PDA

View Full Version : George Lucas predicts the end of big-budget movies


Grim Beefer
03-06-2006, 02:59 PM
"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.'"

"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."

(http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)George Lucas

From nydailynews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)

tufif
03-06-2006, 03:07 PM
That'd help level the playing feild so movies would be judged more on their quality and less on how many celebrity cameos and hit songs they can cram into it.

animalunae
03-06-2006, 03:09 PM
I think this will go down and up again, the problem these days is good innovative stories, originality makes way for big budget sfx movies, which personally isn't much of a concern to me, since the quality movies, based on content, are low budget films, which get their attention because of their script anyway, not because of the amount of explosions or cg creatures. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the big vfx, I just wished it was put on second place, rather then first... Off the record, I think the vfx in the first 3 SW episodes can't fix the crappy directing, story telling and acting in those films... imho I think King Kong to be a far better movie, not looking at the vfx, because, lets face it, also SW (especially the last) had some pretty neat shots.

sconlogue
03-06-2006, 03:10 PM
Yep. And no, this message is not too short.

ThomasMahler
03-06-2006, 03:11 PM
Yup, I think that's a realistic prediction. Thanks to technology, I'm sure that we'll see tons of indie movies over the next 10 years - And I think that this'll be a very good thing over time.

The whole 'going to the theater business' will have to change - otherwise piracy will be even more troublesome. Nevertheless, I think this'll be really, really interesting and it's just getting started...

JasonA
03-06-2006, 03:11 PM
I think that this largely depends on what the viewing technology will be in the future. I suspect that when the whole movie "experience" changes due to some new technology - i.e. fully 3D holographic movies or something simimlar - then the cost of creating such a movie will again sky rocket. At that point the low budget indie flicks will be done with HD cameras intended for a 2D screen, while the big studios will be making flicks with a whole new (and extremely expensive) set of technology. So I'm guessing the Lucas is presuming the film experience won't change much over the nex 20 years, which may or may not be true.

Incidently, did King Kong not do well at the box office? Honestly I hadn't kept track but I thought it had fared well.

RobertoOrtiz
03-06-2006, 03:13 PM
And he is RIGHT.

I think we will see a lot of the SIN CITY model of movie. (40 MIL)
But to be honest you can still make a big FX movie with a decent budget.

Check out Underworld II (50 MIL) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401855/business)
The budget for it $50,000,000 (estimated) and you could see every cent of that budget on screen.


What I do see is the end of the 20 million paycheck for movie stars.

-R

slaughters
03-06-2006, 03:15 PM
Just a 10% return on a $200 Million movie gives you a profit of $20 million. A $15 million movie would have to have a greater than 100% return to equal that.

Big budget movies will continue to be made, but hopefully not anymore by Lucas.

RobertoOrtiz
03-06-2006, 03:23 PM
One thing that we have to be fair for Lucas, is that the man
finances the Star Wars movies out of his own pocket.
Not even his best friend, Steven Spielberg does that in Hollywood.

Ok lets separate Lucas in two camps:
Lucas the Technologist, and Lucas the Director.

He is a need work as a director, no argument here,
BUT
As a technologist the man knows what he is talking about.
And this is no HYPE (Google guys I am looking at thee).

He has seen digital filmaking coming for a while, since 1980, and he has been helping it with his companies.

Hell the list of first achievements for his companies in terms of digital filmaking is a mile long.

So if he tells you that a storm is coming, I would listen and take shelter.

-R

ericsmith
03-06-2006, 03:30 PM
King Kong made $538 million worldwide, with a production budget of $207 million.

Typically, movies make only 1/3 of their total revenue from theatrical release.

I don't know what George meant when he said "Look at what happened with King Kong".

Eric

RyanKnopp
03-06-2006, 03:38 PM
King Kong
$519,990,758 (Worldwide) (26 January (http://www.imdb.com/BusinessThisDay?day=26&month=January) 2006 (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2006/))
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business

Am I missing something or does this mean over 100% profit??

Edit: Too late! Sorry!

paintbox
03-06-2006, 03:41 PM
Currently I only visit indie and arthouse films. Last week I saw "Good night and good luck" directed by George clooney and quite frankly it was fantastic IMO. A true cinematic experience. All the ingredients were there and the chef made a great meal.

If you need a $200 mln budget, you better be damn sure your story needs that kind of budget. All of that money should go into make-believe. Your audience should be gripped and dragged into the reality the movie portrays from the start. All the best ingredients can be in a big-budget movie, but when the cooking sucks, well, you leave the theatre with a bad taste.

RobertoOrtiz
03-06-2006, 03:41 PM
Ok we have TWO topics here.

A) George Lucas vs King Kong.. ( A silly fight in my opinion)
B) The end of the 200 Million movie. (Something that affects ALL who work in cg)

Kai01W
03-06-2006, 03:49 PM
Just a 10% return on a $200 Million movie gives you a profit of $20 million. A $15 million movie would have to have a greater than 100% return to equal that.



Weird maths. Since ticket prices are the same its much easier to get higher than 100% percent return on cheaper productions.
Brokeback Mountain costs ~15 mio but grossed 73 mio. (and it still has not opened everywhere)
King Kong made ~216 but costs ~200

-k

EDIT: ups. just looking at the wrong stats. Mea Culpa. Still probably a lower risk for the 15 Mio budgets...

Dennik
03-06-2006, 03:53 PM
Judging by the fact alone that originality is lost for quite some time, and the suits (the most hated species in the known universe) have taken over the industry, and killed creativity of any form, i would say i agree.
This whole past year has been a "meeh i'll catch that on dvd" year. . But no wait! the last few times i visited the video club, i walked out without a single dvd in my hands... :shrug:

ericsmith
03-06-2006, 03:57 PM
I don't see it as two topics. George used King Kong as an example of how big budget movies aren't making a profit, right? We're just verifying the facts here.

I think that in the big picture, His prediction is kind of silly. Movies are an art form, and those with the talent to create them will spend what it takes to fulfill their vision. If the movies they make are really good, then enough people will pay to see them, and the money spent will be worth it. $200 million budgets don't happen very often, but more often then not, when this kind of money is spent, the movie makes a profit one way or another. Not because the specticle of high production values makes the movie better, but rather that production companies don't trust that kind of financial risk to a movie maker that hasn't proven themselves very well.

Eric

Solothores
03-06-2006, 04:01 PM
Really it is not rocket science:
As long as the ticket prices here in Switzerland are next to Ä16 for a single movie, not including food etc. I won't visit them as frequently as I did in the past. "Blockbuster" or "Indie" Budget Size doesn't matter here at all for me.

At least that is why I reduced the cinema experience on approx one visit all two months, from what was a weekly happening.

Cheers
Solo

One thing that we have to be fair for Lucas, is that the man
finances the Star Wars movies out of his own pocket.
Not even his best friend, Steven Spielberg does that in Hollywood.

Ok lets separate Lucas in two camps:
Lucas the Technologist, and Lucas the Director.

He is a need work as a director, no argument here,
BUT
As a technologist the man knows what he is talking about.
And this is no HYPE (Google guys I am looking at thee).

He has seen digital filmaking coming for a while, since 1980, and he has been helping it with his companies.

Hell the list of first achievements for his companies in terms of digital filmaking is a mile long.

So if he tells you that a storm is coming, I would listen and take shelter.

Well I concur. Bill Gates is a good example for someone as visionary in a different industry, that features a list of archievements that is pretty comparable, still however Bill Gates regularly falls on his nose, when speculating about what's gonna be the next big thing... the same ruleset applies to Mr. George Lucas. He is still only mortal after all.

Zenitor
03-06-2006, 04:18 PM
better behaved audiences in arthouse theatres :)
makes for a better viewing experience,
don't think i've ever heard a cellphone or some teen doofus
talling about their all important social life.
ps I think Lucas was exagerating, or mis-quoted, Tabloid journalism.

JasonA
03-06-2006, 04:23 PM
Ok we have TWO topics here.

A) George Lucas vs King Kong.. ( A silly fight in my opinion)
B) The end of the 200 Million movie. (Something that affects ALL who work in cg)

People answered a question I had posted regarding King Kong's revenue with respect to why Lucas had made the comment "look what happened to King Kong". Its not really clear what [Lucas] meant by that since it would appear that King King was not a financial loss. In my mind, it muddies the water of his "predictive" statement.

richcz3
03-06-2006, 04:31 PM
I think what George says has merrit for these reasons. Hollywoods Big Screen time is being challenged on many fronts. Being able to read a swarm of Internet movie reviews the day a movie is released. More and more people I know are opting to wait for movies to come out on DVD. Its down to a three month wait now. Include HDTV and movies on demand from various sources the economic returns are spread thin over a shorter period of time.

Just with those factors, the price of going out to watch a movie will get ever more prohibitive. Include that more independant movies will probably become hits and be released soley over the Internet and 200 Million

I don't usually watch the Acedemy Awards anymore but after only 20 minutes of watching last night, there was an underlying theme of "Go out to Watch Movies". There was two direct points made about DVD's not being the way to watch movies. It's time for a reality check on where the money to make movies is being spent.

DimeS
03-06-2006, 04:51 PM
When it comes to films it's not as simple as, "the production budget was $200 million, it made 500 million, so therefore they made $300 million in profit." You have to remember that the film cost another ~$100 million to advertise and then the returns from the international box office are split between many different groups. So while some people certainly made money from Kong (i.e P. Jackson), the studio probably hasn't seen any profit from it yet...and it's the studio that puts up the money to make these gigantic movies.



People answered a question I had posted regarding King Kong's revenue with respect to why Lucas had made the comment "look what happened to King Kong". Its not really clear what [Lucas] meant by that since it would appear that King King was not a financial loss. In my mind, it muddies the water of his "predictive" statement.

Flog
03-06-2006, 04:59 PM
Why anyone spends 200 Million to make a movie using today's technology which is supposed to be cheaper is beyond me.

Oh well.

As far as how much I like George Lucas or not, he has hired tons of great CG artists and has made Billions off his movie, so yeah, he really sucks at making movies.

I mean his movies look like crap....riiiighhht..

Regardless if you liked the story or not, it was still a pretty good looking movie.
But I think Robert Rodriguez has a better idea on making movies. 40 Million tops and he had a ton of A listers. That is how a movie should be done.
I think it will be a bigger mixture of indies and mainstream. I think Indies will start gaining momentum especially when digital projection hits theatres on a more wide scale and you can download the film off a sattelite feed instead of having to make the Film prints.

George Lucas knows about indie film making himself to a degree and I hope he backs them more and more. This gives us indie makers more hope and more recognition.

xzevlin
03-06-2006, 04:59 PM
It did make over 500 million worldwide, but consider that theatre owners get a percentage of that , and that the production budget doesn't include the marketing budget. I couldn't find anything official on the marketing budgets for King Kong, but I did see some posts on a box office site that claimed it was 90 to 100 million ( both Spider-man movies had 50 million dollar marketing budgets).

So if it did make money, it's not very much. Though DVD sales haven't factored in yet.

Trojan123
03-06-2006, 05:01 PM
"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.'"

"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."

(http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)George Lucas

From nydailynews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)

Eh, it'll be a trend.

Hollywood film would make more if they would either live up to audience expectations or quit pissing off certain audience demographics.

SB

Terro
03-06-2006, 05:21 PM
Didnt he spend about 15 mil on Jar-Jar?

Anyhow, my favorite movie memories are from the late 80's early 90's. Not a lot of special effects but a lot of nice planning. Movies that took advantage of real environments. Early Bond movies did use a lot of FX's, but what made them so succesful was the location they shot at. They were very educational in a sence of travel. These days, I don't watch movies and think "Man, I would like to go vacation there"

JasonA
03-06-2006, 05:24 PM
When it comes to films it's not as simple as, "the production budget was $200 million, it made 500 million, so therefore they made $300 million in profit." You have to remember that the film cost another ~$100 million to advertise and then the returns from the international box office are split between many different groups. So while some people certainly made money from Kong (i.e P. Jackson), the studio probably hasn't seen any profit from it yet...and it's the studio that puts up the money to make these gigantic movies.
You might well be right, but can anyone elaborate on what Lucas was referring to? What exactly happened to Kong that reinforces the end of mega million dollar productions and the future of low budget indie flicks?

*edit* ok I see we have to factor in other costs associated with the distribution. It'd be interesting to see what those figures turned out to be..

Ryan-B
03-06-2006, 05:26 PM
Why anyone spends 200 Million to make a movie using today's technology which is supposed to be cheaper is beyond me.

http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/

Quote from article:
As paradoxical and absurd as it sounds, it's cheaper for a Hollywood studio to make a big-budget action movie than to make a shoestring art film like Sideways. Consider Paramount's 2001 action flick Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146316/). On paper, Tomb Raider's budget was $94 million. In fact, the entire movie cost Paramount less than $7 million. How did the studio collect over $87 million before cameras started rolling?

parallax
03-06-2006, 05:51 PM
I don't see it as two topics. George used King Kong as an example of how big budget movies aren't making a profit, right? We're just verifying the facts here.

I think that in the big picture, His prediction is kind of silly. Movies are an art form, and those with the talent to create them will spend what it takes to fulfill their vision. If the movies they make are really good, then enough people will pay to see them, and the money spent will be worth it. $200 million budgets don't happen very often, but more often then not, when this kind of money is spent, the movie makes a profit one way or another. Not because the specticle of high production values makes the movie better, but rather that production companies don't trust that kind of financial risk to a movie maker that hasn't proven themselves very well.

Eric

If you think that a 200 million dollar budget is dictated by how artfull the vision and creativity of a director can be fullfilled, you are sadly mistaken.

The sole and only reason in the universe as we know it, to budget a movie in the hundreds of millions of dollars, is to earn it back tenfold. Creativity comes last.
This is not a game of poker, this is a high-stakes business. High-budget productions and their financial backers only care about money.

Digit
03-06-2006, 05:53 PM
Film box office is very complicated. Im not sure about Tomb Raider but a lot films (smaller ones like Brokeback or Crash) sell the foreign distribution rights early and so are making their money back before the film is ever released. In some cases I guess they make a profit before theyre started.

And remember the studio doesnt see the gross - it sees the net. The rule of thumb is that it will recieve only a third of what we see on the box office lists. MOst of it goes to the taxman. So if Kong grosses $600m then Universal will recieve back $200m which doesnt cover the making and the marketing.

But, then theres TV sales, Dvd and merchandising and so on which can make just as much as the theatrical release if not more. And, presumably, a big budget film like Kong or Star Wars would make more in this respect than a small film like Brokeback.

Agree with Roberto though. Its the paychecks that have spiralled out of control. I har thats being in reigned in now, but I forget the details.

SheepFactory
03-06-2006, 06:04 PM
So if he tells you that a storm is coming, I would listen and take shelter.

-R

Or I will just laugh and point at king kong , harry potter , lord of the rings , spiderman...should I continue? :)

I dont see the blockbusters going away anytime soon , people love em , just wait and see how much money pirates of the caribbean will make in june. Sure you have a cutthroat island and a waterworld every once in a while (which by the way made back its money and returned profit in the long term) but that doesnt mean big budget movies will cease to exist.

specialbrew
03-06-2006, 06:13 PM
Currently I only visit indie and arthouse films. Last week I saw "Good night and good luck" directed by George clooney and quite frankly it was fantastic IMO. A true cinematic experience. All the ingredients were there and the chef made a great meal.

That's all true, but so far as I know GNGD was made on the basis that Clooney agreed to star in the (not cheap) Ocean's 12, so wherever you go deals often have to be made. Lucas, however, has to be right: surely big movies are now at their very ceiling budget-wise, although I think it would be a sad day when absolutely everything goes the way of green screen and the 'romance' of huge sets and sprawling productions goes completely out of the window.

ericsmith
03-06-2006, 06:27 PM
If you think that a 200 million dollar budget is dictated by how artfull the vision and creativity of a director can be fullfilled, you are sadly mistaken. The sole and only reason in the universe as we know it, to budget a movie in the hundreds of millions of dollars, is to earn it back tenfold. Creativity comes last. This is not a game of poker, this is a high-stakes business. High-budget productions and their financial backers only care about money.

Yes and no. It's very true that the people signing the checks are only concerned with making their money back and then some, but the point I was trying to make is this: Peter Jackson didn't round up $200 million and then just hack together a script to spend it on. He started with a script. Then, a team of production people put a price tag on every element, and after adding them all up, came up with a price tag.

I'm certain that every penny of that $200 million had to be justified to the check signers, and they only took the risk because they believed the movie would appeal to a lot of people. Creativity actually comes first, not last. Sometimes it gets mangled along the way, but that's usually the result of too many people trying to be creative at the same time, not a lack of it.

I personally think that this attitude that no one in the movie making business cares about the quality of the product being produced is just wrong. They aren't interesting in creating wonderfully artistic money losers, but they're smart enough to know that the masses will only pay for something that is worthwile to watch.

I just hate it when people talk like all Hollywood does is purposefully write crappy stories, and then try to trick the public into watching them by putting up a poster with Tom Cruise's name on it. It's a slap in the face to every writer, director, cinematographer, and actor that has put their life's energy into creating the best they are capable of.

Eric

parallax
03-06-2006, 08:06 PM
It's all about what sells, that's it. I don't think that's an insult to those involved. Next up you are going to tell me big name actors/directors/writers etc. are a guarantee for a good movie.

I'm not saying that Hollywood is purposely writing bad stories, but i do know that i don't hold the taste of 'mrs/ms average consumer' in high regard. Same goes for music.

People just like crappy shit, and Hollywood keeps serving it up, cause it sells.

joshmckenzie
03-06-2006, 08:27 PM
The problem that many independent films face today is one of distribution - if you can't even get your film into cinemas - how will anyone watch it? A cinema release still confers an air of prestige to a film that "straight-to-dvd" can't quite match. But who knows, with so many methods of showing content (mobile phone, iPod, PSP, DVD, HDTV) perhaps the prestige of a cinema release will diminish in the future.

Also, assuming digital film distribution becomes widespread in the future, it might make it easier for independents to get their work shown in the cinema if it opens up the distribution process.

Denart
03-06-2006, 08:29 PM
This is because video games are taking over.

Think about it

ktxed
03-06-2006, 08:40 PM
G.Lucas' statement is quite true, considering that King Kong ( except the FX ) was much failure ( even though it earned 500 mil )
The market-share of video games will increase due the improvements in hardware (faster gfx boards, cpus, consoles etc)

richcz3
03-06-2006, 08:40 PM
Always a good place for this link. A very good punch by punch review as to whats gone wrong with Hollywood movie making.

----
A closer look at the business of Hollywood today, those who control it, and how it got to be the way it is.

The Monster that ate Hollywood (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/)

Steven Spielberg's second film, released in the summmer of 1975, is considered a turning point in the history of the movie business. Marketing budgets began to mushroom, films opened in theaters from coast to coast, and summer soon became the all-important season for Hollywood bookmakers.

---

Digit
03-06-2006, 08:43 PM
This is because video games are taking over.

Think about it

I see no evidence of that whatsoever

Beamtracer
03-06-2006, 08:44 PM
The end of Hollywood?

Hollywood thrives because the economies of scale in the United States currently allow big budget content to be made.

Once the market fragments, and budgets fall to $15 million (Lucus's figure), then that allows other players around the world to get into the act.

The same forces will affect television. An episode of CSI costs around $2 million to make. It's hard for other markets to compete with that (other countries don't have the economies of scale), so they import content from the United States.

When the scale of budgets is reduced in the United States, then other countries start getting into the act.

ericsmith
03-06-2006, 08:56 PM
It's all about what sells, that's it. I don't think that's an insult to those involved. Next up you are going to tell me big name actors/directors/writers etc. are a guarantee for a good movie.

Only from the point of view that if a writer, director or actor has a proven track record of talent, it's a safe bet that the next piece of work they do will exhibit a high level of talent. But like I said before, a lot can go wrong in the process.

I'm not saying that Hollywood is purposely writing bad stories, but i do know that i don't hold the taste of 'mrs/ms average consumer' in high regard. Same goes for music. People just like crappy shit, and Hollywood keeps serving it up, cause it sells.

What you're really saying here is that you're one of only a handful of people on this planet that have good taste. Good for you.

On the other hand, since taste is a subjective thing, and you're in the minority, maybe it's the other way around.

By the way, your statement contradicts itself. You say that people like crap, so hollywood creates crap, because it sells. But they're not purposefully writing bad stories.

Eric

RobertoOrtiz
03-06-2006, 09:06 PM
In my opinion, the way Hollywood works, it reminds me of a HUGE Ponzi's Scheme.


"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment) operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. In fact, a Ponzi scheme must have abnormally high short-term returns in order to entice new investors. The high returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises (and pays) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.
The system is doomed to collapse because there are little or no underlying earnings from the money received by the promoter"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme


No wonder the system ia about to collapse.
-R

Vashner
03-06-2006, 09:22 PM
Episode 3 was great. Awesome CG.

Do you see any studios making good sci fi? Nope.. customers want it.. but they won't make it.

They even cancelled Star Trek. They would rather have brokeback and anti Bush movies.


Make MOVIES not just politics. It's bad enough TV media are obsessed with it too.

There could be some awesome movies if they just let the people with the art and talent make them and keep the back room politics out of it.

richcz3
03-06-2006, 10:31 PM
There could be some awesome movies if they just let the people with the art and talent make them and keep the back room politics out of it.

That was one premise in which United Artists started out long long ago. But even it ultimately faltered.

aaraaf
03-06-2006, 10:39 PM
My wife has kindly stated that all of the music I listen to is an acquired taste. There are many bands that I like where my favorite disc is most certainly not their best.

Movies are the same.

I have no desire to see Broke back. Not because of the issues... I just don't. I have little desire to see most "independant" (read crap) films, because they spend too much time trying to force an opinion down my throat instead of involving me in the emotions or moments of an exceptional life. When I watch a movie, I want to escape. I have a life, I don't need to watch other people have non-exceptional ones.

Give me some more Munchausen, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Kongs and you've got my money. I never made it to the theatre to watch American Beauty or Searching for Bobby Fischer, but they're two of my favorites. Walk the Line was the first "non-fx" movie I had any interest in seeing in a theatre in eons.

I think Lucas's numbers are off. I think that this is one where he's wrong on. Much the same was said about "True Lies"... do you think for a minute that anyone offered the ability won't give James Cameron every red cent they can for his next super-secret film? They know they'll get a profit.

Ericsmith, both of your posts are some of the most intelligent things I've ever read on American film making. Crap is in every country. It's not the desired outcome because no one will pay for crap... at least not pay for the same crap twice (theatre and DVD). Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't have merit for someone. Relax. It's entertainment. :)

heavyness
03-06-2006, 11:18 PM
as much as video games are a factor, i think tv shows [24, Lost, Alias, Sopranos...] are also keeping people home. some tv shows have budgets that top small movies and are better then most movies in the theaters.

given the choice, most people would rather stay home and watch 1 hour of LOST then pay $16+ to go to the movies. and they will make the decision every week.

my parents use to go to the movies every weekend with their friends when i was growing up... now they skip the movies and just go out to eat. its not a generation thing, the whole movie industry is doing something wrong.

and yes, i did catch the subliminal messages during the Oscar's last night "go to the movies, go to the movies..." why should i go to the movies when the entire audience at the Oscar's get advance screenings sent to them on DVD so they can watch in their house?

ages
03-06-2006, 11:24 PM
"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.'"

"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."

(http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)George Lucas

From nydailynews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)

I predict by the end of 2025, Lucas will have released 10 starwars dvd/tv movies that cost $15 million each made in some country like Philipines where $15 million is equivilient to $200 Million US.

LiquidMetal
03-06-2006, 11:26 PM
If the budget of films and vfx will go down,will jobs openings and wages go down too?Or will it increase the amount of films coming out thus creating more jobs?

Kentaro
03-06-2006, 11:40 PM
Peopla have to listen and study what GL means when he said basically it took $200 Million to make King Kong, and the movie lost money. Now some of u will say how did Kong loose money when it grossed $500 world wide. Thats true it did gross $500 mill/ world wide. But it also costed $90 million to advertise here in the United States. Thats not counting the cost of advertising and right fees to be released in other countries, and the format and language voice overs. Shiping of reels and promotion.


Those tally and fees are never reported and are kept off the gross receipts. But trust me there their for PJ and his accountant to look at. And GL being a director knows they do exist. When all said and done King Kong will probably break even or make a small profit. But that profit margin is not good enough to warrant another director asking Hollywood for $200 million . People are making desk top cgi movies that almost equal what big budget movies are doing now.

Movie exec's want a bigger box office $$ return than just a single digit profit. Kong gave them a modest profit, but not the profit one would think $200 million plus would have gave them, had it lived up the hype. Kong like Godzilla failed horribly. Remember that giant lizard movie a few yrs back? That hit New York. Remember HULK? Ask Ang Lee he remembers it.

Why does one see fit to spend $200 million anyway in 2006 to make a movie? Defies logic. With todays technology King Kong could have been made for around $90-$110 million, had the accountant not been kept out of the design stage. What gives?

Directors are now learning the software and now know the process of CGI movie making and are now making movies far less than $200. King Kong ended up being one of the most expensive movies ever made, and it didnt do good at the Box Office.

GL made Episode 1-3 almost at the combine total of Kong give or take a few million. So GL knows what he's talking about.

U shouldnt have to spend that much to make a movie nowadays. Unless your smoking something. PJ's take home pay alone was no less than $40 million. Take $40 from $500, from $90 US advertising and another $100 million from world wide advertising, and etc u then begin to see what GL was talking about.

I bet u this much. PJ's next movie and the one after that wont be anywhere near $200 million.


*****

mangolass
03-07-2006, 12:09 AM
King Kong made $538 million worldwide, with a production budget of $207 million.

Typically, movies make only 1/3 of their total revenue from theatrical release.

I don't know what George meant when he said "Look at what happened with King Kong".

Yes, that was a strange comment to make when King Kong is such a profitable hit.

If big-budget Hollywood movies are in trouble, the mid to small budget ones are in even worst shape. People really don't go out to the movies to see most of the everyday smaller films anymore. The flat-rate pricing at theaters ~ same price for any movie! ~ makes no economic sense at all. It's almost like price-fixing if somebody can make a movie for less money but customers have to pay the same amount for it ~ being price competetive doesn't help market the film at all.

LT

ntmonkey
03-07-2006, 01:08 AM
Peopla have to listen and study what GL means when he said basically it took $200 Million to make King Kong, and the movie lost money. Now some of u will say how did Kong loose money when it grossed $500 world wide. Thats true it did gross $500 mill/ world wide. But it also costed $90 million to advertise here in the United States. Thats not counting the cost of advertising and right fees to be released in other countries, and the format and language voice overs. Shiping of reels and promotion.


Those tally and fees are never reported and are kept off the gross receipts. But trust me there their for PJ and his accountant to look at. And GL being a director knows they do exist. When all said and done King Kong will probably break even or make a small profit. But that profit margin is not good enough to warrant another director asking Hollywood for $200 million . People are making desk top cgi movies that almost equal what big budget movies are doing now.

Movie exec's want a bigger box office $$ return than just a single digit profit. Kong gave them a modest profit, but not the profit one would think $200 million plus would have gave them, had it lived up the hype. Kong like Godzilla failed horribly. Remember that giant lizard movie a few yrs back? That hit New York. Remember HULK? Ask Ang Lee he remembers it.

Why does one see fit to spend $200 million anyway in 2006 to make a movie? Defies logic. With todays technology King Kong could have been made for around $90-$110 million, had the accountant not been kept out of the design stage. What gives?

Directors are now learning the software and now know the process of CGI movie making and are now making movies far less than $200. King Kong ended up being one of the most expensive movies ever made, and it didnt do good at the Box Office.

GL made Episode 1-3 almost at the combine total of Kong give or take a few million. So GL knows what he's talking about.

U shouldnt have to spend that much to make a movie nowadays. Unless your smoking something. PJ's take home pay alone was no less than $40 million. Take $40 from $500, from $90 US advertising and another $100 million from world wide advertising, and etc u then begin to see what GL was talking about.

I bet u this much. PJ's next movie and the one after that wont be anywhere near $200 million.


*****

If only shots were finaled on the first try, then your idea might work. For movies where the digital characters are the star of the show, appearing in damn near every shot of the movie, it's going to get expensive. There are other things like motion-control camera rigs, green room lighting setups, mocap setups, and little things like a tiny army to run all the gear and put it all together. It's not all just software.

I think Peter Jackson knows what he's doing too. After all, the trilogy of LOTR cost a lot less than the new sequels of Star Wars to make.

Star Wars --- $115m x 3
LOTR --- $109m + $94m + $94m

SW total = $345m
LOTR total = $297m

Fact is, these types of movies are going to be expensive. In the future the cost might come down as technology advances. But as soon as that happens, the audience wants the next big thing and the cycle starts all over. Like a few of my coworkers said to me at lunch, there really isn't much "recycling" in this industry. Everything needs to be fresh and made anew.

peace,

Lu

jeremybirn
03-07-2006, 02:40 AM
Thats true it did gross $500 mill/ world wide. But it also costed $90 million to advertise here in the United States. Thats not counting the cost of advertising and right fees to be released in other countries, and the format and language voice overs. Shiping of reels and promotion.
Losing argument. For every "extra expense" you can list, there are also extra sources of profit: TV rights, merchandise, home video, etc. in each country which account for a lot more.

People are making desk top cgi movies that almost equal what big budget movies are doing now.
We've all heard that before, but when movie producers believe it (or pretend to believe it) and try to use cheap desktop video as feature film visual effects, the result doesn't really look that pretty, does it?

I bet u this much. PJ's next movie and the one after that wont be anywhere near $200 million.
You're on! How much do you want to bet?

-jeremy

Terrell
03-07-2006, 02:43 AM
Big budget movies will continue to be made, but hopefully not anymore by Lucas.

I think Lucas has earned the right to do what he wants, rather than listen to some schmuck on internet chatroom. He's forgotten more about filmmaking in the last 5 minutes than you will ever know in a lifetime. So you'll have to forgive me if I choose to defer to Lucas on aspects of filmmaking.

I think Peter Jackson knows what he's doing too. After all, the trilogy of LOTR cost a lot less than the new sequels of Star Wars to make.

Star Wars --- $115m x 3
LOTR --- $109m + $94m + $94m

SW total = $345m
LOTR total = $297m

Keep dreaming. If you believe each LOTR film only cost 109 million, then you're kidding yourself. Don't give me the published budgets from 4 years ago. Each film cost more than the prequel films. His last film, Kong, was a bloated 200 million dollar self-indulgent, pretentious film.

It's also obvious that many here don't know that studios have to split box office money with theaters. I have a friend who owns a local theater. The general rule is a film has to make around 2 1/2 times it's budget to make it's money back. So Kong had to make around 500 million just to break even. That's just the budget. That doesn't even include marketing costs which were probably around 20-30 million.

Lucas was a big fan of Kong, and has said so in interviews. But he's right about the finances.

Losing argument. For every "extra expense" you can list, there are also extra sources of profit: TV rights, merchandise, home video, etc. in each country which account for a lot more

Perhaps, but studios don't release films in theaters just to make DVD money. They make and release films in theaters in order to make money in theaters. Otherwise, there would be no point in even releasing them in theaters.

Bonedaddy
03-07-2006, 02:49 AM
I'd believe what he says, actually. Possibly not the timetable, but evidence exists to indicate that the film industry goes in cycles. We're in a Neo-Classic era right now -- what is going on now echoes the big studio system that was in effect in the 30s and 40s. After that all fell apart, we went back to a lower-budget, indie filmmaking style, which lasted through most of the 60s and 70s. Then Jaws and Star Wars hit, and ushered in Postmodernism and Neo-Classicism. DVD is making a big hit on the film market, just as TV did back in the 50s, and I think that expecting a much smaller industry in the future isn't too absurd a thought.

I don't know what this means animation-wise, because low-budget animation is... well, not terribly successful. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Reading tea leaves isn't my specialty anywho.

jeremybirn
03-07-2006, 02:52 AM
If big-budget Hollywood movies are in trouble, the mid to small budget ones are in even worst shape. People really don't go out to the movies to see most of the everyday smaller films anymore. The flat-rate pricing at theaters ~ same price for any movie! ~ makes no economic sense at all. It's almost like price-fixing if somebody can make a movie for less money but customers have to pay the same amount for it ~ being price competetive doesn't help market the film at all.
Quoted for agreement.

Costs like distribution, advertising, and (as you point out) even ticket prices, aren't going to change just because one film used cheaper visual effects than another. In terms of financing, there's a great article in Slate explaining why it often costs studios so much less to finance big budget movies than small ones:

As paradoxical and absurd as it sounds, it's cheaper for a Hollywood studio to make a big-budget action movie than to make a shoestring art film like Sideways. Consider Paramount's 2001 action flick Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. On paper, Tomb Raider's budget was $94 million. In fact, the entire movie cost Paramount less than $7 million. (link to article... (http://www.slate.com/id/2117309/))
-jeremy

jeremybirn
03-07-2006, 03:01 AM
DVD is making a big hit on the film market, just as TV did back in the 50s, and I think that expecting a much smaller industry in the future isn't too absurd a thought.

I don't know what this means animation-wise, because low-budget animation is... well, not terribly successful. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Reading tea leaves isn't my specialty anywho.

I agree with much of that. Even the big Hollywood studios seem to sense that possibility, when you look at how they have aquired most of the "indy" studios.

-jeremy

jeremybirn
03-07-2006, 03:29 AM
Perhaps, but studios don't release films in theaters just to make DVD money. They make and release films in theaters in order to make money in theaters. Otherwise, there would be no point in even releasing them in theaters.
That's an interesting issue. Right now, the American public thinks that "direct to video" means second-rate junk, and yet the same public overwhelmingly prefers to skip the theater and watch most of their movies on home video. That's a vexing contradiction. Even when studios are making money both in theaters and on DVD, you have to ask why do they spend more money promoting the theatrical release than the DVD release, even when they know full well a movie will make more money and reach more viewers on DVD?

Something needs to change about the business model and public attitudes here, but I don't envy the movie studio that first tries to release an A-list title onto DVD at around the same time as it hits theaters without a full theatrical run first, and needs to convince people that this doesn't mean they have a dud on their hands.

-jeremy

Beamtracer
03-07-2006, 03:36 AM
I'd believe what he says, actually. Possibly not the timetable, but evidence exists to indicate that the film industry goes in cycles.
I firmly believe this is not a cycle. It's a downward spiral for blockbuster movies.

Costs like distribution, advertising, and (as you point out) even ticket prices, aren't going to change just because one film used cheaper visual effects than another.
A fundamental change in the way content is distributed will change those costs.

The future of content distribution is no longer theaters or disks. It's "IP"... the internet.

Market fragments. Budgets fragment among more players. Barriers to entry are lowered. More overseas competition.

Bonedaddy
03-07-2006, 03:37 AM
Jeremy, that would be Stephen Soderberg, with BUBBLE, which is being released simultaneously in theaters, on cable, and on DVD. Don't know if it counts as A-list, but... yeah.

http://voicefilms.typepad.com/voicefilms/2005/12/stephen_soderbe.html

earlyworm
03-07-2006, 03:41 AM
I think Peter Jackson knows what he's doing too. After all, the trilogy of LOTR cost a lot less than the new sequels of Star Wars to make.

Star Wars --- $115m x 3
LOTR --- $109m + $94m + $94m

SW total = $345m
LOTR total = $297m



Remember to factor in that LOTR was made when the $NZD was a lot cheaper than it is now, plus there's a whole lot of other factors that made filming LOTR cheaper than it would have normally been, had it been made else where it may have cost up to twice that to make LOTR.

GL stated that it was unrealistic for a $200m film to expect to make a profit and he's right - even Titanic could have gone the way of that other water movie (waterworld).

Blockbusters will still exist - George never states in the article that they'll go away, they'll just be made a lot differently. Kind of like the way PJ, GL and Robert Rodriguez make films now, just more cost effective (something that RR has shown is possibly with every one of his films) - so if your average hollywood film costs $15m in the year 2525 (if man is still alive, if woman can survive, we may find...) then a PJ-sized blockbuster will probably cost about $50m.

Ordibble-Plop
03-07-2006, 03:46 AM
This news item might be interesting in the context of the smaller budget art-house movies versus blockbuster debate.

Oscar ratings follow box-office slide (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06032006/325/oscar-ratings-follow-box-office-slide.html)

Some extracts:

"Sunday's Academy Awards telecast averaged 38.8 million viewers, down nearly 8 percent from last year, bearing out predictions that a relative lack of star power and the serious, art-house subject matter of Oscar-nominated films such as "Crash," "Brokeback Mountain," "Munich" and "Capote" would dampen interest in this year's show."

"Nielsen ratings for the Oscars and other entertainment awards shows have generally declined over the years, though they tend to spike in years when films that packed the multiplexes also figured prominently at the Oscars.

That was not the case this year, as none of the five movies nominated for the top prize made a huge impact at the box office. And many of the performers nominated in the major categories, such as best actor winner Philip Seymour Hoffman, were hardly household names."

thepineman
03-07-2006, 03:51 AM
If Lucas is correct with his predictions- that is goodnews for those aspiring producers, directors and vfx people who wants to make a full lenght film but without much capital.

the concerns that I have is marketing worldwide. traditional, big companies who is already established in the global distribution of films should also cater to low budget producers of movies and be willing to deal with them just the way they deal with companies who has bigger names and capital.

I agree with Lucas eventually the playing field in this industry is going in favour of those who have the vision, techniques and ability to produce digital content, as much of the scenes nowadays in the movies either complex or simple are becoming easy to do and produce.

heavyness
03-07-2006, 05:00 AM
"Sunday's Academy Awards telecast averaged 38.8 million viewers, down nearly 8 percent from last year, bearing out predictions that a relative lack of star power and the serious, art-house subject matter of Oscar-nominated films such as "Crash," "Brokeback Mountain," "Munich" and "Capote" would dampen interest in this year's show."

OT: i enjoyed this Oscar's more then any. better set design, nicer graphics, montages were great, and John Stewart.

ntmonkey
03-07-2006, 05:04 AM
I'm all for movies being cheaper to make. But like Jeremy Birn says, the idea is sound until you actually try to apply it. Everyone thinks that, and winds up finding out that it's not that cheap, or the end product is going to downright suck. I've seen it firsthand and the craziness ensues.


Originally posted by Tyrell

Keep dreaming. If you believe each LOTR film only cost 109 million, then you're kidding yourself. Don't give me the published budgets from 4 years ago. Each film cost more than the prequel films. His last film, Kong, was a bloated 200 million dollar self-indulgent, pretentious film.

If PJ got someone to give him more money than what's published, more power to him. They play with money that I can't fathom. Fact is, the dude is laughing to the bank, and a few good movies came out of it that I still enjoy. I honestly don't know where they keep the stash of the REAL budget figures. Apparently everyone else here has a copy except me. :shrugs:

Hell, give me $200 mil to make a film and I'll let all CGTalk members call me the foulest nasties you can imagine. I'm sure it's worth it. :D

peace,

Lu

Per-Anders
03-07-2006, 05:22 AM
You know, if I didn't know any better and I was a totally cynical bastard I'd say this is just a move designed to excuse the Star Wars prequels, and potentially put the wind up some folks at ILM and (and everyone else) to justify the role of the Management/Director/Producer and potential wage differences between gruntworkers (who obviously should be earning less, after all anyone can and will be doing it on a shoestring!) and Directors/Producers (who obviously should be reaping more form the profits, these films will still be succesful after all).

Of course that's just cynical old me.

Anyhow I seem to recall similar predictions and proclamations being made about the music industry on a fairly regular basis (ever since punk).

Trojan123
03-07-2006, 05:43 AM
OT: i enjoyed this Oscar's more then any. better set design, nicer graphics, montages were great, and John Stewart.

This is a good example of this discussion being dominated by those with industry goggles on rather than the goggles of Joe Blow audience.

There is an overbearing attitude run amok that was blatantly on display last night: "we know better than you, and you're a schmuck. After all, we are Hollywood and we dictate society. If you aren't human like us, then you voted Bush." I am shocked that Clooney didn't offer his ring for us to kiss.

Here's basically what was said: "We can either pick what most people liked- like Narnia, or we can pick the movies with the lowest grosses. Yes, these 4 movies with social messages- and Capote- are what we want you to think and feel. This is what we consider "Outstanding Achievement. So, here's the 5 least popular films of the year. Ta-daaa!"

And then follow it up with: "Watch more movies. Please."

Now, what exactly is it that they aren't getting? I understand that the Oscars aren't necessarily about what is popular or what made the most money... but golly-gee-willikers doncha think that those are a couple significant clues? He-loooo!.

It astounds me that they parade the smaller money makers as being the best... and then have the nerve for more money from audiences.

SB

itsallgoode9
03-07-2006, 06:02 AM
intersting thought by Lucas, and seems pretty right too. I think right there are to many movies that are "blockbusters" now and that is causing a problem. I mean, obviously, every movie wants to do good but in the past vew years there are SO many uber expensive, grandiose elaborate movies saturating the market that this is considered "normal". Seems like in the past there'd be a movie every couple years that would be THE movie to see and it seems like everybody would go see it. These were usually movies that were made with grand expectiations...and usually ended up being met. I guess movies like braveheart, titanic, gladiator could be considered this. Movie execs started realizing that "hey, these large epic movies make tons of money let's all make them". So now movies like that are just considered normal and don't get the fanfare that they once did.

jussing
03-07-2006, 06:21 AM
What I do see is the end of the 20 million paycheck for movie stars.-RYES, that's what I want to see, too. :)

Movies theatres are experiencing the flop from 50 years ago over again - people will rather stay home and watch TV, especially with modern home cinema technology.

Maybe that's why Lucas and Cameron are pimping the new 3D films - as a new "cinemascope", to get people back in the theatres.


Cheerio,
- Jonas

agreenster
03-07-2006, 06:50 AM
"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.'"

"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."

(http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)George Lucas

From nydailynews.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/397167p-336664c.html)

I think maybe what George meant to say was:

"JUST spending $200 million on a film doesn't guarantee people will flock to see your movie anymore. The spectacle of the special effect is slowly diminishing and audiences are expecting more from their movie-going experience. If you're going to spend that kind of money, do it for a reason, not just to impress the audience wth flashy effects."

I think we'd all agree with that

George is getting bitter at the end of his career. His last public appearance at the People's Choice was very telling of his attitude towards the industry. Its kind of sad.

By the way in 2025, $15 million will be about $3million in today's standards.

parallax
03-07-2006, 06:54 AM
What you're really saying here is that you're one of only a handful of people on this planet that have good taste. Good for you.


Exactly.

Or are you telling me Britney Spears is the pinnacle of musical taste?

[MM]
03-07-2006, 07:19 AM
I think that this largely depends on what the viewing technology will be in the future. I suspect that when the whole movie "experience" changes due to some new technology - i.e. fully 3D holographic movies or something simimlar - then the cost of creating such a movie will again sky rocket. At that point the low budget indie flicks will be done with HD cameras intended for a 2D screen, while the big studios will be making flicks with a whole new (and extremely expensive) set of technology. So I'm guessing the Lucas is presuming the film experience won't change much over the nex 20 years, which may or may not be true.


Much the same was said about "True Lies"... do you think for a minute that anyone offered the ability won't give James Cameron every red cent they can for his next super-secret film? They know they'll get a profit.


Movies theatres are experiencing the flop from 50 years ago over again - people will rather stay home and watch TV, especially with modern home cinema technology.

Maybe that's why Lucas and Cameron are pimping the new 3D films - as a new "cinemascope", to get people back in the theatres.

- Jonas

http://imdb.com/title/tt0437086/trivia


ps - I hate indie movies. I'm already sick of them.

Kai01W
03-07-2006, 12:45 PM
Here's basically what was said: "We can either pick what most people liked- like Narnia, or we can pick the movies with the lowest grosses. Yes, these 4 movies with social messages- and Capote- are what we want you to think and feel. This is what we consider "Outstanding Achievement. So, here's the 5 least popular films of the year. Ta-daaa!"

SB

I think you got the idea wrong. The idea of the oscars is to award those movies which the academy thinks have been the best (in their category). Rather easy to grasp. So, yes, your opinion does not count.
In theory its not about the money those movies make (or not). And thats why the oscars have kept even a little bit of artistic integrity.

-k

Kai01W
03-07-2006, 12:48 PM
The flat-rate pricing at theaters ~ same price for any movie! ~ makes no economic sense at all. It's almost like price-fixing if somebody can make a movie for less money but customers have to pay the same amount for it ~ being price competetive doesn't help market the film at all.
LT
Huh? I'm not deciding on which movie I watch based on the money it took to be produced.

-k

Nemoid
03-07-2006, 04:54 PM
well surely tecnology will allow to employ less people and resources in film making so costs will lower for sure. this is a good news , because much more people will be allowed to make movies, and costing less, profits could be more.

however, a good movie will make money even if it costs a lot. Profits are what to pay attention to. if a low cost movie does well at box office, then profits are huge and everyone (read producers) is happy.

if King kong was a great movie, it would have made better at the box office. fx were good, there were good scenes into that, yet it missed something.SW prequels weren't good either
with the excepion of ROTS which was the best of the three.

ericsmith
03-07-2006, 05:11 PM
Exactly. Or are you telling me Britney Spears is the pinnacle of musical taste?

I think that you're confusing personal preference with quality.

I don't listen to Britney Spears. I prefer a different style of music.

But the fact is, she does have talent. So do the musicians and recording engineers and producers that make her albums. I'm not saying that it's the pinnacle of musical genius, but it certainly isn't garbage. At least not to millions of teenagers who like pop/dance music.

Garbage is typically the "non-comformist" garage band who think that they're the pinnacle, but can't seem to get any of the record labels to pay any attention to them.

Eric

Trojan123
03-07-2006, 05:26 PM
I think you got the idea wrong. The idea of the oscars is to award those movies which the academy thinks have been the best (in their category). Rather easy to grasp. So, yes, your opinion does not count.
In theory its not about the money those movies make (or not). And thats why the oscars have kept even a little bit of artistic integrity.

-k

In other words: they are out of touch.

SB

Brumfield
03-07-2006, 10:16 PM
if King kong was a great movie, it would have made better at the box office. fx were good, there were good scenes into that, yet it missed something.SW prequels weren't good either
with the excepion of ROTS which was the best of the three.


Eh, I disagree. For one I think King Kong was as good of a movie as any other $200 million big budget event film that's made a ton of cash throughout the years. I think a big part of problem is that the spectacle of the big budget blockbusters has largely worn off, with a few exceptions (Star Wars, LOTR, etc., but those are all movies that already have a built-in fanbase before they ever hit theaters). If King Kong had been released 15-20 years ago, people would have flocked to see it just for the spectacle of it. Nowadays, practically every movie that comes out is a $100 million+ blockbuster with all these fancy effects and what not, and people see the trailers and think "meh", because they've seen it all a million times before and they want something new.

richcz3
03-07-2006, 11:52 PM
Kong didn't do well because it cost too much it simply didn't meet the expectations of being Peter Jacksons "next big" movie. And it wasn't. It didn't help that the movie was 3 hours long. The overly long Dino stampede gave me feelings of Lucas's Ep1 revisited. CG for the sake of CG.

stevopolis
03-08-2006, 12:50 AM
What a clown. Why is the media still covering this guy?

RobertoOrtiz
03-08-2006, 01:21 AM
What a clown. Why is the media still covering this guy?
Becuase you owe your career to him and his companies.
-R

superhooman
03-08-2006, 01:34 AM
Keep dreaming. If you believe each LOTR film only cost 109 million, then you're kidding yourself. Don't give me the published budgets from 4 years ago. Each film cost more than the prequel films. His last film, Kong, was a bloated 200 million dollar self-indulgent, pretentious film.

It's also obvious that many here don't know that studios have to split box office money with theaters. I have a friend who owns a local theater. The general rule is a film has to make around 2 1/2 times it's budget to make it's money back. So Kong had to make around 500 million just to break even. That's just the budget. That doesn't even include marketing costs which were probably around 20-30 million.

blah blah blah blah more PJ bashing from Terrell.... it seems that almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of your most recent posts here on this forum is either a bash on Peter Jackson, or King Kong. Are you really that much of a loser that you have nothing better to do with your time than rag on some guy you don't know, and bitch about his film because your beloved George Lucas isn't getting all the attention anymore? Because your posts got boring ages ago. It's like you sit and wait until PJ is mentioned and then you pounce on the thread. I see no other constructive input from you anywhere on this forum, because it seems that all your posts are just mindless, self-important bitching.

Funny how its always totally anonymous people like you who indulge in this behavior. If you believe so strongly in your bloated opinions, how about actually putting your name to them?

superhooman
03-08-2006, 01:39 AM
Oh and I forgot to say that I hope Lucas is right. It would be nice to see more independent films, since it not only provides a larger breeding ground for creativity, but also makes the entire process of filmmaking and entertainment more accessible to all the talent out there.

Solothores
03-08-2006, 03:40 AM
I guess, it will be interesting to follow how the next $200mio+ blockbusters (Spiderman3, Superman Returns) will perform at the boxoffice.

Kai01W
03-08-2006, 10:16 AM
In other words: they are out of touch.

SB
If you think the quality of a movie can/should be judged on the money it makes, than you are out of touch.

Emmanuel
03-08-2006, 05:26 PM
Becuase you owe your career to him and his companies.
-R

Oh boy, I am so stupid, I thought it was because I work my ass of and am mildly talented.
What an illusion.

Concerning movie budgets, Reese Whitherspoon is probably not the actress You should hire,
because she is right now getting 29.000.000 dollars for her next film.
What a waste.

RobertoOrtiz
03-08-2006, 05:40 PM
Oh boy, I am so stupid, I thought it was because I work my ass of and am mildly talented.
What an illusion.

Concerning movie budgets, Reese Whitherspoon is probably not the actress You should hire,
because she is right now getting 29.000.000 dollars for her next film.
What a waste.

Sight...
If you use a computer to do:

Digital Filmaking
Digital Editing
2d Art
3d Graphics
Digital 3d Projection
Digital Projection
Sound Processing Editing
Or have enjoyed movies by Pixar/ Lucasfilm and Spielberg.
...well you owe him.

I could post IN DETAIL why, but after all I am at work and I dont have the time.

Yes you do owe him. this industry is VERY small, believe it or not and the research needed funding and vision.
-R

Flog
03-08-2006, 05:44 PM
Indie attitude but not Indie style.

You know I don't want to see a ton of self righteous, strong themed indie films permeate the movies. I mean I like the idea of indie films, but want entertainment not enlightenment.
That is the only scary part.

JA-forreal
03-08-2006, 06:53 PM
Oh no...this is unbelievable.

JA-forreal
03-08-2006, 07:11 PM
Sight...
If you use a computer to do:

................

Yes you do owe him. this industry is VERY small, believe it or not and the research needed funding and vision.
-R

Maybe the money for "research" should be spent on creating film concepts that really work with an audience. All of the "inspiration" and "vision" in that world is no good unless it entertains us.

As creative people do we really need loads of money to think up media concepts that entertain audiences effectively? Stand up comedians and musicians can walk out on stage at a club and do it for a lot less. Maybe film folks are over complicating the issue as of late. Maybe folks need to get back to the good old basics?

Trojan123
03-08-2006, 07:15 PM
If you think the quality of a movie can/should be judged on the money it makes, than you are out of touch.

Tell ya what- why doncha go back and re-read more of my post and see where I actually stated that the money earned isn't what the award should be based on.

But I will say this: movies that don't make a lot of money is an indication that audiences didn't like these films as much; and for the Academy to say that these films are more of an achievement shows just how out of touch they are with those of us who keep them employed.

SB

Trojan123
03-08-2006, 07:17 PM
If you think the quality of a movie can/should be judged on the money it makes, than you are out of touch.

Let me also add this: if Brokeback or Capote are more of an achievement that Narnia or Walk the Line, then I would be more than happy to be "out of touch".

SB

Trojan123
03-08-2006, 07:19 PM
I guess, it will be interesting to follow how the next $200mio+ blockbusters (Spiderman3, Superman Returns) will perform at the boxoffice.

Spider Man 3 will soar, while I predict Superman returs will crawl.

If that does turn out to be the case, then it simply returns to the fact that it's not a matter of how much you spend on a film, but how good the finished product is.

SB

Rick May
03-08-2006, 07:22 PM
Perhaps, but studios don't release films in theaters just to make DVD money. They make and release films in theaters in order to make money in theaters. Otherwise, there would be no point in even releasing them in theaters.

That is not really true. The whole goal of theater release is to break even. The money is made in DVD and television licensing.

They release it in the theaters to do two obvious things. 1) Create advertising for the dvd and tv releases, 2) try to break even so that DVD and tv is profit.

Trojan123
03-08-2006, 07:26 PM
Indie attitude but not Indie style.

You know I don't want to see a ton of self righteous, strong themed indie films permeate the movies. I mean I like the idea of indie films, but want entertainment not enlightenment.
That is the only scary part.

What- there's no room for the plight of schitzophrenic transexual nudist midgets from Honduras trying to survive the streets of New York on your viewing pallette?

Sorry- couldn't help it.

SB

Flog
03-08-2006, 07:42 PM
LOL, I set myself up for that one.

The one thing that gives me hope in Lucas comment is there will be more movies at a lower budget that can be made to look great with today's technology.

The lower the budget the more opportunity there is for someone to invest in you and your little film. So I hope this does pick up steam.

What- there's no room for the plight of schitzophrenic transexual nudist midgets from Honduras trying to survive the streets of New York on your viewing pallette?

Sorry- couldn't help it.

SB

Trojan123
03-08-2006, 09:28 PM
LOL, I set myself up for that one.

The one thing that gives me hope in Lucas comment is there will be more movies at a lower budget that can be made to look great with today's technology.

The lower the budget the more opportunity there is for someone to invest in you and your little film. So I hope this does pick up steam.

No disagreement there.
Just imagine: what could Robert Rodriguez (sp?) accomplish if he were to do a Star Wars of his own?

I personally see smaller, in house production facilities becoming more the norm. By that I mean (1) house with their own Producer(s), Director(s), and art / vfx dept.

SB

Kai01W
03-09-2006, 04:59 PM
Let me also add this: if Brokeback or Capote are more of an achievement that Narnia or Walk the Line, then I would be more than happy to be "out of touch".
SB

Wlak the line was nominated AFAIK. And if you think really Narnia was more of an achievement then Brokeback or Capote, sorry but thats just hopeless.


Movies that don't make a lot of money is an indication that audiences didn't like these films as much; and for the Academy to say that these films are more of an achievement shows just how out of touch they are with those of us who keep them employed.

I think this is all wrong. I don't even know where to start. You do have the wrong perspective on this award imho.
Nevermind.


-k

JosephGoss
03-09-2006, 08:41 PM
If you use a computer to do:

Digital Filmaking
Digital Editing
2d Art
3d Graphics
Digital 3d Projection
Digital Projection
Sound Processing Editing
Or have enjoyed movies by Pixar/ Lucasfilm and Spielberg.
...well you owe him.

-R



Thatís naive, sorry,

But I could say that people in the CGI industry owe there careers to loads of people

All those innovators that developed computer technology, all those scientists that developed the basis for the 3d programs we use,

I really could go on and on

Everyone has a career because of someone else.

there are thousands of people, that if were removed from the equation would result in a world slightly different


>Joe

Trojan123
03-09-2006, 09:33 PM
Wlak the line was nominated AFAIK. And if you think really Narnia was more of an achievement then Brokeback or Capote, sorry but thats just hopeless.


I think this is all wrong. I don't even know where to start. You do have the wrong perspective on this award imho.
Nevermind.


-k

Perhaps I do have it all wrong, and the fact that I'm not in line with these bozos may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Besides, these are usually the types that look at a painting comprised of a bunch of miscellaneous wipes and scribbles (that could have been achieved by a 6 month old baby) and call it outstanding.

Again, I am glad to say that I'm not on the same page as them.

SB

Priz
03-10-2006, 08:11 AM
I can't beleive I just read all this! So I can only post my thoughts as reward.

I never saw King Kong for one reason, the idea doesn't peak my interest. So a giant ape walks around for 2-3 hours destroying things. After 15 minutes of this I'd get the point and be tired of it. Movies like jurassic park had impressive effects, but it also had a gripping plot and idea that could hold you till the end of the movie. I hardly watch movies anymore because there's no originality anymore. The ones based around effects are usually the worst too, they tend to just nudge an old angle of the same idea, insert same story, villain, hero, happy ending, end of the world! it's such an apocalyspe! you can't miss it! what a spectacle type over and over. That's what's killing movies in general, repetition. We have batman, than spiderman, than x-men, than hulk, yatta yatta. These movies are based around ideas of money, from hype. Like teen pop bands, one does good, than they start popping up like wild flowers, and get watered down. Their just selling you the same thing with a new package and people are starting to wake up to it. If things don't progress, they die.

Think of any movie that did good, or better off had a lasting impression on you, and it was probably a flick that steered away from the rest. The blair witch project was as low budget as it gets, but the idea was fresh and it did exceedingly good. You can't polish and shine a turd to gold, it is what it is.

jussing
03-10-2006, 09:00 AM
So a giant ape walks around for 2-3 hours destroying things.That's not what happens, maybe you should see it after all? ;)

- Jonas

Slurry
03-10-2006, 12:26 PM
Sight...
If you use a computer to do:

Digital Filmaking
Digital Editing
2d Art
3d Graphics
Digital 3d Projection
Digital Projection
Sound Processing Editing
Or have enjoyed movies by Pixar/ Lucasfilm and Spielberg.
...well you owe him.

I could post IN DETAIL why, but after all I am at work and I dont have the time.

Yes you do owe him. this industry is VERY small, believe it or not and the research needed funding and vision.


Oh God....:rolleyes:

I could also post in detail but I seriously don't have the time and I doubt it would make any difference.


The great thing about making predictions is that people will only remember if you were right.

Art

Flog
03-10-2006, 03:45 PM
I can't beleive I just read all this! So I can only post my thoughts as reward.

I never saw King Kong for one reason, the idea doesn't peak my interest. So a giant ape walks around for 2-3 hours destroying things. After 15 minutes of this I'd get the point and be tired of it. Movies like jurassic park had impressive effects, but it also had a gripping plot and idea that could hold you till the end of the movie. I hardly watch movies anymore because there's no originality anymore. The ones based around effects are usually the worst too, they tend to just nudge an old angle of the same idea, insert same story, villain, hero, happy ending, end of the world! it's such an apocalyspe! you can't miss it! what a spectacle type over and over. That's what's killing movies in general, repetition. We have batman, than spiderman, than x-men, than hulk, yatta yatta. These movies are based around ideas of money, from hype. Like teen pop bands, one does good, than they start popping up like wild flowers, and get watered down. Their just selling you the same thing with a new package and people are starting to wake up to it. If things don't progress, they die.

Think of any movie that did good, or better off had a lasting impression on you, and it was probably a flick that steered away from the rest. The blair witch project was as low budget as it gets, but the idea was fresh and it did exceedingly good. You can't polish and shine a turd to gold, it is what it is.


Knocked it before he tried it.

Spiderman, Xmen, Batman.....have you seen these movies? Well the new Batman anyways. I mean taste is relative but these were pretty good movies. Spiderman had a thick plot and why would anyone not want to see Spiderman on the big screen. It had the largest opening weekend ever. A lot of people must of thought it was new or fresh enough to want to see and how many Superhero movies are there?

I guess maybe your taste is a movie that focuses on a social issue or a particular "love story" with depth which touches your inner dimension to the greatest fortitude of your soul whisking you into a world of ambience and suprise as the main character has an indentity issue and discovers that he is in fact in love with a circus clown.

Oh well I love all movies. I hope what Lucas said is true and false. It want a balance in the budgets, no more 100-200 Million dollar movies because then that is all the studios want to make and have been making but not making the numbers, hence they blame it on something else and start dishing out less money on riskier stuff. That is why they did so many remakes of old shows this year (but when that failed they blame piracy or everything that does not put blame on them).

I agree they rehash the same thing over and over again but on the other side I don't want any self righteous social issue movie (if you want that WATCH LIFETIME channel)
That is why I went over to Asian filmmakers

Stephen Chow is one example...unique movies that are action packed and funny and there are others that are love stories and just way off.

That is the type of indie films I want to see, more fun and entertaining. The world has so many major social issues. I don't want to see a ton of movies about them, because a few is enough, and the more of that they make they start to become less original.

The above quote hit the nail on the head, I don't see as many movies either.

RobertoOrtiz
03-10-2006, 04:48 PM
Thatís naive, sorry,

But I could say that people in the CGI industry owe there careers to loads of people

All those innovators that developed computer technology, all those scientists that developed the basis for the 3d programs we use,


<mod hat OFF>
Ok the gauntlet has been thrown...

I am from the school that INDIVIDUALS can make a difference.

Call me an old timer, but it takes an environment that allows this sort of investment to go one.

And Hollywood is NOT know for innovation.

OK let me list the list of firsts by the Lucasarts companies...

Star Wars 1977: Computer Motion Control
(John Dykstra (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004375/))
Empire Strikes Back 1980: First movie that was digitally edited
(Edit Droid then sold to AVID)
Star Trek II 1982: The first completely computer-generated Film Sequence
(Ed Catmull (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0146216/) )
Andre & Wally Bee 1984: First digital short (John Lasseter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005124/))
Young Sherlock Holmes 1985: First fully Digital Character
(Dennis Muren)
The Abyss: 1989: The first 3-D CGI character (Steve 'Spaz' Williams (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0931730/))
Die Hard 2 1990: First movie with digital matter paintings(scanned)) (Yusei Uesugi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0880013/))
Terminator 2 1991: First with Fully Digital composites (Dennis Muren (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613830/))
Jurassic Park 1993: First movie with PHOTO REALISTIC characters
(Dennis Muren (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613830/),Phil Tippett (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0864138/))
Dragon Heart 1996 First Digital LEAD Character (Rob Coleman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0171197/))

..and I can post more (Hell I have not even gone into THX sound).

Disney's Chicken Little 3D: 2005 New method to make 2D films into 3D with digital projection

Some products off my head...
Photoshop : Developed by ILM VFX supervisor John Knoll
AVID : developed as EDIT DROID




The Lucas Arts companies invested A LOT into R&D that was used into the filmmaking world.
To assume that the state of filmmaking would be the same without this kind of environment and that it would have "simply happened", without an unifying vision, is silly in my opinion. Innovation does not mix well with HYPE. You need an environment that allows experimentation and investment.

Look how they are being dragged kicking and screaming into the digital world.
Before the 70's filmmaking had not changed AT ALL in 50 years. This company did make a huge difference.

References:
http://www.movieweb.com/news/38/8438.php (http://www.movieweb.com/news/38/8438.php)
http://egyptiantheatre.com/archive1999/2003/ilmskywalkersound.htm (http://egyptiantheatre.com/archive1999/2003/ilmskywalkersound.htm)
http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html (http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html)
http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/lesson11.html#ilm (http://accad.osu.edu/~waynec/history/lesson11.html#ilm)

Slurry
03-10-2006, 05:40 PM
To assume that it wouldn't have happened without Lucas is also silly.

I agree that Lucas has made tremendous contributions (and by Lucas I mean all of the talented and brilliant people that did this work for him under his name).

But let's not kiss his ass so much as to say that we all owe him anything for our current lot in life. It's insulting not only as individuals but it takes credit from all other companies and individuals who have made contributions to further graphics technology.

It was a lot of talented people that put Lucas in the position he is today. Without the success of Star Wars A New Hope, perhaps Lucas wouldn't have been in a position to continue making movies and contributing to R&D.
Perhaps it was the talent and skill of the actors, directors of photography, visual effects artists, etc that pioneered the actual techniques for Lucas in that first SW film (and at that time Lucas was still a relative nobody) is what made Lucas successful. And in turn put him in a spot to advance that technology with subsequent films.
Perhaps Lucas owes all those lowly people for everything he has today.
Because if those people weren't already talented and oustanding individuals in their fields, the first SW film would have sucked and Lucas would still be a nobody.

Art :)


edit: It's ironic that it was the practical visual effects developed on Star Wars that was the platform to eventually lead to all the computer graphics technology, jobs, houses, cars and lifestyles we enjoy and which George Lucas in all of his benevolent glory has provided for us.
Amen. :p

AmbiDextrose
03-10-2006, 05:50 PM
"Necessity is the mother of invention."

Terrell
03-11-2006, 01:19 AM
I must say, I'm always amazed at how much traffic is generated when George Lucas' name is mentioned.

Lucas makes some good points. I don't agree that 25 years from now most films will cost 15 million dollars. I think Lucas is wrong on that point. But he is absolutely right that ticket sales are dwindling, and Hollywood cannot continue to greenlight these mega-budget films at the rate they're greenlighting them. Most of them don't make their money back. So if they won't to stem them tide of losses, they're going to have to control the budgets more tightly.

jbo
03-11-2006, 01:34 AM
it's funny how when lucas' companies do something right (as they do quite often) people say it's not lucas' doing but the talanted people that he employs, but when they do something wrong the same people blame lucas 100%.

Apoclypse
03-11-2006, 06:08 AM
"t's funny how when lucas' companies do something right (as they do quite often) people say it's not lucas' doing but the talanted people that he employs, but when they do something wrong the same people blame lucas 100%."


Well it just wouldn't be right if we blamed ILM or THX for the starwars prequals after all they did their jobs like they were supposed, its not their fault that Lucas can't use what he "invented" to do what he claims these things are for, to progress the story. Instead he just used ILm in the most unimaginative lackluster way. It looks nice but there is nothing behind the effects. So if Lucas gets blamed he usually the one at fault, you can't blae ILM for a bad story, they get paid just the same.

parallax
03-11-2006, 08:55 AM
Lets not make Lucas out to be a god. I agree with Roberto that we owe a lot to him, but to state he is singlehandedly responsible for the CG industry is silly.
He uses other peoples' innovation as much as the next, but he also had the vision to revolutionize those innovations.
All these things would've happened some day or other without Lucas.

We might as well thank Newton et al.

jbo
03-11-2006, 09:05 AM
Well it just wouldn't be right if we blamed ILM or THX for the starwars prequals after all they did their jobs like they were supposed, its not their fault that Lucas can't use what he "invented" to do what he claims these things are for, to progress the story. Instead he just used ILm in the most unimaginative lackluster way. It looks nice but there is nothing behind the effects. So if Lucas gets blamed he usually the one at fault, you can't blae ILM for a bad story, they get paid just the same.

i don't disagree that mistakes were made on the prequels, but if you're gonna blame lucas when things go wrong(and i'm not saying you shouldn't), then surely he should get at least some credit when they go right. if not, then every director ever is horrible if you judge them by the same standard. surely he deserves credit as an innovator even if he hasn't always used his innovations in the best ways.

another funny thing is hearing people complain about the prequels and bash lucas when you know that many of those very same people saw all of the prequels in the theater at least 3 times each. i remember a friend telling me how much he HATED episode II, but sure enough, when it was rereleased for IMAX, he was there standing in line.

jussing
03-11-2006, 12:11 PM
All these things would've happened some day or other without Lucas.

Well, one of Roberto's best points is:

Look how they are being dragged kicking and screaming into the digital world.

Meaning, Lucas hasn't only pushing the envelope to get all of us where we are today (career wise), he has been fighting everybody else to get here.

Our job descriptions wouldn't exist this day, if it wasn't for this man. Say what you will about his directing abilities. ;)

Cheers,
- Jonas

Slurry
03-11-2006, 01:04 PM
jbo,

you may be missing part of the point here. No one is blaming or giving credit to GL for great effects, great sound, great picture quality, etc.

People blame GL for terrible dialogue, bad writing and bad direction. That is all stuff that he is directly responsible for.

The effects stuff, CGI and what have you, are done be very talented people other than GL. And nobody has complained about that. So that's why nobody "blames" lucas for it. There is nothing to complain about. They don't give him credit for it either, because other than signing the cheques, he doesn't do it.

I really don't see where the confusion is.

I would also agree that Lucas does deserve credit for his part in facilitating the advancement of technology. But the people actually making the advancement also deserve a large part of this credit.

If a pharmacutical company finds a cure for cancer, should the CEO be heralded and lauded for a fantastic achievement? Or all the scientists and people who actually worked on the cure?

Would we owe that CEO our lives?

I don't believe I "owe" Lucas anything other than the acknowledgement of his contributions. I doubt he would expect any more than that either. Unless of course he has a massive ego and god-complex. I don't know the man so I can't say.

I simply had a problem with the over zealous fanboy attitude implying we should all be paying homage at Lucas's feet.

It's insulting and absurd.

Kai01W
03-11-2006, 05:04 PM
Besides, these are usually the types that look at a painting comprised of a bunch of miscellaneous wipes and scribbles (that could have been achieved by a 6 month old baby) and call it outstanding.
Again, I am glad to say that I'm not on the same page as them.
SB
I'm glad there are actually people that have an idea of the difference between craftmanship and art.
I'm glad there are people that do seperate the arbitrary results of the tactile capabilities of a 6 month old baby from the artistic vision that decided to arrange color, shapes, contrasts etc in a certain way so as to convey an idea.
I admit this requires an open mind at least.

-k

jeremybirn
03-11-2006, 05:42 PM
AVID : developed as EDIT DROID

It's funny you'd post that. I recently read an interesting book "Droid Maker:George Lucas and the Digital Revolution" by Michael Rubin. It described among other things the valiant (yet ultimately unprofitable) quest to develop non-linear editing systems at Lucasfilm. They couldn't do an all-digital system playing from hard drives because none of the components existed yet (fast hard drives, hard drive capacity, CPU speed to decompress in realtime, etc.) in the mid 1980's, so they built a system based on transferring film footage on Laser Discs, where their controller played back several Laser Discs at once during the editing session. The price of the system was huge, and burning Laser Discs never came down in price from $100 a disc or so, so the Edit Droid cost more to own and operate than other non-linear editing systems already on the market like CMX, which used multiple videotape decks for a similar computer-controlled (but not all digital) NLE process. Very few Edit Droids were ever sold.

Avid invented the first digital non-linear editing system. When Avid showed it at NAB in 1988, the people who were there showing the Edit Droid said "We're toast." They were right. By 1994 the Edit Droid project was shut down, and remaining patents they had developed, including the Droid trademark, were sold to industry leader Avid. Avid made an edit-droid style desktop controller called the Avid Droid and showed that in 1995, but otherwise that was about it for the Edit Droid.

-jeremy

jbo
03-11-2006, 08:29 PM
jbo,

you may be missing part of the point here. No one is blaming or giving credit to GL for great effects, great sound, great picture quality, etc.

People blame GL for terrible dialogue, bad writing and bad direction. That is all stuff that he is directly responsible for.

as the director, he is responsible for everything. if the movies had great acting, it could just as easily be said that it's not because of lucas, but because of the actors. he might not be the one modeling and animating, but he is the one making all of the major creative and technical choices. i'm not saying he's god. I'm not even saying he's a good director, but if it wern't for him, plenty of good and great directors would simply not have the tools that they have now. I don't see how you can complain about a fanboy attitude, when 99% of the comments around here are about how much people hate lucas. i mean, i can start a thread about hamburgers and within a few posts, someone will manage to bring the discussion to how much they hate george lucas.

Emmanuel
03-11-2006, 09:01 PM
Well, one of Roberto's best points is:



Meaning, Lucas hasn't only pushing the envelope to get all of us where we are today (career wise), he has been fighting everybody else to get here.

Our job descriptions wouldn't exist this day, if it wasn't for this man. Say what you will about his directing abilities. ;)

Cheers,
- Jonas

Erm, excuse me, but I guess that's a bit too much admiration.
Maybe Lucas has pushed towards the digital age of movie effects, but so have his crew, and I guess that a lot of people would still be working as practical effects artists, painters, sculpters, pyrotechnicians, model makers and animators today without Lucas ever doing a movie.
To me, StarWars was an inspiration, and how much of it was computer made if You do not consider the motion control ?
Lucas probably pushed the envelope, no doubt, but he would have never happened without
the people who pushed it before him, like Jack Arnold, Byron Haskin, Ray Harryhausen, Stanley Kubrick and so many others.
I mean, the visual effects of 2001 (1968) were mindblowing.
The giant spider in Tarantula made teenage girls scream.
What about Ben Hur ?
What about the original King Kong ?
What about the original War of the Worlds ?
I am always a bit irritated when people tell me that George has single handed invented the visual effects industry.
Ya know what ? Jurassic Park was one of the biggest accomplishments for the audience ever, and George didn't animate a single dino in that, it was the crew at ILM that did the groundbreaking work.
I am pretty sure that its these people who made todays "wonders" possible, if it hadn't been Lucas it would have been Cameron, Jackson, Kubrick, Bruckheimer, Spielberg.
If there were no computer animations, Lasseter would do 2D animations.
George Lucas made StarWars, period, that's a huge accomplishment, he also pushed the development of unique technologies forward, but hey, here's a secret: the stuff that made me go WOW was the practical AT-ATs, the stop motion Taun-Tauns, the rubber Yoda and Chewbacca.
I sometimes wonder if and how George would have made the original trilogy if he had the technical possibilities of today.
And I bet StarWars wouldn't have been as good as it was.

Kentaro
03-12-2006, 12:06 AM
LOL it never fails. Insert the name George Lucas, no matter what topic it is it always ends up turning towards his directing abilities and what he did with the pre-equals.

No one is saying GL is the God of the CGI Industry. The man had a vision how movies should be viewed on the big screen and followed his vision to its reality stage. he has great people working for him and those people will tell you, george pushes them to the extreme to where they themselves discover there talents.

I remember when GL was making "Attack of the Clones," and he came to his ILm crew and said he wanted a CGI Yoda sword battling Count Dooku. His CGI animators for awhile felt it couldnt be done. They mimiced the young Luke, while GL always mimice'd the elder Yoda. After studying and playing around with his vison on there powerfull work stations, ta da. The fight between Yoda and Count Dooku became the most memorable scene in AOTC.

Give the man his props, he can motivate and he seldom takes "no" for an answer and the words "impossible" doesn't exist in his vocabulary.

All visonaries are like this.. I believe it was another wise man that said "If I have seen further it's because I have stood on the shoulders of Giants"
- ISAAC NEWTON


One of the greatest secrets of success is learning from Giants .Giants are those who have attained heights that were once thought to be impossible.

Standing on their shoulders give you a farther view than you once had and you even get to see further than them. Learning from other people's experiences is a necessary tool for success in life's endeavours, pick up from where others left behind and keep pressing on, learn from their strengths and weaknesses and like George Lucas and other great men and women u'll be able to do the impossible.

When you stand on their shoulders, the sky is not your limit but a starting point.

Slurry
03-12-2006, 04:56 AM
i mean, i can start a thread about hamburgers and within a few posts, someone will manage to bring the discussion to how much they hate george lucas.

lol

True enough! ;)

But yeah, as director, he has final say and from what I've seen in the DVD extras there aren't too many people who question or argue with him? That may be why his latest efforts have been so weak. Although the third SW prequal was decent.
I think when there is somebody pushing you to and questioning your decisions, it forces you to do better. Lucas may not have that.
But I agree, he has to be very intelligent and talented to get where he's at. More importantly, to stay where he's at.
I only took acception to people saying we owe Lucas anything. I dunno, maybe we do...I believe that the technology would have evolved to what it is today or something similar without Lucas.
Just like whomever invented the wheel. If they didn't, would we not have cars today?
Anyways, differences of opinion. I can agree to disagree. The argument is subjective at any rate.
And for the record, I don't hate Lucas. I don't even know him. I think he's done some crap movies. But he's also made some of my favorites. You can't please everybody all the time!

Cheers,

Art

jeremybirn
03-12-2006, 02:49 PM
Empire Strikes Back 1980: First movie that was digitally edited

The Empire Strikes Back was edited conventionally on film.

Years later, demonstrations of their Edit Droid product (which GL never used) were done using footage from a scene in Empire, maybe that was the source of confusion?

-jeremy

RobertoOrtiz
03-12-2006, 03:02 PM
Jeremy you are completly right.

Edit droid introduced the concept of Non linear editing to the fold.
Back then in the editing we did NOT have the cabality to scan in film digitally, the computers were not there yet.

We have to understand how backwards the process was before the 80's.

Editors would manually splice film using a machine that has been in use since the dawn of cinema, a movioa.

Hell Spielberg, sitll edits all his moviesthis way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moviola


And I still stand on my original assestment of Lucas.

We was the first company leader who that that the gap between the emerging computer and filmaking could be breached. I mean we are talking here about the middle of the 70's.

Computers were seen back then as hulking giants that were used by banks and scientific intitutions. And the ONLY movie that has used some basic digitla effects was Westworld (1973) and that was very basic image manipulation.

The trully comercial personal computers, like the Apple II (77), IBM PC (81), Commodore 64 (82), Timex Sinclair 1000 (81). So the current conception that we have of computers DO NOT apply.


It takes vision as a company leader to reinvest in your company.

Think about it, you are tol as a company ceo that they are going to use UNTESTED technology in the front line. And you do this OVER and OVER again.



-R

jeremybirn
03-12-2006, 03:04 PM
The Lucas Arts companies invested A LOT into R&D that was used into the filmmaking world. To assume that the state of filmmaking would be the same without this kind of environment and that it would have "simply happened", without an unifying vision, is silly in my opinion. Innovation does not mix well with HYPE.

Agreed.

Especially with the last sentence. :)

-jeremy

Trojan123
03-12-2006, 03:22 PM
I'm glad there are actually people that have an idea of the difference between craftmanship and art.-k

Yeah- there are craftsmen who live in the real world, and artists who live in the self-indulgent world of make-believe.

Craftmenship > art

I'm glad there are people that do seperate the arbitrary results of the tactile capabilities of a 6 month old baby from the artistic vision that decided to arrange color, shapes, contrasts etc in a certain way so as to convey an idea.

Heh... do they?


I admit this requires an open mind at least.
-k

Or 'Shrooms.

SB

MKeep
03-12-2006, 05:12 PM
<mod hat OFF>
Star Wars 1977: Computer Motion Control
(John Dykstra (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004375/))

John Whitney was using computerized motion control in his motion graphics work by the early 60s.

Star Trek II 1982: The first completely computer-generated Film Sequence
(Ed Catmull (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0146216/) )
Andre & Wally Bee 1984: First digital short (John Lasseter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005124/))

Again, Whitney and others were making computer animated films back in the 60s so I don't know how you come up with 1984 as the date of the first digital short.

Kai01W
03-12-2006, 07:02 PM
Yeah- there are craftsmen who live in the real world, and artists who live in the self-indulgent world of make-believe.

Craftmenship > art


And people wonder why nobody takes "3d art" seriously.
Oh well, I give up.

-k

Trojan123
03-12-2006, 07:17 PM
And people wonder why nobody takes "3d art" seriously.
Oh well, I give up.

-k

Surely it isn't because there are no rendered chrome tea-pots hanging in the Louvre?

SB

jussing
03-12-2006, 08:16 PM
Lucas probably pushed the envelope, no doubt, but he would have never happened without the people who pushed it before him, like Jack Arnold, Byron Haskin, Ray Harryhausen,True, but the point was that the FX industry was going in one direction, and Lucas fast-forwarded it at 100 times speed, and altered the direction. You can't just shrug at that.

Ya know what ? Jurassic Park was one of the biggest accomplishments for the audience ever, and George didn't animate a single dino in that, it was the crew at ILM that did the groundbreaking work.Yes, Lucas' crew did that. Crew working for Lucas's company, spawned by Star Wars. And without Lucas, effects like Jurrasic Park would be another decade away, and Lord of the Rings two decades. (difficult to prove, therefore easy to say, yes. ;) )

Cheers all,
- Jonas

Now bow to Lucas' feet!

...(just kidding)

Flog
03-13-2006, 03:51 PM
Just give Lucas the credit, big deal. Yeah his crew did a lot, but he is the man behind the crew, he is the one paying the checks, he is the one who organized those great minds together into one spot.

Can't do anything without money or backing. Cannot do anything without a team of the best.
So he basically got those minds together, borrowed from the minds of the past and moved it forward.

Sounds good to me.

I hope cost of movie making goes down, cause I want to finish my film and find a funder or something. I found a distributor now just need to fund the finish, bleh. I think a new wave of entertainment is upon us and the movies will soon change as well. We'll just have to see.

Darktwin
03-13-2006, 06:27 PM
What I do see is the end of the 20 million paycheck for movie stars.

-R

God I hope your right, it doesn't make any sense to me other than for PR reasons when promoting a film. Especially when it comes to voice acting. Don't get me started on the the salaries voice actors get paid in big budget films. :banghead:

Trojan123
03-13-2006, 07:25 PM
I'm detecting a rather large infatuation regarding the salaries of stars.
Yeah, I can see how their paychecks can inflate a budget... but why even use thse stars?

Unless you are a director, is it even our business what the salaries are? Cameron saved a load of dough in a couple films by using lesser known actors. There are always options.

SB

igorstshirts
03-13-2006, 07:57 PM
I'd like to see a 3 hour Lucas movie with a billion dollar budget. I just want to see what that film would look like.

I'm not seeing the big budget flicks going anywhere, anytime soon. The great thing about 70mm film and 4k+ graphics is that they will hang for a long time. Resolution is still in it's infancy, it still has alot of exploration ahead and (again) I'm not sure I wanna watch a mono 320 by 240 indi m-peg on my phone.

Trojan123
03-14-2006, 12:15 AM
I'd like to see a 3 hour Lucas movie with a billion dollar budget. I just want to see what that film would look like.


The film would look great, but the plot would be thin, the story weak and the acting wooden.

SB

jussing
03-14-2006, 08:53 AM
Actors on small paychecks...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/13/film.keaton.reut/index.html

Flog
03-14-2006, 03:40 PM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollywood/0227061hollywood1.html

Why it costs 100 Million to make a movie in the US. The movie industry is hitting itself in the head.

So your telling me in all actuallity that you could have made the movie for 10 Million dollars tops, but they pushed it out to 70-100 Million.

Maybe we should bring up that old thread that it shouldn't take 80 Million + to make a CG film.

Trenox
03-14-2006, 03:50 PM
I think that people here is maybe forgetting the James Cameron factor !

Currently he is gearing up for 5 movies. 1 diver movie, 3 battle angle movies and his long time dream project Avatar (who was estimated to cost 300+ mil $ so it was delayed until technology could do it a bit cheaper). Sounds like Cameron means serious business, and he wants to revitalize the cinematic experience by introducing polarioid 3d glasses and an increase in FPS (i read at aicn that he needs 40 FPS for battle angel - for some reason :) ) Atleast i wouldnt say sat the big budget movies are dead until he has had his try again.

CGTalk Moderation
03-14-2006, 03:50 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.