What's new

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

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
faced with their own irrelevance.
:laugh: Yeah Michael, they're so irrelevant that everyone broke out into a huge argument over these irrelevant people, one of which is worth 3.5 billion dollars, and has had a tremendous impact on film history. I'd love to be that irrelevant. If they're irrelevant, what does that say about our existence that we spend this much time talking about them.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,972
Location
Albany, NY
Peter: No I don't. Unless of course you were taking that as a literal statement. I believe he meant his lifestyle, his livelyhood. And the fact is, once server technology and internet connection speeds advance to a certain point, the movie industry's fucked. This isn't the music industry, where they tend to make enough of an overhead to get by despite lower CD sales (and the format is more internet friendly anyway.) Movie theater presentation sucks. Once the technology is readily availiable to transfer movies in DVD quality online, it will make enough of a dent in the income that I could realistically see the movie industry crashing and burning. Not in the timeframe McCallum is suggesting... three years is much too short of a time frame I think. And at this point I'm not so sure I'd mind having the movie industry crash and burn. It'd be interesting to see what develops in it's place.
 

Peter Kim

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,577
Adam, wasn't the movie industy on a perilous perch before? Namely, at the time that tv's in the home were becoming more mainstream, didn't the movie studios realize that they had to build in an incentive - introduce widescreen presentation?

Just as then, much like Vince spoke of, the movie industry needs to find a new way to distinguish itself in order to sustain one of its revenue streams.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
maybe he'd make a more creative movie instead of one that's just one explosion and fight scene after another.
Boy, you haven't seen FOTR. That movie was nothing but one fight scene after another for two and a half frickin' hours.
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
Wow, what a wonderful satire. I hope CNN publishes more satiracle pieces on the entertainment industry like this one.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,606
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Some of you had this discussion before regarding George Lucas. Each of your opinions is well documented on this board regarding this subject matter, so please feel free in giving the rest of us some relief, by not replaying this never-ending discussion again. Just agree to disagree and move on.
Crawdaddy
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,972
Location
Albany, NY
Adam, wasn't the movie industy on a perilous perch before? Namely, at the time that tv's in the home were becoming more mainstream, didn't the movie studios realize that they had to build in an incentive - introduce widescreen presentation?
Indeed, but what incentive beats free? I don't see this happening in a less than a decade, but I definitely see it happening. Not even so much on the theatrical side... people will continue to go to the movies as a social experience. But they'd better get HD-DVD out the door soon, because once the technology's there to make downloading DVD quality movies easily, the Home Video market's going in the toilet.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
Well, you can copy and paste it all day long. There was no personal attack intended there, no matter how you took it. I removed it simply because you took offense to it for no apparent reason. I didn't remove it to take it back. I was trying to be nice, but since you don't have it in you to accept my apology, I could care less. There was no personal attack, even if you tried to imply there was one.

I've shaken hands and spoke briefly with Garrison Keillor. I am not familiar with his body of work.
Then you have some knowledge to at least make somewhat of an informed opinion about Garrison Keillor. You have some knowledge to make an opinion on Lucas' body of work. But believe you stated Lucas was greedy and his intent was to only capitalize on his work. That is something I don't believe you have any knowledge of. If you claim him being worth 3+ billion dollars makes him greedy, I'd disagree. I'd say that means he was successful and created something many others liked/loved, even if you did not.
 

Peter Kim

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,577
But have we forgotten that the emphasis should be on the quality of the movies? If theatrical screening go the way of the dinosaur, so be it. But is the movie industry really fucked? I don't think so - if the product becomes readily available in a personal format, I think the movie studios could flourish even more. Think of all of the market out there, including myself, that steers clear of theaters for a variety of reasons (mine being that I couldn't subject anyone to the 'precociousness' of my 3-year old son).

Granted, I hear your argument concerning pirating. However, perhaps I'm idealistic when I believe that the vast majority would pay to receive a product. Especially one so beautifully packaged as LOTR:EE.

EDIT:

Terrell, please drop it. And to clarify, it's not how I 'took' it, or whatever you think you implied. It's how you wrote it, point blank. No interpretation required. Anyway, please refrain from reducing your argument to a personal level each and every time.
 

Trace Downing

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 19, 1999
Messages
510
Location
Tampa Bay
Real Name
Trace Downing
I think what McCallum is talking about is coded in what is known as "Corporate Speak". When a company says that they're losing money (As in an excuse to lay off workers), it means one of two things. One: that their profits aren't as much as they hoped it would be, or Two: they didn't meet quarterly projections that they promised Wall Street, and are afraid their stock value will be punitively reduced.

McCallumm is probably afraid of hitting a box office "ceiling", where the record BO years of the 90s would soon level off, and profit increases on future returns will no longer be a guaranteed trend. His Chicken Little intimation is seen by me as more that Hollywood is tied to huge corporate conglomerates, and Wall Street, and the studio's corporate parents would dump them if profits no longer increase in the double digits, thus ending the gravy train they have now. None of these people are going to starve, but Hollywood as part of the Mega-Media Empires have stilted their view of what the "entertainment industry" is, and has always been about.
 

Peter Kim

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
1,577
In other words, I think that home theater will boom even more. And despite the belief that this may lead to the bust of theater, I think that the industry will profit even more.

Think of it this way - how many movie theaters are there per capita? Versus how many tv's (and potentially home theaters) are there per capita.

I know that studios might have a hard time parting with their flagship outlet, but they should refocus their sights on the burgeoning home presentation.
 

Jason Seaver

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
9,303
Literally, our very lives are at stake now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason, doesn't this McCallum statement strike you as ridiculous? You speak of ill attempts to analyze broad industry trends and skewed pictures, yet this doesn't highlight how this guy is possibly out of touch with reality?
Sure. I dismissed one of McCallum's assertations as silly, and a lot of his rhetoric is ridiculous. But, geez, the arguments against aren't based upon much better analysis.
 

Eujin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
549
MAYBE IT'S TIME THESE "DEATH OF HOLLYWOOD" PROPHECIES CAME TRUE
Ok, let's just suppose for a minute that McCallum isn't a raving lunatic or complete idiot. Let's follow these Hollywood doom-n-gloomers and their claims--made everytime a new technology is introduced to the market--to their logical conclusion. The way I see it, if consumers are able to make perfect, downloadable copies of DVDs, AND if rampant video piracy were to ensue, then yes, the movie industry as we know it would probably disappear. And so what? Will movies disappear as a medium or art form? I seriously doubt it. I'd like to see what rises up to take the place of the then defunct Hollywood system. As stated by many posts in this thread before, the studios need to change their business model--why do stars need to be paid $20 million for a movie?!? If the business is going to be hurt that much by DVD and other future home video formats, indeed if they're hurting that much right now, why haven't we seen any reduction in the salaries paid out to stars?
McCallum thinks that he can scare audiences with the spurious threat that if Hollywood goes down, movies will go with it. If the ability to make perfect copies of a work of art actually led to the death of said art form, we would not have any books or paintings to speak of today. Maybe McCallum should pack it in and go work as a producer on the stage--no worries about home-based or downloadable formats there!
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,972
Location
Albany, NY
But have we forgotten that the emphasis should be on the quality of the movies? If theatrical screening go the way of the dinosaur, so be it. But is the movie industry really fucked?
Regardless of the quality and ease of bootlegging, I doubt very much that it would have a serious effect on theatergoing directly. Going to the movies is for the vast majority a social experience rather than simply the audio/visual/artistic experience of HT.
The problem is, if that if the studios have really placed as much dependence on the home video article as the current climate seems to indicate, the death of home video sales would kill the studios which would kill the main source of films to show.
I do think the theaters (the smart ones anyway) would be able to adapt, bringing in a combination of new independent fare and reshowing old classics. This would have the potential for people like us to be very good. More obscure topics and films would have a chance to shine. Some old classics that never make it to the multiplex would get another shot at the limelight. The only audience that would suffer are those looking for the big budget blockbusters, which I feel would be dead for quite a while.
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
Terrell says,
Boy, you haven't seen FOTR. That movie was nothing but one fight scene after another for two and a half frickin' hours.
Actually, two hours and 58 minutes, but who's counting? Let's examine this statement, shall we {SPOILERS AHOY}? (not to completely go OT on the thread, but ah well--you didn't use a smiley)
OK, there's a brief segment of The Last Battle in the Prologue, which is revisited later for a few seconds in a flashback. Then we have an hour of hobbit rural shenanigans, which hardly counts.
The wizard duel between Gandalf and Saruman could be considered a fight scene, and it lasts under a minute, but only after ten minutes of exposition that doesn't quite penetrate Gandalf's thick skull.
There is a chase by the Nazgul at the Buckleberry Ferry, but there's no fighting, just running.
I don't count Nazgul stabbing pillows as a fight scene and neither should you.
There's the fight with the Nazgul on Weathertop, which doesn't last more than a couple minutes (hobbits are not especially effective warriors, at least not at this point of the story).
There's the chase of the Nazgul after Arwen and Frodo at the Ford. Although swords are drawn, they never clang together or draw blood. I don't call this a fight scene.
Then we rest in Rivendell for half an hour, catch up with Bilbo, have a council, enjoy lots of NZ scenery, cross some mountains, Pippin bites Boromir's ankle--not exactly a fight scene--they get snowed on, decide not to cross some mountains and go to Moria instead. Gandalf forgets how to solve riddles.
There's a fight with the Watcher in the Water at the gates of Moria, but it's pretty brief and inconclusive.
Then we wander through Moria for a while, get lost and sit and think, read some old books and get some comic relief from Pippin.
There's the extended fight with the cave troll in Moria. I'll acknowledge, this one goes on a bit. But we're 2 hours into a 3 hour movie, and it's about time for a fight to get/keep the audience's adrenaline flowing.
The orcs threaten the fellowship in the great hall, but they run away when they hear the Balrog coming. No fighting though.
There's the Balrog, but although it's a confrontation no one actually does any fighting. Well, a couple orcs shoot some arrows, and an arrow gets shot back at them, but that's a matter of a few seconds.
The elves are threatening at Lorien, but there's no actual fighting.
There's more talking at Lorien, magic mirrors, a long boat ride and more exposition. Boromir jumps Frodo, who runs away (again), though he does apparently get a free kick to the gonads in. Not really much of a fight.
Then there's the big climactic fight which leads to the breaking of the fellowship at the end. It's Hollywood, so you need to end with a fight scene. Sue them.
Forgive me if I've missed something. By my count, seven fight scenes, only three of which are substantial in duration--not coincidentally, placed at the beginning, middle and end of a very long film. This doesn't exactly strike me as nonstop mayhem and balls-to-the-walls action in a movie of nearly three hours. And not one explosion, mind you. :D What there is throughout is a sense of danger and urgency (well, once the hobbit rural shenanigans are completed).
Sorry if I'm irritable, it's the medications. ;) I've gone back and deleted all the profane references to His Georgeness.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,972
Location
Albany, NY
But Mark, AOTC had over an hour of exposition between the Coruscant chase and the end battle. So while FOTR is certainly more than "one fight scene after another," I'd say AOTC was equally shortchanged by your "one explosion and fight scene after another" comment. As for it not being creative, at least from the visual standpoint, it's one of the most creative films I've ever seen.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
It's all in the eye of the beholder. Other than having a few problems, I liked FOTR pretty much. Just stating that the one fight scene after another fits FOTR more than it fits AOTC. Some complain there wasn't enough fighting on AOTC other than the last 30 minutes.

McCallum thinks that he can scare audiences
Far be it from me to defend McCallum, but I'm not sure that was his intent.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top