Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict film industry 'implosion'

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06 June 2013   #16
Originally Posted by Phrenzy84: Cinema still generates a ton of money. But people are beginning to ask the question more and more. If i have a net connection and a HDtv and netflix etc, then why can i not buy/watch the latest movies from home.


And the answer is, because it doesn't generate a ton of money. You're not willing to pay the price necessary to compensate the studios for lost ticket revenue. They're not going to bite your hand off at the offer of $5 to rent a first night release with your buddies when they could charge you $50-$100 at the theatre.
__________________

 
Old 06 June 2013   #17
And how much of a movies budget is used to line the pockets of the bureaucrats, lawyers and marketing firms?

Despicable me had a budget of 69 mil. Why can't Pixar smarten up and find a way to punch out good stories, but put a cap on expense?
__________________
Perry Shulak
Design, Illustration, writing and interactive media
www.criticalfusion.com
www.perryshulakcreative.com
 
Old 06 June 2013   #18
Originally Posted by sentry66: People have less reason to see movies than ever before. It gets more extreme each year. I think big budget games and movies will hit a wall. I think they've already started.


Funny, I thought this when I saw some reviews/comments about the new Superman movie. Some were saying the action was "too intense" or "too non-stop" - and this about a superhero + Zack Snyder movie! But there has been a cultural shift towards more (and longer) acttion scenes. Even movies like Avatar, which has perfectly-paced and punctuated action sequences spaced throughout the movie, seems a bit old fashioned already.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 06 June 2013   #19
yeah, with amazon and netflix now starting to make shows and movies to allow you to then stream instantly, I think they're going to be the new juggernauts of the industry.

Movie theaters might eventually go the way of drive-ins.

Imax might stick around though as the premiere movie vendor that can get away with charging $30-40 per ticket to see the latest spiderman or ironman a few weeks before the netflix/amazon release.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #20
Originally Posted by sentry66:
Movie theaters might eventually go the way of drive-ins.


I'm probably showing my age but I remember all these same arguments surfacing when I was a kid in the '80s and everyone was getting a VHS player for the first time (or Beta...) The death of the film industry was widely and emphatically predicted. It's still here. I think it will always be here, it will just change as technology and economies change just like every other industry does. The interesting part will be watching those changes.
__________________
Education and Training Manager
Rising Sun Pictures
New courses start January 2015
 
Old 06 June 2013   #21
The film and game industries shot themselves in the foot when they got greedy and put all their eggs in the almost direct to consumer sales basket. The film industry was better off back when they waited 6 months after theatrical closing to sell home copies of most films to rental establishments for $75-$150 or more and then 6 months after that to consumers for $20-$30. If you knew a well reviewed movie was going to take a year and a half to hit home video and you like to watch movies you have a lot of motivation to go see it in the theaters. While it was somewhat annoying to have to wait in lines for rentals and hope that the newest film that everyone wanted to see was available it also built a level of anticipation like theater going does and pushed movie watching up the priority list for a lot of people. Some films could use different release schedules and independents could do what they want, but because more money is made on individual ticket sales vs. at home purchases it doesn't make a lot of sense to build a strategy around spending a lot of money on a movie and then spending a lot of money on promotion and then focus on a direct to home sales release a couple of months after the theatrical release.

My other suggestion...stop making movies that suck. (half a billion dollars wasted in Superman origin stories and they're going to complain about it not doing Iron Man 3 numbers) Expand the existing successful genres with new perspectives. Another suggestion is to get rid of the convoluted lottery systems that prevent movie theater managers from getting the films they think will sell and having to settle for what they can get from the lottery system (yep, that's why two movie theaters in the same area won't have the same movies.) Mega corporations (the people that make the movies) shouldn't be able to also own the theater chains and then you wouldn't need the lotteries.

Oh yeah, the games industry did the same thing by killing off arcade development. Now hardware manufactures and developers are trying to turn home consoles and PCs into coin-ops while complaining about used game sales deteriorating the value of their IP. If they would start an arcade development initiative to premiere the biggest games in new connected arcades first people could pick up in whatever game wherever they left off from in any arcade anywhere and the developers could truly work without hardware limitations to make insane quality interactive experiences without trade offs. You could basically run arcades as the front end of a giant GPU/Xeon Phi server room.

Last edited by PhilipeaNguyen : 06 June 2013 at 03:19 AM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #22
Seems a lot of this chat is completely off the rails. Spielberg and Lucas are simply referring to the disparity now between film budgets - fewer mid-budget films, lots more low-budget films and very few super-high budget films with higher budgets than we've ever seen.

The idea is simple: eventually a studio will make 3-4 mistakes in a row and the whole super-budget industry will get a thrashing. We've got 6 major studios now, the industry will drastically change if that number was reduced to three or split into 10-12.

The math is quite simple. You can make a 10m movie and get 40m back if you're very lucky. Or you can make a 250m movie and get 400m back by being moderately lucky. Very luck to make 30m or moderately lucky to make 150m. Easy math. The problem is if you get unlucky a couple of times with a 250m movie then you're 600m down the drown. Which would be very bad.
__________________
Critcal feedback example #62: "Well instead of the Stalinist purges and the divorce and the investigation ... it could be about losing a balloon."

Last edited by axiomatic : 06 June 2013 at 04:05 AM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #23
Originally Posted by earthboyjacobus: ...

Here is what you get in Japan for 30 million.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q0Mp9s2-vU



Here is what 30 million gets us in the US movie market.


...


The difference is...Captain Harlock will make about $15M-$45M worldwide while a Madea film will make $65M-$100M worldwide. Which would you rather invest your money into? Pixar had been the only company that had been able to make animated films that could stand blow for blow, in the box office, with big budget live action films so they can demand more money. How much work put in is irrelevant if the end result isn't good enough or if the value of the IP is over estimated. Outside of Japan animated films have never done well with rare exception.

Last edited by PhilipeaNguyen : 06 June 2013 at 03:41 AM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #24
Originally Posted by PhilipeaNguyen: The difference is...Captain Harlock will make about $15M-$45M worldwide while a Madea film will make $65M-$100M worldwide. Which would you rather invest your money into? Pixar had been the only company that had been able to make animated films that could stand blow for blow, in the box office, with big budget live action films so they can demand more money. How much work put in is irrelevant if the end result isn't good enough or if the value of the IP is over estimated. Outside of Japan animated films have never done well with rare exception.


Only 3 Pixar films show in the top 10 highest grossing animated films of all time. Dreamworks Animation, by way of contrast, have 6. The last is Disney. There's 8 animated films in the top 50 grossing of all time (high representation giving the percentage of films that are animated).
__________________
Critcal feedback example #62: "Well instead of the Stalinist purges and the divorce and the investigation ... it could be about losing a balloon."
 
Old 06 June 2013   #25
Despicable me was made in France where companies are paying more taxes than in US with $40M (total budget $70M) and so it's still doable...
 
Old 06 June 2013   #26
Maybe Hollywood should stop paying tens of millions to actors and directors....Steven Spielberg making 400Mio $ of Jurassic Park and stuff like that...
Actors getting paid 18Mio $ for their voice in an animation movie
That is nothing but ridiculous.
I won´t spend 25$ to fill their pockets even more....
On the other side artists get laid off as a thank your for their crunch time work.
Awesome........


Plus on top at least 80% of the new movies are crap in my opinion...
For sure the cgi elements are getting better and better and are often breathtaking....
But that alone doesn´t make a good movie.
People will get used to that CG quality real soon and will then "demand" it as a standard, which is sad.

I´m tired of seeing prequels, sequels and remakes only...
Must be quite hard to produce a "blockbuster" movie with a descent plot.....

Now the greedy studio bosses cry that piracy is the root of all evil which is a joke....
They should stop complaining and start making good movies again....that alone would help....then bigger is not always better.....
 
Old 06 June 2013   #27
Originally Posted by sentry66: yeah, with amazon and netflix now starting to make shows and movies to allow you to then stream instantly, I think they're going to be the new juggernauts of the industry.


This I think may be it.

The subscription based streaming web services may offer a path way for alot of new ways of using film and creating films to come through in new and interesting ways.

If netflix or amazon started hosting regular rounds of funding indie film makers to try to spark new and interesting things, or find new pilots for shows. Then post all those films. That would be an interesting dynamic.

The new websites that let you pay per viewing of the film. I think vimeo and some others do this now. This has potential if someone manages to leverage it properly. If someone made an episodic series, where the 1st episode was free, each subsequent episode was $5. Try to get people hooked on episode 1... then pay through each following episode. That could be a lucrative model for an indie film maker.

Last edited by techmage : 06 June 2013 at 04:38 PM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #28
Thread automatically closed

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.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.