Steven Spielberg: the "implosion" of the film industry is on its way.
 

http://latimesphoto.files.wordpress...._lh1epgnc2.jpg

from the article...

George Lucas, who was also on hand at USC for the opening of a new building at the School of Cinematic Arts, concurred with Spielberg's prognosis. "The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller."

But what would a post-"implosion" world look like?

"You're gonna have to pay $25 for the next 'Iron Man,'" Spielberg said, while, " you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see 'Lincoln.'"

Full story here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3435818.html

Good. It's about fucking time they see they experience the harsh realities of an ever changing financial climate. Maybe some of these fucking asshats like Will Smith and Tom Cruise will realize that they aren't worth 20-30 million a film for once.

Just curious.

If I came to you and said, "Harmon, I want you to do a job for me I will pay you $20 million dollars for this job."

It is a job you know how to do and you feel you can do a good job at it. Would you you take the money?

It actually means the exact opposite....they will spend a lot on stars...:2 cents:

Its already imploded anyway...movies are a losing business since 2008.

Of course, and I'm not saying they are stupid for taking the money offered to them. It's just that the film industry has been on their high horses for decades thinking the bottom could never drop out. They have no intentions on adapting. Remember Blockbuster Video? Where are they now? Oh yeah...

We are being driven into a one time live event world and where movies will play for 6 months or a year in a theatre...a lot if not most of this is still cause of theft:2 cents:

Movies SUCK today.
Let me repeat:
SUCK!

There ya go.
Make better movies.

Amen:warning

Hollywood is a shit sandwich on rye. Viva Austin!

It's a no win situation. I wish they would save the money since there are thousands of good actors but they also know that just putting an over played douche in the movie will secure a predictable amount of ticket sales.

We're the problem not the studios.

The studios should cap their salaries. Where else are they going to fucking go?

Spoken like a true communist. :2 cents:

Shouldn't you be at an OWS rally, Harmon?

http://i.imgur.com/qYI5f.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/kylagolfar/...lay%20Bust.jpg

I agree.

Make movies with much better stories/plot and spend less on stars/special effects.

They do. We just don't watch them in the theater. The small film is now straight to tv or starts there.

It seemed to me that the 1990's was the first sign as a lot of theaters started closing then.
Hollywood Blvd was packed with movie theaters, but all but a few vanished between 1990 and 1994.

mostly shitty movies coming out

so, the star of a movie - let's say Will Smith - brings that experience to a few hundred million people, giving enjoyment to a large percentage of that few hundred million people. Yet they 'aren't worth' $20m for that part?

l o l

same dumb fuck argument idiots trot out when they berate sports' stars' wages.

yup and then maybe they won't want to pass out my money

Everyone in the movie business knows this is happening.

This shift will be huge for independent filmmakers.

I HATE movie theaters. last few times I went was a complete nightmare. people texting or on their phone, talking, etc. its a process to go to the movies, not fun like it was when I was a kid.

Rather, Id easily pay $25 or more to watch the film AT HOME. I'm not sure why this has not been setup yet, but maybe with the next Xbox they can see how many people are in the room and charge you :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Plus, this just means the price of VOD will go up and eventually, Redbox will cost you $2 to rent a movie

The only ass hat here is you thinking they dont deserve there portion for doing the work, sometimes people dont earn it but do deserve it. By that I mean, there in-titled to 20-30 million when the movie makes 300-400 million.

i don't go now.. i can't imagine it being good for them having prices like that

$25 dollars a tick ? I see piracy levels will be going up.

They're losing a lot of money because entertainment options outside the theater are more plentiful, and better in some cases. TV has been so good in the last 10 years. Sometimes a good series is better than a movie.

and the OnDemand is killing them too.

I think Tom Cruise should get a lot of money for making a movie, because there's only one Tom Cruise. Seriously, how many of us could do what he does? It's a lot harder than anyone thinks. But he definitely doesn't deserve to make $20 million a movie, especially when all of these bloated $200 million movies barely break even.

If the movie is worth it, I'd rather watch it in the theater than at home. Problem is, (like someone said before this post) all movies SUCK these days. Last good movie I watched must have been from 1994.

Movies are garbage these days, here's to hoping it implodes, if it means improvement.

there are plenty of great films being made today.

there are plenty of good television shows being made today

there are plenty of great bands putting out new music today.

the problem is that you need to look a little hard to find them. All the blanket statements like "everything was better 20 years ago" are just nonsense.

i was dissapointed recently to discover that the $50 megapass to world war z was NOT being offered at the megatheater near me in la la.

I think they need to cut the theatre out altogether or do theatre for 3D and straight to video at the same time.

Most movie theatres are disgusting places, I don't want to go watch something in some shithole that hasn't been cleaned and sit next to a fat fuck chomping on popcorn or slurping a big ass drink.

I despise them. (As you probably guessed).

And what do you get at the end of the day from a movie theatre? You watched 1 movie 1 time and probably spent more than you would buying a Blu Ray. They're dumb money to go to, here's what you probably get/or do:

1. Pay to watch 1 movie, 1 time, no chance of watching it again, unless you pay again.
2. Over priced concessions, popcorn, hot dogs, drinks etc. All overpriced.
3. Crammed into a shit theatres, onto a shit chair, to watch what will probably be a shit movie.
4. No home comforts at a theatre, you need a piss? Better hold it you fucker, this shit ain't getting paused!

They should get their movies out to DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. ASAP. They are doing a better job these days, I remember in the 90s when you used to have to wait about 12-18 months for the bloody VHS to come out :1orglaugh

:2 cents::2 cents:

I like going to the movies.

You all sound like grouchy old man. Smile. Life is fun.

Nigga please. The same idiots that employ these douche bags are the same ones crying piracy. Three or four hundred million? They are LOSING money. Stop spending a half a billion dollars to produce such crap as Jack Ass Tom Cruise At 5' 7" playing a BAD ASS and start making shit with substance. Plot lines. Fund independent films.

Now in NYC it's $13-$20 a pop. Really? So you can sit in a theater with a shitload of cunt bags that talk throughout the whole thing, texting, buzzing, pissing you off? Because people don't have 70+ inch TVs on their walls with Bose surround sound systems... sounds better, and you can watch it in a man thong.

Fuck the Tom Cruises, Will Smiths, Michael Jordans, Tiger Woods, etc of the world. Overpaid, mediocre entertainment at best.

I think you forget what a sheep you are. They created you... the sheep. These guys are 9-5ers, maybe a bit longer eating catered food in their fucking trailers outfitted with hot tubs, masseuses, cock strokers.... while they pull in TWENTY OR THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS PER FILM? Fucking dumb no matter what angle you look at it. It's called GREEDY.

They need to adapt. They need to realize that people are getting accustomed to micro-payments. Until they do? Fuck em. I haven't been to a theater since Jurassic Park 2 or something. It's a gold sink. Quite frankly? They are spewing out CRAP.

That's my opinion, like it or lump it. :2 cents:

PS> No offense, I respect your opinion. I just feel that everybody needs to calm the fuck down and realize what the word WORTH means.

according to the article, that is what they are doing and that is the problem. to make a movie that appeals to masses of people requires dumbing the movie down to appeal to masses of people. everybody gets a bit of what they want to see.

When you say TV do you mean basic cable channels or specialty channels like HBO?

Stopped going out to see movies after putting a big screen TV in our home.

I think this proves what DynaMo posted a little bit above. :helpme

movie budgets are artificially blown up so movies don't make profit - for various reasons

here's a little info on that: http://gideonsway.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/film-money/

And meanwhile productions for TV like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead or the recent Liberace movie with Matt Damon and Michael Douglas have reached completely new quality levels and attract actors that never wanted to work for TV

Now Netflix and Amazon start producing their own content.

Things are changing...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

i'm not putting 2&2 together on your comment and that article?

could you elaborate?

Last movie I saw in a theater was in the early to mid 1980's.

It was too expensive THEN for the type of experience which in my memory was dirty sticky floors and the smell of dried soda, candy and popcorn all mixed together.

At home I have a big screen, a pause button, arm rests, allowed to have drinks at my seat and no endless previews.

Raise the minimum wage and people will spend on bullshit non-essentials again.

I didn't click through the article but I think what MaDalton is referring to is Hollywood Accounting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

The studios set things up so that it always looks like the movie hasn't made a profit, which means to don't have to pay out to certain people at certain times.

Empire Strikes Back is on the list of movies that still haven't turned a profit, based on this system of accounting.

i see.

well, i see but i don't see where all the money is flowing. because that wiki doesn't really align with the article in the op. spielberg says it's about to implode due to costs. but that wiki says hollywood creatively adjust costs down.

who get's all the damn money? !! :1orglaugh

:thumbsup

The studios do. There's a lot of money that just gets shuffled around the books within the various companies involved, all of which are usually under the umbrella of the studio involved. I'd bet that 1/2 of those big $100 million budgets are usually just funny money being moved around like this. Maybe more.

It's the movie business version of music business "recouping".

The studios actually set up a business for each movie which then takes a direct investment of cash, that with all intents and purposes they want to keep them in the red, which means there's no net profit.

If you think about it to, at this point Lucas and Spielberg are independent filmmakers. They finance their own projects. This paradigm shift really is huge for independent filmmakers, being the two at the top of the list. There guys know it.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

If people stopped going to see bad movies, sequels, reboots, remakes etc they would stop making them. The reason Will Smith makes a ton of money is because most of his movies make a ton of money. If people stopped going to see his movies he would make much less. so long as people support the type of movies Hollywood is making, they will continue to churn them out.

As for there being nothing good to watch. That is is just not the case. Almost every week there are independent movies getting limited releases or releasing on DVD/pay per view that are very good. The problem is they might not be easy to find and you might have to drive a little further than normal to see them. If people support these movies more of them will get made.

The studios get all the money.

The studio can come up with all kinds of crazy line item costs for a movie like "office overhead" or "administration" and put huge numbers into those line items. They then keep money from the profits to cover these items that likely never existed or never existed at this level.

that's what i thought too but how does that flow with what spielberg is saying? that there will be an implosion due to ~6 megabudget failures.

if they are the ones left holding all the cash, then these high priced bombs can be absorbed right?

what am i missing! :1orglaugh

Will Smith has just said that he will stop doing the big blockbusters and focus on smaller projects. This just after his latest pretty much flopped at the box office. A project that he pretty much commissioned from start to finish as a means to propel his kid into stardom.

Unfortunately, for them, people don't seem to like the kid and a summer flop after 20 straight summer successes make for a quick change in plans.