Lucas predicts $50 cinema tickets

[Neil]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Steven-Spielberg-George-Lucas-Predict-Movie-Industry-Implosion-38049.html

Spielberg predicts bigger and bigger budget films hitting a problem:-
"There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even half a dozen of these mega-budgeted movies are going to go crashing into the ground and that's going to change the paradigm again."
This I can imagine. A few big budget films flop and some companies look to change their approach/model.


Lucas predicts cinemas dwindling and tickets costing $25-50 each:-

Lucas imagines the change in movies to be a little different. He believes that the shift of distribution strategies that now allow for VOD access will split movies into two categories. The first will go the way of Broadway. The number of theaters will dwindle, making the moviegoing experience more exclusive, and thereby more costly. "Going to the movies is going to cost you 50 bucks, maybe 100. Maybe 150," he speculated, "And that's going to be what we call ‘the movie business.' But everything else is going to look more like cable television on TiVo." - See more at: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Steven-Spielberg-George-Lucas-Predict-Movie-Industry-Implosion-38049.html#sthash.6VvFpb8g.dpuf
But then Lucas suggested a flying R2D2 and adding stupid CGI aliens tripping over would improve his films... Fail!

[LouCipherr]

...and I predict that at $50/ticket, NO ONE is going to be paying to see movies in the theater anymore.

These movies companies had better not punish the very people that are keeping their business going just because they made a poor choice of movie(s) to make and put WAY too much money into the budget. I mean, c'mon, do movies REALLY need $100-200 million dollar budgets?

The simple (and correct) answer is a resounding no.


So, if they end up doing as he predicted, they'll price themselves right out of business. Hell, I don't go to movies that much now because of the ridiculous prices they already charge... and here Lucas is saying they might triple/quadruple that price?

Excuse me while I :lol: :lol: :lol: at the prospect of anyone paying $50+ for a movie ticket. That shit is laughable in the highest order.

[MinionZombie]

I'm with Lou - I used to go to the cinema every weekend for months-on-end only a couple of years ago, whereas now I barely go. In fact, I've not been to the cinema at all so far this year - the last thing I saw was The Hobbit in late December 2012.

The idea of a $50 ticket is so moronic that it'd never happen ... but Spielberg feels right on the money ... eventually this huge budget approach is going to get worn out, and then the 'middle budget' flicks will be able to come back. It seems that it's either a teeny-weeny budget, or a gigantic budget and nothing in between for Hollywood these days ... that's what it feels like at least.

And another thing - comic book movies - there's so many of them now. I have a feeling that the market is going to get saturated, completely, in the future and that the audiences will get a bit fed up of seeing them. Seriously, there's dozens upon dozens (hundreds, even) of superhero/comic book movies in various stages of development right now and you just think that it's all a bit too much of one particular thing. I suppose comic book movies are today's equivalent of Hollywood's former love affair/obsession with Westerns a few decades back.

[Neil]

$50 for a movie ticket could only come from someone with $5,000,000+ in the bank. ie: A sum that is so trivial to them, they have no idea what it means to the other 99% of the population...

[Mike70]

I would laugh in the face of anyone who paid $50 to see a movie. frickin' ridiculous.

then again, we are talking about the speculation of one of the WORST directors ever to get lucky because kids went bat shit for his films.

[LouCipherr]

$50 for a movie ticket could only come from someone with $5,000,000+ in the bank. ie: A sum that is so trivial to them, they have no idea what it means to the other 99% of the population...

What it means is, they'll be in the theater by themselves! :lol: :lol:

[Neil]

one of the WORST directors ever
Ummmm... Not really fair!

He directed Star Wars well... He just went slowly down hill from there and generally lost the plot with his own creation...

[MinionZombie]

Ummmm... Not really fair!

He directed Star Wars well... He just went slowly down hill from there and generally lost the plot with his own creation...

And "American Graffiti" was really good. THX-1138 was pretty good too ... he's just gone soft since Phantom Menace and become generally out-of-touch with the film-going public.

[Morto Vivente]

Possibly with the fewer limitations he had the worse he got. Ultimately losing the focus of the original trilogy, i.e. the characters and who played them; all culminating in a CGI nightmare.

IMO his main strength was always the character based story telling, which crashed and burned when he tried to control practically everything with the prequels. His best efforts usually involved
a collaboration to produce the on screen experience. The original trilogy is still the best fantasy scifi to date. For me anyway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0JVIdUiEg

"Bantha in the room." :lol::lol:

[shootemindehead]

Lucas's ideas are great, he just needs a "No" man. He had that with Gary Kurtz, who parted company with him in 1982 over differences about 'Revenge of the Jedi'. When left untethered, he lets his "dark side" run amok and the results are usually rubbish.

$50 film tickets would see the end of cinema as a recreational pastime. I wouldn't even pay that for a multiple film blu-ray boxset.

I hope that cinema will go back to the 70's, the real golden age, and get back to producing a quality product based on story and not budgets. When I think of 70's cinema, I can see classics at every turn, usually made on a generally modest budget, but with an element of high risk involved. These classics were born out of a period where cinema was experiencing falling audiences and were forced to try something new, so they gave directors a shot at a film that would have been laughed out of the studio a decade earlier. Even the two greatest blockbusters of the decade, 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' (ironically, considering who we're talking about) were made on relatively average budgets, with a large amount of chance. Lucas managed to get 'Star Wars' made for about $10 million. That's a staggering achievement. Unfortunately, the revenue made on those films was responsible, in many ways, for the attitude that Hollywood execs have today.

Fast-forward to now and we can see that cinema has reached a generally low level. Most films end up being "meh", but even average fare gets a shot at a sequel. 'The Hangover' with 2 sequels? FFS. It's really just about capitalisng on product. The heart and soul of pictures has been ripped out and stomped on a long time ago. There's generally little risk and most films are aimed at fools, with an inordinate focus on remakes, reimagining’s and reboots.

It's a poor result.

[MinionZombie]

*gasps*

The $50 "mega ticket" is here already:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/paramount-offering-50-mega-ticket-world-war-z-055759217.html

Not quite the same thing, but how's that for timing? Perhaps every little idea to try and rinse as much money out as possible after all the bad press and middling-to-shitty reviews?