No More Blockbusters?

S

sNYDER

New member
This was on the news on Digitalspy:

"George Lucas has stated that the days of Hollywood blockbusters are numbered.

The Star Wars director told the New York Daily News that "market forces" meant big-budget films were no longer economically viable.

"Those movies can't make their money back anymore," he explained. "In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theatres will be indie movies. I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15m."

This may happen as you look at some of the massive blockbusters that have flopped. I don
 
Hmm yeah it's realistic to expect there to be fewer blockbusters
 
I think his quote's being taken out of context a little...

I completely agree with his thoughts that "In the future, almost everything that gets shown in THEATRES will be indie movies." (my emphasis) As an example of WHY I think that will be the case, look at Serenity.

Brilliant film, cost a modest $40 million to make, a rabid fanbase already installed, rave reviews... and still only managed to GROSS $25.5 million at the US box office. Once all the overheaRAB for theatrical release are taken off that headline figure, I'd be amazed if the studio saw as much as $10 million of those movie tickets hitting their bank account. Of course, it didn't help that the movie was pushed back from a summer release (when it was ready) into the September 'black hole' schedule because of fears it would loose out to Revenge of the Sith.

Do I believe Firefly/Serenity is now a dead franchise? Heck no! I'd bet that once the profits of the DVD release and the PPV cable/satellite deals are added to the bottom line, that the worldwide receipts will have more than returned the investment. The trouble is... that's not going to be until 18 months after theatrical release... over 2 years after production was complete. Are the Execs at Fox going to be happy waiting that long for their money back? Probably not, so the question becomes "how can we profitably continue a popular franchise?"

As an alternative... look at HBO/BBC co-production 'Rome'. Costing an estimated $100 million, it's already been given the go-ahead for a second season so has probably already paid for itself... and has never had to suffer the indignaty of having its' audience sat in a dark, unfamiliar room with a total stranger sat behind them answering his mobile phone!

I'll never forgive him for Jar Jar... but I'm going to agree with Lucas on this one... by 2020, the phrase "straight-to-video" will no longer translate as "crap film no cinema would bother showing"... instead, I think the meaning will be nearer "great entertainment that no cinema can afford to screen".
 
Hmm. Not as yet convinced. Serenity is a strange one to choose - why pick a box office flop as an example?

But take Narnia, Harry Potter or Da Vinci Code. There will always be event films in one way shape or form, and they will make an awful lot of money.

I agree that cinema will change. I can see home cinema going day and date with theatrical, at least in some cases - though to contradict myself I think people will always have a desire to go out on Friday night. I've been so depressed at the quality of blockbusters in the last few years, but it doesn't seem to make any difference - people still wanna see the damn things.

But whether theatrical or pay per view at home, big movies will always generate big money. Serenity was - IMHO - one strictly for the sci-fi fans (the first half hour was simply torture) and it could never cross over to mainstream. I'll admit the reviews baffled me!
 
As an addendum to my last... one more thought that has just occured to me.

I'm happy to be shown wrong on this, but I have a feeling that right now there are less "stars" in hollywood than at any time in its history. By this I mean the people that can open a picture - in their heydey the likes of Mel Gibson, Arnie, Julia Roberts, Paul Newman etc. Of course we have plenty of popular actors, but none that make an audience have that "must see" feeling.

This is relevent cos star salaries are a huge cost in movies. A big star is paid $20m. How does this square with $15m movies?! Maybe this is just a blip and a new star will emerge tomorrow, otherwise this could be good news for the Lucas theory. If no-one can open a picture any more, there is no need to pay any actor $20m, surely?

Personally I think it IS a blip. Hollywood must be DESPERATE for a new megastar...
 
I picked Serenity because a) I had the figures for it, and b) I'm convinced it will make the bulk of its' money thru DVD sales and PPV TV. It'll be Firefly all over again... failed miserably on its initial release (cancelled mid-season), only to sell shed-loaRAB on DVD, to the extent that people figured it was worth investing another $40 million for a Big Screen outting.

By contrasting it with Rome, which theoretically cost less per screen minute to make, I was hoping to demonstrate that the future of expensive productions is with Home Cinema.

Neither Rome nor Serenity had a 'mega star' in the cast to distort the costs. The idea that you NEED someone who can demand $20 million to 'open' a movie just strikes me as ridiculous...

Yes, I know that doesn't mean it doesn't still happen. There are always going to be people prepared to pony up the price for a cinema ticket based on who's starring... Warren Beatty AND Dustin Hoffman?? Wow! What kind of mega hit do you think they'd front? Oh... ISHTAR!! :p
 
Quite agree - the star pay thing has always been nuts, but it is just a fact of Hollywood life. They are paid $20m because that's at least how much their name is worth in terms of extra B.O. Or at least that is the perception - sometimes of course they are proved wrong. It's all madness.

Neither Rome or Serenity much illumanites Lucas' point though, that for some reason ONLY films with budgets of
 
Back
Top