George Lucas Announces The Death Of The $200 Million Feature Film
from the good-for-him dept
Back in April, at the Cato Institute conference on copyrights, someone in the audience from NBC Universal challenged both myself and Professor David Levine from UCLA on how the movie industry could keep making $200 million feature films in a world where copyrights were less stringent (or non-existent). The response, of course, is that he's asking the wrong question. Why focus on the cost of making the movie? It's like a mainframe maker asking how they can keep making million-dollar mainframes as PCs become more and more powerful. The answer is that you don't keep making $200 million films, but figure out how to make films for less. That means embracing technology that makes moviemaking, distribution and promotions much cheaper, while also recognizing that the value of star power (which is extremely costly) is greatly overrated. While the folks at NBC Universal may not like that, it does seem like some big moviemakers are recognizing the trend. John points us to an interview in Variety with George Lucas, where he discusses why he won't be making $200 million movies any more, saying that they're just too risky. Instead, he can spend the same amount of money making a lot more video for TV or for online. While he doesn't discuss ways to make quality films for less, he's clearly realized that the market is changing -- and it's changing in a way that will make him produce more content, not less. That's important, since the assumption from the NBC Universals of the world has always been that, if they can't make $200 million movies, the world would have a lot less content. Looks like that assumption isn't holding up either.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
George Lucas is the future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gimmie a break!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: George Lucas is the future?
and don't call me surely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From The Mind That Gave Us Star Wars
If he thinks the day of the $2MM movie is over, the Hollywood lemmings should pay attention to him. They will fail to do so at their own peril.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This should leave some money for other aspects of a movie like plot and dialog. We can only hope. Maybe one day we'll even get Star Wars episode 1.5: The Apology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $200 million stereotypes
That said, George Lucas has always been some what of a Indi outsiders. Sure he has his StarWars movies that made him a rich bastage, but remember he quit the directors guild because they didn't like the idea of starwars. everyone told him it was a crappy idea. Except Fox that is (i forget if it is 20th century fox).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucas is no longer the prophet
Makes one wonder if the original trilogy would have been nearly as good, nearly as magical, nearly as successful, if George had all the money he needed to produce them the way he wanted back in the 1970's.
Is it his age, his bankroll or is he just another "one hit wonder" that makes him irrelavent today?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $200 million stereotypes
Really, dorpus, the quality of your trolling has plummeted precipitously lately. C'mon Big Guy, you can do better than that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Plot, Acting more important that special effects
That's my hope ... focus less on where you can squeeze in another special effect and get back to trying to make us care about the characters.
In the original Star Wars trilogy, you actually cared about the main characters. The second trilogy, you keep hoping for the main "protagonist" (Anakin) gets killed (or at least just shuts up). If they weren't so focused on the special effects, they could have realized that the Anakin actor(s) were screwing up the film.
Butchering a greatline: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to dazzle the eyes and ears is insignificant next to the power of a good plot well acted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But will the 15 year old Demo
I doubt they've ever been exposed to real cinema as opposed to the huge budget live action cartoons they get now.
What next - the return of Radio Drama? Now that would be a positive thing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The bottom line being if you like the movie thats your OPINION and nobody has to agree or disagree and if you don't well at least you have an informed opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Star Wars - the debate
I was worried that with the advances in technology and all that we had seen in film to that point (just before episode 1), we would not get to see anything new. I was also afraid that the public would reject anything that would come out with the Star Wars name on it.
Well - the public suddenly fell in love with the concept that it was fashionable to bash all things Star Wars.
I can go back now and watch episode 4-6 and can see similar flaws that people whine about in the newer movies. The story is constant - so arguments about the story/plot are pointless. Terrible acting for the star/focus of the movie - that's nothing new. Try to go back to Star Wars: A new Hope and put up with the whiney Luke Skywalker.
Now I am not one who goes back and slaughters those movies for that. Remember, when I was a kid - I loved everything about those movies. Heck - I even followed the Mark Hammil train on through the terrible TV movie that was Corvette Summer. I watched the terrible ewok movies to follow the trilogy. It is what it is. When I saw episodes 1-3, I remember the feeling that the films brought when I watched 4-6. I had the same feeling with 1-3. Today, people focus too much on the negative and find it quite fashionable to bash Star Wars.
I am over it. People who claim they are original Star Wars fans but cannot stand the new ones are contradicting themselves in my book. Once a Star Wars geek - always a Star Wars geek .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Trolling for $200 million stereotypes
You don't even seem to be the real dorpus, and I don't even feel like responding any more. Will the real dorpus please step forward and put some life into those troll posts again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:Trolling for $200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$200 Million Movies
The truth is, if Hollywood and the big theatrical chains were to embrace this, rather than fight it, we might see a new golden age where movies stayed on screens longer, and the theater-going experience was valued as unique from watching a movie at home. Yes we'd probably pay something more like what people pay for tickets to a Broadway play, but it could be worth it if theaters and movie makers worked together to make the experience as high-end as possible. Like that restaurant where you go and spend $100 for two people on your anniversary.
They need to remember that market share isn't as important as return on investment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But will the 15 year old Demo
also, i'd like to point out on the starwars thing... despite the lousy acting, the third movie is pretty good.
dorpus: girls who are friends shouldn't be called girlfriends. the word girlfriend implies more than girls who are just friends there bud... ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Star wars geeking
I was disappointed. Badly. The magic was gone. Stolen away with too much flash and not enough wonder.
I wanted a regal young queen, and a dashing young ace who could win her heart and mine. I wanted to meet this person that Obi-wan spoke of with great fondness, years later, as his friend. I wanted to know what terrible thing could fracture the fairy tale and create the person we knew as Darth Vader.
Instead I got a sullen, surly brat that, in my opinion, did not live up to the legend that he would become. He and Obi-wan weren't friends, they could barely stand each other. And we got a lot of wooden acting from Natalie Portman. They had no chemistry, none at all. I don't see her potential death as the reason Anakin went to the dark side. It was the weak excuse of a weak soul that didn't have the will to stand on his own.
It was disappointing, because it could have been so much more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And if the movie industry is not seeing that, then it makes sense that we should take note of Lucas' observations. The reason? He has been a consistence source of movie making innovation across the board. Individuals who would rather dismiss him because the pre-quel failed to meet 20 years plus of anticipation, have basically ignored Lucas' observation.
I think its an important observation, and they couldn't have used a better movie maker to state it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:Trolling for $200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: George Lucas is the future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$200M buys a lot of TV
$200M is enough to produce 3 seasons of a fairly expensive one-hour TV show (as long as there aren't Friends-like star salaries).
Start with what the network pays you for first run rights. Then, with $40-50 profit per DVD set, you can recoup most of the production cost. Add-in a syndication/re-run deal, and, it's a lot more likely that you turn a profit than on a single $200M movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: $200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Star Wars - the debate
But you're argument, in similar ones, don't hold water for me.
The new movies were forced pieces of tripe, trying too hard to be the old movies. All the effects and the nice, glossy finish couldn't save the character portrayal. The original actors put on a performance like old Star Trek: over acted and almost campy. The new actors tried to act like that, and it came of as stiff, forced performances. They should have performed like new Star Trek actors.
The other big killer was the story line: The clones were all Jango Fetts (sic)? Why? And why Jar Jar Binks? No, he is not analogous to the Ewoks: they tried hard to beat the bad guys; Jar Jar accidentally fumbled his way to being a general! And the story did not need to go back to Darth Vader as a kid. That left far too much material to cover in three movies.
Now, how about Hardware Wars? That was a movie...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Star Wars - the debate
May the farce be with you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You're full of crap.
The prequels were exactly the same way. They reused the old cliches (which is okay since they were Lucas's cliches to begin with). The acting was questionable. The plot seemed a little contrived. The characters were hokey. The plot was less simplistic and a little more emotionally charges. They plot included more modern topical allegory that could interpreted various ways. And they are as good as the originals.
You deluded if you're a member of the "the new movies are nothing like the old ones!" crowd. You just don't want to admit that what you took so seriously as a youth seems contrived and trite to you as an adult, so you don't want to admit to yourself that the prequel trilogy is of the same ilk as the original. Just get over it, don't take it so seriously, and just let it be what it is: an excellent series of six movies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh no
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing the point.
Good movies can be made dirt cheap, with just talented writers, actors, directors, and editors. In fact, it has been done for a long time.
Hollywood has a mentality, though, of "if it didn't cost a lot, it isn't any good". SO, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on crappy "Shotgun target audience" movies, and figure if they spend a ton of cash on special effects, get big name movies, and can pay extra for some Boobage (especially from Big name women), they'll get their investment back.
Will Hollywood change this train of thought? most probably not.
The End
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You're full of crap.
Even my kids (6 and 3) refuse to watch the first two movies.
They love 4-6 and will watch 3 when they are bored. I think the only part they "Actively" watch is the light sabre battles tho.
I bought the episodes 1 and 2 with the expectation that my kids would like them (with those damn kiddie chars inserted) more. Turns out I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing theh point correcting
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom was getting paid his 20-25 mil as the star. He was getting a producer salary AND he was getting part of the gate. He was just making too much money for the executive's tastes, and despite still making money, the drop in sale of MI3 made them tired of seeing Tom getting that sizable amount of grip. Basically Tom's movie made less money, but Tom wasn't making less money because he got his money up front. Actor's salary, producer's salary and his percentage of the gate, while studio had to sit back and wait and see what their cut was gonna be. I would've fired his ass too.
If Tom is really profitable, he'll form his own company and put his money where his mouth is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good movies for less
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It won't approach $200 mil, but over $100 for sure. But it's a good bet RH3 will make its money back. The director is back, the writer's are back so it should do well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ewoks...heee hee
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:Trolling for $200 million stereotypes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anyways, i just wanted to mention something else. the second movie, star wars that is, while pretty horrible is completely worth it for the 5 minutes yoda is kicking ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rebuttal
I was responding to your assertion, also made by Prof. Levine, that copyright protection for movies was unnecessary because movie makers could adopt the open source software model and sell services rather than the movie itself.
My response to your assertion asked how it would be economically rational for a movie creator to invest in creation of a movie, like the $150 million+ invested in creating King Kong, Narnia, or Lord of the Rings, if the absense of copyright protection meant the creator could not prevent free riders from performing, distributing, and reproducing the movie.
You responded that the movie makers could still sell the theater experience, and sell DVDs with extra features. I did not have the opportunity at the conference to do so, but now take the opportunity to discuss why your answer makes no sense.
The theater part of your answer utterly fails to take into consideration that (1) movie makers are prohibited under established anti-trust cases from owning theaters; (2) even if movie creators could own theaters, the absense of copyright protection would create a free rider problem, since the movie creator/theater owner can not compete with free rider theaters that could profitably charge far less for admission because they had not invested millions in the initial creation; and (3) very few movies, ESPECIALLY LESS EXPENSIVE ONES, turn a profit during theatrical release, and thus need a DVD, PPV, VOD, and TV window to recoup costs.
Your assertion that movie creators could still make a profit by selling DVDs with extra features (Director's cuts, Unrated versions, behind the scenes) suffers from the same flaw. Namely, without copyright and anti-circumvention protection, any competitor can sell the same DVD WITH the extras at a far lower price than the movie creator, who must recoup the initial investment in the movie AND the extras.
Prof. Levine's answer to my question was even more flawed. He positied that the mainstream movie industry should just follow the model of the pornography industry and make far cheaper movies. Apparently, he would be just as happy seeing some $100,000 version of King Kong, Narnia, and Lord of the Rings filmed with people in rented costumes jumping around a backyard in Van Nuys. However, the vast majority of movie viewers actually want to see the $150 million versions filmed in New Zealand and on painstakingly crafted sets, using state of the art CG technology, and employing hundreds of skilled actors, stuntmen, carpenters, costume designers, engineers, musicians, Foley artists, etc. Furthermore, he was wrong to say that the pornography industry doesn't rely on copyright protection to prevent free riding. The case law is rife with examples of pornographers suing to prevent infringement of their movies.
So, my question was directed at revealing the fallacy of the economic model you proposed, not a defense of big budgets for films. (Movie studios have the same economic incentives as any other market actor to keep down their costs.) The fallacy in your argument applies as equally to a movie that costs $2 million as one that costs $150 million. Why would someone invest $2 million in creating a movie if free riders could sell all the potential services (theatrical experience, DVDs with extras) for less than the creator? The more rational economic decision is to go into the free rider business, and wait for someone else to be stupid enough to invest in making a movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
YES! The very reason Episodes 1-3 weren't very good was the fact that when you have unlimited time and money at your disposal, you don't make creative decisions. You make expensive ones.
Episode four rocked BECAUSE of the financial limitations and creative problem solving involved. Oh, and there was a decent script too, but to be honest, it wasn't much better than the others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just what are monopoly rights worth?
It is so often implied that monopoly rights produce 100% of returns, and this is patently false. Monopoly rights increase the returns, and I would hypothesize that this increase is often very little. People go to movie theatres for the experience and for a night out. They will continue to do that. So long as honesty is maintained and studio approval is noted people will pay the 10% of the ticket price to see approved movies. With a blockbuster like Lord of the Rings this may involve ensuring that every moviehouse in the country has access to approval to show the movie, so that overflows into non-approved theatres are minimized. It means that the timeframe between theatre release, DVD release and TV release may be shortened. This is simply an adjustment in the business model.
The key question is why do governments provide a mandated monopoly to distort the market to increase these profits. It is providing a government mandated subsidy of hundreds of billions of dollars to companies in particular industries. It distorts the market, this money would otherwise flow to different industry segments.
Life would go on and a group of 3 year old girls singing happy birthday in public parks would no longer be subject to arrest or harassment from the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You're full of crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: we are all twenty years older
But that was a different time. Movies then were not made with the sp. effects that Ep 3 had in them. They made improvements and innovations over what was made at the time. This explains the failure (or what some people call a failure) of Ep. 1-3. This also explains why kids today don't like them either. No new cutting edge innovations in special effects were used just regurgitations from existing movies. I mean really after the resurection of the dinosaurs into living breathing actors in Jurrasic Park there's nothing left to be made wondrous to the viewing public. Also with the added technological advances that we have now days kids today aren't as impressed with a computer/communicator on someones wrist. They haven't quite got there in real life but they are really close. Sorry Dick Tracy your no longer needed.
I admit that there is more advancements being made in special effects and maybe someday I will wonder again at how they did that. But for now, I am not wondering anymore. CGI has killed the childhood wonder in me and every movie that comes out with million dollar special effects just looks like a really well made video game to me.
Yes, I agree that the acting and characters in Ep. 1-3 were seriously lacking and really the movies were just like, catching people up with the back story. Maybe as I have gotten older characters and plot is more important to me. I wish they would have spent 20 minutes with the back story and just made new movies with new stories and new characters. Then maybe they would have endeared themselves to the new audience instead of pandering to the old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
$200m crappy films
Yes the market is changing, but Lucas' version of the franchise film with all the respective merchandising and whatever wasn't working either and that should inform his decision more than anything else.
While I agree with you that the formula is changing, this story is really more about Lucas' formula.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: $200 million stereotypes
Also, Fox didn't get the whole Star Wars concept and they weren't thrilled with it either. Studio Exec Alan Ladd Jr. was the one who had GWL's back and helped get the movie produced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rebuttal
Cool. I'm glad you've come here to discuss in more detail.
I was responding to your assertion, also made by Prof. Levine, that copyright protection for movies was unnecessary because movie makers could adopt the open source software model and sell services rather than the movie itself.
I never said anything about the open source model, though Prof. Levine did. Also, you may have misunderstood my comment as well. I did not say that movie makers *could* sell services, but that they *need* to sell services -- because that's where the market is taking them.
The theater part of your answer utterly fails to take into consideration that (1) movie makers are prohibited under established anti-trust cases from owning theaters;
They don't need to own the theaters to benefit from a better movie going experience.
(2) even if movie creators could own theaters, the absense of copyright protection would create a free rider problem, since the movie creator/theater owner can not compete with free rider theaters that could profitably charge far less for admission because they had not invested millions in the initial creation;
Again, you seem to think about this in very simplistic terms. There's value in providing the complete experience, including an "authorized" version of the film. On top of that, as we've discussed here previously, there are plenty of tie-ins that a legitimate moviemaker can add to a movie: such as movie ticket holders who go to a theater playing official versions get a discount on the DVD. Or, get admission early to new movies. Or get other special perks. There are lots of ways to ensure that people are still willing to pay for the official version.
and (3) very few movies, ESPECIALLY LESS EXPENSIVE ONES, turn a profit during theatrical release, and thus need a DVD, PPV, VOD, and TV window to recoup costs.
Hmm. Considering all of those things are relatively new, there was a day when movies did make money on their theatrical release. That would suggest that the business has made some bad decisions lately.
Either way, that doesn't matter, because none of this limits the possibility of making lots of money from other avenues.
Your assertion that movie creators could still make a profit by selling DVDs with extra features (Director's cuts, Unrated versions, behind the scenes) suffers from the same flaw. Namely, without copyright and anti-circumvention protection, any competitor can sell the same DVD WITH the extras at a far lower price than the movie creator, who must recoup the initial investment in the movie AND the extras
Again, you act as if your customers are criminals and morons, rather than those who would be willing to buy the official versions if given incentives and perks to do so (no need to repeat myself, but access to new releases, discounts on other merchandise and plenty of others ideas are out there...)
Prof. Levine's answer to my question was even more flawed. He positied that the mainstream movie industry should just follow the model of the pornography industry and make far cheaper movies.
I won't speak for Professor Levine, but I will say that I believe you misunderstood his answer. My understanding of what he said was simply that the adult entertainment industry has made an awful lot of money without worrying about copyright, and they do so by continuing to produce content that people want. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to have the production qualities of pornographic material, but that copyright isn't the only way to make money in film.
However, the vast majority of movie viewers actually want to see the $150 million versions filmed in New Zealand and on painstakingly crafted sets, using state of the art CG technology, and employing hundreds of skilled actors, stuntmen, carpenters, costume designers, engineers, musicians, Foley artists, etc.
Again, you go back to the cost, rather than noting that it's increasingly possible to make movies that are just as good at lower costs.
The fallacy in your argument applies as equally to a movie that costs $2 million as one that costs $150 million. Why would someone invest $2 million in creating a movie if free riders could sell all the potential services (theatrical experience, DVDs with extras) for less than the creator? The more rational economic decision is to go into the free rider business, and wait for someone else to be stupid enough to invest in making a movie.
I disagree completely. At $2 million, it's even easier to recoup the costs -- and I listed above just a few of the ways that *any* movie could keep making money even without copyrights -- even if there were free riders. So, I disagree with your assertion that it's better to go into the free rider business. In that business, it's much more difficult to have any kind of competitive advantage. Whereas the actual creator of the content has all sorts of competitive advantages that have nothing to do with copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
state of the art
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Follow that car driver... and step on it!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]