Steven Spielberg Predicts 'Implosion' of Film Industry

Yes, "The Avengers" cost a lot to make and made a lot of money. The problem is that all of the big studios are trying to make every film "The Avengers" and that is not possible. As noted in the OP, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who are ironically the two individuals most responsible for Hollywood's fixation on the blockbuster tent pole film, acknowledge that the business model is not sustainable. What Mr. O'Hehir's article is saying is what I said earlier; that the individuals that are making the decisions to take such huge financial gambles do not suffer commensurate personal consequences when those gambles fail. That is absolutely true in regards to Wall Street and Hollywood. I would also agree with Mr. O'Hehir about that in regards to the United States MILITARY budget but to expound on that would require a discussion that is beyond the scope of this board and I will not comment further. I admire your ardent belief in the quint entrepreneur ideal of risk and reward as applied to modern large corporation business decision making. I am sorry but things just do not work that way anymore. A quick study of current events will show that.

No, Hollywood should not ONLY make moderate budget comedies, or what not, but REALLY.... $225 million for a reboot of "THE LONE RANGER"!!! REALLY!!! A &%&#*@^ WESTERN?!!! When I was a kid re-runs of the Clayton Moore "Lone Ranger" TV show played on local TV every afternoon. I thought the whole thing was sh*t then and just because Johnny Depp is in it so it is not going to be sh*t now? Now I know, I know... I have not seen the movie; it might be the best thing since slice buttered bread but it is "The Lone Ranger"; I don't have any interest and apparently a lot of other people feel the same. I don't know what the best answer is for mainstream movies today but I for one am getting really kind of tired of the same ol' thing. There are other venues for viewing fictional narrative work and I do enjoy them. I just hate to think that the big screen experience may become totally irrelevant because of corporate mismanagement.
 
Last edited:
I agree with much that has been said here. One point touched on is this:

Greatness is from excellence of execution, not originality of ideas.
​


It was true for Shakespeare, and it's true for Apple. I would even argue, as someone else has done quite fully, that everything is a remix.

Also, this quote by Derek Sivers:

It's so funny when I hear people being so protective of ideas. (People who want me to sign an NDA to tell me the simplest idea.)

To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions.

Explanation:

Awful idea = -1
Weak idea = 1
So-so idea = 5
Good idea = 10
Great idea = 15
Brilliant idea = 20

No execution = $1
Weak execution = $1000
So-so execution = $10,000
Good execution = $100,000
Great execution = $1,000,000
Brilliant execution = $10,000,000

To make a business, you need to multiply the two.

The most brilliant idea, with no execution, is worth $20. The most brilliant idea takes great execution to be worth $20,000,000.

That's why I don't want to hear people's ideas. I'm not interested until I see their execution.

—Derek Sivers, president and programmer, CD Baby and HostBaby
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
David G. Smith said:
Yes, "The Avengers" cost a lot to make and made a lot of money. The problem is that all of the big studios are trying to make every film "The Avengers" and that is not possible. As noted in the OP, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who are ironically the two individuals most responsible for Hollywood's fixation on the blockbuster tent pole film, acknowledge that the business model is not sustainable. What Mr. O'Hehir's article is saying is what I said earlier; that the individuals that are making the decisions to take such huge financial gambles do not suffer commensurate personal consequences when those gambles fail. That is absolutely true in regards to Wall Street and Hollywood.
Click to expand...

The problem with your analysis is it's to narrow. You're looking at the trees and therefore cannot see the forest. Disney is not "Hollywood". It's Disney. What does that mean? Well, The current CEO of Disney has added great value to the stock for the shareholders during his tenure. Lone Ranger is not everything to Disney, it's just one of the eggs in their basket.

Let's say for example you David G. manage a large corporation. You green light a new line of shoes for the clothing department, a new soda for the beverage department, and a new phone for the electronics department.

You lose everything on the investment in the new shoe line, but the new soda and the new phone are a success and make millions of dollars and make the stocks go up.

Would I fire you because you lost everything on the shoe department? Heck no! I'd give you a raise. You just made me a boat load of money and I think you're doing great.

Now, if someone lives in the world of fashion and the only thing you care about is shoes and that's all you focus on, well in that case you are a terrible CEO, the worst ever, and we should definitely fire you butt tomorrow and it's awful that you don't suffer the consequences of your decisions and so on. But that would be a very narrow view of what was going on.

Nothing has changed the free market because of corporations. You need to bring value to the corporation or you will indeed be fired, and corporations can go bankrupt. It happens all the time.

There's also diversification.

Yes, if ALL you do is make movies, then a big flop like Lone Ranger could sink you. The calculation is that Lone Ranger lost Disney, well I don't want to go look up the figures again, but it was small like 10 cents a share, so the stock went from something like 84.50 a share to 84.40. But that is still up year over year and much better than a lot of other companies.

So the idea that a few flops will sink Hollywood doesn't seem that plausible if the studios are part of a diverse corporation.

Take Sony for example. Their camera department is making crap for money. HOWEVER, Sony makes a ton of money in the insurance industry. Now the camera department may eventually go bye bye or the R&D may pay off, but either way Sony is not going to live or die based on the sales of their next camera release.
 
combatentropy said:
I agree with much that has been said here. One point touched on is this:
Greatness is from excellence of execution, not originality of ideas.
​


It was true for Shakespeare, and it's true for Apple. I would even argue, as someone else has done quite fully, that everything is a remix.

Also, this quote by Derek Sivers:
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. Lone Ranger didn't flop because it was an awful idea, or a -1. It's somewhere farther up the scale. The problem is the execution.

Given the right magic combination of screen writing, acting, and directing, this could have been a box office hit. The problem is you cannot make that magic sauce with a formula that works every time. That's because it's art, not science.

I can easily see someone saying Pirates of the Caribbean is a stupid idea, no better than the Lone Ranger. A movie based on an old Disney ride? Seriously? But the execution was brilliant, so it's now a Billion dollar franchise.

I like Space Mountain. Maybe they can make a movie out of that. Big Thunder Mountain is fun too, but that's already been done in Indiana Jones, but what the heck everything is a remix.
 
arroway said:
"Everything is a a Remix" is reductio ad absurdum. Kirby's videos are nicely edited put poorly argued.
Click to expand...

For it to be reductio ad absurdum you'd have to be arguing that there is a ridiculous outcome. Everything is a remix would have to make the statment "otherwise...." or "because if there were....".

What "Otherwise..." or "because if there were.." statement do you think it makes? It seems to me it just says everything is a remix and here are numerous examples.

These are examples of Reductio ad absurdum.

Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.


 
Reductio ad absurdum translates to "reduced to absurdity". In my view Kirby's thesis of "everything is a remix" fits that description perfectly. Just because everything has an antecedent or was in some way inspired by previous works does not make everything a "remix". There is a logical and legal distinction between "inspired-by" and "derivative-of" which Kirby's shoddy video series ignores.

You might be right about the fallacy choice, it might be more of a non sequitur (nothing is created in a vacuum therefore everything is a remix) or begging the question type situation ("the derivative nature of creativity"), I don't know, we can't all be Wikipedia-quoting experts.
 
Batutta said:
If Pacific Rim tanks like the industry is expecting, Spielberg is going to start looking like a soothsayer.
Click to expand...

I'm betting against the critics and rooting for this one. Giant Robots fighting Giant Monsters! But it could be really bad, who knows. Howver, the critics were saying World War Z was going to be a huge flop before it hit the theaters and it made a couple hundred million plus and was number 1 at the box office.

This article says WArnar Bros. has an Ace still up their sleeve:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...nd-how-pre-release-tracking-becomes-a-weapon/
 
arroway said:
Just because everything has an antecedent or was in some way inspired by previous works does not make everything a "remix"..
Click to expand...

Whenever an equation contains "everything" - in other words: infinity - I tend to believe it belongs to the realms of religion more often than to anything else. But, yes, in the end "everything" may only be remixed quantum foam.

But, for instance, The fact that all human life is build on the nucleobases G,A,T,C which are only slightly remixed in every human being still leaves us distinct individuals. At least we hope that in spite of some religious or political concepts that say otherwise. Usual those are concepts which have brought us a lot of trouble in history.

Returning to subject: If movies become so big they could bring down whole major companies, the smaller animals should see the probable demise and extinction of such behemoth's as an opportunity and a chance for change. A new heavens gate may open, one cold say...... :-)
 
Yep opportunity beckons, but is it this year , or next or the year after ?

Sure as night follows day the current trend will wither & another superhero enhanced by CGI will not save it.
 
Rolf Silber said:
Returning to subject: If movies become so big they could bring down whole major companies, the smaller animals should see the probable demise and extinction of such behemoth's as an opportunity and a chance for change. A new heavens gate may open, one cold say...... :-)
Click to expand...

I think this is more applicable to studios that are stand alone. But the big ones are usually part of a Conglomerate of some kind.

Disney for example, makes a lot of money from a lot of different places not just movies. Just to name a few Disney owns ABC, a book publishing company Hyperion, and ESPN, not to mention the parks.

Sony makes movies, but they also make electronics, and they also have a huge Insurance business.

Paramount owns Dream Works, they own 30% of Baby TV, they own the CBS library. They also own part of teh SyFy network.

I get the point, if you have some back to back 200 million dollar disasters that could put a company under. But a large corporation like Disney can actually take a 200 million dollar hit and be just fine.
 
Gillvane said:
But a large corporation like Disney can actually take a 200 million dollar hit and be just fine.
Click to expand...

Yes and no: The shareholders may not be too happy if this happens too often. And how I understand the discussion the probability of such disasters occurring more often seems to have become much higher. So the old logic of producing a slate of high end and lower end movies (budget-wise) and hope this plays out well enough to give you a good result in a year may not apply any more or to a much lesser degree, because the big risk will be so big.

As usual we may try to be soothsayers but as it is with soothsayers in the real world: Nobody knows a thing until the thing has happened. I still see some interesting trends both in technology and distribution and hope the smaller beasts find more space - and with that more interesting independent films. Maybe it's my age or that I am a European or both - I give a rodent's behind if "Pacific Rim" works or not. May that Behemoth drown and give space and fodder for small, colourful, creative octopuses..... the other new Beasts of the Southern Wild maybe....;-)
 
Rolf Silber said:
Yes and no: The shareholders may not be too happy if this happens too often. And how I understand the discussion the probability of such disasters occurring more often seems to have become much higher. So the old logic of producing a slate of high end and lower end movies (budget-wise) and hope this plays out well enough to give you a good result in a year may not apply any more or to a much lesser degree, because the big risk will be so big.

As usual we may try to be soothsayers but as it is with soothsayers in the real world: Nobody knows a thing until the thing has happened. I still see some interesting trends both in technology and distribution and hope the smaller beasts find more space - and with that more interesting independent films. Maybe it's my age or that I am a European or both - I give a rodent's behind if "Pacific Rim" works or not. May that Behemoth drown and give space and fodder for small, colourful, creative octopuses..... the other new Beasts of the Southern Wild maybe....;-)
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I don't think it works that way. A successful Southern Wild will breed more Southern Wilds. An Unsuccessful Pacific Rim will not breed a single Southern Wild.

If you create a vacuum in an area that consumers want, someone will fill it. There's an appetite for teh blockbuster movie. And if you do it well, there's a huge payoff. You can create a Billion dollar plus franchise.

It's just risk vs reward. The 200 million dollar movie is a big risk, but the Billion dollar pay off is a big reward.

Southern Wild was a film with much less risk, and much less reward:

Box Office

Budget:

$1,800,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:

$169,702 (USA) (29 June 2012)
Gross:

$12,784,397 (USA) (15 March 2013)


I think there are plenty of investors looking for both levels of risk and reward. Rooting for one to fail doesn't help the other to succeed. People backing Southern Wild were not going to back Pacific Rim, and vice a versa. It's like hoping that Apple stock will go down, because that will help shares of a cheaper stock go up. Probably not.

I hope Pacific Rim is a good movie because I enjoy Science Fiction, and it's typically much more expensive to make than comedies or dramas because of the FX.

The really interesting about Pacific Rim is that it is a new IP, fresh script, not based on an existing book, comic book, or TV series. That's very, very risky.
 
We will see more competition about where audiences will spend their scarce time. This will be competition with other media of course but also other forms of distribution and screening of both content made for cinema and/or tv - interesting trend here in Germany is now the little club or bar at the corner that also works as a part-time cinema. We'll see if it's just a fad or if that has a chance (no, clearly it's not making the multiplexes go away).

But as the big ships are just becoming more risky it seems logic at least to me other forms should be developed. The industry should need to be seeking for other genres and budget-sizes to at least lower that risk. Sometimes I am under the impression Hollywood reacts like the American car-industry back in the 70's and 80's - make it bigger and apply more chrome.

And if a tiny movie like Beasts brings in six times the amount it has cost it is indeed good business also. Clearly the Behemoths will be around and at times I love to watch one. But I also see that in their wake (also in the waves they make while sinking) other, smaller, product can surf and probably better than before.

Somewhere between the Beasts and the Behemoths I hope such movies will appear with a fresher, newer look at things. Having said I don't want to apply for the position of "Cassandra of the week" I just take a wait and see approach to that.
 
Rolf Silber said:
We will see more competition about where audiences will spend their scarce time. This will be competition with other media of course but also other forms of distribution and screening of both content made for cinema and/or tv - interesting trend here in Germany is now the little club or bar at the corner that also works as a part-time cinema. We'll see if it's just a fad or if that has a chance (no, clearly it's not making the multiplexes go away).

But as the big ships are just becoming more risky it seems logic at least to me other forms should be developed. The industry should need to be seeking for other genres and budget-sizes to at least lower that risk. Sometimes I am under the impression Hollywood reacts like the American car-industry back in the 70's and 80's - make it bigger and apply more chrome.

And if a tiny movie like Beasts brings in six times the amount it has cost it is indeed good business also. Clearly the Behemoths will be around and at times I love to watch one. But I also see that in their wake (also in the waves they make while sinking) other, smaller, product can surf and probably better than before.

Somewhere between the Beasts and the Behemoths I hope such movies will appear with a fresher, newer look at things. Having said I don't want to apply for the position of "Cassandra of the week" I just take a wait and see approach to that.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying Southern Wild isn't a good production. It obviously made money. But it only cost 1.8 to make, and only brought in 12 million. What if I have 50 million or 100 million to invest? I may not want to look for 20 Southern Wilds and I don't have time to check them all out to see if they are good investments. Time is money. I certainly won't be happy with a 12 million dollar return.

I"m not saying one is bad, one is good. I'm saying they are different. There are large investors and small investors. Large investors are not looking for a Southern Wild. It's to small an investment and the potential upside is to small.

Last year I did my own tiny film festival. My idea was pretty simple. Everywhere I go bars have big screens and projectors, mostly for Sports events. But what about when it's not football season? These are just little theaters waiting for movies!

So I got some entries locally and posting online, easily got a bar to agree, and we had the event with a decent little turn out. But, it wasn't great. The regulars wanted to talk and drink, not watch a movie. And the movie watchers didn't really want to drink that much, which is what the bar is looking for of course.

Just my own little experiment, but I thought that the bar/theater combo wasn't a really good match. I've done this and it's a better movie experience, everyone is more into the movie and not to busy socializing and drinking to pay attention like at a bar:
http://mobmov.org/
The equipment and set up is pretty cheap, but it's hard to find a dark spot without so many street lights, and a place where the cops won't run you off.

There is one or two bars in town that do a movie night, but you wouldn't want to go there to really enjoy the movie. It's more like a drunken Mystery Science Theater 3000.

 
Spielberg warns that theatrical movies will condense, not that movie studios will close.

To wit, he predicts (1) less variety in theatrical movies and (2) where there is variety, there will also be variety in price.

In other words, the movies in the theaters will all be Iron Mans, and they'll be $25 a ticket. And the few times that they're not Iron Man but Lincoln, they'll be $7. Most of the Lincolns, though, will go straight to TV.

Although in my mind, this is not a prediction of drastic change. It's more like saying, tomorrow's theatrical movies will be like today's, only more so.

Here's the article again, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604
 
Last edited:
Rolf Silber said:
Yes and no: The shareholders may not be too happy if this happens too often.
Click to expand...

Disney's stock (which is hovering near an all time high) has steadily gone up since Longer Ranger released so it doesn't look like investors are too worried about the film's performance. I think having films that don't perform well hurts Disney's image as a movie studio more than it hurts Disney's bottom line. If I'm reading this revenue graph correctly, in 2012 Disney had about 42 billion in revenue and about 5 billion of that is from movies (I presume both new movies and their back catalogue) while their parks did about 13 billion and their TV/radio wing did about 19 billion.

I also agree with Gillvane that the success/failure of a huge, tent pole studio films doesn't directly tie to the fates of smaller/indie features.
 
I think what makes me sad above all, is so much money is spent on a product. Meaning, big budgets are spent not on a story, but reviewing the checklist of whether or not this will make a ton of cash. It can't be changed since so many people, or at least marketing, is talking about the movie experience, not the story. Going to the movies seems (at least to me) to have become like a ride, you go to experience, not "listen" to a story. The magic of the movies as we hear so many talk about, is disappearing apparently. It is a fart in the wind comment, but it is the feeling I'm getting - no longer am I getting excited about new big budget movies, I want to see the smaller or less obvious movies, the good stories movies, like "Last Chance Harvey" or "The Secret Life of Words" or "Little Miss Sunshine" or various other, never heard of before, not necessarily "arty" movies. Or maybe I'm just getting old and going into your 30's changes your needs. Who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top