Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Doofy · Mar 7, 2006, 08:45 AM

http://us.imdb.com/news/wenn/

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."

So, King Kong flopping has nothing to do with the fact that everyone in the western world has already seen the story twice?

I mean, let's face it - go pay good money to watch a story which you already know or go pay good money to go watch a completely new story where you don't know what's going to happen? Obviously really, ain't it?

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 09:13 AM

Well, I think he's right. Less people are going to the movies to see multiple movies, while it seems we have more blockbusters each summer.

Then, thanks to the beauty of CGI, half these blockbusters are so light in story they are either unintelligible or have entirely been done before.

The worst part is, the Video Game industry has been heading this way since the inception of the PS2 and they don't see it either.

dlefebvre · Mar 7, 2006, 09:26 AM

There is so much CGI in movies these days that it feels like watching a video game without a controller...

Wiskedjak · Mar 7, 2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well, I think he's right. Less people are going to the movies to see multiple movies, while it seems we have more blockbusters each summer.

Then, thanks to the beauty of CGI, half these blockbusters are so light in story they are either unintelligible or have entirely been done before.

The worst part is, the Video Game industry has been heading this way since the inception of the PS2 and they don't see it either.

Actually, I would argue that CGI gives movie makers more opportunity to focus on the story (unfortunately, they don't). The blockbuster used to be about going to see amazing special effects; story was secondary. Of course, that was when special effects meant creative filming rather than whipping something up on the computer.

euchomai · Mar 7, 2006, 10:42 AM

CGI is to movies as Flash is to websites. It can be used, but most people don't use it correctly.

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 10:46 AM

When something like Star Wars is 90% CGI, I ask, what's the point of making it live action?

ASIMO · Mar 7, 2006, 11:13 AM

CGI T&As still do nothing for me; ergo, real women with fake body parts still required.

Chuckit · Mar 7, 2006, 11:19 AM

I didn't realize Kong flopped. Shoot, that was a really good movie.

ort888 · Mar 7, 2006, 11:21 AM

I wince at the thought of a modern day Lucas trying to make an arthouse flick. Good god. I mean, the man had 100% total control over the prequels and look how they came out. Take away the computer effects and Star Wars universe and what do you have left?

The man has been a film maker for 35 years now and hasn't made anything resembling an art house flick in the last 30 years. Why does anyone believe that he is still capable of making anything of artistic value? Especially considering his recent track record and the cinematic abortion that is the star wars prequel trilogy?

What's really funny is that he says that movie making is not a business, but rather an art. Give me a break... his half-assed attempts at the prequels are so pathetically devoid of passion and artistic merit that they hurt my brain. It's so obvious that he just phoned them in and cashed his check. It was as though he didn't even try. He had so little respect for his audiences intelligence that he just assumed we would accept whatever crap he shoveled our direction. Well, whatever George, if you think the lazily created, ill-conceived, 2-hour action figure commercial, live-action video game, crap fests you call the Star Wars prequels are art, then more power to you. I want some of what you are smoking.

ort888 · Mar 7, 2006, 11:24 AM

Kink Kong flopped because it wasn't that good and it was 3 hours long. Flop is a harsh word too, because it has already made it's money back if you factor in the international box office and it will turn a decent profit after DVD sales and TV rights are sold.

It just wasn't a massive cash cow like everyone was expecting.

wdlove · Mar 7, 2006, 11:26 AM

We are the consumer and will have to wait and what Hollywood decides to make in the future. Our vote is with the wallet.

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 11:26 AM

Any blockbuster is considered a flop nowadays if it doesn't return massive gains.

BlueSky · Mar 7, 2006, 11:33 AM

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

I'm paying $8-9 now, he'd better at least be talking about a double feature.

Millennium · Mar 7, 2006, 11:34 AM

I think Lucas has drawn the right conclusion from the wrong data. It's not that modern big-budget films are unprofitable because they're too expensive. They're unprofitable because they suck, and modern methods of communication have enabled early moviegoers to spare their friends the pain of sitting through these movies with little more than a quick "Don't bother; it sucks" message.

A big-budget movie can be profitable, but only if it's also a good movie. The bigger the budget, the better the movie needs to be to make back the costs.

exca1ibur · Mar 7, 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I think Lucas has drawn the right conclusion from the wrong data. It's not that modern big-budget films are unprofitable because they're too expensive. They're unprofitable because they suck, and modern methods of communication have enabled early moviegoers to spare their friends the pain of sitting through these movies with little more than a quick "Don't bother; it sucks" message.

A big-budget movie can be profitable, but only if it's also a good movie. The bigger the budget, the better the movie needs to be to make back the costs.

Exactly. No one wants to take responsibility for making a GOOD movie. If the movie is good it will make the money. Bottom line. You spend $200 making a garbage film no one will watch it. Simple as that. Not to mention they forget the price hike to go see these films now is a reason most dont go out as well and wait till they come to DVD to watch them. Not everyone can justify a movie at $12 a pop and damn near $20 a person for food, when you can wait and rent it for a few bucks and have a full meal for less. People tend to make budget calls, especially if they HEAR a movie is 'okay' or 'it was alright'. Unless its what they want to see, or 'kick ass' they aren't too quick to just jump up and see it.

The End...

Eug Wanker · Mar 7, 2006, 12:22 PM

The suckiness of the latest iterations of the Star Wars blockbusters certainly didn't help the cause.

Jawbone54 · Mar 7, 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I think Lucas has drawn the right conclusion from the wrong data. It's not that modern big-budget films are unprofitable because they're too expensive. They're unprofitable because they suck, and modern methods of communication have enabled early moviegoers to spare their friends the pain of sitting through these movies with little more than a quick "Don't bother; it sucks" message.

There was an article recently that my dad read about how text messages have affected the movie industry. In my opinion, anything that keeps people from going to see a crappy movie is GOOD. The irritating part about all this is that directors/producers who are used to putting out crap that still sells well are whining and complaining about this. Spend more time making the stories GOOD, and you won't have to worry about poor box office performance. Freakin' Hollywood babies.

Originally Posted by Dakar

The worst part is, the Video Game industry has been heading this way since the inception of the PS2 and they don't see it either.

This is why I love my Nintendo DS. Innovation and fun over lousy cinematic cutscenes = happy Jawbone.

Jawbone54 · Mar 7, 2006, 12:36 PM

One more thing...

Lucas was quoted in an article (this isn't verbatum) as saying, "I don't care about negative reviews for critics because I didn't make the Star Wars movies for them. From the very beginning I made the stories for children."

Ehhhh...George...if this is so, then why do you have hands cut off, bodies severed in half, young Anakin falling into lava (burnt to a peeling, bloody crisp, no less)...etc.? Lucas' arrogance is starting to hack me off.

The prequels were poorly written, poorly designed, poorly acted, poorly CGI'ed TO DEATH, and somehow still managed to draw an audience amidst poor reviews. I just feel sorry for the guys I saw standing in front of the theaters in their Darth Maul costumes.

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This is why I love my Nintendo DS. Innovation and fun over lousy cinematic cutscenes = happy Jawbone.

I'd have to try the DS, but what little I've seen doesn't appeal to me.

What bothers me is games like Gran Turismo & Final Fantasy. In order to give the gameplay 'depth' all they do is become abhorrently long.

wolfen · Mar 7, 2006, 01:12 PM

The Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding movies are on the way. Cartman was right.

olePigeon · Mar 7, 2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, King Kong flopping has nothing to do with the fact that everyone in the western world has already seen the story twice?

It might also be that King Kong sucked. Peter Jackson needs to stop directing movies if his only directing action to every god damn lead character is "Turn to the camera... and cry." After the eleventybillionth time seeing Kong express his love for the girl - OK! WE GET IT! FOR F*CK'S SAKE GET ON WITH GOD DAMN MOVIE!

GAAAH!!!!

Then it was T-Rex/Raptor after T-Rex/Raptor. Where's the f'ing facepalm smiley?!

Tyre MacAdmin · Mar 7, 2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by dlefebvre

There is so much CGI in movies these days that it feels like watching a video game without a controller...

There is so much BAD cgi in movies these days that you *are* watching a video game without a controller.

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

There is so much BAD cgi in movies these days that you *are* watching a video game without a controller.

Madden the Movie®

olePigeon · Mar 7, 2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar

Madden the Movie®

Someone should re-enact some Football movie scenes using TECMO Bowl.

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 01:46 PM

I smell a flash movie in the works.

turtle777 · Mar 7, 2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by wolfen

The Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding movies are on the way. Cartman was right.

-t

meelk · Mar 7, 2006, 02:18 PM

Kong did suck, and was yet another remake, there was so much CGI there that the movie part was non-existent, and Jack Black on top of it all? How awful.

If you want to see another HORRIBLE example of this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407555/ Cedric the Entertainer??!!!

George Lucas made the new Star Wars movies for the almighty dollar, just stfu George, no one believes you.

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by meelk

If you want to see another HORRIBLE example of this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407555/ Cedric the Entertainer??!!!

Did you see the posts at the bottom of the page?

"How about a remake of Roots with all white people?"

Busemann · Mar 7, 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, King Kong flopping has nothing to do with the fact that everyone in the western world has already seen the story twice?

I mean, let's face it - go pay good money to watch a story which you already know or go pay good money to go watch a completely new story where you don't know what's going to happen? Obviously really, ain't it?

Err.. no. It's got nothing to do with it being a remake. You must be really old if you think most kids today have even seen the original King Kong.

PacHead · Mar 7, 2006, 03:04 PM

I think Hollywood needs to start making more good movies and less crap.

What the hell is up with all of the asshat remakes ? They need to put down the crack pipe for 5 minutes and come up with some new, original ideas. Some of the remakes that have been coming out can probably qualify as some of the worst movies of all time. Only an idiot would pay money to see a lame remake when they can just rent the original on DVD, which is almost always 78 Billion times better than the newer version. I'm not talking specifically about King Kong, I haven't seen the peter jackson one yet, I'm talking more about The flight of the Phoenix, the honeymooners and a bunch more.

Maflynn · Mar 7, 2006, 03:24 PM

I think the problem isn't that its a block buster or that its so expensive because of the CGI and other special effects but rather the lack of orginal movies. I mean hollywood is retreading old movies like the shaggy dog. Producing sequals like the x-men.

Movie prices are so expensive why should I spend so much money on a three hour king kong movie that I know how it will end when I can wait and rent it for a quater of the price. There are movies I'm willing to see at the theatre but they are getting fewer and fewer. I'm not alone in this just look at the data, less orginal movies being publised and ticket sales are continuing to slide.

Special effects don't draw me to a theatre but a good story and good acting.

Mike

meelk · Mar 7, 2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I think the problem isn't that its a block buster or that its so expensive because of the CGI and other special effects but rather the lack of orginal movies. I mean hollywood is retreading old movies like the shaggy dog. Producing sequals like the x-men.

Movie prices are so expensive why should I spend so much money on a three hour king kong movie that I know how it will end when I can wait and rent it for a quater of the price. There are movies I'm willing to see at the theatre but they are getting fewer and fewer. I'm not alone in this just look at the data, less orginal movies being publised and ticket sales are continuing to slide.

Special effects don't draw me to a theatre but a good story and good acting.

Mike

I'll agree. A lot of what is being done now is wrapping a substandard movie with a lot of CGI calling it a day. effects should be 3rd to story and acting. Kong is a pure example of misguided film-making. The lord of the rings films were much better cause they had a fantastic story behind them. The effects only enhanced what was being done. Someone mentioned shaggy dog...who is actually going to go see that? I wish hollywood would get a clue.

Doofy · Mar 7, 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Busemann

Err.. no. It's got nothing to do with it being a remake. You must be really old if you think most kids today have even seen the original King Kong.

'Coz it's not like it isn't on the TV every three weeks or so.

Busemann · Mar 7, 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

'Coz it's not like it isn't on the TV like every three weeks or so.

Well, kids don't watch TCM you know

Dakar · Mar 7, 2006, 04:31 PM

More like kids don't get TCM (At least I don't, not that I'm a kid).

BRussell · Mar 7, 2006, 04:53 PM

King Kong has made over half a billion dollars in just ticket receipts. That's a flop? It already has made more profit than Brokeback and Crash put together times 3. It seems to me that the blockbuster is just getting started.

Doofy · Mar 7, 2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

King Kong has made over half a billion dollars in just ticket receipts. That's a flop? It already has made more profit than Brokeback and Crash put together times 3. It seems to me that the blockbuster is just getting started.

Maybe Lucas is just pissed because only 13 people went to see Ep 3?

ort888 · Mar 7, 2006, 05:05 PM

Yeah, but those 13 people all saw it 600 times each...

greenamp · Mar 7, 2006, 05:16 PM

The Chronicles of Narnia made $664,495,853 worldwide on a production budget of $150,000,000. Not bad.

Revenge of the Sith made nearly 850 million world wide. What's Lucas so sad about?

turbopants · Mar 7, 2006, 05:33 PM

I think there is greater access to, and publicity for, indie films than ever before, but big blockbusters that appeal to a wide audience will always be here. They may dwindle down to only the real sure fire hits, because the horrible sequels and bad remakes are starting to take their toll on audiences.

JoshuaZ · Mar 7, 2006, 11:22 PM

You all realize that in 15 years you could make King Kong on a budget of 15 million.

Unless we enter into a world of hyper inflation due to a massive national debt.

Dale Sorel · Mar 8, 2006, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Maybe Lucas is just pissed because only 13 people went to see Ep 3?

Quack quack, I'm a duck... I can't direct a movie worth a f*ck

driven · Mar 8, 2006, 02:59 PM

Movies are too expensive to go to any more. I took my daughter to see a film (some mildly entertaining cartoon film about a dog.) The tickets cost $13 for the two of us (child price for her). Concessions (pop corn and soda for each of us) cost $23. <sigh> Imagine if I took everyone in my family.

Then ... the theatre was freezing, they didn't turn the lights down for the whole show .... generally a miserable experience. (Other than spending some time with my little girl ...)

turtle777 · Mar 8, 2006, 03:14 PM

Yeah, some movie theaters are really expansive.

The local AMC theaters here give student discount, $ 6.50 at any time.
Plus, I don't buy concessions. I BMOB*.

-t

*) Bring My Own Beer

driven · Mar 8, 2006, 03:16 PM

Since I know the theatre makes jack on the movies themselves I try to support them by purchasing their snacks. But ... after last time ... the DVD player and TV at home are looking MUCH better.

turtle777 · Mar 8, 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by driven

Since I know the theatre makes jack on the movies themselves I try to support them by purchasing their snacks.

Nah, if they mess themselves up buy cross-subsidizing internally, I don't feel sorry for them.
Concessions prices ARE messed up. No doubt.

-t

Dakar · Mar 8, 2006, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Concessions prices ARE messed up. No doubt.

Yeah, its a monopoly that doesn't qualify as a monopoly.

olePigeon · Mar 8, 2006, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Quack quack, I'm a duck... I can't direct a movie worth a f*ck

Are you talking about George Lucas or Peter Jackson? Because they both need to be shot.

Gee4orce · Mar 9, 2006, 07:18 AM

The movie industry has turned in on itself and become self-feeding; we don't need any more remakes. At last, this year we've had some genuinely original movies, but look what's coming up: Spiderman III, X-Men III, Superman, Rocky XVXII !!!!

What's with all the superhero films anyway ?

analogika · Mar 9, 2006, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by ort888

I wince at the thought of a modern day Lucas trying to make an arthouse flick. Good god. I mean, the man had 100% total control over the prequels and look how they came out. Take away the computer effects and Star Wars universe and what do you have left?.

You forget that he destroyed the Star Wars universe with the midichlorians bullsh¡t.

Add to that insult that he decided against actual *actors*, and all you have left is great set design.

Which, of course, was all CGI.

*poof*