Open Forum Friday: Is the Movie Industry on the Verge of Imploding?

Posted by on June 14th, 2013   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

openforumimplosion

Over the past decade or so, there has been no shortage of doomsayers predicting the death of the movie industry as we know it. Theatre attendance is way down, ticket prices are way up, and the number of alternative entertainment options are virtually limitless. Still, at the same time, it’s hard to believe this when we have movies like Avatar and The Avengers constantly smashing box office records. But could it be that these massive blockbusters are actually causing the problem? During a recent panel at USC, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas (along with Microsoft’s Don Mattrick) spoke about the massive upheaval and impending implosion in Hollywood.

Spielberg and Lucas both claim that they had a lot of trouble getting their latest films released in theatres (Lincoln and Red Tails) and that the options are shrinking. Lincoln was apparently almost released on HBO, and Spielberg thinks more filmmakers will likely go that route (just as Steven Soderbergh recently did with Behind the Candelabra). Studios are pouring all of their resources into the mega-blockbusters with no interest in pursuing niche audiences. If a few of these massive productions fail, it could be catastrophic. They also claim that ticket prices will soar (possibly to $100 or $150 a pop), with the bigger movies costing more. What do you think? Is there any validity to their claims or are they just old and out of touch? Is the future of the movie industry genuinely being threatened or will it just continue to evolve? Will movie theatres still exist a few years from now? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Indianamcclain

    I certainly hope not. I can’t think of another career I’d rather have than a movie director.

  • Stinker

    Well it seems that Red Tails, which was a movie from the Moviemaker with a reputation for excellence was not so good, so that nobody were very eager to show it. I think Lucas said same things 1986, that Television (with Cabel) will make the normal Movie theater obsolete. Some still call this year the year of duck with rotten egg. Also the little fiasco which was once a dream and turned into nightmareworks were not “willing” to present “Lincoln” says more about Spielberg than about the Movieindustry.

    Also to think that you will pay 100 to 150 for a night a the movie per person is a absolute no go, esp. when a huge part of the moviegoer are Teenager who want to have a good time, and as a side effect a good movie. They will NOT pay that for any movie.

    But I would pay 150 Bucks to see Howard, in 3-D with Aroma Vision and Sensoround Sound in Mega Imax, just to scare anyone who sees me entering the theater. And because the Movie is awesome, in many many ways. Dito for 1941.

  • KylG

    Didn’t Reed predict a while ago that their would be no more movie theaters by 2012?

  • Dan

    I think this is a load of rubbish to be honest. At most I think there will be a bit of a slow down with movies and less will come out but those will make more money. You also have actors starting to do smaller movies. Will Smith recently announced his intentions to do less blockbusters and more artistic, indie type movies. Geogre Lucas seems a little annoyed from the fact that he isn’t as big a name in the movie industry as he used to be.

  • Steve Kroodsma

    In a way, I would love it if the movie industry crashed.

    My knee-jerk reaction is that I want it to survive, but the more I think about it I realize that filmmaking as an artform will never go away. If the death of Hollywood means we don’t get any more movies with $200+ million budgets, I think we would all be fine. There are plenty of excellent, exciting movies that are made for much less than that. Filmmakers would have to rely on fewer (or cheaper) computer-generated effects. Bare in mind that Aliens was made for $18.5 million ($38 adjusted for inflation, though granted it didn’t have a ton of huge stars).

    That said, I’m sure studio executives are aware of this. I don’t think they cram money into any project that isn’t a sure thing for them these days. Also factor in that foreign audiences will pay to see practically anything (John Carter and Battleship both recouped their budgets and then some). Studios are aware of this as well, and are thus doing as much pandering (to borrow a term from the KoC) to the Chinese market as possible. They’ll be fine.

  • Reed Farrington

    I guess I predicted the demise too early.

  • FoxMulder

    Empire Online have an interesting transcript of a Q&A with Spielberg and Lucas about that issue:

    http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1714

  • patrik

    Steve Kroodsma, you make it sound like the foreign audiences are idiots or something. Battleship and John Carter, two movies where American audiences provided 21.6 and 25.8 percent of the total box office income compared to the rest of the WORLD combined. Have a look at your own shores..

    Personally, I hope not. That would obviously make it even more difficult for talented directors to get their more inspired “big” movies made, like Inception. I guess maybe it wouldn’t hurt if the elite actors took a bit of a salary hit. Most movies probably don’t need to cost upwards toward 200 million dollars though.

  • Owozifa

    $100 for a ticket would be quite the rate of inflation. Theaters seem to be getting plenty of business yet at the $6-8 price point around here and other than 3D surcharges it hasn’t gone up that much for a while.

    Also, can it be said Hollywood has imploded before, like in the 1960s and 70s? I suppose now more than ever there’s TV to take its place, but people still want to get out of the house. Going somewhere else to watch films is part of why people do it, I think.

  • Steve Kroodsma

    Apologies, that’s not what I meant. But whenever there was a news story about flops like John Carter and Battleship, the article would always go on to say “but the film is expected to recoup its budget in the foreign market.” We certainly go a long way on our own to making sure crap films are still profitable.

  • capulet7

    There is no way John Carter or Battleship made their respective budgets back during their theatrical runs. Total numbers at the box office (which I assume you go by) are NOT what the studios get. I don’t know what the percentage is (there are all sorts of numbers floating around the web) but from what I read studios get less money from foreign box office then the domestic one.

    So all things considered John Carter and Battleship were money loosers, and when you add marketing budgets (which I don’t think are included in boxofficemojo budgets) I doubt they will ever turn profit.

  • Steve Ferraioli

    Movie theaters will never fail, the types of movies and budgets will just continue to cycle between reasonable and insane. If a few big ones go bad, then studios will cut back, but movies will still get made. If you eliminate the “Man of Steel”, everyone will just go see “This is the End” instead.

    And kids who don’t know the difference between 10 bucks or 20 bucks for a movie ticket will still beg their parents to take them to the latest kids movie, and the parents who want nothing more than to get out of the house and go somewhere where the kiddies can have fun and be calm will be happy to do it.