Lucas: Big pics are doomed

surf said:
what are you going to say a few years or a decade later?
Click to expand...

It'll take longer than that. The only way CG will be able to replace flesh and blood is when you can't distinguish between the two.

But when the technological singularity does arrive I will welcome our machine overlords with open arms...:thumbsup:
 
I think that blockbusters will always be. It's just that there will be fewer of them in the future. For movies like LOTR, it has to be big budget, but when you speed 200 mil on something like The Island, it just doesn't make much sense.
 
Well...i agree with all of you...but also the price of making movies will go down because everyone is going to eventually switch to shooting digital HD...which i kinda find stupid becuase in making movies..quality is prolly one really feature that you need to be able to work with..and 35mm film is much much sharper and clearer than HD.

I think Lucas lives in his own little world of Storm Troopers and CGI goliaths....
 
haha, well maybe lucas should try to make a low-budget film instead of churning out 200 million dollar pieces of ****. (oh and get someone else to write it)
 
Movies won't cost less to make (or see) until greedy actors stop demanding $5m, $10m, and $20m a picture. Actors are just another part of the team (dp, grips, ac, etc.). They shouldn't be treated any differently.

"There's enough in this world to support our needs, but not our greed."

As far as CGI and technology. Technology is meant to make our lives easier and to help us save time. Yea, right. ....So when was the last time you had a holiday because the computers in your office "saved the company so much time last month" that everyone got a day off? Technology HAS given us more time. More time to work. :(
 
blckhawk542 said:
...which i kinda find stupid becuase in making movies..quality is prolly one really feature that you need to be able to work with..and 35mm film is much much sharper and clearer than HD.
Click to expand...

An uncompressed HD workflow and digital projection should actually yield a sharper picture than film workflow, and with none of the dirt and scratches. I haven't seen HD handle highlights as well as film yet though.

Also remember that using HD on large production is pretty insignificant compared to the rest of the budget. I've heard several producers say that it has cost them more than using 35 mm. Of course the cost of handling HD will become cheaper and cheaper whereas film stock will not. Using a high end HD camera like the Genesis or D20 continues to be pretty expensive.

If a studio thinks they can make a profit, they will continue to spend $200M.
 
If VFX are outsourced to India like every other industry it would be very doable to do big summer blockbusters for 15 mil.
 
PK Gillock said:
Movies won't cost less to make (or see) until greedy actors stop demanding $5m, $10m, and $20m a picture. Actors are just another part of the team (dp, grips, ac, etc.). They shouldn't be treated any differently.

"There's enough in this world to support our needs, but not our greed."
Click to expand...

What you're missing in "Actors are just part of the team" is the fact that Tom Hanks, alone, can draw $100 million in ticket sales. Joe Schmoe SAG actor cannot. Even a truely great actor like David Strathairn, cannot. And certainly, dp's, grips, etc. cannot.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that stars get a percentage based on what the movie makes. Someone's making that money anyway. It's not like the production company would turn around and divide all that money up among the crew. And people don't go to see a movie because of the production company. They go for the star. So why shouldn't the star get that money, rather than some suited executive? The one thing that has always been true Hollywood is: stars SELL. It's been true from day 1.

I made a comment on another board, that what was interesting about this year's oscars, was that all but one of the movies was under $20mil budget, and three of those were under $10mil and all of those made tons of profit, comparatively. As where Munich, which cost $60 (Being a bloated Spielberg effort) made like $45. A black hole.

However, the catch is, these movies all contained big stars working for nothing. Which the stars could do because they make millions on other pics. The further catch is, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, even Brokeback Mountain would never have seen the light of day without big stars' involvements.

P.S. - I hate movie stars. :)
 
It's easy for him to say this following the Oscar success of all of the <100M crowd that walked away with the awards (save King Kong). However, the preponderance of revenues from films last year were all from big budget blockbusters. To Mr. Lucas, I respectfully offer this: STFU.
 
yagfxg33k said:
It's easy for him to say this following the Oscar success of all of the <100M crowd that walked away with the awards (save King Kong). However, the preponderance of revenues from films last year were all from big budget blockbusters. To Mr. Lucas, I respectfully offer this: STFU.
Click to expand...

True, I don't get why Lucas mentioned King Kong as an example. It cost like $200 mill, but worldwide, that movie made like half a billion in box office. We still have DVD coming.
 
desperatecomfort said:
True, I don't get why Lucas mentioned King Kong as an example. It cost like $200 mill, but worldwide, that movie made like half a billion in box office. We still have DVD coming.
Click to expand...

Old Lucas is just playa hatin'. Peter Jackson does it bigger and better than him.
 
Lucas did have the top grossing domestic film of 2005 though...
by nearly 100 million dollars.

He's pretty much echoing what Spielberg has been saying for years.
The best movies are made in a narrow band that disappeared for a
number of years. We're watching the pendelum shift back to those
budgets... these are the ones that brought us Jaws through the
the original Star Wars and the Indiana Jones films.

I also agree that the celeb budget siphoning is causing the problem as
well. Raiders of the Lost Ark was a 25 million dollar film... Ford is gonna
have that much waiting in his trailer just for showing up.
 
desperatecomfort said:
True, I don't get why Lucas mentioned King Kong as an example. It cost like $200 mill, but worldwide, that movie made like half a billion in box office. We still have DVD coming.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I'm not sure about worldwide but in the UK the DVD sales and rental market is worth three times the box office.

Look at Donnie Darko - Theatrically a flop, but has probably made a very healthy profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top