Movie ticket prices have long been a subject of grumbling among theater-goers, who have balked (but paid) for years as admissions rose ever higher into the double digits. But as two of Hollywood's leading directors recently noted in a panel discussion, it's likely to get a lot worse -- and ultimately will change the industry forever.
"There's eventually going to be an implosion -- or a big meltdown," said Steven Spielberg, who sat down with George Lucas at the USC School of Cinematic Arts on Wednesday. The conversation was originally reported on by The Hollywood Reporter. "There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."
Big budget films like last year's "John Carter" or this week's "Man of Steel" have bumped budgets into the hundreds of millions, and Spielberg suggested that once more than a handful of them flop at the box office, the industry will be forever altered. He said that theaters will start charging different prices for different films -- like $25 for "Iron Man" or $7 for a smaller film like his own "Lincoln." (Which, he noted, came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a film in theaters.
That's already happening -- Paramount and Regal Theaters have paired up to create a "Mega Ticket" for the upcoming Brad Pitt film "World War Z."
George Lucas agreed with Spielberg, with whom he has paired in the past on multiple films. Lucas suggested that attending movies in the theater is going to become more like going to Broadway, with fewer movies released that stay there for a year or more, with higher ticket prices.
But why do movies cost so much to make? Part of it is that blockbusters require an A-list star like Tom Cruise, who can cost upward of $75 million to hire. But another part -- as Lucas noted -- is that marketing budgets are enormous. Those high costs paired together mean that movies are geared to the masses, rather than to niche audiences the way TV shows are; he called cable TV "much more adventurous" than film today.
Still, those aren't the only factors involved. As New York movie critic David Edelstein noted in his "Man of Steel" review, quoting from producer Lynda Obst's book "Sleepless in Hollywood," big-budget, action-heavy films now help studios recoup more than 80 percent of their profits from overseas sales -- especially in China. Explosions, car chases and action require less translation and cross cultural borders, which means theatergoers in the U.S. should expect even more (and it may explain the last 45 minutes of "Steel").
Meanwhile, actors (like Zach Braff, who held his own Kickstarter to raise funds for a new film recently) and directors alike are recognizing that the best way to do projects they really want is to create them from scratch. Spielberg noted that the only way he got "Lincoln" into theaters was to co-own his own studio.
"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," said Lucas.
This got me thinking about Wesley Snipes. Who was released from prison not to long ago after service over two-years. He is currently under house arrest but soon will be free in a few weeks.
He landed his first acting role since serving time. Expendables 3.
I can see where film makers will want to raise prices due to costs and my guess is some people will pay for it. I have to admit I doubt I will be buying a $50 movie ticket. At $35 I stopped going to concerts. They just didn't leave me feeling I got my money's worth. For the $10 I pay now I can just say it was worth $10. For $50+, what exactly will I come away with that is worth that much money?
IP: Logged
02:18 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31843 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
A few years ago, my wife made a mistake and invited me to join her in the Home Theatre section of Best Buy. We brought home a 65" flat screen with lots of the Gee Whiz stuff already incorporated in it. That day, I also purchased a recently released CD with lots of special effects. I was amazed at what I saw and experienced. Said then that I doubt if I'll ever go to a movie theatre again. Well, I have gone back, once.
Don't get me wrong, if you can't wait to see that particular movie, then go to the movie theatre but, I wait for it to come out on a different venue/medium I can stay home and watch it. It's simply not worth the effort to me to go out and pay premium prices to watch a movie that's going to be available at a much reduced priced in a couple of months. Yeah, I can't get on here and say I saw it and tell you about it but that's not why I watch them. Lucas and Spielberg are correct, as prices go up, the audience goes down. It's all about supply and demand when the price of the supply gets to a point the intended audience can't afford to attend, the demand drops significantly. Now, if theaters would accept EBT cards as payment, that could change the whole industry.
------------------ Ron Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-15-2013).]
I love the theater. I see about a movie a week when I have time. If I haven't in awhile I may go 3 times in a weekend just to catch up.
Yep, I am crazy, but I love the theater. I can't get lost in the movie at home like I can there.
I will be one of the few paying whatever it costs to see a movie. But I don't see movies I don't think look good (like any Michael Bay film) so maybe better movies will start coming out. Doubtful, but there are a few goodies that come out every year that really put me back on my heels.
He has done something every year. Be it a movie or voice acting. (minus 2013 so far anyway)
quote
Originally posted by Wichita:
This got me thinking about Wesley Snipes. Who was released from prison not to long ago after service over two-years. He is currently under house arrest but soon will be free in a few weeks.
He landed his first acting role since serving time. Expendables 3.
Let the industry crash and burn. Most of the crap they put out is not fit to watch anyway and the "hollywood elite" have too much negative influence on our children and society in general.
I am with some of you guys here. I keep upgrading my home theater system. Nice size tv good sounding speakers and a room thats almost pitch black excpet a few night lights on the corners. I can sit back eat my 99c pop corn watch my 2.00 rented blu-ray and drink a 1.00 two liter of pop. No way i will pay 50 for a ticket. I mean come on best buy offers 24 month same as cash on there credit cars. you can get a 60 in tv for that 50 a month. I have a freind with a family of 5 a movie night with his kids after food and tickets at current prices can easily drop 60 on a movie.
IP: Logged
10:45 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35951 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
I think movie theaters will eventually become a niche market. As ticket prices increase, attendance will decrease. More and more people will wait until the movie is released through rental channels, Netflix, etc.
The current modus operandi of film studios is to hype a movie before / during launch, to make as much money as possible off it during the first weekend of its release. That allows the movie to pay for itself (and start turning a profit) very quickly. But when theater tickets get so expensive that people start thinking twice about going to the theater, that will change.
For the film studio, it'll mean their movie probably won't start turning a profit until it hits the rental / retail outlets. Eventually, they'll get impatient and start releasing movies to retail channels sooner. And in turn, that will give people less reason to go to the theater. I think that eventually, movies will be released simultaneously in theaters and rental / retail outlets. When that happens, the paradigm shift will be complete.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 06-15-2013).]
There are always a few movies I want to see in theatres but that number is usually low enough that I don't go all too often... I'm also not a huge fan of the 2.5 hour long special effects showreels that they call a "feature film" nowadays, with few exceptions. This year, I've seen The Place Beyond The Pines, ST: Into Darkness, and a couple of other movies I apparently can't remember at the moment.
I'm a fan of good storytelling, think direction is very important, and I appreciate quality acting. Because of these, not a lot of wide-release movies get my attention. Quite possibly, my favorite film from last year was Drive, which was an independent movie picked up for a wide release and billed so poorly in this market that nobody knew what the hell they were watching when it started as it wasn't the crazy action flick portrayed in the media. It was a tight, beautifully shot, tense, and on occasion horrifyingly violent film. And it was wonderful.
When something wins an award from a proper festival, I pay attention.
[This message has been edited by skuzzbomer (edited 06-15-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:10 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It's already become about the merchandising. The big money isn't made on the film - it's made on the toy and DVD sales. You'll see more films made that have strong merchandising possibilities, and ones that don't won't get made, regardless of how good the story is. Movies will essentially become a 2 hour commercial for the release of a new line of merchandise that you stand in line and pay to see.
Interesting film "drive" just watched it last week on DVD from the library. I did not car much for the sound track otherwise I liked it. I hate over the top movies with completely unbelievable effects and stupid story lines.
I can't remember what the last movie I went to at a theater, Jerasic park? liar liar? maybe a Batman. I would be far more likely to go the a drive in. Would not surprise me if they make a come back in the next 20 years.
Not to High jack but there are some top notch TV shows out there with tremendous effects and very good acting. Been watching a Brit show called Primeval with my grandson, AWSOME! and one called Sanctuary.
There are always a few movies I want to see in theatres but that number is usually low enough that I don't go all too often... I'm also not a huge fan of the 2.5 hour long special effects showreels that they call a "feature film" nowadays, with few exceptions. This year, I've seen The Place Beyond The Pines, ST: Into Darkness, and a couple of other movies I apparently can't remember at the moment.
I'm a fan of good storytelling, think direction is very important, and I appreciate quality acting. Because of these, not a lot of wide-release movies get my attention. Quite possibly, my favorite film from last year was Drive, which was an independent movie picked up for a wide release and billed so poorly in this market that nobody knew what the hell they were watching when it started as it wasn't the crazy action flick portrayed in the media. It was a tight, beautifully shot, tense, and on occasion horrifyingly violent film. And it was wonderful.
When something wins an award from a proper festival, I pay attention.
I like the movie experience, but like you I like all of the ingredients to be good to make a proper movie. If some are missing, I still may enjoy it, but I have to be in the right mindset. My friends call me a very harsh critic. My nickname for awhile was "3/5" because that was the highest score they had seen me rate a movie.
But ugh, Drive. I was down with the story. The quietness of the character. I don't need action. I didn't want fast-paced action. I was not okay with watching 30 minutes stretched into 100 minutes via slow-mo. No thank you. I considered that movie a waste of time.
The same director has another movie coming out (featuring Gosling) that is like Drive 2. I think it looks pretty freaking terrible considering how much it reminds me of Drive, but you might like it a lot. It's called "Only God Forgives". I am not giving the suggestion to you in jest! I really think that, since you liked Drive, you will like this one too. I can't get on YouTube to look up the trailer since I'm in China but you should definitely look it up.
IP: Logged
01:06 PM
DeV8er Member
Posts: 747 From: Oak Ridge MO Registered: Oct 2004
Not quite, but Disney, with J J Abrhams directing, will.
Joe
Really?? You don't think they will be better than the prequels? Man I'm stoked. JJ Abrams has a few quirks (seriously, enough with the lens flares) but he is a damn good director!
1) Steven Spielberg, who now directs dreary docu-dramas rather than making entertaining movies. Saving Private Ryan was Important Film but now that's the only kind of film Spielberg is making; see also Schindler's List and Lincoln and.... Besides, he mangled ET, taking out the guns and replacing them with walkie-talkies, because OMG TEH GUNZORZ.
2) George Lucas, who keeps tinkering with his movies every time he releases them in a new format. Has he finally done a Spielberg and given the stormtroopers walkie-talkies, or do they get a pass becuse they're The Bad Guyz (TM)? (And, incidentally, what about "Han Shot First"?)
Neither of them has made a good entertaining movie for a couple of decades. The SW prequels were a joke (seen the Red Letter Media reviews of it on YouTube?) and the "Crystal Skull" iteration of the "Indiana Jones" franchise was not worth watching; Lucas hasn't even been doing any work outside of SW.
And yeah, Hollywood has arrived at complete creative bankruptcy; that was obvious when they made Battleship.
Last movie I saw in the theater was Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 'Nuff said.
Ed
IP: Logged
11:28 PM
Jun 16th, 2013
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
Lucas has already ruined Star Wars... now he wants to ruin the whole movie Industry?
Without Lucas would would not have Star Wars at all. He created Star Wars out of his own imagination ... and a lot of research into classical mythology, ancient Greek dramatic themes, and the work of Joseph Campbell. (For that matter, without Lucas we might not have the dazzling visual technology developed by Industrial Light and Magic either, but I digress.)
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Why do we even need theaters anymore ?
Well done ... an admittedly high standard ... there are some things you can still only experience in a theater. For one, a theater can present high-resolution moving images that extend out into our peripheral vision ... which forms an essential component of our real-world experience. Done poorly, the theater experience can be worse than a mediocre home theater system.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 06-16-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:14 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35951 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by cliffw: Why do we even need theaters anymore ?
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Well done ... an admittedly high standard ... there are some things you can still only experience in a theater. For one, a theater can present high-resolution moving images that extend out into our peripheral vision ... which forms an essential component of our real-world experience. Done poorly, the theater experience can be worse than a mediocre home theater system.
Hmm, I guess. I would think that is a subtle difference. I never noticed the supposedly better sound quality of tape over phonograph records, or of CD over tape. Maybe the incremental differences are too slight. If I were to compare a recording today to one of 30/40 years ago, I might notice a difference (though I now hear murmurs that vinyl records are again superior). The "theater experience" explanation makes sense. I liken it somewhat to seeing a live band versus hearing a recording. Actually, I had been thinking about my question. I was gonna post last night (I had just watched a Net Flix movie) that I think the reason theaters exist, and the reason we can not get new movies directly, is because they want to squeeze out every last ticket sale. Where as in home viewing would have "viewing parties" and it would be near impossible to charge every viewer.
