some of y'all will find something in this

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/07/steven_spielberg_hollywood_imploding_how_he_predicted_a_disastrous_summer.html


Last month, Steven Spielberg predicted a Hollywood implosion. Do recent big-budget disasters already prove him right?

By Ben Kenigsberg

Steven Spielberg saw it coming. In June, speaking at a University of Southern California event with George Lucas, the Lincoln director said, “There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that’s going to change the paradigm”—forcing the industry to rethink its reliance on gargantuan spectacles. A month later, the first part of Spielberg’s prediction has already come true: The latest high-profile calamity at the box office is the ill-buzzed R.I.P.D., which followed such heavily marketed titles as Pacific Rim, The Lone Ranger, White House Down, and After Earth in failing to attract its expected audience. Meanwhile, The Conjuring, a smaller, Exorcist-style chiller from Saw director James Wan, more than doubled its production budget in just one weekend.

1. 130 mil isn't really a mega-budget nowadays. Only one of those films had a 200+ production budget-- The Lone Ranger.

2. There are big budget bombs every year. None of them have ever been paradigm-shifting. Becaaaaause...

3. ... the mega-budget films that are huge successes, the smaller budget films that make big profit, and the general nature of the corporate world (co-financing, other sources of income, etc) help balance out the losses on these bombs. Columbia had After Earth and White House Down under its umbrella... but it came on the heels of The Amazing Spider-Man, Skyfall, Zero Dark Thirty, and Django. Disney lost HUGE on Lone Ranger, but it had Oz, Iron Man 3, and Monsters U. Warner Brothers needs a hit, but TDKR and Man of Steel help, and I don't know what they get for distributing The Hobbit, but that made over a billion internationally.

4. Low budget horror films have been a part of the paradigm since forever. Low risk investment.

...is it even a shock that any of those movies named didn't make bank? Even on paper, none of them seem like a sure fire blockbuster.

(* - I only say it's an exception because the geek community was VERY loud on that one. But regular folk? Not a shock)

what does HE know about making movies??!

esp compared to folks on a message board....we got BLOGS!!!!

I guess it would seem Steven, uh, could.....know....a....little....

......just maybe......?

Just that the blogger who wrote that blog was a fucking idiot.

Spielberg is quoted as stating this:

"There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that’s going to change the paradigm”—

Frank in reply #1 wrote this:

"2. There are big budget bombs every year. None of them have ever been paradigm-shifting. Becaaaaause"


So.............

are you trying to assert (on the issue of big budget flops and paradigm shifting) that the writer of the "blog" totally went off-track from what Spielberg was saying?!?

...and then you and Frank only focused on the blog-writer's non-flop-paradigm shifting points?

As Frank pointed out, it's not like six MEGA-budget films tanked this year. There are always flops. Spielberg isn't saying that there will be six flops one summer and the paradigm will change; he's saying six of the most expensive films will flop. That didn't happen this year. Nevermind the paradigm changing, one of the flops (Pacific Rim) still hasn't even seen its sequel shut down pre-production yet.

I think Spielberg would say this thing is a harbinger of things to come but he wouldn't agree that this summer proves his point.

What Spielberg said isn't even that revolutionary. We're at the end of an era. As noted in the post, it happened with musicals back in the day, it happened with Auteur pieces in the late 70's/early 80's, it happened with big action movies in the early 90's. We're at the end of an era in Hollywood and studios can either realize that now and switch gears or they can stay on the ride as it goes over the cliff. And given their history, odds are that they'll run it into the ground before realizing that they need a new plan of attack.

Overall, the article hits some of the main points; personally I just think it's a meandering piece that offers nothing new and ultimately comes to no conclusion or suggestion or... well... anything.

But, like brain dead blockbusters, it did what it had to do. We all clicked it and are talking about it so it served its purpose.

>As Frank pointed out, it's not like six MEGA-budget films
>tanked this year. There are always flops. Spielberg isn't
>saying that there will be six flops one summer and the
>paradigm will change; he's saying six of the most expensive
>films will flop. That didn't happen this year. Nevermind the
>paradigm changing, one of the flops (Pacific Rim) still hasn't
>even seen its sequel shut down pre-production yet.
>
>I think Spielberg would say this thing is a harbinger of
>things to come but he wouldn't agree that this summer proves
>his point.

Nothing that has happened this summer (a) hasn't happened before, or (b) indicates a paradigm shift. At all.

Do I believe EVENTUALLY movies will get so expensive that a studio could be sunk? Sure, absolutely. And that's what Spielberg is getting at, I think.

Spielberg was not saying this summer would change things. And it didn't. So this article was a reach at best and horribly misleading at worst.

I also think pretty much any "death of cinema" or "what we learned from this" piece is always terrible.

>are you trying to assert (on the issue of big budget flops and
>paradigm shifting) that the writer of the "blog" totally went
>off-track from what Spielberg was saying?!?

Yes. I think the blog writer took what Spielberg said will occur in the future and was like "What he said, right now! Amirightguys!?"

Because what happened this summer hasn't shifted the paradigm. What I was saying above is that the movies the author chose to use as evidence to support what Spielberg said ahouldn't be used as evidence. He (and to again clarify so that it's not lost, I am talking about the writer of the article, not Steven Spielberg) is jumping the gun.

Again, I'm not speaking for Frank, but I think what he said (or at least how I interpreted what he said) is in reaction to the author's comments and not the quote that the blogger decided to run with for his "hahahaha big movies failed!" blog. I'd also point out why the studios who have failures on the books, while I know they aren't happy, aren't worried enough to change their tone in regards to releases. AS a matter of fact, I would say the opposite, in that, these failures are all original ideas or, in the case of LONE RANGER, trying to bring back an old franchise. If anything, these films are going to reinforce what studios are already doing and push more greenlights on sequels if you ask me.

>are you trying to assert (on the issue of big budget flops and
>paradigm shifting) that the writer of the "blog" totally went
>off-track from what Spielberg was saying?!?

We didn't get this year flops big enough to back up what Spielberg said as having happened this year. This author wrote it just because Spielberg said it this year and it's a popular talking point. There's no *actual* evidence historically or in this year's results that there were a string of mega-flops this year (or any year yet) that would immediately cause a paradigm shift.

Some of the cited films in the article AREN'T even mega-budget!

CaptNish is precisely right below-- movies will keep getting more franchise-seeking and more expensive.

And THAT, one day, could lead to Spielberg's quote coming true. Certainly not after this summer.

Did you even read the original article and/or my reply?

>Did you even read the original article and/or my reply?


this is okayplayer...you know *DAMN WELL* the poster didn't read your reply OR the article...

LOLOLOL

A paradigm shift doesn't require no big budget movies ever.

A paradigm shift only requires a major shift in the proportion
and type of movies in budget classes.


>1. 130 mil isn't really a mega-budget nowadays.

That you say this is Spielberg's point. Yes, that is
a big budget. You don't think its big budget because
Hollywood spends it too often on shitty movies that don't
make very much money.

You argue against yourself eve more below...


>Only one of
>those films had a 200+ production budget-- The Lone Ranger.

A shitty, expensive movie with questionable name recognition.

Just like After Earth, Pacific Rim RIPD and all the other flopfests
that probably won't get made in the future as often (which constitutes
a paradigm shift)

>2. There are big budget bombs every year. None of them have
>ever been paradigm-shifting. Becaaaaause...
>
>3. ... the mega-budget films that are huge successes, the
>smaller budget films that make big profit, and the general
>nature of the corporate world (co-financing, other sources of
>income, etc) help balance out the losses on these bombs.

The films that are big successes are mostly comic movies with
name recognition; they are safe bets to make cash. Look at 'Man
of Steel' -- there was zero way for that movie to make less than
200 million at the Box office.

For the paradigm to shift, all that needs to change is that
non-comic big budget movies disappear; all that would remain
are comic movies and smaller budget good movies. If the RIPDs
don't see the light of day, that would constitute a paradigm
shift.

>Columbia had After Earth and White House Down under its
>umbrella... but it came on the heels of The Amazing
>Spider-Man, Skyfall, Zero Dark Thirty, and Django. Disney lost
>HUGE on Lone Ranger, but it had Oz, Iron Man 3, and Monsters
>U. Warner Brothers needs a hit, but TDKR and Man of Steel
>help, and I don't know what they get for distributing The
>Hobbit, but that made over a billion internationally.

You just made Spielberg's argument:

Spiderman is Spiderman, Skyfall is Bond. ZDT was very
small budget, which kinda makes his point.

The Hobbit is the Hobbit, Iron Man is Iron Man. Monsters
is animated, which is a different conversation (those seem
to do pretty well)

But these shitty experimental mega movies? Nah, they are on
the way out.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>But these shitty experimental mega movies? Nah, they are on
>the way out.

These will always pop up, the $100-150 mil "new potential franchises," because without them, well, there aren't more franchises. (Pacific Rim 2 is going into pre-production now.)

The studios/corporations use the money from the big successes (the mega-budget franchises that exist) to alleviate the hurt when these flop, but if they hit, new franchise, more sequels, bigger budgets, more success.

Spielberg didn't specify "non-franchise paradigm shift" either IMO. He believes that eventually a studio will sink after consecutive mega-budget failures, and that will scare people into a paradigm shift away from bigger budgets. If the new Bond and Spider-Man underperform AND their attempts at new franchises tank, then those studios may start considering a shift in policy.

And while I think that will *eventually * happen, the author thinking that this year indicates a paradigm shift or that Spielberg was predicting this year's events is an outrageous stretch. I believe it will happen once $300-400 mil movies become more commonplace-- and that absolutely is coming.

Elba was the best actor in PR, by miles.

Maybe they'll resurrect him somehow, with his brain in a robot or something. LOL.
___

http://www.newgoldenera.com

http://tinyurl.com/liberators2 - anarchy in two dimensions