Lucas Reflects on the Dark Side of Filmmaking (1 Viewer)

[Brent M]

I'd rather be a "fanboy" than a bitter, film-snob elitist who gets his rocks off bashing Lucas and the success he's had over the years. Take care now.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Well, I agree that we shouldn't take anything on IMDB news too much to heart, but this sort of thing has been reported on all over the place.

I think the quality of films may be partailly to blame (although there have been some very good ones made recently), but I think one of the real problems (though certainly not the only ones) is that people aren't going to see the really good ones. A lot of people have just been conditioned to go see crap, and so they subconcsiously seek out crap, and then complain that it's crap. Of course, that's just speculation. I don't really know for sure.

Of couse, when you get right down to it, what is or isn't crap is subjective. For example, I really did not like Napolean Dynamite at all, but it seemed to strike a chord with a lot of people. And I have to admit, as much as I hated the movie, it was neat to see a small, independent film do so well. On the other hand, I absolutely loved Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, yet I heard people coming out of the theater after seeing it saying they thought it was terrible.

I guess my point is that the definition of good is always going to be a matter of opinion.

However, I think it would behoove studios to maybe put a little more effort into marketing films that normally get a limited release. I'm not saying they should blitz the market with them, but maybe a few more screens. Start allowing more people to see some of these movies, and they may actually start to like them.

An example is Howl's Moving Castle, one of the best films I've seen all year and certainly not a "small" movie. I do have to give Disney a little credit, as the marketing campaign and rollout so far has been much better than the one for Spirited Away and certainly the one for Princess Mononoke. But it still might have been a good idea to get the trailer out to a few more venues to get people interested. It is a truly great film and one that I believe has a lot of mainstream potential. If Disney would put one-tenth of the marketing muscle that went into Herbie: Fully Loaded into Howl's, I think it would do quite well.

For a very brief time in the late-'90s it really looked like studios were starting to get it. I'm not a big fan of the Miramax school of marketing, but at least they tried to get audiences excited about truly interesting films. And other studios seemed to be following suit, giving independent-minded films a little bit healthier budgets and better advertising and distribution. I didn't realize until just recently, but that has changed very quickly the past few years. Less than a decade later, do you think films like L.A. Confidential, American Beauty, Fight Club, or Traffic would get the kind of budget and marketing campaign today that they had then?

I have no problem with big-budget escapist entertainiment; I've enjoyed and even loved many of these films. It just seems like studios are back to pouring almost all their resources into these movies, and now the bottom really is about to fall out.

I'm sorry this has been so scattershot. I guess my main point is that maybe a restructuring of the way everything works in Hollywood is in order. I still think that no matter how big a home theater system you have, it's still is still no match for the communal cinematic experience (provided the film is presented properly and everyone around you is polite enough to actually watch the movie with you). I just hope that the studios figure out a way to give us reasons to keep coming back.

 

[Juan C]

And he proved his own point by making some of the most blandly-filmed big-budget movies of the recent past. Give me a break.

Tell that to Wally Pfister, the DP for all of Christopher Nolan's films since Memento, up to and including Batman Begins.

 

[Jassen M. West]

Not to change the subject:




Repeat after me Holadem "Nice Kitty" or even try "gruz fraba"

 

[Jim Dalton]

I love how rather than taking a look at what Lucas is actually saying, some people will automatically attack him because of all the money he's made.

Excuse me, but the man has EARNED it.

He financed these movies himself, with as little studio help as he was able to get away with. He put up his own money and had they failed, he would have been wiped out.

I know capitalism is a strange concept to the people in Vermont, but it's worth taking a look at.

 

[JohnDG]

Why would one have to change the style (something that Lucas is saying here that he doesn't agree with)? If you expect the home theater to be the choice of audiences in the future, would not the large screens at home also support the standard "big screen" style?

jdg

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Films aren't losing money, they're just not making as much profit as the studios would like them to. The reason I would say I don't give a tin shit if the studios don't make as much money as they hoped is because that money isn't going to be reserved for smaller, riskier films that need the financing. No, that extra revenue is just going to get funneled into Hollywoods next glossy, big budget stinkfest. Hollywood is eating its own tail and wondering why it's not getting any fatter.

Bruce

 

[TheLongshot]

Well, you are forgetting about "The Island" a couple weeks later, but it is true that August has become a dumping ground for the B and C level summer movies. It doesn't mean that there aren't films to look forward to, tho. (Domino, Brothers Grimm)

You know, every year I keep hearing how "this year wasn't as good as last year". Personally, I think it is bull. There are good films, and there are bad films. Sometimes you have to look for the good, but it is there.

I talked to a friend of mine who also thinks that there isn't anything worth seeing between FF and Harry Potter. I know she's probably wrong and will be reminded of that soon enough.

Jason

 

[Chuck Mayer]

!

Jason, BG is this summer?!?! I am excited about The Island, but have low expectations. But Brothers Grimm?

I'll go see that,
Chuck

 

[Chris Atkins]

If you can put the ad hominem attacks against Lucas aside, I think you can see, from these statements and the projects he is working on, that Lucas doesn't want the big tent pole pictures to die. He's just afraid they are going to die because of:

1. Bad presentations in movie theaters
2. Piracy
3. All leading to a new generation of directors whose style is influenced more by the small screen, which adds to the deterioration of big budget pictures because they lack epic scope.

On #1, Lucas is one of, if not THE, leader to get the industry to change and adapt to the new technology. For instance, the use of digital cameras, digital projectors, and online/satellite feeding of films to give the consumers better quality and better choice over what they watch.

For instance, in the run up to ROTS, theaters could have made some decent cash showing the old Star Wars movies for a few limited engagements. Put who wants to strike prints for a few runs of a movie on one weekend? If a theater can download the movie, though, they avoid the extra cost and hastle.

But if these changes aren't made, I'm afraid we will find that Lucas is more right than he is wrong. If consumers can get more choices at home, with a better presentation, in a more comfortable environment, they will stay home.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Weren't the change in theatrical to DVD aspect ratios for both The Recruit and Once Upon a Time in Mexico driven by the filmmakers' thinking of the home theater environment separately from the theater experience?

 

[Tim Glover]

Not sure if this belongs in this thread or just another box office one but here goes:

From the Dallas Morning News.

Is it curtains for the movies?

DVDs, ticket prices and cinematic duds have many thinking outside the box office.

article linked here. You have to register. The article is on the front page of the paper.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....5ff63139.html

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

She's definitely wrong, if only because she thinks Fantastic Four is worth seeing.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Well hell's bells - - you knew it was coming...

Lucas IS the dark side of filmmaking! What is he reflecting on, the number of times he's changed his mind; resulting in changes to his 3 best films?

Has anybody considered that in 20 years you might buy a film that came out today, and then discover that - oh, I made some changes in it. It's much better now and this is the way I wanted it to be?

How can he worry about piracy when he is a part of the reason it exists in the first place? Does he even have a right?

Glenn

 

[Seth Paxton]

Lucas has an agenda and its all about digital projection and anti-piracy. Like anyone pushing a "political" view you have to take his comments with that filter on.

Lucas just made 3 of them and has Indy 4 semi-going. This is a down year, partly because of letdown and partly due to other factors. But the idea that its all net piractes, home theater and a taste for the small screen (even as HT screens grow so big that in a small room the visual and aural effect is similar) is crazy.

Is that what made Cleopatra bomb? Is that what made Heaven's Gate bomb? Cinema has had MANY eras of low box office, and since the mid-50s it has never sold tickets like it used to. But they still sell a ton of tickets.

The idea that producers aren't "making the money they'd like to" is also silly. Sure, they want $10m and only make $4m. You don't see them moving out of LA, pulling money out of projects like Batman or War of the Worlds, etc. They are still rich and getting richer. Otherwise they'd switch industries for their investments.


Just think of how 4-5 years ago with the death of some theater chains along with other mergers all the talk was about "movies can't make money anymore". Then they ran off several record years bolstered by $300m+ hits like LOTR, Potter, and Spidey.

So maybe George would like to give me a big, fat break before he expects me to write off the Spidey box office.

Bruce is right, none of this money IS or WILL BE going to "small" pix. Yes, when the indy film craze took off we saw studios doing more to align themselves with such films, but the big hits are still rolling out and will continue to do so.


Anyone that saw War of the Worlds at the theater and thinks "yeah, thats the same as at my place" is nuts. I've seen top end HTs and its still not 400+ people enganging in powerful images like that, then buzzing about it as they leave. Going to the theater is an EVENT.

George might as well have said "the birth of the microwave will kill big dollar restaurants, people will just cook at home and settle for 2nd rate versions of the big money experience". People go out to a nice restaurant for the same reason as they go to a theater. It's more than just getting some good food, its being out too.

 

[Robert Anthony]

That's probably the best analogy on this subject that I've heard, and it's not just because my nickname is "Fatboy."

 

[Jim Dalton]

If there is ONE constant in the universe, it's that things change. Technology, climates and whatever else you can think of. NOTHING is static.

Movie theaters are dying as the primary means for people to gather and enjoy films. It used to be that you had to wait YEARS to see a movie on TV that was just released in the theaters. That's why you went to the theater.

Videos changed that and DVD's have accelerated the process.

So, why should I have to deal with spending more money (factoring in admission, food and babysitter if it applies)to enjoy a movie when I can wait 6 months or so to have it on DVD and enjoy it as many times as I wish?

I stopped going to the theaters a long time ago and make the rare exception with something like Star Wars.

Seth is 100% correct with his analogy about microwaves and how new technologies displace the old. Just think of how the car phased out the horse and all the businesses that supported that mode of transportation.

 

[Tim Hoover]

I agree with this 100%, and it's plainly obvious why this is happening: escalating budgets. Your average CGI-laden blockbuster movie costs around $120 mil these days, whereas a few years ago could've been made for around $75 or $80 mil, give or take. That's a 50% increase in cost alone, and that would really eat into the profit margin...

 

[Brent M]

I love going to the theater and seeing an "event movie"(Episode III, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, etc) on the big screen, but it's becoming very difficult to tolerate all of the bulls**t that goes along with the theater experience. Loud, obnoxious teenagers who talk and laugh through the film, people fiddling with their cell phones, the carnivores who strap on the 5 gallon bucket of popcorn and act like they haven't eaten in a month, etc. It's just so annoying to sit through all of the distractions(not to mention the 5-10 minutes of commercials that are now mandatory before the trailers even start) that I rarely to go the theater anymore. Most films are either bought or rented on DVD and only a MAJOR release will make me see a film at my local multi-plex. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way and I think that trend will continue to grow at a rapid pace. I don't think the movie theater will ever die completely, but I do see it taking a big hit over the next few years. Just think what will happen when HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray become mainstream.

 

[Tom J. Davis]

Seems like I get more peace at the drive-in watching a movie than I do in the theater anymore.