Lucas & Spielberg on the future of film

The music industry changed because of the internet and technology. It became cheaper for musicians to record their own records, and it became easier and cheaper for fans to listen to music online. Less and less necessity for major record labels.

The film industry is following the same path, just a little slower. Indie filmmakers are funding their own films and viewers are watching them online, less necessity for major studios. Movie theaters are the radio stations of the film world and nobody listens to the radio anymore.

What does it all mean? I don't know.
 
When you're spending 20-30 million for A-list talent, you're essentially spending 20-30 million on marketing. The reason some actors can pull that much is because they put people in seats. There are e plenty of movies I've seen because of who was in them.
 
DDK said:
Their prediction though is that prices will have to rise. I think this is an outdated mode of thinking. Declining ticket sales are due to [drevil]ONE BILLION...[/drevil] factors:

1) Facebook

2) Farmville

3) YouTube

4) Netflix

5) Pandora

6) Angry Birds

7) VOD

8) Console Gaming

9) Home theatre systems being cheap and of high quality.

10 - 1000) all the channels

1000 - 1,000,000 ) All the apps

1,000,000 - 1,000,000,000) All the websites
Click to expand...

There, I fixed it for you.
 
Last edited:
An implosion at the top is good news for indie filmmakers (you know, us, way down here on bottom). Given that we're already at rock bottom, any kind of major shakeup at the top might let us float up to where the cash is.
 
moonshieldmedia said:
I work at the top movie theatre in LA and I can tell you sales are way down.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. The most recent statistics I read from the MPAA show that attendance at cinemas, per capita, is at an all-time low (or, something like that, can't remember exactly).

But to use a word like "implode" to predict the future, that's just a tad overdramatic. The theater you work for is still open, no? And new movies continue to shatter worldwide box office totals, no?

Why do we act like studios are just going to keep spending more and more money on films, without calculating their risk/benefit scenarios? WTF?! Most big-budget movies are making money. LOTS OF MONEY!

I love Spielberg. I love Cameron. But they aren't getting any sympathy from me when they complain that they had a difficult time getting "Lincoln" and "Red Tails" into cinemas. So, just because these two stalwarts of blockbusters were barely able to muscle their way in the cinemas, I'm supposed to buy into some doom-and-gloom scenario predicting that the movie industry is about to turn on it's head?

That's asinine. Besides, both of those movies probably would've been better off on HBO.
 
Well, exactly. I love Spielberg, too. I'm sure he didn't mean anything particularly unpleasant by it. And lord knows if the quote properly represents exactly what he said. But as quoted, in the context of the article, his reference to HBO sounds slightly prejudicial, as in the old prejudice against "slumming it" on TV. But, really, lately, one should only wish to be distributed by HBO, along with some of the hottest recent content out there, like The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, and Girls. Not to mention some of the excellent content from Showtime and STARZ.
 
I was just thinking about that last night, watching the season 2 premier of 'Magic City'. It's a Starz original, and as such it feels like nobody knows about it, at least not the people I've talked to. It's something of a cross between Mad Men and Sopranos, set in Miami beach in the late 50's/early 60's.

I was blown away to find out they're spending something like $6 million an episode for a show that nobody knows about. It gets something like less than half a million viewers per episode (although it may be significantly higher in on-demand and repeats). I personally think it's a really great show, but I'm amazed that it got a second season considering how obscure it is vs. the cost. That's almost $50 million a season - but then when I think about it in terms of theatrical films it doesn't seem all that expensive after all. With 8 episodes a season they're producing the equivalent of three feature length films - at a very high quality level - each season for less than the cost of promoting a single blockbuster.

So I guess what I'm wondering is how if someone like Starz can make something on that quality level and budget, and apparently make it work from a financial standpoint despite a lack of widespread awareness of it, what's going on that makes a similar approach untenable for theatrical release? I mean Starz is making about the equivalent of one movie ticket per month, per subscriber, in fees, and some of that is split with the cable system.

It just feels like there's some kind of disconnect right now going on between the current trends in television production and the current trends in theatrical production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top