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for exhibitors to get by. In years past, studios treated exhibitors as partners. Not any more.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-13-2013, 07:03 PM:
The Buddy Holly Story was very good, in my opinion. I've watched it numerous times. The rest of the list was a bit week. I know I've seen "THE END" a few times bit it isn't part of my video collection (Buddy Holly Story is).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2013, 07:05 PM:
The other thing I was going to say in my post above (but forgot to include) was that one thing that happens to everyone without fail: We get older. The stuff we experienced when we were in our teens and twenties largely shapes our tastes. Talk to many young people today, they'll tell you that today's movies are the best ever. I grew up in the '70s so I think those movies are the best. My grandpa thought any movie made after 1960 was crap. And so on.
Not only do our tastes change, but our habits change. Moviegoing used to be the only cheap entertainment of any kind available. Now, there are plenty more alternatives and moviegoing is more of a social exercise than it used to be -- people don't just go to movies for something to do on a typical Saturday night, they go as an event.
In short, times change and it's pretty dumb for people to keep throwing up the fact that such-and-such year had higher attendance than last year did, or whatever. If the year being compared is more than about four or five years ago, the comparison is meaningless because the environment is so different.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-13-2013, 09:39 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The ONLY reason that thing wasn't direct-to-The-History-Channel is because it had George Lucas's name on it as a producer. If it had actually been good, any filmmaker would have been able to get it into theaters.
That isn't true. This film couldn't get a release and it was way better than 99% of the movies being released to theaters these days. If anyone has not yet seen it, I highly recommend you pick it up and watch it. It's only $7 on amazon.
Just don't read ANY descriptions of what it is about!!! Don't read the bluray box or a Netflix description or a review by someone other than me (who would probably explain the plot and spoil it). Go into it cold. Trust me.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-13-2013, 09:39 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The other thing I was going to say in my post above (but forgot to include) was that one thing that happens to everyone without fail: We get older. The stuff we experienced when we were in our teens and twenties largely shapes our tastes.
That's true. However, you have to admit the entertainment industry is FAR different than it used to be. A handful of giant global media companies now own pretty much control the distribution of music, movies and TV programming. They are limiting choice and playing it safe in terms of the content they distribute in order to please shareholders.
I try to keep up with current popular music. I'm listening to a broader range these days than my usual hard rock leanings. Still there's not a lot of really different sounding music these days. The huge companies that control the music industry absolutely detest change. Change is unpredictable and scares the crap out of investors. The 1989-1991 time frame is the last time the music industry went through a natural house cleaning of styles. We haven't seen that happen since then. Prior to the 1989-1991 clean sweep the music industry would go through various big style shifts every few years. During the past 2 decades all we've seen is an extremely slow, controlled transition.
The movie industry has been suffering from the same kind of thing in recent years.
quote: Mike Blakesley
DECEMBER 1978 (we played two changes a week in those days):
Coming Home (Jane Fonda)
Mystery of the Sacred Shroud (one of those TV-promoted documentaries)
High Anxiety (Mel Brooks)
The End (Burt Reynolds)
House Calls (Walter Matthau)
The Norseman (Lee Majors)
Take Down (a PG-rated sports film about wrestling)
The Boys In Company "C"
Jaws 2 (Roy Scheider)
Pete's Dragon (Disney live action/animated)
The Buddy Holly Story (Gary Busey)
There's not a movie in that list I'd watch again even if it came up on the "free" list on Amazon Prime. (Maybe "High Anxiety"...which I think actually IS on the free list right now.)
There are big differences between that list of movies and movies released today. Even though a good number of the titles are forgettable crap, there's only one sequel among that list, Jaws 2. None of those movies are remakes, blow-ups of TV shows or other forms of movie-making where the movie is lifted from another source.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
While a fully featured multi-season series is not suited for cinema presentation, why would it not work for a mini-series that can be roughly divided into 2-hour chunks?
Hollywood doesn't know how to serve it up without dividing the 2 hour chunks with wait times of 6 months to 3 years between each 2 hour chunk. Cable TV doesn't do that. They give the viewer a more fleshed out "season" of episodes before making the viewer wait 6-12 months for the next installment (provided there are more seasons).
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-14-2013, 06:15 AM:
I think he might be right. In the society at large, there is currently a transition period occuring; the oldsters are retiring and significantly less qualified beginners are in charge. Normally this would only happen a little bit, but this time the beginners are really, really cheap to hire. See the problem? With the reduction in cost (up to 85%) comes an acceptance of reduced quality.
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-14-2013, 10:05 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe I missed something, but what's the connection between Phantom Menace, The Matrix and "the comic book craze"? Neither Phantom Menace nor The Matrix started as a comic.
No. I was trying to pinpoint a tentpole blockbuster that inspired many and began another trend in Hollywood. Star Wars in 77 sure did that. Everyone still wants to be Star Wars.
One could argue that visual effects were ramping up in the 90s, still blending it with traditional film making techniques (see True Lies, Terminator 2, even Jurassic Park) but the Phantom Menace went berserk on the use of digital, as did each prequel. It was almost proof of concept for many. Bad writing, actors doing it all in front of green screen, and loads of digital effects. Phantom Menace was the first film I can remember that did that AND had a lot of success. The trend continues today.
The Matrix I think got it right: excellent story and acting, some traditional filmmaking technique, and a heavy but effective use of digital effects. It also, if I remember, came out of relative nowhere and had huge success.
As for X-men, it wasn't the best film ever, but it had all the elements of the modern comic book movie. Some camp but not Batman and Robin camp. Some darkness but not the Dark Knight darkness. Had decent effects. A large, relatively well known cast. It was also Marvel's first truly successful comic book movie. In the next few years we got Spider-Man, Hulk, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and of course all the Avengers related films. You could even say Blade kicked it off. But Blade was no Stan Lee derived work like the rest of those were.
Maybe we're living in the age of Stan Lee...
AJG
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-14-2013, 12:05 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
There are big differences between that list of movies and movies released today. Even though a good number of the titles are forgettable crap, there's only one sequel among that list, Jaws 2. None of those movies are remakes, blow-ups of TV shows or other forms of movie-making where the movie is lifted from another source.
Well....you're missing part of my point, which is that the environment is so much different today.
- Back then, movies were much cheaper to make than they are now. If you're an investor, what are you going to want to put your money into? A movie based on a well-known property virtually guaranteed to be a hit and give you a solid return on your investment, or a risky unknown concept which, if it fails to catch on, could cost you your job?
- Almost 35 years have passed since that list. Life on this planet has been sliced, diced, and dissected by entertainment every which way. You have movies, TV, podcasts, webcasts, games, amateur video, etc., all running at a pace about 20 times faster than it was then, in terms of how long the product will last in the marketplace. I think it's just HARDER to come up with an original idea, that's appealing to a good large slice of the public, that can get made and marketed correctly, just because so many of the "stories" of life on this planet have been told already.
So they tend to go with the tried and true.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-14-2013, 06:29 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
If you're an investor, what are you going to want to put your money into?
I would never invest in a movie with any expectation of getting a return on that investment. It is actually hard for me to think of any worse investment.
Still, if someone put a gun to my head and asked me to invest in movies, I would never go for the $200m "blockbuster" title. Instead, I would invest in a bunch of low-budget horror movies. Neither investment would be creatively satisfying, but the cheap horror movies would be more likely (as a group) to break even.
I actually kind of hope that something does change in the mainstream film market. It has been a while since I have seen a widely released current film that I thought was any good ("Lincoln" was the last, actually), and I would really like to see more creativity in the films that actually make it to the multiplexes, rather than this seemingly endless stream of sequels, remakes, and reboots. I have no problem with high-budget movies, if they are good, but we need more films like Inception and fewer films like Man of Steel.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-14-2013, 06:49 PM:
Well having seen the beginning minutes of "Man of Steel" last night, I can tell you for sure that it's definitely different from all previous Superman movies. Everything about it is different. (Whether that's a good thing or not, is up for debate.)
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-14-2013, 09:37 PM:
My wife and I watched our midnight show last night. It was definitely better than the last one.
I thought the number of buildings that got destroyed was a little over the top. Maybe that was 3D effect that I missed out here!
Insurance companies would quickly put a "Superman clause" into their policies, denying benefits for structural damage caused by flying Kryptonians.
Should be a good crowd tonight.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-14-2013, 11:56 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You have movies, TV, podcasts, webcasts, games, amateur video, etc., all running at a pace about 20 times faster than it was then, in terms of how long the product will last in the marketplace.
..and "GooGoo" Plexes shoving multiple screenings of one movie, which in turn is returning these plexes into small 3 to 6 screen plexes.
Case in point: with "IM3" opened up in our area of 5 multi's back in early May, there were over 130 screenings of the film on the opening day with the majority of them for the 3D presentation. Talk about major overkill of screen usage. Thus, obviously with the following weekend, attendance took a major reduction (as so mentioned in trade magazines of almost 60% in attendance) in attendance.
Wasn't the idea in the first place to construct a multiscreen plex to have all of the screens with a different feature being presented on them?
Back in those days, it was an event to go to the theatre of your choice and find the movie of your desire to watch. Now, it's total competition due to what's available to get the people out of the houses that contains their home entertainment systems and come to their venue(s).
quote: Scott Norwood
I would never go for the $200m "blockbuster" title. Instead, I would invest in a bunch of low-budget horror movies
I bet you could have kicked your self for not investing into the recent sleeper hit, "The Purge": Cost only $3M to make and have garnished $43,644,850 for one week.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-16-2013, 10:57 AM:
quote: Aaron Garman
I think he's right, it just has to eventually implode. The studio system did finally and the aftermath gave us a decade of unbelievably great films.
I think Spielberg and Lucas have forgotten their roots, movies have always been difficult to get into theatres, and for all of those students they were talking to, they should remind the students that for every Spielberg/Lucas, there are a 100,000 wannabe film students.
As for Lincoln, there is no way the movie would of made it to cinemas if it did not have Spielberg's name attached, and for the record, the newer Spielberg stuff is not as moneymaking nor is it as good as the 70's and 80's body of work.
With Red Tail, come on Lucas, Red Tails was simply a flop.
Now, what Spielberg and Lucas failed to mention to the film students is that more than ever, there are now more franchises than in the 80's and 90's that appeal to world audiences. Pirates. Dark Knight, Iron Man, Transformers, Harry Potter etc all appeal to world wide audiences and they are made for the world wide audience. Movies now get a major release in China whereas in the past they did not. Look at Skyfall, a billion dollar title.
quote:
"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," Lucas said.
I don't believe this at all.
Maybe Spielberg and Lucas should as the Weinsteins about their long history of getting smaller pictures into theatres.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Wasn't the idea in the first place to construct a multiscreen plex to have all of the screens with a different feature being presented on them?
You can still go to a multiplex and find the movie you want. Multiplexes have always played movies on multiple screens, so your point makes no sense.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-16-2013, 11:36 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You can still go to a multiplex and find the movie you want. Multiplexes have always played movies on multiple screens, so your point makes no sense.
While this is somewhat true, back in the early 90's (when 10 screens was a big complex and 18 was crazy) you tended to have friday and saturday night interlocks of busy movies. Getting 2 prints was for blockbusters and 3 prints was extremely rare.
Now a blockbuster will open with 5 or 6 "prints" and be showing every half hour.
It's become an event driven industry mostly. Summer blockbusters with legs used to play strong for 3 months. Now a movie with great legs barely stays in theatres for 2 months forget about staying strong.
For example, Jurrasic park made $8.4 million on weekend #7. This was 16.7% of it's opening weekend. Last year, The Avengers made $8.9 million on weekend #7 which was 4.3% of it's opening weekend. Jurrasic didn't drop to that low of a percentage of the opening weekend until weekend #14.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-16-2013, 11:49 AM:
quote: Lyle Romer
While this is somewhat true, back in the early 90's (when 10 screens was a big complex and 18 was crazy) you tended to have friday and saturday night interlocks of busy movies. Getting 2 prints was for blockbusters and 3 prints was extremely rare.
Now a blockbuster will open with 5 or 6 "prints" and be showing every half hour.
It's become an event driven industry mostly. Summer blockbusters with legs used to play strong for 3 months. Now a movie with great legs barely stays in theatres for 2 months forget about staying strong.
For example, Jurrasic park made $8.4 million on weekend #7. This was 16.7% of it's opening weekend. Last year, The Avengers made $8.9 million on weekend #7 which was 4.3% of it's opening weekend. Jurrasic didn't drop to that low of a percentage of the opening weekend until weekend #14.
I don't see what the big deal is, the theatres I always worked at always had multiple prints of movies in the early 90s. With JP, we had three different prints playing a three different times. At that time, we also had interlocking as well for some movies.
Multiple print movies go back to the late 70's from what I remember.
quote: Lyle Romer
It's become an event driven industry mostly. Summer blockbusters with legs used to play strong for 3 months. Now a movie with great legs barely stays in theatres for 2 months forget about staying strong.
We still have movies that play with legs, not many summer movies but there are movies that are able to do it. Summer movies with legs don't make it past two months generally.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-16-2013, 11:06 PM:
The difference is, there used to be far fewer prints overall. In my area, the big city of Billings used to have a 7-plex, a 4-plex and a 3-plex, all owned by the same company. Rarely would you ever see a movie in more than one of those buildings. Even the original "Star Wars" which played over a YEAR in Billings at the Rimrock 4 (a mall plex) never played on more than one screen there.
But now, Billings has two plexes, a 14 and a 10, and not only are the same movies playing in both buildings but on multiple screens in each building. Right now, for example, Man of Steel is playing in two screens in the 10-plex, and two or possibly three in the 14. (For some reason the 14's showtimes aren't displaying correctly right now so I can't be sure.) Plus it's also playing here, and in two screens in Laurel, plus it's in Miles City's single screen too. Back in the '70s there would have been ONE print in action for all those screens, instead of the at least nine there are today.
No wonder movies have no legs anymore. It's not the movies' fault -- it's distribution, combined with our "gimme-gimme-now" society.
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-17-2013, 01:40 AM:
I don't mean to insult anyone, but making the argument that the practice of issuing multiple prints per theater for blockbusters has not expanding greatly over the last 20-25 years is a bit absurd. Not only has the number of prints per multiplex gone up, but the number of theaters a blockbuster gets released in has increased enormously as well. Just last week my 12 plex in a market of 75,000 people was playing 5 movies on 12 screens.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-17-2013, 03:51 AM:
And..we can thank digital for this mega screen explosion of one feature since one single file is doing it all now.... That's where the implosion comes in.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-17-2013, 11:40 AM:
Not really....Carmike was doing five and six film prints in Billings before digital went mainstream. I'm sure other chains and other cities were the same.
It's only since the "opening weekend" dollar amount became more of a horse race than the final gross that distribs started doing anything in their power, like advertising one date and one date only, "ON NOVEMBER 3! THE ADVENTURE CONCLUDES!" to get as many butts in the seats on opening weekend as possible, thus ensuring themselves high and fast film rent.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-17-2013, 01:22 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Not really....Carmike was doing five and six film prints in Billings before digital went mainstream. I'm sure other chains and other cities were the same.
I noticed that practice really start taking off in the mid 1990s. I remember when the AMC Grand 24 theater opened in Dallas. They had Die Hard With A Vengeance playing on either 4 or 6 screens. They did the same thing with Batman Forever a few weeks later. When our local Carmike theater was running film it opened a few movies on 4 of its 8 screens. I particularly remember Pearl Harbor. The theater had 2 prints, but interlocked it across 4 screens. I made copies of the DTS CD-ROM discs so every screen would be playing it in DTS.
Of course when "digital" took off it made it possible to play the same movie on every screen. The Carmike 8 here was doing midnight shows of some movies, like the final installments of Harry Potter or the Twilight series and filling as many screens as they could. All 8 if necessary.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Back then, movies were much cheaper to make than they are now. If you're an investor, what are you going to want to put your money into? A movie based on a well-known property virtually guaranteed to be a hit and give you a solid return on your investment, or a risky unknown concept which, if it fails to catch on, could cost you your job?
Like so many problems with the entertainment industry this is all their fault. They don't have to produce & market movies in such an expensive manner. A Titanic-sized ego has clearly gotten the better of too many people making movies these days. Lots of lower budget movies are actually more profitable, but they just don't gain the ego-stroking high profile of a so-called "summer blockbuster" release or a high brow project intended to win Oscars.
Actors are nowhere near the marketing draw they used to be. I saw one news story recently how magazines are dropping movie stars as a cover priority in favor of TV stars or other kinds of celebrities. So if actors don't sell tickets like they used to, why pay one of them $20 million or more to star in the movie. Talent is arguably the biggest thing that balloons the size of a movie production budget.
Not every movie needs to be embellished from beginning to end with CGI effects either.
I think certain investors are attracted to $200 million productions due to things like marketing tie-ins, product placements in the movie, merchandising, international sales, etc. It's tough to launch a line of toys with a movie costing under $10 million to make. When a studio spends big it can also lose big. In a way these global media companies who control movie studios are kind of too big to fail. A studio like Paramount could take a bath on a $200 million flop, but parent company Viacom could afford to eat those losses. 30 years ago a major flop would simply ruin a studio -kind of like what Heaven's Gate did to United Artists.
quote: Mike Blakesley
So they tend to go with the tried and true.
The problem with that notion is the big studios don't know for sure anymore if what they're doing is tried and true. But it makes no difference since the big studios control what is booked on commercial movie theater screens. Viewers can either buy one of the 12 flavors of vanilla playing at the multiplex or just stay at home. If the customers stay at home and just want to watch TV the parent companies of those big studios have content tightly controlled there. Cheap, un-scripted "reality TV" programming is spreading like an infection across most of the non-premium cable TV channels.
I wonder what these global media companies would do if a lot of the viewing population took up other hobbies and activities that didn't involve watching movies or TV. I know my TV watching habits have dropped off a great deal since getting more serious with a fitness routine.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-17-2013, 03:45 PM:
Reading the article, it's kind of difficult to know what his context is for the comments. Movie theatres have as many screens as ever, and 2012 was the biggest year on record for attendance. So there is clearly no issue with getting butts in theatre seats.
While the VPF deals may be a hindrance in the short run, digital cinema should actually make theatre screens more accessible to smaller film makers.
One of the problems with the "niche" film market is the studios prevent the development in special interest films in smaller markets by their limited release patterns. My theatre doesn't even advertise these movies because we never know when they will be available. When they are available, it's usually so far out that they are no longer worth playing because our interested customers have gone elsewhere.
What I see as the real problem is the majors churning out so much crap product that it creates an over-crowded marketplace. While a good movie will almost always find it audience, regardless of competition, moviegoers are often faced with choices between different varieties of mediocrity.
And it hurts further that the studios are still turning things around to DVD in such a short window. I believe moviegoers would be more likely to see something in theatres if they knew it would be 6+ months before they could get it on DVD.
Back to the specific situation of Lincoln. My theatre was being bombarded with calls for weeks about when we were going to play the film. Rather than making it available everywhere within a short window, they stopped at about 2000 theatres and made everyone else wait for 8-10 weeks. How are we supposed to keep moviegoers engaged in projects like Lincoln when they can't see it at their local theatre while everyone is talking about it.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-17-2013, 06:55 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Of course when "digital" took off it made it possible to play the same movie on every screen.
Seen a 14plex do just this: 7 showings within the first hour, then to 4 showings in the second hour, et.al. to where there were 29 showings of "IM3" in that one day.
That feature bounced around like crazy in all houses at that plex.
DEFINITELY did spread the crowd out!
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-18-2013, 10:29 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
A Titanic-sized ego has clearly gotten the better of too many people making movies these days. Lots of lower budget movies are actually more profitable, but they just don't gain the ego-stroking high profile of a so-called "summer blockbuster" release or a high brow project intended to win Oscars.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The problem with that notion is the big studios don't know for sure anymore if what they're doing is tried and true.
I am not exactly sure if you know what you are trying to say, the studios know exactly what they are doing right now when it comes to tent pole movies, just because you might like how things were doing in the past compared today, it does not mean what the studios are doing is wrong.
In the last few years, movies such as Pirates 4, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises, Transformers part 3 have all grossed a billion plus dollars. Movies are global grosses are global now and movies do not need to play for 6 months in a theatre to do well, so get over it.
This year, Iron Man 3 has made a billion, these studios know exactly what they are doing. Fast 6 has made north of $600 million and it is still climbing. The next Fast 7 movies will be a guaranteed billion dollar hit...
How many of those smaller "profitable" pictures does the studio have to make in order to generate the profit of a major tent pole? And where are all the tie-in profits from the smaller more profitable movies that you speak of?
quote: Justin Hamaker
One of the problems with the "niche" film market is the studios prevent the development in special interest films in smaller markets by their limited release patterns. My theatre doesn't even advertise these movies because we never know when they will be available. When they are available, it's usually so far out that they are no longer worth playing because our interested customers have gone elsewhere.
Can you expand on what you mean by a "niche" film? Generally a small niche movie generally will not perform well outside of a major market.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-18-2013, 01:36 PM:
I think what Spielberg is getting at is, what happens when a lot of these mega-budget movies fail. "John Carter" was the most recent example and was (luckily) the only gigantic disaster last year. Disney is so huge they can afford to take a $200 million loss once in a great while, but how often can that happen?
There are some studios whch, if that happens more than once, they would be on the auction block or at the very least, their parent company would sell it off. Spielberg is saying we're approaching a time when audiences will tire of the same old same old and we'll se a string of these megaflops in the same year. Which could cause some big trouble.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-18-2013, 01:43 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I think what Spielberg is getting at is, what happens when a lot of these mega-budget movies fail. "John Carter" was the most recent example and was (luckily) the only gigantic disaster last year. Disney is so huge they can afford to take a $200 million loss once in a great while, but how often can that happen?
With John Carter being the only big giant flop last year, I am not sure why Spielberg is worried.
The reward is well worth the risk. I think Spielberg is worried because he just doesn't have his hands on the big stuff anymore.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-19-2013, 04:02 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Spielberg is saying we're approaching a time when audiences will tire of the same old same old and we'll se a string of these megaflops in the same year. Which could cause some big trouble.
Actually, I'm hoping a bit for this to happen... Not that I want any studio to go bankrupt, but maybe it helps if it hurts enough. Let's hope it coincides with some smaller budget productions that compensate for the lack of attendance. It could actually lead to some kind of change.
Personally, I'm not automatically attracted to a big lineup of stars and endless special effects. I do think that the general audience will eventually follow or is already following.
A lot of the money that's being pumped into those summer blockbusters could also be spent on multiple, smaller productions. If you cut out the A-list stars and the need for ever increasing special effect budgets, there's a lot of money left to spend on quality writing and directing.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think Spielberg is worried because he just doesn't have his hands on the big stuff anymore.
I guess that's more or less his own decision. If he really wanted, he could have his hands on a 200 million dollar production tomorrow, even if he would have to pony up a great deal of that himself.
The same for Lucas, he has enough money in the bank to start his own mega-production any time he pleases (and he has done so in the past). But maybe he realized that he does the world a pleasure if he doesn't do the actual directing, but rather focuses on the other stuff ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2013, 01:49 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I am not exactly sure if you know what you are trying to say, the studios know exactly what they are doing right now when it comes to tent pole movies, just because you might like how things were doing in the past compared today, it does not mean what the studios are doing is wrong.
The studios are doing what is SAFE. Eventually they're going to get hurt by that strategy. As a means of insurance, the parent companies of the movie studios (global media companies who pretty much control all the rest of the entertainment industry) are doing what they can to corner all markets and all means of distribution in order to limit choice.
Mike mentioned how expensive it is to produce and market a movie. My point is it is not mandatory for a studio to blow $200 million+ on a CG-laden "epic" with more than 10% of that budget going to the A-list "star" whose name is above the title. They do have the option to think outside of the box. In the long run they're going to have to do that. The movie industry has gone through serious down-turns before. The industry is not immune to it happening again.
BTW, playing it safe is a big part of why the music industry hasn't been doing all that well in a long time. But to hear the media companies view on it, it's all due to online piracy.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
In the last few years, movies such as Pirates 4, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises, Transformers part 3 have all grossed a billion plus dollars. Movies are global grosses are global now and movies do not need to play for 6 months in a theatre to do well, so get over it.
If that "get over it" comment is directed at me, I'll just deflect that back at you. I'm entitled to my opinion.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
With John Carter being the only big giant flop last year, I am not sure why Spielberg is worried.
John Carter was probably the biggest flop last year, but studios lost money on quite a few other titles. I can recall flops like A Thousand Words, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Cloud Atlas, Dredd, Rock of Ages, That's My Boy and Total Recall just off the cuff. Some of those, Cloud Atlas in particular, were box office disasters in their own right.
I'm guessing After Earth is the biggest flop of 2013 so far.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-19-2013, 03:18 PM:
quote:
John Carter was probably the biggest flop last year, but studios lost money on quite a few other titles. I can recall flops like A Thousand Words, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Cloud Atlas, Dredd, Rock of Ages, That's My Boy and Total Recall just off the cuff. Some of those, Cloud Atlas in particular, were box office disasters in their own right.
I'm guessing After Earth is the biggest flop of 2013 so far.
This type of list looks no different than any other year for the last 20 years, so I am not sure what exactly your point it. There are flops every single year.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-19-2013, 04:28 PM:
John Carter wasn't the only big flop last year. You said it was the only big flop of last year.
There are multiple flops every year. It's not such a big deal if a lower budget movie flops. If the major studios only want to make big mega-budget movies, they're bound to have some high cost turkeys among that group. If they keep going back to the well for the same "tried but true" ideas they've already been selling for too long and the movie-going public suddenly gets fickle on them their losses are going to be monumental.
I don't know how old you are or how familiar you are with previous eras of the movie industry. They've been through eras of crisis before. Big changes swept through the movie industry between the mid 1960's to mid 1970's. Part of the problem is audiences grew tired of sword & sandal biblical epics and musicals. Then they got tired of the grungy movies that replaced them.
Movie studios and theaters are taking the audiences' business for granted. They're not going to just show up at the box office because the theater is simply there. If the tastes of the general public suddenly shifts, like it has in the past, these huge companies are going to be caught off guard by it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2013, 06:17 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie studios and theaters are taking the audiences' business for granted.
I don't know how you figure this. When it comes to the movies themselves, theaters have zero input on what we play. We can only play what gets made.
quote: Bobby Henderson
They do have the option to think outside of the box.
Sure they do. There are lots of quirky little off-beat movies every year, both from indies and from the major studios. They are the ones you find at the bottom of the weekly gross charts. If you want to make real money, then you have to give people what they want. Most of the top movies these days are sequels...why SHOULDN'T they make them if that's what people are buying?
If there is suddenly an environment where a string of sequels flops, then you'll see a big shift in what gets made.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-19-2013, 09:32 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
If the tastes of the general public suddenly shifts, like it has in the past, these huge companies are going to be caught off guard by it.
I highly doubt this, we have seen the epic tent pole/sequels since the late 70's. We are also seeing reboots faster than ever before. Bobby, keep in mind that we have seen 7 Batman films since 1989, Spider-man is already on the second go around, Iron Man 3 just cleared a BILLION dollars......Pirates 4 cleared a BILLION dollar....Transformers 3 cleared a BILLION dollars...Harry Potter 7 combined cleared 2 BILLION dollars, we are also now seeing more and more franchises than we have ever seen in the past, so thinking the studios will be caught off guard is foolish thinking.
James Cameron (unlike Spielberg, Francais Ford Coppola and Lucas) did something those three could not, Cameron very successfully created his own original franchise later in his career. Don't forget that Avatar is a 2.7 BILLION dollar movie.
There is no change coming, the change has already happened and it was the creation of the worldwide billion dollar film, the second, third and even fourth installments of these franchises are fueling it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-19-2013, 11:17 PM:
Spielberg's sitting on one of the biggest franchises ever -- he could make "E.T. 2" and have a two billion dollar movie by Christmas (if it was any good).
Or he could do a Jaws remake in 3-D and kick serious butt too.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-20-2013, 12:25 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
James Cameron (unlike Spielberg, Francais Ford Coppola and Lucas) did something those three could not, Cameron very successfully created his own original franchise later in his career. Don't forget that Avatar is a 2.7 BILLION dollar movie.
And I guess Lucas didn't create a successful franchise with that Star Wars thingy he had going and eh... Indiana Jones was obviously totally unsuccessful too in this regard...
But sure, those Godfather action figures were a total failure, Coppola totally failed to inspire a generation due to not delivering a Happy Meal compliant franchise.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-20-2013, 12:29 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Spielberg's sitting on one of the biggest franchises ever -- he could make "E.T. 2" and have a two billion dollar movie by Christmas (if it was any good).
E.T. would never fly with today's generation, Mike, don't forget that E.T. was re-released in 2002 to modest fan fare. I don't think it would get anywhere near the buzz or interest if a sequel was made.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
And I guess Lucas didn't create a successful franchise with that Star Wars thingy he had going and eh... Indiana Jones was obviously totally unsuccessful too in this regard...
Marcel, I said later in their careers, not early. Cameron create a 2.7 Billion dollar film which will be now become a franchise. This late in his career compared to the very good success he had early in his career.
What were you expecting? Red Tails 2
quote: Mike Blakesley
Or he could do a Jaws remake in 3-D and kick serious butt too.
He is not sitting on anything with Jaws, he did not produce the first part and he does not have any rights to a remake.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-20-2013, 01:08 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, I said later in their careers, not early. Cameron create a 2.7 Billion dollar film which will be now become a franchise. This late in his career compared to the very good success he had early in his career.
Well, I fail to see how this is relevant in any way. Lucas managed some way or another to keep the Star Wars franchise alive up until this very day... Maybe little James Cameron already dreamed of blue alien kitties? Just like he dreamed of Terminators (I wonder if they had an Austrian accent in his dreams too).
And isn't Lucas somehow the granddaddy of movie franchise? He was one of the first to work out a deal between the movie studio that paid for his work, to maintain all the rights for franchised products, because at the time, they didn't think it was worth a buck...
Also, Lucas managed to do some other things on the side (let's say, later in his career), while not being busy with his (arguably) not so great directing career: He created ILM, still one of the most respected special effect houses on the planet. He created Skywalker Sound, which have their hands on almost any major Hollywood production. He created Lucasfilm Games, later LucasArts, which had its own bunch of very successful franchises. And besides that, he also created Pixar, although it would not be fair to credit him for all the successes they had.
Ah... by the way, he also created THX. They have become very successful in selling stickers for all your equipment, alongside a bunch of very cool trailers you are then entitled to play on that stickered equipment.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2013, 11:07 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
E.T. would never fly with today's generation, Mike, don't forget that E.T. was re-released in 2002 to modest fan fare. I don't think it would get anywhere near the buzz or interest if a sequel was made.
You're out of your mind, obviously. There is a GIGANTIC difference between a re-issue of a 20 year old film that everyone has on video, and a brand new adventure starring one of the most iconic characters ever created. You only need to go to the Universal Orlando theme park for a little proof -- the E.T. ride there always has long lines (and it isn't even that good a ride).
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
He is not sitting on anything with Jaws, he did not produce the first part and he does not have any rights to a remake.
Who cares who owns the rights? Rights can be obtained. Do you seriously think if Steven Spielberg called up Universal today and said "Hey guys, I would like to do a remake of Jaws in 3-D" they would turn him down? They would be all over that like flies on a picnic table.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-20-2013, 11:44 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
the E.T. ride there always has long lines
Interesting!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-20-2013, 12:08 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I highly doubt this, we have seen the epic tent pole/sequels since the late 70's. We are also seeing reboots faster than ever before. Bobby, keep in mind that we have seen 7 Batman films since 1989, Spider-man is already on the second go around, Iron Man 3 just cleared a BILLION dollars......Pirates 4 cleared a BILLION dollar....Transformers 3 cleared a BILLION dollars...Harry Potter 7 combined cleared 2 BILLION dollars, we are also now seeing more and more franchises than we have ever seen in the past, so thinking the studios will be caught off guard is foolish thinking.
Do you not see a troubling trend with this? Remakes and franchise re-boots faster and faster? Shit. Why even do a sequel to Avatar? Just remake the first movie! And then remake it 2 years later. And then remake it the fourth time just a year after that. The audiences are stupid enough to just keep buying it.
The money these movies are making is irrelevant given the fact they monopolize the overwhelming majority of first run movie screens. If anyone wants to go to the movies these are the only kinds of movies they're going to be able to see. Their only other choice is to doing something else with their leisure time or stay at home.
A studio like Sony can try re-booting Spiderman four years from now if it likes, to cut the period between re-boots to half the decade it waited last time. Maybe audiences will keep showing up for the repeats like cattle.
Or maybe they'll drop that kind of crap all of a sudden and make it crash like Disco did back in the late 1970's.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Sure they do. There are lots of quirky little off-beat movies every year, both from indies and from the major studios. They are the ones you find at the bottom of the weekly gross charts.
They're also the movies you find in the fewest theaters. The big studios don't make much of an effort to market smaller movies (and that's understandable considering the high cost of advertising). The indie outlets don't have the marketing budgets to push their best movies in the same manner as a big budget release from a major studio. In the end, word of mouth isn't for squat on the smaller releases. Most viewers only "discover" those movies after they've been released onto home video.
I've seen this play out many times right here on the local level. I sat in a virtually empty theater watching Hoop Dreams the one week it showed here in Lawton. My late friend and Carmike 8 manager Jack Connor and I would joke about how we were the practically the only people to watch The Usual Suspects when it played there -again for only 1 week to mostly empty houses. Then I'd hear complaints from locals, "I rented The Usual Suspects this weekend. What a great movie! How come the Carmike theater doesn't get good movies like that?"
There is a possible "equalizer" with some advertising on the horizon. TV and newspaper advertising isn't worth much of a damn anymore.
Newspapers around the country are reeling. With circulation numbers continuing to drop they're having a harder time justifying the ad prices they're commanding. Commercial driven broadcast & cable TV is more crappy than it's ever been. So many channels are polluted with so-called "reality TV" nonsense. I can't help but wonder just what kind of demographic these channels are pulling.
These days if I want to look up anything about new movies, show times at various theaters, etc. I'm always looking on the Internet. It's rare for me to find out about a new movie by way of TV or a newspaper.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2013, 12:20 PM:
quote:
The big studios don't make much of an effort to market smaller movies (and that's understandable considering the high cost of advertising).
...
I sat in a virtually empty theater watching Hoop Dreams the one week it showed here in Lawton.
I can tell you, if people aren't interested in a movie all the marketing in the world can't make them interested. Look at all the hoopla the Academy Awards generates every year....but if the Best Picture isn't a popular movie, then it will only get a small bump from all the publicity. I remember when Hoop Dreams came out....there were TV ads for it and I thought it looked good. Then it came out, flopped, so we never played it and I have yet to see it.
It's a cold fact of the business, but if I have a large sized auditorium and I need a movie for it, and my choices are the latest Spider-Man reboot or some quirky R-rated Quentin Tarantino movie that's reviewed as the best thing he's ever done, I'm still going for Spider-Man. Call me crazy if you want, but I've got bills to pay.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-20-2013, 12:58 PM:
Audiences are interested in plenty of these movies. Look how often some of them are played on cable. Take my previous example of The Usual Suspects. That's been played many many times on premium cable channels and commercial driven ones too. In just this past year I've surfed past it playing on HBO and HD Net Movies.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-20-2013, 05:42 PM:
Yeah number of views on cable is very relevant to the theatrical market.
Tons of movies develop a "cult following" after they've passed their theatrical time. Some movies just take longer to gel, that's all. That's been true ever since the debut of home video.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-25-2013, 11:10 AM:
The following is from Forbes:
quote:
Why Spielberg and Lucas are Wrong About the Film Industry Implosion
6/20/2013 @ 11:32AM by Scott Mendelson, Contributor
If you had asked me four years ago, I may well have agreed with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas‘s statements last week regarding the eventual ‘implosion’ of the film industry. But today I see a slow comeback of sorts for the very kind of old-school ‘movie’ that is called all-but-extinct every single summer. It’s no coincidence that these kind of ‘cinema is dead!’ pronouncements come about during the summer season, when it does seem like the theaters churn out nothing but would-be event films every single weekend. But if you look a little closer, and especially if you look outside of the summer season, you’ll see a return of the kind of smartly-budgeted, often star-driven *movie* that everyone claims never gets made anymore. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s actually better and healthier for audiences than it was even half-a-decade ago.
Just over the last two months, we’ve had the likes of Iron Man 3 and Monsters University, but also a big-budget version of The Great Gatsby, a low-budget original horror film like The Purge, and a moderately-budgeted all-star caper Now You See Me, all of which will be very profitable. And in the art house scene, we’ve seen the likes of Mud, Before Midnight, Frances Ha, The Bling Ring, and The Place Beyond the Pines. Every weekend there are countless would-be art films that open in limited release. Some of them, like The Spectacular Now in August, will likely expand into quasi-wide release, some of them will be available on Video On Demand before or during their theatrical release, and all of them will eventually be able to be seen on DVD or VOD for those who missed out in theaters. They got made, they will make money, and they will likely be seen by every single person who wants to see them in one viewing format or another.
And this spring also saw mainstream old-school biopics like 42 make nearly $100 million while even Mr. Blockbuster himself Michael Bay delivered a $25 million R-rated crime comedy in the form of Pain and Gain. If you can look beyond the likes of Oz: The Great and Powerful you’ll notice that early 2013 brought us the likes of The Call, Stoker, Broken City, Identity Thief, Side Effects, and Beautiful Creatures. Some of these films weren’t very good and some of them weren’t box office hits, but they all are the kind of non-tentpole films that everyone says aren’t getting made anymore, yet they all got made and they all played in multiplexes alongside the likes of Jack the Giant Slayer and A Good Day To Die Hard. Harmony Korine of all people had a genuine mainstream hit this spring with Spring Breakers. 2012 saw an absolute deluge of wide release ‘regular movies’ and successful art house expansions year-round, many of them R-rated, which I wrote about last year. If this year’s output isn’t as strong so far (and frankly it’s not), well that’s just the random luck of the annual release schedule.
Speaking of Jack the Giant Slayer, Lucas and Spielberg’s assertion that ‘three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground’ already happened, and yet the world didn’t end. We’ve had the mega-budgeted flops like John Carter, Battleship, and Jack the Giant Slayer, and the world didn’t end. Green Lantern didn’t destroy Warner Bros. nor will World War Z wreck Paramount if it doesn’t gross enough to justify its $200 million+ budget. There are negative consequences to be sure, as the many many people laid off from Dreamworks in the aftermath of Rise of the Guardians can tell you, but the system didn’t implode even with the alleged doomsday scenario playing out. We can all wish that the studios would learn the right lessons from their hits (Inception‘s success doesn’t mean that audiences want a Total Recall remake) and their flops (Total Recall‘s financial failure means that audiences don’t really crave remakes of relatively recent genre classics), but we’re still seeing plenty of non-tentpoles at a theater near you. What we’ve seen since late 2010 (starting with the likes of The Social Network and The Town) is a return to the kind of budgeting sanity that allows non-fantastical genre films aimed at adults to flourish.
State of Play and Duplicity were held up as signs in 2009 that the adult movie is dead, yet their only sin was costing around $80 million a piece. At $40 million a pop, both films would have been worthwhile long-term investments. That’s the correct lesson that studios eventually learned, as a film like In Time would have cost $75 million back in 2009 but only cost $40 million in late 2011. Ironically, back in early 2011, the media screamed SLUMP! instead of celebrating the relative success of cheaper, leggier films like Limitless, Hanna, The Lincoln Lawyer, and Insidious (you mean Battle: Los Angeles grossed less than Alice In Wonderland? I’m *shocked*!). And even this summer still sees the wide release of such non-tent pole, mainstream films as The To-Do List, 2 Guns, and The Butler. And after the summer season and its endless tent poles has ended, the rest of the year, as per usual, gives us a deluge of smaller, often adult-targeted films.
We’ve got festival-favorite comedies like Don Juan and star-driven thrillers like the Affleck/Timberlake picture Runner Runner in September. We’ve got the ambitious Alfonso Cuaron science-fiction thriller Gravity and the Tom Hanks hostage drama Captain Phillips in October (if you can handle that it’s a remake of a classic Asian horror drama, we’ve got a new Spike Lee thriller in Old Boy for October as well). We’ve got Martin Scorsese’s The Wolves of Wall Street, Last Vegas - a comedy starring Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, Morgan Freeman Kevin, Kline, and Mary Steenburgen, and an African-American-centric musical Black Nativity in November alongside tent poles like Thor: The Dark World and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. And December closes out the year with the usual limited release would-be Oscar breakouts alongside the mainstream ‘Oscar bait’ like Saving Mr. Banks, American Hustle (a David O’Russell drama with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence) and Monuments Men, a George Clooney-directed thriller concerning attempts to save art work during World War II starring Daniel Craig, Cate Blanchett, Bill Murray, John Goodman, and Jean Dujardin. That’s just a sampling, so if you can’t find anything to see in a multiplex, you’re not looking hard enough.
It is not a perfect theatrical distribution system. The industry is still overwhelmingly dominated by white males and the critical masses still give their stories more critical respect than those made by and/or intended for female and/or minority audiences. The advent of 3D and IMAX has meant that certain tent poles take up at least three screens, which means fewer films play at a given theater. While we’ve seen a resurgence in moderately-budgeted genre fare, there is still a lack of genuine outright ‘dramas’ playing in multiplexes outside of October-December. A number of would-be art house films (think Mud or The Place Beyond the Pines this year or Bernie or The Perks of Being A Wallflower last year) are arguably the kind of seemingly mainstream star-driven vehicles that would have been wide releases ten years ago. The would-be smaller films that do make it to multiplexes usually only play there for a week or two, thus cheating the very sort of ‘catch it when it’s convenient’ adult audiences that these films are aimed at. We need a more spaced-out release schedule, so all of the year’s allegedly ‘best films’ aren’t crammed into the last six months of the year, often leaving the rest of the calendar sometimes starved for good movies.
But while there are always horror stories about theoretically good films that couldn’t get financing, the media seems to harp on the ones where the system ‘worked’. Lincoln may have ‘almost been an HBO film’, but it wasn’t and it was a massive worldwide hit last November. Red Tails may have been a struggle, but it got made and was a wide release in early 2012. Paul Thomas Anderson may have struggled to finance The Master, but it got made as he saw fit and played in multiplexes nationwide late last year. Steven Soderbergh’s Behind the Candelabra probably should have been picked up by a studio for theatrical release, especially as the Michael Douglas/Matt Damon film only cost $23 million to produce, but it got made and it will be seen today by those who have HBO and tomorrow by those who rent the DVD or watch in on Video On Demand. It counts a defeat for the kind of pure dramas lacking in today’s multiplexes, but it still got made as intended.
I don’t discount the struggles of those attempting to get studio backing for somewhat off-the-beaten path pictures in this day-and-age. But what I see is actually a vast improvement in terms of the variety of films being offered at multiplex theaters during the year, especially outside of the core summer movie season. I see mega-budget fantasy spectacles alongside mainstream comedies and R-rated star-driven thrillers. I see animated epics and the newest superhero adventure alongside the next expanding art-house darling and a potential Oscar winner. It’s not perfect. The lack of pure dramas outside of the Oscar season and the smothering emphasis on stories about white men needs to be rectified. But thanks to a resurgence in the kind of old-school ‘movie’ that general adult moviegoers would have flocked to a decade ago, along with the budgeting corrections necessary to make those films profitable, I am more hopeful that I was in mid-2009 when the industry was declaring that the adult and/or R-rated movie was an endangered species.
I don’t pretend to be more knowledgeable about the industry than the likes of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, or Steven Soderbergh, nor would I presume that their commentary comes from anything other than a genuine concern for the field in which they made their mark. We have heard cries about the death of the film industry for nearly as long as the film industry has existed. But I see cautious optimism rather than cause for alarm. We shall see…
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2013, 02:03 PM:
tl;dr?
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 06-25-2013, 04:20 PM:
If that's tl;dr to anyone, they have ADD. Took me less than three minutes to read, and the article makes a number of valid points, and a misspell of David O. Russell's name.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-25-2013, 05:17 PM:
fu;jr !!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2013, 05:41 PM:
So if I have ADD who gives a fuck? I don't like reading stuff where I have to scroll because that means it's usually long-winded and doesn't get to the point like I prefer. Phil was the same way, nobody cared.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2013, 06:30 PM:
Not only is it "tl," it also has too long paragraphs. That makes it harder to read.
I'll probably slog through it later tonight because it's Tuesday and I won't have much else to do.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-25-2013, 09:44 PM:
The article was really a good read. It's pretty rare these days to find a sensible article with a POSITIVE view of the industry but this is one. I tend to agree with it -- it makes sense.
Joe - read the first and second paragraphs, and the second-last paragraph and you'll get the point. The middle of the article is mainly examples.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-04-2013, 05:44 PM:
Heard from a friend today who saw Thor in IMAX 3D on the worlds biggest screen in Australia.
The cost of the tickets was $31 AUS dollars which works out to about $29 US dollars. Add in the $1.75 service fee and it is $32.75 for a 2K Digital LIE-MAX presentation.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-08-2013, 03:52 PM:
I was at the Darling Harbour IMAX last year for Batman and it was film; did they switch to digital finally? It was ridiculously expensive like you mentioned but it was worth it.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-08-2013, 06:48 PM:
The IMAX I was referring to now has both digital and film, it still is the worlds largest screen but it does show digital on it for most of the movies that run there, I did look at their website and they do tell you which format the movie will be playing in.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2