Slashdot Mirror


George Lucas Predicts Death of Big Budget Movies

H_Fisher writes "Before the red carpet had cooled at last night's Academy Awards, George Lucas told the New York Daily News that big-budget movies will soon be history. From the article: "'The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie,' said Lucas, a near-billionaire from his feverishly franchised outer-space epics. 'Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong.'" Lucas' prediction: "In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies ... I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million.""

6 of 561 comments (clear)

  1. 2025 is a long way off... by JDSalinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lucas fails to mention what has changed in the viewer or economic system. A relatively short period of time ago, big budget films were often hits. There was a placebo effect, whereby people would have high expectations of a big budget film (despite this often not panning out.... i.e. WaterWorld).. Both the Spiderman and X-Men movies have proved that big-budget films, of late, can score big. It's not just about ticket sales, but merchandising as well. Except for t-shirts and posters, "indie" films cannot compete with the merchandising opportunities of the types of movies that mandate big budgets.

    1. Re:2025 is a long way off... by bloobloo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While Waterworld is often used as an example of a failed big budget movie, it had made $115 million profit as of 2005, which equates to a 4.1% annual return. While not enormous, it isn't to be sniffed at either.

  2. Star Wars rules... but Lucas is a moron by ExE122 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at what happened with 'King Kong.'

    The problem isn't the budget, its the lack of creativity. 'King Kong' is not a new movie, it is a remake of the 1933 RKO classic. Other big budget films: The Fog, The Nutty Professor, The Exorcist, Charlie's Angels, The Incredible Hulk, X-Men, Spiderman, Day of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, The Shaggy Dog, The Pink Panther, etc, etc, etc... And lets not even get started on sequels that should've never been made! (Anything that makes over 200m these days is just about guaranteed a sequel, whether is should have one or not)

    I took a History of Film class in college, and I remember learning about how "lulls" are often preceded by an abundance of recycled plot lines. The mainstream has run out of creative writers. Just about everything is a remake of something that's already been made. That's why independent, low budget films have become more popular. They are more likely to substitute a lack of special effects and big-name, no-talent casts with well developed plot-lines, creative stories, and some damn good acting.

    This isn't even that big of an issue in all honesty. The big budget industries are complaining because they're only making an average of $250 million instead of $350 per crappy-remake-of-an-old-tv-show movies. They will go on spoon-feeding shit to the masses and having them eat it with a big grin on their face.
    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
  3. Re:George Lucas is wrong by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe the average home is poorer today than it was 10 and 20 years ago.

    I believe that people just want to have much more stuff than they did before. 20 years ago, very few people had Computers, nobody had cell phones, thed had 1 phone for the entire house. They didn't have cable tv, and they had small 13 inch tv's. Now people have cable, and giant 60 inch TVs. You can't expect that to cost the same amount. Cars have also come a long way. A car 20 years ago is much less than what most cars are now. Entertainment is the same. Movies now are much more than what they were 20 years ago. You aren't getting the same product. You're really comparing apples to oranges in this case. Would the average american want to watch a black and white movie, where you can see the strings, and there's only 6 actors, and the director/producer/editor/cameraman/lighting tech/lead actor is all the same person?

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Re:George Lucas is wrong by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Brings to mind the Zappa quote: "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

    Think back to around 1991- dialup access was absurdly slow and ridiculously expensive, a decent computer would cost ya more than 3 grand. Cars were about the same price, but had fewer gizmos and creature comforts. If you wanted a cd of music, you had to fork over the $10 or $15 (No cd burners or emusic or piracy). If people have less real money now then then, it isn't for stuff getting more expensive, it is for their own stupidity, unwillingness to live within their means, and appetite for massive amounts of debt.

    --
    Sig cannot be found.
  5. Re:Yes, look at King Kong by shummer_mc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I'm no genius, but it appears that this is set up this way for (wink/nudge) tax reasons. I don't know about KK, but often the distributor is the same corp. as the producer (at least for these large budget deals)??? If not, then I'd bet it's a colluding oligopoly.

    I would imagine (or, it wouldn't surprise me to learn...) that there's a 'floating' percentage that the distributor takes to make sure that there is never ANY producer's net (monkey points.. that's funny) and the producer's gross is inline with an average to pay the 20% for the actors. [dammit, where's my tinfoil hat!?]

    The corporate structure simply has nifty ways of hiding the money so that the tax take is small (and the ACTUAL profits, paid as owner distributions, wages, and executive loans, are high) and most of the money stays in "hollywood."

    I'm no expert, as I mentioned, but I realize when GM reports 'net losses' of $X billion that it's not really LOSSES, but they are able to claim a LOT of exemptions and expenses (some real-- some not).

    For your next film, you should forfeit half of your *worthless* 'monkey points' for audit rights... I bet they'd balk.

    As evidence of the distributor's collusion, Lionsgate dist. (who doesn't really have a competitor) is basically sucking up all the films that are too risky for mainstream corp. hollywood to finance outright. Then they take the profits (as above) and distribute them to the colluding accounts of the oligopoly. They only buy the rights to the ones that create 'buzz.' This is a 'legit.' mafia... I don't think it's a secret, either.

    By the way, thanks for being a writer. I've had fantasies about becoming a writer, but the risk/reward is too low. I'm glad it's working out for you....