Lucasfilm's Rick McCallum says DVD hurts box office returns. (1 Viewer)

[Roberto Carlo]

Getting back to McCallum's comments, what he seems to forget is that the world has changed a great deal since 1977 or even 1980 or 1983. I saw Star Wars more times than I care to remember in its original theatrical run. Back then, my entertainment options were a lot more limited. Even in NYC we had less than 10 television stations, including PBS and Spanish-language ones. Technologies we take for granted didn't exist. Add to that the fact that SW was unlike anything we'd ever seen and of course we went back many times. Even without DVD today's consumers have many more options -- options that will take the place of going back repeatedly to the movies.
Does DVD affect repeat business? Sure. But they're also getting $15-25 from me a few months later. That's gotta count for something.

 

[Kimmo Jaskari]

Too bad this turned into a "my LOTR will beat your SW any day, nyah nyah" thread. The subject matter it started out being about was actually interesting.

Copying over the Internet cannot possibly be the worst copyright problem facing the movie or music industry today. How about actual copied DVD's being sold for a fraction of what an original disc costs? That sort of stuff is still rampant especially in the far east and the east, Russia and all the other former soviet states.

Just put a salary cap at $1 million for any actor in any movie and start hiring more unknowns, there are thousands of promising young actors out there that could use the work. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same bloody actors in movie after movie, with a few exceptions for the truly greats among them there is nothing they do that couldn't be done by a whole herd of actors we never get to see, IMHO.

Lower ticket costs for movies hugely and make the finances of it a non-issue when going to the movies and you'll get more repeat business and will probably make more people go to the movies again in the first place.

Keep DVD costs reasonable (half of what they are today maybe, as the volume of sales rises) and quality high and people won't bother with the hassles of downloading stuff, certainly not the average joe on the street; kids and youngsters with no money copying films should be seen as an inevitable loss. They will come around to buying and renting when they grow a little bit older and don't have the time or energy to keep downloading the stuff.

Obviously some form of online rentals and sales should be implemented as well, also with very reasonable cost and very low hassle level to make it palatable to the average consumer.

Given a reasonable alternative, most people will go with the hassle-free and legal way to view movies, but as has been mentioned in this thread already - keep pushing the consumers with asinine legislation, annoying copy protection crap that actually makes it easier to download pirated material than to use the disc you paid for etc and you will reap your just reward - rampant consumer outrage and an increased inclination to screw you over in return and not care about whether or not what you are doing is illegal.

 

[Carl C]

Guys, relax. A lot of this stuff was taken totally out of context. I was at the EP2 Press Junket last week when he was discussing this stuff.
Mainly what he's complaining about are BOOTLEGS and how current internet and PC DVD-ROM burning technology is playing an increasing role.
The Variety article also ham-fisted it by playing some of his usual tongue-in-cheek stuff for seriousness.
`Carl
------------
DVD Editor, CHUD.com

 

[James Reader]

Some people on this thread have been rather dismissive of McCallum's comments but I think he does have a point - to an extent. But not regarding the films LucasFilm. Not while Lucasfilm continue to exclusively make Star Wars films anyhow.

But it is a well known fact that most independent films do not make their money back from theatrical release (mainly because they tend to have few copies distributed and limited openings). But it is for this reason I see digital media as the savior of filmmaking. Once digital delivery becomes the norm there is very little stopping anyone - absolutely anyone - from making their own movies and distributing them themselves and there will be little overhead from distributing 100 copies, to 1000 copies to 1,000,000 copies.

The problem is not with digital piracy but with ever increasing film budgets (to say noting of the promotion). Of course it doesn't help that most of the films with the biggest budgets also turn out to be the biggest disappointments.

Now this isn't a bash at 'Star Wars', but 'blockbuster' films in general. Wouldn't (a small amount of extra) money be better spent on getting a decent script than on filling the film with (expensive) special effects?

I enjoyed Jurassic Park III greatly - I think it was by far the best of the JP films to date. But I seem to remember all sorts of problems with the filming of the film, one of which was that they started filming before the script was completed. According to IMDB the film had a budget of $93M, but obviously that budget couldn't stretch to preparing a script before hand.

It's obvious that the same thinking went into JPIII that goes into 80%+ of all movies made today - attract and keep the audiences attention with special effects.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I no longer get a thrill from CGI effects - I can remember seeing Michael Jackson's 'Black and White' music video and being blown away by the morphing effects used. But now... now I've seen everything imaginable done in CGI and all I think when I see it is CGI. No big thrill, very little excitement. You know I rewatched my Universal Invisible Man film early last week and I was more amazed and impressed by the effects in that than in Blade II.

The very thing that filmmakers have been relying on to impress audiences no longer does it for me, and I suspect more than a few others as well. The pulling power is no longer there.

Less pulling power, less incentive to make the effort to go out and see the movie. People will wait until it comes out on DVD and they can purchase/rent the movie to view at their own convenience. But then again, if an exceptional film does come out people will make the effort to go and see the film, and yes, they may even pay to see it again.

My message to Rick McCallum? Spend more money of your gigantic budget on scripting and getting the film right before spending it on effects work. A 'right' film should let the viewer experience emotion - whether it be joy, shock, anger or sadness. How many blockbuster films manage that? They're noting more than cinimatic rollercoasters and once viewed there is very little for the mind to focus or hold onto. I said I enjoyed Jurassic Park enormously (which I did), but the other day when explaining the film to one of my friends, I found I couldn't. To my shock I realised I had forgotten over 50% of the movie because when I was watching it, it was just 'there' - nothing special, but nothing bad either, just 'there' and instantly forgettable.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt Lucasfilm to make a low budget film or two and see how they fare at the cinema. Success of failure, perhaps the company will learn what really makes a film successful or simply how hard it is for independent filmmakers to succeed in this business when they don't have a franchise to rely on.

 

[Steve Christou]

how about the EXTREMELY over-paid actors and actresses and the outrageous income guys like this McCallum get.

I agree with Ron, the pockets of producers, directors and stars are bigger than ever, and the internet IS a threat to them making more and more money to fill those pockets.
I have a teenage cousin who downloaded all of Attack of the Clones off the internet soon after it came out in the cinemas, he was bragging to every one about it, he still went to see the film in the cinema, but only once, I asked him a Star Wars fan why he saw it just once, he replied that he had it at home now, whats the point, he isn't a home theatre fan like us, and could quite happily watch a grotty pirate copy of Star Wars 50 times.
He is still at it and downloading any new film off the internet, even films he isn't really interested in, because he can.
So McCallum does have a good point about this getting worse and worse in the future, kids download the whole film copy it for their friends and relatives, bye bye cinema.

 

[Brian W.]

why young people aren't going to the same movie five or six times a la "Titanic."

Come on. What they really mean, or at least what McCallum means, is "a la Star Wars." Sounds a little like grasping at straws to try and justify Episode II's below-expectations performance. And that's bologna in the case of Ep. II anyway. If it weren't for repeat business, it probably would have barely broken $200 million, if that.

 

[Terrell]

The Variety article also ham-fisted it by playing some of his usual tongue-in-cheek stuff for seriousness.

Hey Carl, not surprising in the least.

 

[Brian W.]

I doubt he's sitting at home pouting over that terrible 300+ million dollar box office.

It is still the first Star Wars film to not break the all-time Top 10 and not be the highest-grosser of the year. And Lucas was just trying to lower expectations in case the movie didn't do well.

 

[Terrell]

Well what do you expect for the fifth film in a 25 year old franchise, following what many thought was a disappointment? What other franchise can boast 300+ million for a fifth film? Heck, what other franchise can boast that for the second film in the series? I think 300 million is damn good under those circumstances. Brian, certainly you don't expect Star Wars films to go on making 400+ million dollars forever? Sooner or later all franchises lose a little steam, even Star Wars. Star Wars has lost very little steam considering.

What has happened in the world when 300 million is a disappointment?

 

[Steve Christou]

But it's still the least successful Star Wars film so far Terrell, and that must give Lucas and co the shakes.
Me, I blame it on the terrible title, Attack of the Clones, yuk!
I hope George gives the next one a dignified, respectful title.
Return of the Jedi had the best title of the series so far, the rest were just silly.
Fall of the Jedi, or Rise of the Empire, anyone?

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I don't understand how 302 Million Dollars can be seen as a disappointment. HARRY POTTER and LOTR's gross wasn't that much higher than AOTC(the difference wouldn't even be a good opening weekend for most films). Where they disappointments as well?

 

[Larry Sutliff]

But it's still the least successful Star Wars film so far Terrell, and that must give Lucas and co the shakes.

Actually, it has grossed more than ESB.And though ticket prices are higher, ESB has had a few re-releases, including the SE in '97.

 

[Steve Christou]

But Lucas never expected in a million years that Harry Potter, LOTR and Spiderman would outgross a Star Wars film!

 

[Carl C]

It sickens me that this shoddy hack piece (which basically took almost all of McCallum's comments either out-of-context or mispresented tongue-in-cheek for seriousness) has turned into yet more Lucasfilm-bashing for the trigger-happy among us.

But that's not surprising. What IS surprising, however, is that such an article comes from Variety & CNN of all places.

Okay, so maybe that isn't so surprising, either.

`Carl

-----------------

DVD Editor, CHUD.com

 

[TerryRL]

The LOTR trilogy budget saga began when New Line greenlit the series for $190 million. The budget for the trilogy ballooned to more than $290 million and a production head at New Line lost his job because of it. This was before the first film came out and there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not it would turn into the immense blockbuster that it eventually became.

After marketing costs for FOTR, the total money spent on the trilogy soared past the $320 million mark. In all New Line will spend more than $350 million making and marketing the LOTR trilogy. Since FOTR was a massive success, New Line is going to see a huge return on their investment.

As for Lucasfilm. Anyone who says that the $302 million tally of AOTC is a disappointment, really has an axe to grind with the movie. There is no way whatsoever a $302 million gross for a film that cost $115 million to make is a disappointment. Lucas did predict that AOTC would be the #2 or #3 movie of 2002.

 

[Carl C]

Lucas did predict that AOTC would be the #2 or #3 movie of 2002.

Better yet, Lucas personally predicted a total box office take of between $300-325 million for AOTC.
By the way, lost in some of this is the fact that the total IMAX gross will be counted toward the total AOTC box office. Industry estimates predict that AOTC IMAX will bring in anwhere from $2 to $30 million additional (Fox's expectation is $20 million). How interesting would it be if the 7 week IMAX run pulled in about $14 million and AOTC jumped right over both FOTR & HARRY POTTER? Oh, how that would get the internet geeks rumbling.
`Carl
--------------
DVD Editor, CHUD.com

 

[Terrell]

Better yet, Lucas personally predicted a total box office take of between $300-325 million for AOTC.

I thought it was around 275 million.

By the way, I predict no more than 8-9 million for IMAX AOTC, at best.

 

[Steve Christou]

Hey I liked Attack of the Clones, a lot more than Spiderman or The Phantom Menace, I'm just a little disappointed that it finished behind Spidey.
This was the first Star Wars film not to be number one in its year of release.
The times they are a-changing...:frowning:
Now no one can say for certain in 2005 that Episode III will easily be the number one film of that year, and as a Star Wars fan its a little sad.
When Episode I came out 3 years ago and effortlessly made more money than any other film that year no one was the least bit surprised, now things have def changed. Episode III might not even reach $300m its the end of an era.

 

[TerryRL]

As Carl C stated, the IMAX release will be counted toward AOTC's final tally. I do think Fox's $20 million estimate was a bit high, but you never know.

Lucas gets 90% of the profit for the SW movies since it's his money paying to make them. Lucasfilm has so far pocketed $285 million of AOTC's $636 million worldwide haul. The VHS/DVD release will net them even more.

I see where McCallum was going with his comments, because Hollywood studios have many more marginal films than they do mega-blockbusters. The average cost of a Hollywood film is about $60 million, and let's not forget the escalating costs of big name stars, as well as the fat backend deals they get.

A huge hit like "Armageddon" (over $550 mil worldwide) barely turned Disney a profit because of it's high cost as well as the backend deals of Bruce Willis, Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, and Ben Affleck.

 

[Terrell]

Now no one can say for certain in 2005 that Episode III will easily be the number one film of that year, and as a Star Wars fan its a little sad.

Well, it is a little sad. But I dont begrudge Spidey or LOTR their success. Of course as a huge Star Wars fan, I'd like to have seen AOTC finish number one. But every franchise fades a little over the years, unless you're like Star Trek and can't break 100 million. Then it's easy to sustain your box office. Just kidding Trekkies.
I do agree that Episode III probably won't be #1 for 2005. One reason is because it's not gonna be a happy film, and some people are no longer fans of Star Wars. So be it. Just give me a grand ending to the greatest saga on the big screen, and I'll be happy.