Lucas and Spielberg

[Guest]

Fascinating article:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

 

I've been saying for years these gambles on the massive budget tent pole movies is out of control. Only a "free market" correction will reign in the spending.

 

Interesting what Spielberg said about Lincoln almost being a HBO movie.

 

R,

 

[Keith Walters]

Fascinating article:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

 

I've been saying for years these gambles on the massive budget tent pole movies is out of control. Only a "free market" correction will reign in the spending.

 

Interesting what Spielberg said about Lincoln almost being a HBO movie.

 

R,

 

Bah! Movies about Tent Poles have had their 15 seconds of fame anyway.

Does anybody ever make movies about tent pegs, guy ropes, or, tear-my-tongue-out-if-you-must: TENTS THEMSELVES?!!

Oh no, of course not.

OK society is uncomfortable with canvas-related subjects. I get that.

But surely the purpose of film makers is to push the envelope.

So what if the envelope gets wrinkled and dirty, and the glue gets dust in it and won't stick any more.

It's inside what counts. the denomionations, the traceability, and most inportant THE NUMBERs!!

All Mr Boddington seems to be able to produce are movies about dogs.

Ok he doesn't have the budget for even a CGI Tent Pole.

How about a film about a camping stretcher, or even just a sleeping bag if you're a complete PC wuss?

We've gotta wake up and smell the linoleum sometime folks, why not now?

[James Steven Beverly]

Fascinating article:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604

 

I've been saying for years these gambles on the massive budget tent pole movies is out of control. Only a "free market" correction will reign in the spending.

 

Interesting what Spielberg said about Lincoln almost being a HBO movie.

 

R,

 

So was "American Graffiti" (1973), well a Movie of the Week. There's always stories like that but rarely are they un-embellished. The axles of Hollywood are greased with bullsh!t. IF Hollywood studios are on the decline, it ain't this year! They just had the most profitable May in motion picture history. There is a place for studios, STUDIOS are the only ones that can scrape together 200 mil to get a movie made and some of those movies are incredible. There is also a place for those personal stories shot on a digital still camera or even cell phones. Though for my tastes, not necessarily my favorite genre, but even so, there are several I LOVE! I really would count the studios out any time soon.

Edited June 14, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Brian Drysdale]

David Puttnum makes some comments on the issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/22883015

[George Ebersole]

<p>Well, movies aren't interactive.  They're essentially visual books.  Good books stick around on bookstore shelves for years and see reprints.  At one time they were the "movies" of the pre-movie era.  Movies are now the new books or oil paintings in terms of popular mainstream entertainment.</p>

[Guest]

I really would count the studios out any time soon.

 

I wouldn't either, there seems to be an endless supply of hedge fund managers that will give them money.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

There's always going to be an appetite for films. I think the majors are realizing that losing market share to interactive entertainment doesn't mean they'll disappear, but it does mean they may want to reconsider how they do business.

 

Hopefully they can go back to cranking out PG films for adults, Regular movies instead of niche artsy BS or blockbuster SFX junk.

[Gregg MacPherson]

George, what movies were you thinking of there as niche artsy BS?

[George Ebersole]

George, what movies were you thinking of there as niche artsy BS?

I actually say that tongue in cheek, but when I cruise for DVDs most of the films I see fall into three categories; Sundwance award winners, CGI for families/kids and the mainstream Blockbusters like Thor or GI Joe.

 

When I was growing up things like Star Wars were the exception the rule. Now SFX-action films are mainstream. Only movies that follow the Star Wars model have, essentially, outdone Star Wars in terms of far out settings, SFX shots and action. You don't see regular stuff like, oh hell, I don't know, "The Goodbye Girl" with Richard Dryfus. or "9 to 5" with L:illy Tomlin, Dolly Parton, Dabney Coleman and Jane Fonda.

 

I can't remember the last time I saw a mystery in the theatre, or an old fashioned romance that didn't pack a lot of juvenile dialog in it.

 

Some mainstream BS films I saw last year were "One for the Money", "Our Idiot Brother", "What's your Number" and a half dozen others. It's like if a movie doesn't have half its humor devoted to explicit sex jokes, then it isn't a movie.

 

Hollywood has tried so hard to reach for that pre-teen to 20-something dem that they totally forgot that their empire was built on an audience that cut across all ages.

 

And now they're feeling the effects of that business model.

[Guest]

they totally forgot that their empire was built on an audience that cut across all ages.

 

I sure hope you're right! :rolleyes:

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

 

I wouldn't either, there seems to be an endless supply of hedge fund managers that will give them money.

 

R,

 

You and I need to meet those guys!!

[George Ebersole]

 

I sure hope you're right! :rolleyes:

 

R,

Heh, well, who knows? I hate to sound like a goddamn history film geek here, because I know some of you paid attention in that class, but think about what kinds of films drew audiences between the 30s and 60s. Look at how films changed in the 70s. Look at what resulted in the 80s. And then look at what we've got in the 90s and 2000s.

 

When I entered the industry I had high hopes of being a director producer from my humble beginings as a grip, PA and Stage Manager. That'll never happen now. BFD. But even though I'm out of the loop, I do have some thoughts, and one of them is that I do Hollywood's paranoia about family or PG rated films has finally blown a hole in their head. Those are films I would have liked to have helped shoot, but no one makes them anymore. Now it's all witty dialog, sex jokes, action with with witty dialog, and a whole lot of sexual tension.

 

Just my take.

 

p.s. I also think it would have helped them had they gone back to making films without social agendas; like Will Smith in a movie version of "Wild Wild West", or perpetually hammering home how military themes in movies are a bad thing by showing hyper sexualized violence. Hundreds of examples.

[Guest]

Hollywood's paranoia about family or PG rated films has finally blown a hole in their head. Those are films I would have liked to have helped shoot, but no one makes them anymore.

 

 

I'm making them! I'm making them!! Live action family films, the genre that time forgot.

 

Besides it's been proven that families increase concession sales when a family film is in the theatres. Not sure why the big chains in the US don't demand more? Especially since this is a revenue stream they don't share with the studios.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

 

I'm making them! I'm making them!! Live action family films, the genre that time forgot.

 

Besides it's been proven that families increase concession sales when a family film is in the theatres. Not sure why the big chains in the US don't demand more? Especially since this is a revenue stream they don't share with the studios.

 

R,

You got me, Richard. But when I say family film, I don't mean a kids' film that parents go to. I mean a film for adults that they can take their kids to. No one makes those anymore.

 

I haven't seen one made in, hell, what, 20 years? I can't remember the last true PG (not PG-13) or G rated film that wasn't a children's film. They used to make those. They used to be big draws at the box office.

[David Mullen ASC]

The recent Muppets movie was made for both adults and kids (kids were never going to get all the jokes about the 1980's in the movie.) I'm sure there are a few more examples like that.

 

Look at some of the films listed here:

http://www.ondvdreleases.com/best-family-movies/

 

"Hugo" sticks out from the list as a film that wasn't made just for kids.

[Guest]

The Odd Life Of Timothy Green? Waaaaa, like that kid will ever work again, I mean.....oh wait, never mind :)

 

R,

[Guest]

Well David, now that you've seen, Against The Wild, how do you think it will do appealing to both kids and adults?

 

R,

[Keith Walters]

You got me, Richard. But when I say family film, I don't mean a kids' film that parents go to. I mean a film for adults that they can take their kids to. No one makes those anymore.

 

I haven't seen one made in, hell, what, 20 years? I can't remember the last true PG (not PG-13) or G rated film that wasn't a children's film. They used to make those. They used to be big draws at the box office.

Well, whatever you might think of the latest Marvel franchise films (Iron Man, The Avengers etc) you've got to admit that as soon as Stan Lee and his old buddies managed to wrest back control of the rights, and started making direct motion picture equivalents of the comics they pioneered nearly 60 years ago, they turned out some damned impressive money-printing machines.

OK not exactly kiddies movies, but they amply showed that a movie with no (0) profane language, explicit violence, sex or gratuitous nudity, can be still be enjoyed by people over 18. And they weren't even particularly expensive films to make.

On the other hand, I had trouble staying awake through the latest Spider-Man reboot, which Stan & co have not been able to regain control of.

 

 

Here's the sad reality: There are PLENTY of people who could make the sort of movies you're talking about, but they're just not interested in participating in the sad, cynical, incestuous, substance-riddled, arse-licking, casting-couch-driven culture that currently controls film making.

[George Ebersole]

The recent Muppets movie was made for both adults and kids (kids were never going to get all the jokes about the 1980's in the movie.) I'm sure there are a few more examples like that.

 

Look at some of the films listed here:

http://www.ondvdreleases.com/best-family-movies/

 

"Hugo" sticks out from the list as a film that wasn't made just for kids.

Thanks Dave

 

I saw a couple of those, and they were good films. But they were specifically family films, which I think is a good thing. I guess I mispoke and should have said something like a film for adults that was either rated G or PG. There used to be tons of those when I was growing up.

 

Keith; well, you got me there. I love a good film, whatever it is, but a guy gets tired of watching hero-X save the universe for the umpteenth time.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well David, now that you've seen, Against The Wild, how do you think it will do appealing to both kids and adults?

 

R,

I think it qualifies as family entertainment, something for everyone to sit down and watch together.

[Prashantt Rai]

In regards to the original article of Spielberg and Lucas, what i infer is that films are made to be seen in theatres and it takes an industry to sustain film making and its subsequent business. you need a whole gamut of people - directors, producers, cinematographers, editors, actors, etc etc. who all have vertically specialised in their own field over years, maybe over decades. odd cases of some indie filmmakers being director/editor/cameraman themselves but once they have a producer, doesnt matter even if the producer doesn't have deep pockets.
they still like to work in the conventional way - hire professional actors, editors, a good cinematographer, and rest of the crew. they make a film. producer gets it distributed somehow. they make some money/lots of money/or lose money.
This process is repeated over and over again by various sets of people to make many films that release over the years. Some of these are big films with actions and huge sets, medium budget flicks, rom coms/ low budget horrors.
This creates a sustainable cycle of business - actors get jobs, producers turn investments into profits, editors are busy, camera rentals are busy, Kodak and FUJI are busy, cinematographers are busy, directors are busy, and writers are busy. Even theatres are busy. people have option to go see the films they like and movies just dont run for a week they even run in select theatres for weeks maybe a month!

Now comes the process of reinventing the wheel - digitisation! the big buzz these days. The first casualty were the cinematographers - the beautiful craft of photochemical finished films are over. We watched movies all over 80s/90s/early2000s and they were beautiful in their looks. weren't they?
with progress in digitisation came CGI and all other inventions - now they re create characters on computers. I would have loved if this was just for a niche market of films. but no, they are main stream. these are not even big films which had top stars and good action sequences - these are MEGA films. but whom do they benefit? to the studios and swanky post houses who are literally co-producing it. And if this model fails in a year or two then where do the filmmakers go back to ? FUJI is dead and KODAK is just producing negative on a small scale. Print distribution is over except for South America and small towns of India. the impact has been so drastic that conventional distributors have all but vanished in India. it is sad.
we watch movies in theatres - not all theatres are 2K projections. may be in US bot not everywhere in the world. it costs a bomb to install 50K-100K digital system compared to a 12k conventional german projectors which we grew up watching cinemas on.

you ask the producers today - whether small or big, and they would also say the same thing - Prints cost money. I never saw them say this 20 years back or even 10 years back when they made (in india) films for as less as 300K to half a million dollar with a decent distribution budget built in. today these same guys make bad looking films for 200K and output it on 1080P. in small theatres it looks trashier when projected with heavy compression.

I think in one stroke the greed of big corporates has taken artistic filmmaking and the craft of it from most of us.

Now everybody is making films on 5D (which is actually meant for interviews/journalism) and other digital cameras with cheap post process. It results in an overdoes of content. it creates so much clutter that it becomes difficult to separate the meaningful films from the BS.
Digital filmmaking has created what you call an informal economy. Since there are so many directors, cameraman's, editors, sound guys that you are literally working on projects for nothing. just as a favour. Unlike in the olden days where there was some unsaid rules/regs on hierarchy there is none to be found now.

in another 10 years none will know set protocols or will know how 35mm looks on screen.

[James Steven Beverly]

OK not exactly kiddies movies, but they amply showed that a movie with no (0) profane language, explicit violence, sex or gratuitous nudity, can be still be enjoyed by people over 18.

Yes but without profane language, explicit violence, sex or gratuitous nudity, it loses a little something especially in the explicit violence, sex and gratuitous nudity category although I'd still miss the profane language too.

 

Here's the sad reality: There are PLENTY of people who could make the sort of movies you're talking about, but they're just not interested in participating in the sad, cynical, incestuous, substance-riddled, arse-licking, casting-couch-driven culture that currently controls film making.

Wimps!! If they can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen I say! Hollywood was BUILT on incest, substance abuse and arse-licking (It sounds so much classier when you use the English version) and as for sad, cynical casting couch culture, driven or not, where are poor, unfortunate but reasonably hot actresses who were born without talent suppose to go?? HUH??!! I ask you, should these simi-hot, no talent girls be denied a lucrative career in B movies just because they can't ACT??!!! I think not my friend! They have JUST as much right to suck (literally) at their job as anyone else in America.

 

Why THIS WHOLE NATION is built on people who suck at their job!! Some because they have no talent, others because the didn't pay attention in school, trade or otherwise and SOME because they just plain don't give a sh!t and have more important things to do like substance abuse. It's a proven fact that you can TOTALLY SUCK at your job, be dumb as a post and STILL rise to the highest levels America has to offer, just look at Congress......and I know what you're thinking, "Congress isn't the highest level you can achieve" and you'd be RIGHT, but my friend don't forget a guy I MUST admire for his contribution to the annals of suckendom named George W. Bush who SO SUCKED at his job that he came close to turning the richest, freest nation in the world into a financially broke police state ran by money grubbing, neo-Nasi fascist elephants that REALLY suck at their jobs. This great suckist actually won his election because the people who run the balloting in this great country of ours, SUCKED at THEIR JOBS TOO so I say with fervent inspiration, that ANY little boy or girl in AMERICA can grow up to be president even if they're a complete idiot and I mean a real dolt, stupider than a box of rocks...or, in lieu of that, a no talent actor that completely sucks at their job but is still good looking enough to get in to the business through the back door (literally) via the casting couch!!

Edited June 18, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Keith Walters]

hat ANY little boy or girl in AMERICA can grow up to be president even if they're a complete idiot and I mean a real dolt, stupider than a box of rocks...or, in lieu of that, a no talent actor that completely sucks at their job but is still good looking enough to get in to the business through the back door (literally) via the casting couch!!

 

Hang on, didn't you have a president who did both?

Or was that Margaret Thatcher...?

The USA? Hang on; that's the northern half of that hourglass-shaped continent thingie on the other side of the world isn't it?

The one with all the big lakes at the top?

I thought that belonged to England, or was that France?

Or was I thinking of Sweden?

Is Richard Boddington Swedish, or Danish?

[James Steven Beverly]

 

Hang on, didn't you have a president who did both?

Or was that Margaret Thatcher...?

The USA? Hang on; that's the northern half of that hourglass-shaped continent thingie on the other side of the world isn't it?

The one with all the big lakes at the top?

I thought that belonged to England, or was that France?

Or was I thinking of Sweden?

Is Richard Boddington Swedish, or Danish?

 

 

 

Yes, that was Ronald Reagan, "The Great Communicator"............(I'm sorry, I can stop laughing every time I say that) Both a terrible actor and terrible president who as an "actor" made sucky movies like "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) and "Cattle Queen of Montana" (1954) (despite this I still love Barbara Stanwyck) and as president brought us such hits as The Iran / Contra Scandal which brought shame on our country and flooded cocaine into the US and the speech at National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida which later on came within a hair's breath of starting WWIII and is the BASIS for ALL the radical Republican agenda points that has in essence destroyed the American system of government with it's "all or nothing" attempt to circumvent the rights of the people to choose the course of their future, Margret Thatcher was his official pawn and the recipient of a surprise party when we invaded Granada, a BRITISH TERRITORY, without bothering to mention it TO the British people or Mrs. Thatcher, a moment when being a "Great Communicator" could have been a useful skill.

 

As for the lakes, everything above Superior, Huron and Ontario USED to belong to England and I think the French, if not France it's self, still own most of Quebec.

 

I THINK Richie is German or maybe that's just what people say about him when he's on set, at least I think it was German....I can't remember.....I know it had something to do with the politics during the 40s but I can't remember exactly. :rolleyes:

Edited June 18, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Keith Walters]

 

I THINK Richie is German or maybe that's just what people say about him when he's on set, at least I think it was German....I can't remember.....I know it had something to do with the politics during the 40s but I can't remember exactly. :rolleyes:

No, I'm pretty sure his ancestry is relatively Kraut-free. Were you talking about