George Lucas predicts the end of big-budget movies

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
  03 March 2006
George Lucas predicts the end of big-budget movies

"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."

George Lucas

From nydailynews.com
 
  03 March 2006
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.
__________________
Kevin Hammer
http://www.kevinhammer.com
 
  03 March 2006
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.
__________________
When the carbon-monoxide content of inhaled air exceeds 1.28 per cent, it will be followed by death within three minutes. This is nuclear war.
 
  03 March 2006
Yep. And no, this message is not too short.
__________________
 
  03 March 2006
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...
 
  03 March 2006
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.
 
  03 March 2006
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
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
  03 March 2006
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.
__________________
Stan Slaughter
http://www.stansight.com/
We have enough youth, how about a Fountain of Smart?


Last edited by slaughters : 03 March 2006 at 04:17 PM.
 
  03 March 2006
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
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
  03 March 2006
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
 
  03 March 2006
King Kong
$519,990,758 (Worldwide) (26 January 2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business

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

Edit: Too late! Sorry!
 
  03 March 2006
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.
 
  03 March 2006
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)
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
  03 March 2006
Originally Posted by slaughters: 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...
 
  03 March 2006
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...
__________________
Dennik

Animusing Productions
old animation stuff.



 
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 01:11 PM.


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