is George Lucas crazy?
Did that grab some attention? (probably not)
Now, before I'm maligned by a swarm of StormTrooper costume clad SW fans, and ipmaled on their plastic light saber toys--I mean, "replicas", let me explain.
It's been reported that George Lucas has predicted the "death of the hollywood blockbuster". Here are some quotes:
"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'"
"I think it's great that the major Oscar nominations have gone to independent films (...) Is that good for the business? No — it's bad for the business. But movie making isn't about business. It's about art!"
Ohhh, do I detect some sarcasm, Mr. Lucas? (This is me talking again, btw) The creator of Star Wars goes on to predict that "In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies (...) by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million". Is that sour grapes, Mr. Lucas? That you won't have the monopoly on making big movies? Hmmm?
And please tell me, what exactly "happened" to KING KONG? Domestically it grossed enough to make back it's cost, and internationally it doubled that. I think if you make at least 200% of your budget, you did pretty damned good. And it's not even on DVD yet. Clearly, if a blockbuster popcorn movie is done well, people will go to see it. And the success of lower budget "indie" movies, like all those that got best picture Oscar noms, means if "good" movies are done well, and get some good word of mouth, then people will go see it.
Sure, the odd film that has buzz, marketing, top directors and stars may flop. Can you say Cinderella Man? However, if we could predict what kind of movies for which the public would be willing to plop down their cold hard cash, then we'd all be billionaire movie moguls.
I think Lucas does have a point, in terms of budgeting. If movies aren't making as much in the theaters anymore, it'll be a lot harder for studio execs to part with their capital, if they don't think they will recoup the production costs. That said, all this talk of big budget, small budget, indie, block buster is really irrelevant. Everything truly boils down to the quality of the film. And the audience is getting pretty savvy, they know when they are being fed shit.
This past year is evidence that if a movie is well crafted, it stands a good chance of an finding an audience. And if a movie is all flash and no substance, people will pass. Look at ULTRAVIOLET. Though it didn't cost 100 million, it's not a cheap movie. It has cool action, a big star, sounds like a good formula for a hit. But it's only grossed a third of it's cost. Now, over time, it'll probably turn a profit, but the only time the word blockbuster will be synonymous with ULTRAVIOLET, is when it's available for rent at the video store.
So, while Mr. Lucas has made some interesting observations of the current state of the film industry, and stating the blockbuster is dead may have a ring of truth, I think the more accurate issue, is the blurring of the lines between A-movies and B-movies. Indie/art house and documentary movies are getting more respect, and are now given their fair stake at the movie going audience. No longer are they tools of the liberal elite artsy fartsy crowd, used only to feel superior to the sheep who flock to the latest hollywood crapfest starring the "it couple". And the brainless action flicks and TV remakes no longer have the market cornered. In the future, thanks to incredible desktop computers, the cost of movie making will drop so much, that anyone should be able to create a Star Wars. So, rich film makers will no longer have a monopoly on creating "big" movies. Is that bad for business? I don't think so.
ADC
Leave comments at:
www.mydestroyer.com
All text (c) 2006 Arthur Dela Cruz
www.kissingchaos.com
Now, before I'm maligned by a swarm of StormTrooper costume clad SW fans, and ipmaled on their plastic light saber toys--I mean, "replicas", let me explain.
It's been reported that George Lucas has predicted the "death of the hollywood blockbuster". Here are some quotes:
"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'"
"I think it's great that the major Oscar nominations have gone to independent films (...) Is that good for the business? No — it's bad for the business. But movie making isn't about business. It's about art!"
Ohhh, do I detect some sarcasm, Mr. Lucas? (This is me talking again, btw) The creator of Star Wars goes on to predict that "In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies (...) by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million". Is that sour grapes, Mr. Lucas? That you won't have the monopoly on making big movies? Hmmm?
And please tell me, what exactly "happened" to KING KONG? Domestically it grossed enough to make back it's cost, and internationally it doubled that. I think if you make at least 200% of your budget, you did pretty damned good. And it's not even on DVD yet. Clearly, if a blockbuster popcorn movie is done well, people will go to see it. And the success of lower budget "indie" movies, like all those that got best picture Oscar noms, means if "good" movies are done well, and get some good word of mouth, then people will go see it.
Sure, the odd film that has buzz, marketing, top directors and stars may flop. Can you say Cinderella Man? However, if we could predict what kind of movies for which the public would be willing to plop down their cold hard cash, then we'd all be billionaire movie moguls.
I think Lucas does have a point, in terms of budgeting. If movies aren't making as much in the theaters anymore, it'll be a lot harder for studio execs to part with their capital, if they don't think they will recoup the production costs. That said, all this talk of big budget, small budget, indie, block buster is really irrelevant. Everything truly boils down to the quality of the film. And the audience is getting pretty savvy, they know when they are being fed shit.
This past year is evidence that if a movie is well crafted, it stands a good chance of an finding an audience. And if a movie is all flash and no substance, people will pass. Look at ULTRAVIOLET. Though it didn't cost 100 million, it's not a cheap movie. It has cool action, a big star, sounds like a good formula for a hit. But it's only grossed a third of it's cost. Now, over time, it'll probably turn a profit, but the only time the word blockbuster will be synonymous with ULTRAVIOLET, is when it's available for rent at the video store.
So, while Mr. Lucas has made some interesting observations of the current state of the film industry, and stating the blockbuster is dead may have a ring of truth, I think the more accurate issue, is the blurring of the lines between A-movies and B-movies. Indie/art house and documentary movies are getting more respect, and are now given their fair stake at the movie going audience. No longer are they tools of the liberal elite artsy fartsy crowd, used only to feel superior to the sheep who flock to the latest hollywood crapfest starring the "it couple". And the brainless action flicks and TV remakes no longer have the market cornered. In the future, thanks to incredible desktop computers, the cost of movie making will drop so much, that anyone should be able to create a Star Wars. So, rich film makers will no longer have a monopoly on creating "big" movies. Is that bad for business? I don't think so.
ADC
Leave comments at:
www.mydestroyer.com
All text (c) 2006 Arthur Dela Cruz
www.kissingchaos.com
posted by ADC at 8:37 AM
<< Home