• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Steven Spielberg predicts "implosion" of film industry

RollWave35

RollWave35

#KeepPounding
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
4,525
Reaction score
309
Steven Spielberg on Wednesday predicted an "implosion" in the film industry is inevitable, whereby a half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.
Click to expand...
Lucas and Spielberg told USC students that they are learning about the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters. Some ideas from young filmmakers "are too fringe-y for the movies," Spielberg said. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."

Lucas lamented the high cost of marketing movies and the urge to make them for the masses while ignoring niche audiences. He called cable television "much more adventurous" than film nowadays.

"I think eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television," Lucas said. "As mine almost was," Spielberg interjected. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close."
Click to expand...
Spielberg added that he had to co-own his own studio in order to get Lincoln into theaters.

"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," Lucas said.

Mattrick and Spielberg also praised Netflix, prompting Boorstin to ask Spielberg if he planned to make original content for the Internet streamer. "I have nothing to announce," said the director.
Click to expand...
Full story: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

I had never heard the "ticket price based on cost of movie" theory before.
 
Would that be like dynamic pricing? I'd probably be for that, honestly, especially around the holidays.
 
Ironic coming from two people who continually try to bastardize their once great works of film with "upgraded technology" and "added effects."

Wasn't there a fervor 10 years ago about how internet piracy was going to be the end of the film industry? Wasn't that a crock of shit too?

Movies like The Help, Now You See Me, the original Hangover, The Purge, etc, have all been successful during times when comic book films and sequels were dominating the marketplace. If you have an original idea and you make a good film, people will spend money to see it. Spielberg seems pissy because he doesn't know how to make a movie without $100 million or more in his budget.
 
PhilliesDeacs said:
Ironic coming from two people who continually try to bastardize their once great works of film with "upgraded technology" and "added effects."

Wasn't there a fervor 10 years ago about how internet piracy was going to be the end of the film industry? Wasn't that a crock of shit too?

Movies like The Help, Now You See Me, the original Hangover, The Purge, etc, have all been successful during times when comic book films and sequels were dominating the marketplace. If you have an original idea and you make a good film, people will spend money to see it. Spielberg seems pissy because he doesn't know how to make a movie without $100 million or more in his budget.
Click to expand...

Hasn't technology made films, on the whole, a lot cheaper to produce?
 
You could probably argue both sides. Technology reduces cost of raw materials and labor (grips, set designers, etc), but labor costs may actually increase given the skill required for modern CGI (and the salaries those skills can command).

Everyone lost their mind back in the day when Cameron made Titanic for over $200m (some/most of which was his own money, if I recall). Then it broke every record imaginable, so people starting tossing out $200m+ budgets without blinking.
 
I would actually like to see fewer movies if it meant higher quality. There is way too much garbage out there nowadays.
 
I wonder if the studios would make a picture like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Reds today. Seems like there were a lot more intelligent films made for adults back in the day.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
I wonder if the studios would make a picture like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Reds today. Seems like there were a lot more intelligent films made for adults back in the day.
Click to expand...

Disagree with this. There are some brilliant films being made these days. There is just a lot more noise to sift through around them.
 
It is weird that every movie costs the same regardless of length or quality. I watched a 10:20 showing of Star Trek last night in a theatre with 5 people total. That doesn't make business sense.
 
No so much to do with quality but demand... which I think can be gauged pretty well. Box office forecasts are usually pretty spot on, and you could in turn use something like that to determine a pricing scale for movie releases... which would help all types of movies.
 
Quality and demand are typically linked but I see your point especially for smaller budget movies.
 
PhDeac said:
It is weird that every movie costs the same regardless of length or quality. I watched a 10:20 showing of Star Trek last night in a theatre with 5 people total. That doesn't make business sense.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. My understanding is that the studio gets money per ticket, not per showing. So, if the complex is open it makes sense to show movies in all the theaters. And it's pretty damn cheap to keep a complex open.
 
Why spend $60 on taking your family out to the theater when it's going to be in a Redbox in 3-6 months anyway?
 
PhDeac said:
It is weird that every movie costs the same regardless of length or quality. I watched a 10:20 showing of Star Trek last night in a theatre with 5 people total. That doesn't make business sense.
Click to expand...

That's sad unless it was a repeat viewing.
 
PhilliesDeacs said:
You could probably argue both sides. Technology reduces cost of raw materials and labor (grips, set designers, etc), but labor costs may actually increase given the skill required for modern CGI (and the salaries those skills can command).

Everyone lost their mind back in the day when Cameron made Titanic for over $200m (some/most of which was his own money, if I recall). Then it broke every record imaginable, so people starting tossing out $200m+ budgets without blinking.
Click to expand...

It's the natural progression of costs. People lamented costs all the way back to the making of Cleopatra with Taylor and Burton. The combination of effects and insane star pay will keep prices increasing.

I'm not sure hugely different prices for movies will work but people do pay extra for 3D and IMAX. Plus no one blinks an eye at paying big bucks to see Beyonce versus less to see up and comers. Further Fathom is showing people will pay more to see things at movie theaters.

I don't think it will evolve into simply how much a movie cost to produce. It will be the frills and the value added.
 
I agree with Lucas on the television part. Television seems to be much more ambitious than film right now...by a lot. Movies seem to be pretty formulaic at this point, with tons of recycled ideas...haven't there been two Washington DC and the President get attacked flicks this year? That's just lazy.

Of course it ebbs and flows, but television (and Netflix) seem to have the upper hand right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top