What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
113 Comments
- Baloo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46I dont get it.. he says look at what happened to King Kong... it cost $200m to make and it has returned over $500m to date.... that seems like a pretty good return on your investment...
I think what will happen is that the technology to make mind blowing SFX will come down in cost and be so much easier to make that anybody with a computer and a camera will be able to make such films, this will mean that stories will have to become the driving force behind movies (again)...
maybe finally we are on the verge on a revival of cinema as a storytelling medium rather than a SFX feast - my god George what are you going to do?? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+48Now everyone knows what happens when you post useless information in your comments. Finally we're starting to see quality responses. People are taking their time to say something interesting instead of "LOL" or "dugg". Just look at what happened to the above comments.
- MasterIamNot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I would hardly call George Lucas inconsequential. You may not like his movies, but you can't deny the impact his films have had on the industry and society.
Plus he gave us THX sound, which is one reason I go to the movies. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Should anyone wonder why?
After watching that Hollywood 'look-at-me-fest' known as the Oscars, I felt completely sick of the fact that this lifeless, no talent industry is still holding on.
They are among the reasons it costs an arm and a leg to go to the movies now. Greed and mediocrity now control this industry. The biggest slap in the face, though, is going to the movies. Plopping down $20 for tickets, and another $15 for popcorn and drinks, only to sit down and watch a completely chopped up, unoriginal, overpriced and uninspired steaming pile of movie is no fun.
Lower costs and excellent home entertainment gear are the reasons people watch DVDs at home. Not to mention that at home there are no cell phones ringing off the hook.
Our only hope is that poor brilliant dolt and his unselfish friends using a home DV cam, iMovie HD (or a pirated copy of Final Cut) to pump out real content worthy of attention. The cost of producing professional looking media is now very low. And with the beautiful new distribution system known as the Internet, real competition with Hollywood has finally begun. The death grip is loosening.
No, screw the Oscars and the pretentious 'stars', with their pretty outfits, expensive hair, thick makeup, and dumb red carpet. Who really gives a $hit what their inspiration was or who did their outfit. I don't. Give me a decent movie. Their game is too expensive, and with movie sales slumping, fewer and fewer folks can play along.
The only thing Hollywood has left is distribution and cold green cash.
/sorry for the rant, $20 tickets piss me off - scarper86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20The financing for movies is much more complicated than simply subtracting the cost from the gross to determine the profit. There are so many front end and back end deals in order to put together the money needed for a huge budget movie that often the take for a big grosser like King Kong gets divied up among a lot of players and certain players get paid before other players and the movie has to reach a pre-determined gross before others get a return. This results in the movie needing to gross even more insane amounts in order to be considered profitable.
King Kong will make a profit on ancilliaries (e.g. television broadcast sales and DVDs) but the take, in relation to the huge financial risk the studios took in getting it made, means that in the eyes of the people who put up the dough, they were hoping it would have made a lot more.
The disappointment with Kong was made especially clear because of the greater gross for the Chronicles of Narnia a movie that was similar in terms of targeted market and it cost less to make ($670,00,000 gross on a $180,000,000 budget vs. $540,000,000 gross on a $200,000,000 budget), . That's what it boils down to. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Is anyone seeing the correlation here between big budget blockbusters and big budget games? Games are simply becoming too expensive to create, they're often too risky a venture, and these things add up to games not returning on investment.
And while we're at it, look at music. People are selecting individual songs, rather than entire albums.
I think technology is doing a great thing here. It's opening doors so that big money and big business aren't the only ones who can afford to put out incredible art and entertainment.
As was previously commented, I don't think that technology is necessarily the death of big budget games or movies or music, for that matter, but I think we're allowed into a lot more diversity. - xLiKx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15and he owns industrial light and magic, lucasarts and skywalker sound. they are pretty significant to the video game and movie industries as a whole
- sn0wflake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17A movie with a good story instead of computer graphics? Not in USA. Honestly, most American movies that come out of Hollywood have bored me for many years now. If it's a shoot-'em-up or action movie (i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger) you know that the good guys always win *yawn*. If it's a comedy romance movie the lovers always get each other *yawn*. If it's a funny movie (i.e. Adam Sandler) then you have to be 13 years of age to see the fun in those movies *yawn*.
Some American movies are very good though, but some time ago a big Hollywood CEO apparently found a formula for making big sellers. Those days are over and it's time to be more creative or continue to loose ticket sales. - tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I think you're right. Given your experience in the movie industry and George Lucas' lack thereof, I think you should make him aware of this.
He's been living in the dark. - tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10A lengthy list of box office bombs can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films:_U.S._box_office_bombs
Thank you, Wikipedia.
Note: Ride With the Devil (1999). It cost $35M and only took in ~$600k. Ouch. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I don't think it will completely end, but with new technologies, all these special effects should be getting easier and cheaper. I think low budget stuff and the web is going to replace any market share that big budget Hollywood loses. I could spend hours every day on sites like, YouTube, VideoBomb, and Newgrounds. Sometimes those sites get a 15 minute movie with a really good plot, acting, drama, etc. Things created by regular people, just like us, can appeal to us a lot better. I think thats why I like Foriegn films so much, they seem really down to earth.
- Petronski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The problem with big budget movies lately has been BAD WRITING. Paper-thin characters and laughable plot turns will lay waste to the best special effects.
It's all about the writing. Whatever happened to good storytelling? - xLiKx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5it seems that way considering that more and more smaller movies are gaining huge profits while bigger movies are floundering due to bad scripts and directors. but i think there will always be a few big summer movies. we still have xmen 3, superman returns, spider-man 3 coming soon and those future batman flicks being planned out. this is more of a trend than a prediction of the future.
but isn't Lucas shooting himself in the foot with this comment? he's working on Indiana Jones 4 after all. - leodavinci, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I agree with auto. I think you can chalk it up to the Internet age, people are going to want more choice. They are sick of the same summer block busters year after year and are looking for something fresh.
I'm also gonna have to go with George on this one, producing movies is only going to get cheaper and cheaper, meaning that the art of the movie can come out now instead of just, "let's add every possible genre into one movie so that everyone will spend $8 to see it." I'm looking forward to the golden age of movies : ). - toliman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5the weight of responsibility on a 'big budget' movie is probably what george lucas was pointing at.
the sense of creating a multi million dollar movie with 200-300 ppl helping out will fade, because the financiers will want higher returns and faster opportunities, i.e. mixing media and markets so that the next overdrawn sequel will be able to cash in on the hype and marketing opportunities in a 6 month window of buildup, hype, sales, promotion, actual movie release, and then the two months it will pay for to promote the crap out of it. after that, the studio will either pitch for the sequel if it makes its money back, or throw it in the syndication pile to sell to cable & tv networks after the dvd & vg sales quarter declines..
its the inevitable decline in standards that has led filmmaking from styled art, to a product, to fast brain food, and now to cross-promoted entertainment that allows entire communities of scavengers to maximise exposure and profit off one movie franchise at a time.
franchised films will exist for a while until movie companies won't be able to support the dead weight of all that framework in cross promoting films that won't hit the billion dollar revenue markets intrnationally. the eventuality is that companies like pixar who have reputations will continue, in the same way that indie production houses will continue, as independent operators and independent production. it is more risky for everyone, but thats the way it works when the big money & the insurance/finance falls away from hollywood.
indie films will progressively either move into or out of vogue as the bigger studios have to balance these overbloated franchises along with the regular movies that actors will want to be in, and that audiences will want to see when they get sick of the 'blockbusters' crowding cinemas and dvd sales in the stores. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why would I go pay $20 for a crap film when I can stay at home and watch great shows like 24, The Shield, Family Guy, Lost, My Name Is Earl, The Office, Galactica...
Movies have ridiculous budgets because Hollywood has ridiculous egos. And they waste money is a way that makes The Pentagon seem frugal. - MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Gameplay over graphics. :)
- domokunt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films:_U.S._box_office_bombs
* Stealth (2005)
o Budget: $138,000,000
+ Domestic Gross: $31,704,416
fing hell they spen 138 mil on stealth????
* Thunderbirds (2004)
o Budget: $57,000,000
+ Domestic Gross: $6,880,917
57 mil on frikken t birds
ok now im a believer, incidently the same kind of ridiculus economics exist in the music biz ATM - Bluezdood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Being someone that is involved in video, film, radio, and audio production I kind of agree. There is a definite massive shift to decentralization of media. Many of the oscar nominations were independent films, not big budget major studio productions. The same is happening in the recording industry. Record companies are trying to use the same business model they used in the 70s through the mid 90s and it just isn't working anymore (shhh, don't tell the RIAA). Bands are opting to go independent and contract publicists, managers etc. on a private and as needed basis. It's kind of a shame, but it is the trend that I see and I don't think it's going to go away. What it means is more of a level playing field, but maybe not the quality we've come to expect. It all depends though, some of the artists (film and music) will be able to accomplish great things simply because of their skill. Exciting but very uncertain times for those of us in "the industries".
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The article summary "Leave it to "Star Wars" creator George Lucas to pronounce the death of the Hollywood blockbuster." is misleading.
Lucas is not predicting the end of blockbusters, he's predicting the end of big budget movies. That's not the same thing. - birch25, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5it's pretty obvious you guys only know about george lucas as the star wars guy. he made american graffiti and thx 1138 for next to no money and they're two very good movies that many people loved. it was also never his intention for star wars to be this big a part of his life. he started the modern day blockbuster, but he has said over and over that he wants to go back to making small films.
and with all special effects houses able to create lifelike images, high special effects will be the norm, so using special effects to create something unique will be much more important. just like MrKite said, "gameplay over graphics" - ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Maybe he's tacitly taking credit for his role in helping to kill the blockbuster by making grotesquely overhyped movies that are all eye-candy and little or no drama. Or by taking actors who are mostly pretty good and turning them into Keanu Reaves clones without the emotion.
- roessnakhan, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4Personally, despite how much I like the original Star Wars trilogy and other blockbusters like Jaws and Indiana Jones - the blockbuster has killed the chance for really good movies except for those few months before the Oscars. It'd be nice if Lucas' 'prophecy' came true. At least foreign movies haven't succumbed to the blockbuster like American films have.
- rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8this is proof his life circles around star wars.. no more star wars == movie industry will collapse?
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3lucas doesn't know what he's talking about. What's the alternative? Indie films with no CG because no funding is available? bs. no celebrity stars? while a welcome possibility, i dont think they will vanish from all films in the near future. The real explanation must be, he looked at the steaming piles of dung the prequels are compared to the originals and thought, "Everyone sucks at making big films."
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The financing for movies IS complicated, but you also have to realize that there are many non-obvious sources of income. Foreign tax breaks and other accounting tricks can bring in tens of millions of dollars before the first scene is ever shot. Merchandising and licensing is another big money maker. Factor in international profits, DVD sales, TV, and other profits as well.
Also remember that it is in studios interest to inflate the costs of a film. I believe a significant portion of the cost to make a movie may go right back to the studio. Not only would this help with taxes (by the film seemingly operating at a loss) but it screws any stakeholders that might be getting a percentage of the net profit. The end result is many films that gross hundreds of millions of dollars and cost a fraction of that are stilled considered to have lost money. Winston Groom, author of Forrest Gump, never saw a dime of his net profit percentage from the movie, which the studio claimed lost money. Wikipedia has a good entry on Hollywood Accounting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting - agentgray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Funny thing is that Ride With the Devil...the director?
Ang Lee. - w00ters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh and one more thing, King Kong's production budget was $207 million and it made $543,858,374 (and counting) world wide (on the movie alone).
- Heiliger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This prediction was made only moments after his predicting the end of real-life actors.
- tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's called "Crash" and it's produced by a wholely INDEPENDENT STUDIO called "Lion's Gate"... if I do recall, didn't it just grab Best Picture???? Independent denotes that the studio that produced the picture is not owned by a larger conglamerate. I understand where you're coming from - just keep the facts straight.
- dandiemer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I wish he had prediceted the this about 10 years ago before he made those horid prequals.
- fluoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think it's cool that people are buying songs singularly and not by albums. Most rock albums don't seem to be composed with an overall intent behind them, but they are composed as individual, disconnected songs.. one at a time. (Yeah, there are albums out there that are actually created as a larger work, like Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and such).
If the trend continues and the record labels die off as we all hope they someday will, your pop star "artists" like Britney can just come up with one or two blockbuster sort of songs and throw them onto iTunes (or whatever is around at that time). They'll sell more copies (because "artists" like Britney are the ones whose CDs are the most pirated, and because few people object to paying $1 for a song) and put in far less work. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys see the latest big budget movies? Good riddance, I say.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2big Budget movies aren't going anywhere. Lucas has NEVER been part of the industry, he shunned it, moved up to San Mateo, because after his success w/ Star Wars he decided he knew better than the studios - as a result we got Howard the Duck. Lucas also predicted that live actors would go the way of the dinosaur because of his amazing magical animation technology, and the world got Jar Jar Binks. So yep see ya Paul Newman and Russell Crowe, we've got Jar Jar now....
Good producers are rare, Studio execs greenlight projects as favors, in exchange for getting other 'name' projects greenlit, and because they have to keep the pipeline full, even if it means crap. You do understand that NO released figure for a film is accurate, and those 'losses' get written off.
And studios can't 'only' make indies, for the same reason Disney can't survive on making taiwanese animated, direct to DVD, sequels to Peter Pan etc... The company is too big to be supported by small profits, even if the percentage of return on these projects is large, the actual return doesn't cut it.
Finally, last I checked X-Men killed it at the box, so did Spiderman, Narnia did pretty damn well too, and how about those Harry Potter films?
Lucas saying this crap is just him wishing that the studios fold, to prove he was right all along, problem is, his last movies were such steaming piles, who's he to criticize - take the name of 'Star Wars' off of eps 1-3 and you think they do any better than Stealth??? - CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds just like the airlines. The big ones are hurting while the little ones are doing well.
- XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think George is just whining about the need for more DRM and the need to stop the use of DVRs. Fortunately there are other very creative artists out there who will fill the gap if his chicken little scenario comes true...
Change is good! - Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"my god George what are you going to do??"
make starwars 1 1/2 - treehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lucas declared. "I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million."
;eh... not if you're still using ILM, it won't. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe if Hollywood tried turning its critical eye on itself it might figure out that people don't go to the cinema anymore because the "Theater Experience (tm)" sucks these days.
- sunmicroman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Napolean Dynamite (I know it's not a Sci-Fi or action thriller and appeals to a certain crowd, but still is good for illustrative purposes) had a budget of $400,000 and as of Jan. 1, 2006 has made over $44.5 million. Seems like a pretty good return on investment and shows that independent low budget films can sometimes become moderately to highly successful.
- stealthninjaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Odd, seems his statements comes right after the end of big-budget Star Wars movies. I'm just sayin'
- deldigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lucas has predicted the end of everything.
Ger - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, when 369 Mafia wins an Oscar, I can see his point. I guess I'm not saying there won't be big money movies, but that the quality will decline significantly.
- theDrizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1unfortunately there is a problem comparing kong and narnia. they reach to different audiences. with kong, not necessarily a movie you take kids to, so you get the adult populus. with narnia, its a kids movie, and kids go with their parents (at least the kids that go see that movie), hence kid+adult populus. ohh yeah, and cant forget length. i think jackson would have been better off making the 3 hour kong the special edition DVD instead of the theatrical release.
but to actually talk about the profits. i'm not necessarily sure that kong was made so it would be just a box office juggernaut, in fact...other than the LOTR movies and the star wars movies, i dont think many movies these days are made to be box office giants, those days are over. movies are made to profit in DVD sales. Kong will MORE than make up for money not made in the box office when it comes out on DVD. if the LOTR movies are any sign of anything, we can expect both a longer version of kong AND tons of special features and making of's and such. dont expect anything less than 3 discs. and the same goes with narnia, lots of special features, probably a nice long preview of some scenes from the next one, which i think is coming out early 2007, but i'm not sure, check imdb, they know everything.
my prediction...kong will make as much in DVD sales as it did in box office revenue... - meatstack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you watched the Oscars, you too saw the never ending drum-banging about the Theater Experience.
I think it was the president of the acadamy that started it, followed by some video Montage. that's the moment I stopped watching.
Don't bitch at us for not seeing your crap on the big screen. Get your theaters under control. 20 dollars for tickets, about the same for popcorn and a drink, and then to sit through 30 minutes of commercials (not trailers, but Coke, and the Marines)
A little friendler staff would hurt either. I know these are all theater specific, but that's the industry's gateway to their product. You wouldn't buy lunch meat from a dirty counter, why watch a movie in a crappy location.
- Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"lucas doesn't know what he's talking about. What's the alternative? Indie films with no CG because no funding is available? bs."
You're right. I'm helping to make an indie film and I'm also doing the CG. Since I'm one of the producers, I'm basically doing it on spec; if the movie makes money, I get paid. - zenscope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"using special effects to create something unique will be much more important"
i disagree for the reason that you posted above. lucas did create thx and graffiti, and both films are awesome. the same goes for today. we have fantastic movies from many genres that don't rely on unique special effects, or any at all, to serve their purpose and entertain film lovers. amelie, primer, eternal sunshine, each had way more story than visual content, and each was a wonderful film... at the very least, better than stealth :)
to say that because we have the ability to do something, means that we need more of it is silly - and gets us films with less thought, and more 'bullet time'... kinda like Matrix 2, and Matrix 3. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's now the Lars Ulrich of filmmaking.
- brainychimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1exactly. the studios are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. they believe a solution can be found by throwing more money at it. more explosions = more sales... it worked for bad boys II! so we'll jam as much eye candy as possible into a movie! who cares if it's fluff; the playstation generation will eat it up because they like it when things blow up, right?
then they blame other outside influences when things aren't going their way (did you watch the oscars? did you like the "only in theaters" guilt trip they were trying to lay on everyone?)
movies are no longer the end-all be-all entertainment they used to be. with tv, HDTV, DVDs, and (the real reason the big "blockbusters" have failed with teens) video games, they're running behind in the market, and might not ever catch up. - galactus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know if his comments make very much sense... it sounds to me like he's saying King Kong was a big budget movie that bombed while not taking into account that it was argueably poorly executed. He needs to take a look at his prequels and realize the only reason those movies made money was because of his rabid fans. Big Budget movies will always be popular because most people just want a movie they can sit and eat popcorn in. The indy movies this year got nomimations because quite frankly they were superb films, not because "they're indy"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is