Lucas: Big pics are doomed at DVinfo.net

Christopher Lefchik · March 6th, 2006, 11:27 AM

Lucas: Big pics are doomed

New York Daily News

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Leave it to "Star Wars" creator George Lucas to pronounce the death of the Hollywood blockbuster.

"The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie," said Lucas, a near-billionaire from his feverishly franchised outer-space epics. "Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with 'King Kong.'"

Continue Reading

John Hudson · March 6th, 2006, 08:21 PM

Says Lucas (Damn him for ruining SW)

King Kong
Budget - $207,000,000
US Gross- $216,682,440
WW Gross- $538,156,506

I think Kong did okay

Spiderman

Spider-Man 2
Budget - $200,000,000
US Gross - $373,524,485
WW Gross - $783,524,485

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

Andy Graham · March 7th, 2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hudson

(Damn him for ruining SW)

Right on, I used to love Star wars. If he was gonna finnish the series he should have shot it the same way as the origional, with the same costumes and props and cinematography. All that CG just killed it dead for me.

Andy.

Mike Rinkunas · March 7th, 2006, 08:22 AM

Interesting Idea, however i think that statement is about the box office returns more then anything. Big budget movies will always be made, so long as there is a demand for them, whither they open in a theater, go direct to DVD, or even direct to net in the future. Personally i don't think movie theaters will hold as big a torch in the profitability of movies in the future, and hollywood needs to accept that.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching movies, but i haven't been to the local theater since....i'm not sure, i think i might have gone two or three times in the past 2 years. i'd much rather watch a movie at home on our new 92" projection screen with 7.1 sound (a minor business expense) then go to the theaters. We can start the movie (any movie of our choice) when we want, stop it to go to the bathroom, adjust the volume & lighting to our preference, and even prepare the food we want. No lines, no screaming kids, no crazy local teenagers, no having to adhere to someoneelse's schedule, no high prices, etc,. I'd pay extra to be able to either get the DVD or a on-demand rental of new movies when they are released on the big screen just for the above reasons, and i think alot of consumers feel or are starting the same way i do. now that i got the theater vs home theater rant out of the way....

hollywood will always make money on movies, US & worldwide DVD sales, money from product placement, merchandising dollars, etc there are to be made. Even if a movie tanks at the box office or never gets released, they can be major money makers - think boondock saints!

Like i said, i think hollywood is in the beginning stages of a major shift in their business model which isn't completely understand just yet....however, i think the megadollar movie/production will always be a fixture of hollywood for someone will always try to make the next bigger/better/faster flick.

~Mike

Chien Huey · March 7th, 2006, 08:53 AM

What Lucas is forgetting too is that budgets get blown up by talent salaries (among other things) and that most of the Oscar-winning movies this year contained at least one or more recognizable Hollywood actor. One of the reasons "Crash" was made for $6.5M is because Sandra Bullock didn't get $15M-$20M.

I also don't get the whole notion that "King Kong" didn't make any money. As indicated previously, Kong looks to have made buckets of money. Granted I fell asleep during the island sequence so it's not the greatest film but profitable it was.

That said, the prequels definitely pushed the envelope with HD cinematography and his influence on the visual effects cannot be overlooked.

David Jimerson · March 7th, 2006, 01:59 PM

"King Kong" was hyped to be the biggest box-office smash in the history of histories.

It wasn't. So, it looks like it flopped.

Richard Alvarez · March 7th, 2006, 02:40 PM

These production budget figures that get posted, do not include PROMOTIONAL budgets. Which can be equal to or greater than production costs in some cases.

Alex Thin · March 7th, 2006, 04:22 PM

Remenber the rental and sales of DVDs.

Mathieu Ghekiere · March 8th, 2006, 02:00 PM

Lucas isn't the only one who thinks that movies around 2025 will be made more around the figure for 15 million than rather 200 million.
I have an interview with filmcomposer Zbigniew Preisner (The Secret Garden, Bleu, Blanc, Rouge, The Double Life of Veronique,...) and he said to that he thought there would come a time where Hollywood will make films, important films for 10 to 20 million dollar instead of 200 dollars.

And it's great that the Academy nominated more independant movies this year. Great move of them.
I don't mean to bash the big studios, but I still think it's great.

Robert M Wright · March 8th, 2006, 02:53 PM

It's going to get even tougher to draw folks to theatres, once HD movies are readily available for viewing at home.

Dylan Couper · March 8th, 2006, 03:11 PM

I'm not paying ten bucks to see a movie that cost less than $100 million to make!

:)

Jonathan Stanley · March 20th, 2006, 12:26 AM

I think a lot of people overlook the inflation factor as well. Lucas made Star Wars: A new Hope for somewhere in the 8 million range--good luck doing that these days. Remember, a loaf of bread used to cost $.15, now it costs $2.00 for the same loaf.

Kevin Shaw · March 20th, 2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Stanley

Remember, a loaf of bread used to cost $.15, now it costs $2.00 for the same loaf.

More like $3-4 for a loaf of decent bread with some actual substance to it. Dang, those promotional budgets for bread-making must be getting out of control! :-)

March 6th, 2006, 11:27 AM	#1
Christopher Lefchik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: US Posts: 1,152	Lucas: Big pics are doomed Lucas: Big pics are doomed New York Daily News BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Leave it to "Star Wars" creator George Lucas to pronounce the death of the Hollywood blockbuster. "The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie," said Lucas, a near-billionaire from his feverishly franchised outer-space epics. "Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with 'King Kong.'" Continue Reading

March 7th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#6
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	"King Kong" was hyped to be the biggest box-office smash in the history of histories. It wasn't. So, it looks like it flopped. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

March 7th, 2006, 04:22 PM	#8
Alex Thin Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 26	re Remenber the rental and sales of DVDs.

March 8th, 2006, 02:00 PM	#9
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Lucas isn't the only one who thinks that movies around 2025 will be made more around the figure for 15 million than rather 200 million. I have an interview with filmcomposer Zbigniew Preisner (The Secret Garden, Bleu, Blanc, Rouge, The Double Life of Veronique,...) and he said to that he thought there would come a time where Hollywood will make films, important films for 10 to 20 million dollar instead of 200 dollars. And it's great that the Academy nominated more independant movies this year. Great move of them. I don't mean to bash the big studios, but I still think it's great. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

March 8th, 2006, 03:11 PM	#11
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I'm not paying ten bucks to see a movie that cost less than $100 million to make! :) __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

March 6th, 2006, 08:21 PM	#2
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Says Lucas (Damn him for ruining SW) King Kong Budget - $207,000,000 US Gross- $216,682,440 WW Gross- $538,156,506 I think Kong did okay Spiderman Spider-Man 2 Budget - $200,000,000 US Gross - $373,524,485 WW Gross - $783,524,485 http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.html

March 7th, 2006, 08:22 AM	#4
Mike Rinkunas Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Allentown, PA Posts: 134	Interesting Idea, however i think that statement is about the box office returns more then anything. Big budget movies will always be made, so long as there is a demand for them, whither they open in a theater, go direct to DVD, or even direct to net in the future. Personally i don't think movie theaters will hold as big a torch in the profitability of movies in the future, and hollywood needs to accept that. Don't get me wrong, I love watching movies, but i haven't been to the local theater since....i'm not sure, i think i might have gone two or three times in the past 2 years. i'd much rather watch a movie at home on our new 92" projection screen with 7.1 sound (a minor business expense) then go to the theaters. We can start the movie (any movie of our choice) when we want, stop it to go to the bathroom, adjust the volume & lighting to our preference, and even prepare the food we want. No lines, no screaming kids, no crazy local teenagers, no having to adhere to someoneelse's schedule, no high prices, etc,. I'd pay extra to be able to either get the DVD or a on-demand rental of new movies when they are released on the big screen just for the above reasons, and i think alot of consumers feel or are starting the same way i do. now that i got the theater vs home theater rant out of the way.... hollywood will always make money on movies, US & worldwide DVD sales, money from product placement, merchandising dollars, etc there are to be made. Even if a movie tanks at the box office or never gets released, they can be major money makers - think boondock saints! Like i said, i think hollywood is in the beginning stages of a major shift in their business model which isn't completely understand just yet....however, i think the megadollar movie/production will always be a fixture of hollywood for someone will always try to make the next bigger/better/faster flick. ~Mike

March 7th, 2006, 08:53 AM	#5
Chien Huey Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 59	What Lucas is forgetting too is that budgets get blown up by talent salaries (among other things) and that most of the Oscar-winning movies this year contained at least one or more recognizable Hollywood actor. One of the reasons "Crash" was made for $6.5M is because Sandra Bullock didn't get $15M-$20M. I also don't get the whole notion that "King Kong" didn't make any money. As indicated previously, Kong looks to have made buckets of money. Granted I fell asleep during the island sequence so it's not the greatest film but profitable it was. That said, the prequels definitely pushed the envelope with HD cinematography and his influence on the visual effects cannot be overlooked.

March 7th, 2006, 02:40 PM	#7
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	These production budget figures that get posted, do not include PROMOTIONAL budgets. Which can be equal to or greater than production costs in some cases.

March 8th, 2006, 02:53 PM	#10
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	It's going to get even tougher to draw folks to theatres, once HD movies are readily available for viewing at home.

March 20th, 2006, 12:26 AM	#12
Jonathan Stanley Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Boone, NC Posts: 115	I think a lot of people overlook the inflation factor as well. Lucas made Star Wars: A new Hope for somewhere in the 8 million range--good luck doing that these days. Remember, a loaf of bread used to cost $.15, now it costs $2.00 for the same loaf.