PDA

View Full Version : George Lucas: Lucasfilm getting out of Movies?


jeremybirn
10-05-2006, 06:54 AM
http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_d4j_ezine&task=read&page=1&category=2&article=487&Itemid=29

George Lucas Calls It Quits
Wednesday, 04 October 2006

George Lucas says Lucasfilm is quitting the blockbuster movie making business to focus on television and other projects.

Variety had this,

George Lucas has a message for studios that are cutting their slates and shifting toward big-budget tentpoles and franchises: You've got it all wrong.

The creator of "Star Wars," which stamped the template for the franchise-tentpole film, says many small films and Web distribution are the future.

And in case anyone doubts he means it, Lucasfilm is getting out of the movie business.

"We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature film thing, because it's too expensive and it's too risky.

"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas told Daily Variety. "Because that's where it's going to end up."

Lucas spoke to Daily Variety after the groundbreaking ceremony for the for the renamed School of Cinematic Arts at USC.

He gave $175 million -- $100 million for endowment and $75 million for buildings -- to his alma mater. But he said that kind of money is too much to put into a film.

Spending $100 million on production costs and another $100 million on P&A makes no sense, he said.

"For that same $200 million I can make 50-60 two-hour movies. That's 120 hours as opposed to two hours. In the future market, that's where it's going to land, because it's going to be all pay-per-view and downloadable.

"You've got to really have a brand. You've got to have a site that has enough material on it to attract people."

He said he's even discussed this with Pixar's Steve Jobs and John Lasseter.

"If you don't do very many movies, and you're really lucky, and you really know what you're doing, you can get away with it. But you know at some point you're going to lose a game."

Lucas said he believes Americans are abandoning the moviegoing habit for good.

"I don't think anything's going to be a habit anymore. I think people are going to be drawn to a certain medium in their leisure time and they're going to do it because there is a desire to do it at that particular moment in time. Everything is going to be a matter of choice. I think that's going to be a huge revolution in the industry."

That doesn't mean Lucasfilm is diving into online distribution, though. "Having had a lot of experience in this area, we're not rushing in," he said. "we're trying to find out exactly where the monetization is coming from. We're not interested in jumping down a rat hole until such time as it finally figures itself out."

Nor is Lusasfilm's exit from features instant or absolute. "Indiana Jones 4" is still in development. "Steve (Spielberg) and I are still working away, trying to come up with something we're happy with. Hopefully in a short time we will come to an agreement. Or something," Lucas said, without a great deal of enthusiasm.

Lucasfilm also is working on a film about the Tuskegee airmen of World War II called "Red Tails."

"I've been working on that for about 15 years," he said, adding he's also been working on "Indy 4" for 15 years.

And Lucas Animation does plan to start making feature films -- eventually.

"Right now we're doing television, which looks great. I'm very very happy with it," he said of his animation division. "And out of doing the animation, we're getting the skill set and the people and putting the studio in place so we can do a feature. But it's probably going to be another year before we have the people and the systems in place to do a feature film."

Lucas admitted the big-budget strategy has done well for him in the past, but, "We're not going to do the $200 million investments."

He calls himself "semi-retired" but reiterated his plans to direct, "small movies, esoteric in nature," after his other projects are launched. He expects to serve as exec producer on the two features and the TV shows, including a live-action "Star Wars" skein.

At the USC groundbreaking, Lucas was honored amid canon-shots of confetti and fanfares from the USC Marching Band for his gift, the largest in the school's history.

Other bizzers in attendance included Lucas pals Robert Zemeckis and Spielberg.

Lucas said the gift is intended to set an example for the rest of the entertainment industry, as well as other universities.

"In a lot of industries, the people in the industry give a lot of money to the schools that produce the people who are their employees," he said, pointing to the auto industry as an example. "The film industry doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic about that idea. I'd love to see the industry do more."

"As self-interest, it's good to have the best trained people working for you. And the best trained people come from film school.

"The world of moving images hasn't had a lot of respect (in academia)," said Lucas. "But it's the major form of communication in the 21st century."

This $175 million, he said, is meant to "put other universities on notice that this is an important discipline that needs to be fostered."

-jeremy

atzfratz
10-05-2006, 07:16 AM
As sad as it sounds at first, i must say i can totally understand his thoughts.
I feel more entertained lately by tv series like LOST , Galactica, Prison Break than those Blockbuster they spend hundreds of millions on. And the series run for way more time.

Sounds like a very brave move from someone who could pump out more Star Wars and Indiana Jones Movies till the end of time with probably never failling at the box office.
But from a artistic standpoint its quite understandable. If he wants to do something new he could be loosing big money.

The more money they invest, the less risk they wanna take and the less chance there is something special comes out at the end.

I just hope movies as a whole dont die too soon, i like sitting in the theatre eating my popcorn.

ThomasMahler
10-05-2006, 08:05 AM
Yeah, I also think that Lucas understands where the industry is going. Smaller Teams, smaller budgets, better films and web distribution.

Squash-n-Stretch
10-05-2006, 10:46 AM
Sounds like a very brave move from someone who could pump out more Star Wars and Indiana Jones Movies till the end of time with probably never failling at the box office.


lol He's just going to go and do the same thing but on TV! There's already a Star Wars T.V. series (or is it two? I heard about a live action one as well)

atzfratz
10-05-2006, 11:45 AM
lol He's just going to go and do the same thing but on TV! There's already a Star Wars T.V. series (or is it two? I heard about a live action one as well)

question is how much he is personally involved in those.
If someone like Lucas says hes going to stop making movies i find that quite a drastic move.

But anyway wasnt`t going to SF and all quite a same move back then?

quyeno
10-05-2006, 11:48 AM
He's probably getting out of movies because he probably hasn't got any good ideas. He hasn't done anything great for the past decade except star wars and more star wars, even then all 3 prequels were average by any standards. I bet the tv projects he'll be concentrating on will be star wars related. I actaully don't see the point of him going into tv, he can just sit back and make a whole lot of money from releasing variations of the start wars box set. I'm not particulary sorry to see George Lucas leaving the movie industry, it would be a sadder day if the likes of James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese or Peter Jackson were to stop making movies all together.

slaughters
10-05-2006, 12:12 PM
Georges writing was always more suited to the small screen in my opinion. I want to see more movies of the caliber of American Grafitti. May be his fan base will let him get a way with doing this for TV.

Dennik
10-05-2006, 12:36 PM
Great films can be done with just 30 million or even less. If its a great story, you can get away with even 5 million! Like the case of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"
It proved that you can make $368 million out of $5

The public is drawn to good movies, and good storytelling. You don't need multimillion dollar effects to have their attention.

vintagetone
10-05-2006, 01:02 PM
The ability of quality post and HD to be done on increasingly smaller plateforms with smaller teams, with more streamlined pipelines with faster turn-arounds, that factored in it seems to me that he is not saying that the big movies are dead, but that the smaller projects are catching up, and in the end, they will probably earn the same revenue from viewership. The real need will be for directors who can put together a visual story and fully and correctly exploit the new opportunities. It's always been about the story and character development anyway, never mind the budget.

boomji
10-05-2006, 02:09 PM
I just hope movies as a whole dont die too soon, i like sitting in the theatre eating my popcorn.


yup! the TV experience just DOSENT compare to the silver.



b

Nicodemus
10-05-2006, 02:41 PM
That is a bold statement on Lucas's part but at least he is seeing that throwing a crap load of money at a movie is not a guarantee of success.

As far as I am concerend lucas should never direct another movie. He can write and executive produce all he wants but let someone else direct. Things are changing in terms of how the public gets it's entertainement. Not saying things will be totally different in 3 years or anything but with web distribution becoming more and more of an option things are shifting a bit.

Waiting for a movie to be available to own 6 months after it came out in theatres is just not going to continue to cut it.

I think Superman is this summers best example of what Lucas is saying here. That movie cost around $200 million....and I am sure will make a profit, but at the US box office it was a disappointment. How many movie like that can a studio make before they begin to not greenlight these kids of films?

Leslie

nape
10-05-2006, 03:08 PM
What hollywood needs is to figure out a way to drastically cut costs. There is NO reason a two hour movie should cost $200 mil. The problem is, everyone wants their cut, from the camera and light rental people to the wardrobe to the food service providers. The studios should get together and put the squeeze on these people. Movie making is too unionized anymore. Anyone who has ever been on a movie set can testify to the fact that there is an insane amount of standing around by 95% of the people there.

I actually completely disagree with Lucas about quantity. One of the major problems Hollywood has is that there are simply too many movies being produced. Going to the movies is not an event anymore, it's something to do when there is nothing better. All the crap out has devalued the product to a point where even good movies are a tough sell.

The sad part is, most of it is correctible yet the chase for higher revenues is blinding them.

unchikun
10-05-2006, 03:46 PM
What hollywood needs is to figure out a way to drastically cut costs.

The biggest film expense is probably hiring the talent. Unions are definately a factor but more so are cost overruns with script revisions in the middle of production which causes re-shoots and you have to hire all the unionized crew again. Of course vfx changes are significant overages. Marketing for a blockbuster can cost as much as the production of a regular movie!

Recently DVD sales of TV hit series has topped movie DVD sales. As far as vfx on tv goes, I see no difference unless you own a stake in production, otherwise you're just a hired gun like in films.

JTD
10-05-2006, 03:56 PM
I'm not particulary sorry to see George Lucas leaving the movie industry.

You mean leaving the movie industry as a director or just leaving the movie industry, period? I'll miss him because George was quite the innovator and his absence will leave a void that has yet to be filled.

talos72
10-05-2006, 04:37 PM
George Lucas has a message for studios that are cutting their slates and shifting toward big-budget tentpoles and franchises: You've got it all wrong.

The creator of "Star Wars," which stamped the template for the franchise-tentpole film, says many small films and Web distribution are the future.

Spending $100 million on production costs and another $100 million on P&A makes no sense, he said.


Some of the wisest words to come out of Lucas' mouth of recent. It is not the fault of the unions that the film industry is having a tougher time. The nature of technology and content distribution is changing and it does not help that the studio system has been creatively stale for a while. I mentioned before that the slump in overall ticket sales (I know about the exceptions like Pirates movies) is not a temporary trend, but a real indicator of where things are heading. Over the long run, making big budget flicks is not sustainable for studios. Other means of distribution are becomming viable and even the network television will be and is having tougher time competing. If the entertainment market is a pie, it is being cut up into smaller slices while the big budget films and networks getting a smaller share.

Andy1010
10-05-2006, 05:13 PM
Thats why every FX artist should be looking into something like the Pixel Corps. www.pixelcorps.com Its designed fully with this trend in mind.

DZL
10-05-2006, 05:15 PM
this just proves what i've suspected for a long time: george is a businessman - a much better businessman than film maker. he is a visionary: he understands the trends in the movie making biz, and where those trends are going --

i believe he is absolutely right about the future of movies/entertainment. going to the theatre will eventually stop happening - people will download their entertainment - watch it on their 50 inch plasma flatscreen with dolby surround sound at home. so offering a larger quantity of programming for an audience with many different tastes is the future.

how do you get around unions? start an animation company in singapore - no crew to hire. see the genius? how about merchandising? george certainly understands that - have the merch manufactured in taiwan for 2 cents, sell on starwars.com for $50. starwars only exists anymore to sell merch.

he's right: 200mil for a 2hr movie is a ridiculous risk, not seen in business outside of hollywood. give him a greenscreen and an army of singapore animators, and he'll crank out 100 films for that amount of money.

arctor
10-05-2006, 05:22 PM
Lucasfilm not making movies....

this is an empty statement...they haven't made many movies:
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0071326/
remove TV etc productions from this list and it's down to about 20 feature films in the last 30 years...some of them co-productions....

nape
10-05-2006, 05:28 PM
It is not the fault of the unions that the film industry is having a tougher time.

There is no question Hollywood has many problems but unions are a major one because they contribute directly to the production costs. Costume Designers, stagehands, first aid employees, lighting people, make up and hair people, editors, graphic artists, directors, ticketsellers all have unions. Why do you think so many productions go to Canada?

DZL
10-05-2006, 05:43 PM
Why do you think so many productions go to Canada?

because the candian government subsidizes the film industry?

Vizfizz
10-05-2006, 05:51 PM
Bingo! That is a major reason. Tax breaks, cheaper labor, health coverage.. it all factors in.

RuinedMessiah
10-05-2006, 06:13 PM
There was a period in time where the movies being put into theatres represented a certain amount of quality. Where everything, in general, was much better than it is now. We are seeing movies with national releases that even ABC would have turned down airtime for back in the day. Everything seems to be a rehash of a remake of a reimagining anymore.

What we need to do is go back to the day where big budget FX would not redeem a steaming pile of crap like Stealth. Where even the worst comedies of the day, like Summer Rental or Weekend At Bernies, still managed to beat the average comedy of today.

And most importantly, when you could go to a movie and see 1, maybe three trailers before you film. Not 15 minutes of extended TV commercials, 10 minutes of upcoming movie trailers, and 5 full minutes about how you, the bastard paying $12 to sit in a chair, should not be downloading movies. You should pay to see them in theatres.

It's become a sad state of affairs when you start going to movies half an hour past the start time just to avoid the commercials.

Buzzoff
10-05-2006, 06:19 PM
George Lucas has a message for studios that are cutting their slates and shifting toward big-budget tentpoles and franchises: You've got it all wrong.

and George knows TV.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/153/999201%7ECaravan-of-Courage-The-Ewok-Adventure-Style-A-Posters.jpg

chadtheartist
10-05-2006, 07:08 PM
I liked the Young Indiana Jones series. I thought it was pretty good actually. If he wants to do more stuff like that, then more power to him. I hope the Star Wars series is as good.

megatronskeletor
10-05-2006, 07:12 PM
What hollywood needs is to figure out a way to drastically cut costs. There is NO reason a two hour movie should cost $200 mil. The problem is, everyone wants their cut, from the camera and light rental people to the wardrobe to the food service providers. The studios should get together and put the squeeze on these people. Movie making is too unionized anymore. Anyone who has ever been on a movie set can testify to the fact that there is an insane amount of standing around by 95% of the people there.

I actually completely disagree with Lucas about quantity. One of the major problems Hollywood has is that there are simply too many movies being produced. Going to the movies is not an event anymore, it's something to do when there is nothing better. All the crap out has devalued the product to a point where even good movies are a tough sell.

The sad part is, most of it is correctible yet the chase for higher revenues is blinding them.


What the hell are you talking about?

The way to cut costs for movies is not to put the squeeze on camera, light rental, wardrobe and food service. You must have quite a small understanding of where the money goes with film projects. These areas are all peanuts compared to what they pay the talent, producers, agents, etc.

The main reason for work going to other countries is favorable exchange rates, tax incentives (UK), etc.
Actors & Execs = biggest cost and greediest minority in film.

I get a little hot under the collar every time people come into this forum talking about how crafts people and cg artists barely making enough to pay their rent and living expenses are the reason movies cost so much.

Simply, there is alot more work put into movies now than there ever was. Actors are exponentially more expensive than they ever were. 10x more people work on a film than they used to and the cost of living in the US is about that much higher as well over the last 30 years.

nape
10-05-2006, 07:37 PM
What the hell are you talking about?

The way to cut costs for movies is not to put the squeeze on camera, light rental, wardrobe and food service. You must have quite a small understanding of where the money goes with film projects. These areas are all peanuts compared to what they pay the talent, producers, agents, etc.

The main reason for work going to other countries is favorable exchange rates, tax incentives (UK), etc.
Actors & Execs = biggest cost and greediest minority in film.

I get a little hot under the collar every time people come into this forum talking about how crafts people and cg artists barely making enough to pay their rent and living expenses are the reason movies cost so much.

Simply, there is alot more work put into movies now than there ever was. Actors are exponentially more expensive than they ever were. 10x more people work on a film than they used to and the cost of living in the US is about that much higher as well over the last 30 years.

This is my point. There are too many people involved in the production of movies. Are movies better now when they had crew a fraction of the size? No way. They need to trim it down to a lean and mean group so the few still there can make a nice wage but the overall cost decreases.

megatronskeletor
10-05-2006, 07:48 PM
Movies arent bad because more work and cost is involved.
Movies are bad because they are mostly derivative, uninspired, repetetive, meaningless pandering drivel assembled by marketing executives. It's like fast food art right now.

Cheaper drivel != better movie.

If marketing execs ever stop creating movies, maybe that will be a start.
People in the movie business have worked so hard to remove risk from the process that it all comes out looking like the bland designed by committee crap that it for the most part is.

megatronskeletor
10-05-2006, 07:52 PM
Also, I have a hard time swallowing GL's statements about spending $200 million on a movie being an unacceptable risk.

Even though the prequels were mediocre, at a cost of around $110million apiece, they netted around a billion dollars apiece theatrical, tons more money in tie-ins, merchandise, dvd, etc.

Why is it a risk for George?
His financial failures have been on a much smaller scale (Howard the Duck, Tucker, Radioland Murders, etc.)

nape
10-05-2006, 07:53 PM
Movies are bad because they are mostly derivative, uninspired, repetetive, meaningless pandering drivel assembled by marketing executives. It's like fast food art right now.

Cheaper drivel != better movie.

If marketing execs ever stop creating movies, maybe that will be a start.
People in the movie business have worked so hard to remove risk from the process that it all comes out looking like the bland designed by committee crap that it for the most part is.

True. But they need to be creative across the board, including how movies are produced. The way they are doing it now is not working.

igorstshirts
10-05-2006, 08:07 PM
This is sad news and it just further reinforces the fact that art and money DO NOT mix well. I'd rather see three more Star Wars movies from Lucas as a full on, no-expenses spared, big HD, monster sound, thousand artist crew production than 150 episodes of watered down one hour entertainment.

Is art about money? No. It's about telling the world a story at whatever cost necessary... Period.

I'd rather watch an hour and a half of the Incredibles than 12 hours of Pixar's "not as devoted to our art as we could be" fun episodes. I guess there's not enough of us to sustain that. That's too bad.

richcz3
10-05-2006, 08:59 PM
It's estimated that something like 15% of money for features make in theatrical release. The number has declined in recent years. That and a huge part of the marketing budget is spent for theatrical advertisement. It doesn't matter what the budget is 20 million or 200 million, the marketing campaign costs are way out of control now.

I'm almost in 100% agreement with him. But TV has its own issues. TV doesn't ensure success. Lucas's mindset will probably pour mass amounts of $$ into TV productions forcing an industry wide panic to keep up.

I keep in mind that the key male audience 18-38 is shifting away from TV and toward the Web and Gaming. Even entertainment in the mobile market is growing fast. Numbers put more women are watching TV now. Hope Lucas keeps that in mind when he plans his productions for the tube.

silvia
10-05-2006, 09:18 PM
Not being in the film industry, I can't comment on the problems on the production side, but as a movie lover, I can tell you that the reason I haven't been at the theater lately is that there isn't anything to watch. The choices are: sequels, prequels, remakes, or complete junk like, as somebody mentioned, "Stealth" and similar. Why should I get out of the house, drive, get in line, sit next to some guy munching popcorn with his mouth open, listen to the cell ring tone of at least 10 people, just to watch either something I already know how it ends (remake), or a stale sequel or prequel, or just to watch 2 or 3 hours of car chases, big explosions, worldwide cataclisms, digital doubles doing ridiculous stunts, or acting that is obviously bad because it was done talking to the air in front of a green screen.

I disagree with who said Lucas should stay in the production business but not direct. In the last 3 films, it wasn't his direction that sucked, it was the script he wrote, which must have taken the prize for the worst dialogues in history. He should be, and remain, a businessman.

Having said this, I would be really sad if ILM goes down, because films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park are what inspired me to get into CG. It is not their fault if they have to do work for crappy films.

agreenster
10-05-2006, 09:42 PM
"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas told Daily Variety. "Because that's where it's going to end up."


Ugh. This can't be serious.

Talk about milking a franchise. Tons and tons of starwars shows and on-demands? No thanks. I agree with those who say the reason GL is going this direction is because he can't come up with a new and original (and marketable) idea, and also those who say the Box Office is already bloated with bad content enough as it is. Good filmmakers will still sell tickets, and bad ones will fill up the internet with more crap.

I dont think it's a mathematical/financial issue--it's all about whether a director/visionary has a good idea or not.

(but it sure was nice of him to donate money to USC)

MrPositive
10-06-2006, 01:55 AM
I think I heard a guy dressed up in a Stormtrooper outfit cry a little.

mayakindaguy
10-06-2006, 02:28 AM
I think Igorstshirts hit the nail right on the head. What should drive the budget of a film (feature, TV, straight to DVD etc) should be the needs to tell that particular story. If other factors overshadow this concept then I believe a production is going in the wrong direction.
This goes not only for the budget, but for the medium and even the form of distribution.

I have a high respect for George Lucas as a pioneer in the film industry, and he very well may be on to something when he says that smaller productions etc. will be more common place in the future.

However, I lean towards disagreeing with the idea of moving towards that direction simply because it's more profitable. The reason is that the logic of moving towards:

larger number of productionsxsmaller costs=more profit (probably not mathmatically correct)

means that this decision is still profit driven. I mean as a business a studio is there for financial gain, but I'm a big fan of the "if you build it, they will come," mantra, where if you give the audience a great story and film they will reward you for it.

I mean, imagine if studios in large took a mass exodus from feature film and flooded the internet, TV, DVD shelves with 100 times the content we have now. Will they make more money that way? Perhaps in the short term. However, if the quality of content is proportionate to that of current feature films, then you are going to have that much more terrible content that people will have to filter through, and I for one will not like that.

On the other side of the coin though is that once smaller productions become more easily produced, then talent will have more access to shine, and hopefully inspire because I think as a whole that is what is needed. More imagination and more inspiration in the industry.

Kanga
10-06-2006, 03:00 AM
He's probably getting out of movies because he probably hasn't got any good ideas......

Maybe sick of the risk?
I dunno,.... what he said seemed to make sense to me. If you are doing indy 4! you might not like the restrictions inverstors place on you. Perhaps lower budget productions leave more room for creativity. I don't believe bigger is better.

talos72
10-06-2006, 03:11 AM
I agree in that TV will probably not be the final saving grace for many studios if they assume the old network model will be applied into the future. Network TV, as mentioned will not have easier time surviving if TV execs do not account for the fact that the future of the entire small screen (I use the term inclusively to online/downloadable content also) market will be interactive: viewers customizing what they want to watch and when to watch it. Therefore, one size fits all conent creation will not work in the long haul.

Furthermore, I don't know why people always equate shelling out $200 million on a movie with quality. Again, in the comming years it will be much more feasable to produce good to decent quality work on much smaller budgets and that is not wishfull thinking. Frankly good amount of red tape goes into current cost of film production, and that has to do with the top heavy and in many ways soon to be defunct studio system (similar to the record industry).

Terrell
10-06-2006, 05:39 AM
As far as I am concerend lucas should never direct another movie. He can write and executive produce all he wants but let someone else direct.

ROTFLMAO! Dude, who the hell are you to tell Lucas what he should do? Lucas is an Oscar nominated director who has forgotten more about filmmaking than you'll ever know. You're just some schmoe on an internet message board. Lucas should do what he wants and not listen to schmucks like you. The day he does is the day I lose all respect for him

KOryH
10-06-2006, 05:34 PM
Well he is part of his core audience, that was obviously disappointed in GL latest works.

I say he shouldn't direct or write. But hey that's just me. I think he has great ideas but he
seemed to have a tough time following through on the concepts and stories he set up.

As far as his theories on the future of entertainment production? Whoa I hope he is wrong.
Quantity!!? Yikes does that mean Wall-Mart is the standard all companies should live up too!

I love the movie experience. I don't think it will die any time soon. Film people were freaked out by TV in the 50's as well. It worked it's self out. I guess my optimism come from the fact that I am a film maker and love the medium so much I can't even imagine going away.

paul.yan
10-06-2006, 05:43 PM
It'll be interesting to see where this trend takes us. I think there's a consensus that the silver screen offers two major advantages over the tv medium: 1.) BIG screen BIG sound, and 2.) communal experience. I agree that TV is catching up - HD isn't the same but it's relatively close, and house parties for your favorite show is starting to fill that void of going to the theatre (+ control factor).

I wonder if it could be advantageous for networks to lease their shows like how studios would a film to the theatres? Maybe it's too much to expect that everyone will have a killer HD surround sound home theatre in the future, so maybe theatres could have weekly showings for 'blockbuster' TV shows like 24, Lost, etc. For people who can't catch the weekday showing, and don't want to wait for the DVD, instead of ordering it On Demand/Pay Per View, go to the theatre where it'll be showing all weekend (without commercial breaks!). Make the ticket price cheaper for a 1 hour showing and I, for one, would probably visit the theatre much, much more.

silvia
10-06-2006, 08:58 PM
I still think that dinner and a movie is one of the easiest ways for most to have an evening out, so I really don't think people are going to stop going to theaters. But a crappy movie is just not worth it.

And for Lucas being writer or director, of course he can do what he wants, but we, the audience shmucks, can say our opinion since we give him money at the box office. My opinion is that, in the last 3 films, he did with ILM like a kid in a candy store, he just went CG crazy. I wish writers and directors went content crazy for a change.

SuperJuanMiguel
10-06-2006, 09:50 PM
It is much wors for us here in Brazil. We already know how bad a movie is much before it gets here. Then we have to pay the money anyway to make sure.

JM

angel
10-06-2006, 11:09 PM
It is much wors for us here in Brazil. We already know how bad a movie is much before it gets here. Then we have to pay the money anyway to make sure.

JM

LOL that was great!

Dragon_Lee
10-07-2006, 03:03 AM
Lucasfilm not making movies....

this is an empty statement...they haven't made many movies:
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0071326/
remove TV etc productions from this list and it's down to about 20 feature films in the last 30 years...some of them co-productions....

Exactly..

My first tought was "Were they ever "into" movies?", most of the products from the Lucasfilm stable were either "documenainment" on creation of various Star Wars related items, or gentle nudges from other (movie)companies to helm their movie product.

And some of their bigger main items were geared towards television (Young Indiana Jones, Howard the Duck (although I do not remember seeing a Lucasfilm logo on that, too bad I do not own a copy so I cannot check)).

But in a sense the statement is correct, although I'd lean more towards smaller/lower budget movies then "aiming for television", turnaround will in the future probbly be faster (and cheaper) but the general public will always keep wanting solid movies, not just quick & flashy "miniseries" or tv-movies.

I for one would hate to see all movie productions be turned into a speeddriven formula like "Alias", Prison Break, or 24...

specialbrew
10-08-2006, 12:51 AM
I for one would hate to see all movie productions be turned into a speeddriven formula like "Alias", Prison Break, or 24...

But would it? Maybe Lucas is equally responding to the dramatic precedents laid down by TV shows such as The Sopranos and The Wire, with their vast, slow, elliptic story arcs and a depth of characterisation that is really beyond a two hour movie... fusing all that to a SF scenario would be a mouth-watering prospect.

vfxdude2
10-19-2006, 12:23 AM
Hmmm..........................

CGTalk Moderation
10-19-2006, 12:23 AM
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.