#2 Edited by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

George Lucas is a monster greater than the Rancor.

#3 Edited by Edamame (28313 posts) - - Show Bio

Ewwww. I hate expensive things like that.

I also hate inflation.

#4 Posted by InnerSuperman (858 posts) - - Show Bio

arggg

#5 Edited by Dragonborn_CT (23301 posts) - - Show Bio

Fack da s**t!!

Online
#6 Edited by PartialSanity (433 posts) - - Show Bio

Ahaha. I'll just wait until they come out for home releases. I think this is more a ploy of trying to get people used to the idea of movie prices going up. While new technologies make things harder for movie makers, since they have to re-learn a lot of things, this is not something that will keep true. After a while things should reach a plateau, people will have equal knowledge, things would become easier - the technologies would reduce in price, making the whole process cheaper. There's no reason as to why movie tickets would ever reach a number close to $100.

Again, I think that this is so people won't be surprised when they jack up prices by $10. That way they can count on people saying "At least its not over $100, like Lucas and Spielberg said."

Additionally, the whole "dreams" thing... scientists can only theorize how dreams work, let alone find ways to actively control them.

#7 Edited by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't believe Lucas was the one who said it.

#8 Edited by RDClip (1150 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, a normal person will have to get another mortgage on their house to go to the movies once a month.

The cost of Hollywood movies nowadays is just absurd. Does anyone else think that it is absolutely ridiculous that a crap comedy like Jack and Jill costs EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS ($80,000,000) to make while the japanse sci-fi extravaganza Space Battleship Yamato costs about 24 million. Maybe if 'stars' like Adam Sandler weren't taking half the fricken budget of the movie, us poor schlubs wouldn't have to put up with raising ticket prices.

#9 Posted by Nerx (15088 posts) - - Show Bio

Pirate that sh!t and watch bootlegged versions for free or less

eat that movie industry

#10 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (11592 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

Yeah, a normal person will have to get another mortgage on their house to go to the movies once a month.

The cost of Hollywood movies nowadays is just absurd. Does anyone else think that it is absolutely ridiculous that a crap comedy like Jack and Jill costs EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS ($80,000,000) to make while the japanse sci-fi extravaganza Space Battleship Yamato costs about 24 million. Maybe if 'stars' like Adam Sandler weren't taking half the fricken budget of the movie, us poor schlubs wouldn't have to put up with raising ticket prices.

People and the CGI is expensive myth.

The truth behind the Hollywood movies, casting takes most of the money.

This is made so is hard to take their actors and do big movies with them or medium movies with them, so they can be the only one doing this type of movies with them, also the small one have budgets around the 20 or 30 million bucks, China has used Hugh Jackman for some movies, but that because Jackman wanted to do the movie, main reason he sings all his scenes and Bale did a chinesse movie because he is Batman and was on an spy mission, that dont change is the Indian and Chinese industries that are also huge and have the money.

Keanu Reeves has shown his generosity by giving away £50 million of his earnings from the Matrix sequels.

The 38-year-old decided to hand over the money to the unsung heroes of the sci-fi blockbusters - the costume and special effects teams.

Keanu is expected to make a total of £70 million from the films, thanks to a deal which guarantees him a 15 per cent profit-share, so he will still net around £20 million. Asked about his prodigious act of generosity, the actor said he already had enough cash. "Money is the last thing I think about. I could live on what I have already made for the next few centuries," he declared.

And it's not the first time the Beirut-born star has shown his jaw-dropping benevolence. While shooting the films in Australia he amazed the team of stuntmen by giving them each a £6,000 Harley Davidson motorcycle. And the actor, whose sister has leukaemia, has also channelled millions into cancer research.

His gift to the Matrix series' 29 behind-the-scenes whiz-kids will see each of them receiving £1.75 million.

Only Keanu care for making movies more that the money and Awards.

#11 Edited by Deranged Midget (17740 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

I don't believe Lucas was the one who said it.

Well, Spielberg said it alongside him.

Ahaha. I'll just wait until they come out for home releases. I think this is more a ploy of trying to get people used to the idea of movie prices going up. While new technologies make things harder for movie makers, since they have to re-learn a lot of things, this is not something that will keep true. After a while things should reach a plateau, people will have equal knowledge, things would become easier - the technologies would reduce in price, making the whole process cheaper. There's no reason as to why movie tickets would ever reach a number close to $100.

Again, I think that this is so people won't be surprised when they jack up prices by $10. That way they can count on people saying "At least its not over $100, like Lucas and Spielberg said."

Additionally, the whole "dreams" thing... scientists can only theorize how dreams work, let alone find ways to actively control them.

Well, considering the article IGN had that was a little more in depth about the subject, both Spielberg and Lucas went on to state that due to consistently rising prices for film budgets, ideas will continue to grow more narrow until they simply implode on themselves, causing a new paradigm. As to whether or not this will happen, it's more than likely to eventually happen but I'm sure there are more than enough indie creators who don't know a $100 million+ budget to create a creative and interesting film.

I can see what they're getting at but I think they are directing this more towards the bigger franchises today that constantly seem to be breaking the billion dollar mark with $200 million+ budgets as people will may soon grow fatigued of the bigger budget, flashy films as they rarely have any true differentiating or unique factors to them. It all ends up to how creative the writers and the crew want to be and how open minded the audience will remain (or refrain) to be.

Moderator
#12 Edited by PartialSanity (433 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: I think what he meant was that most of the material quoted was something Lucas said. That said, I'm simply suspicious as to their reasoning, one of the things that that went through my head is not just indie creators, but other studio backed ones that do great things with far less than $100m+. It is a bit arrogant, however warranted, to say that if half a dozen of the big budget movies flop, it would collapse the whole industry. A handful of people an entire film industry does not make.

In addition, they've already affected the outcome of their prediction by revealing it. When names like Lucas and Spielberg speak, people listen. Studio execs have been basically warned.

They're quite right about big budget films not being able to pump out many iconic original films, because they're happy making a cookie cutter movie, but I think that happened a while ago. Most of the big budget movies nowadays are either reboots, remakes, or adaptations of books, comics, and graphic novels - they know these are going to net them a big return. If I'm not mistaken they already made a movie loosely based around a board game.

I'm not saying that they're wrong about filmmakers having a narrower focus, but to think that these people couldn't be easily replaced is absurd. People will always need to be entertained, and movies seem to fill that demand for the vast majority. I myself prefer TV series.

I just don't see these prices happening for quite a while if at all, not counting inflation. Human creativity will overcome this as it has many other things.

#13 Posted by King Saturn (224507 posts) - - Show Bio

Then I won't be going to the Movies anymore.....

Online
#14 Edited by cattlebattle (13045 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, Goerge Lucas is delusional......so, there is that....

#15 Edited by thespideyguy (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

That's crazy people love big summer blockbusters, and comic book movies are really on the rise.

#16 Posted by thespideyguy (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, Goerge Lucas is delusional......so, there is that....

Along with whedon.

#17 Posted by Xwraith (19594 posts) - - Show Bio

And I should trust this f*cker because...?

Online
#18 Posted by Deranged Midget (17740 posts) - - Show Bio

@xwraith said:

And I should trust this f*cker because...?

Well because... I got nothing :/

@deranged_midget: I think what he meant was that most of the material quoted was something Lucas said. That said, I'm simply suspicious as to their reasoning, one of the things that that went through my head is not just indie creators, but other studio backed ones that do great things with far less than $100m+. It is a bit arrogant, however warranted, to say that if half a dozen of the big budget movies flop, it would collapse the whole industry. A handful of people an entire film industry does not make.

In addition, they've already affected the outcome of their prediction by revealing it. When names like Lucas and Spielberg speak, people listen. Studio execs have been basically warned.

They're quite right about big budget films not being able to pump out many iconic original films, because they're happy making a cookie cutter movie, but I think that happened a while ago. Most of the big budget movies nowadays are either reboots, remakes, or adaptations of books, comics, and graphic novels - they know these are going to net them a big return. If I'm not mistaken they already made a movie loosely based around a board game.

I'm not saying that they're wrong about filmmakers having a narrower focus, but to think that these people couldn't be easily replaced is absurd. People will always need to be entertained, and movies seem to fill that demand for the vast majority. I myself prefer TV series.

I just don't see these prices happening for quite a while if at all, not counting inflation. Human creativity will overcome this as it has many other things.

Haha, you mean Battleship? That definitely didn't turn out too great.

But yes, they aren't far off but it's a little bit of a far stretch to state that because someday, the big budget films that choose to go for flair rather than creativity may start losing their edge shouldn't translate to the entire film community. Plenty of films as you stated do perfectly fine with miniscule budgets and even end up being critically acclaimed which leads to people listening to those type of reviews and recommendations and heading out to see something that is regarded as "unique" or "special".

In my mind, they are looking in the right direction but they are being too harsh. They became famous and gained recognition in a time where films were still in their infancy, "big budget films" were a thing of the future and people's imaginations were wide-spread and far more open to interpretation. Nowadays, people seem to have adjusted to that trend, they expect more but can still be entertained by a "blockbuster" hit when it delivers on several scales.

Moderator
#19 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (11592 posts) - - Show Bio

The myth about movies are selling more and people like them more.

Tickets are more expensive today, for the same if a movie ticket cost 1 dollar, 100 millions dollars = 100 million tickets.

100 millions tickets with a prize of 10 bucks, are 1 billion bucks, that if you dont count the 3D Tickets.

Avengers is the number 35 on the most succesfull movies of all time by ticket sells, Star Wars Episode IV sold so many tickets that if it was made today without 3D it wold do over 2 and a half billion dollars.

Yes, the first Star War Movie takes Avengers and make it his own little heeeee you know the word for a female dog.

Movies are selling less tickets, no more that why they dont show you the tickets sells numbers.

The Blockbuster era start thanks to Jaws and Star Wars, movies the studio think will fail and where against the sytem, during that time the system was Taxi Driver type movies, the whole New Hollywood thing died when this movie came out.

3D is a gimmick Hollywood uses every time they have no original ideas, is not a new technology, it was used several times in the past.

#20 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm of the mind these gentlemen might have been imbibing a bit too much vino prior to their talk.

The idea movies would reach the level of a Broadway show -- commanding price tickets in and around the $100 to $150 mark is absurd. There is no way that could happen, if theatres were to shut down to make room for even larger venues, then what they are talking about are arena type shows on par with live musical acts. Perhaps that can be a possibility but considering the astronomical price of concert tickets, even that won't last since people will expect to be entertained. The movies will have to hit holographic type imagery where scale could be explored in huge stadiums. Now that is a possibility.

People like movies for all the reasons the above example is not. Accessibility and a larger than life experience you can't get in your home but without much fuss in a comfortable (usually) setting. If anything, actors are becoming more and more involved in the financial side of things and just like over-priced jocks, are getting paid way more than what they are worth. It reminds me of international soccer stars.

Prices will hit a level which consumers will refuse to pay -- the majority anyway -- and things will settle back just below that mark. Just the idea of paying that much money for a movie tells me they are out of touch with the everyday joe and jill -- audiences will expect spectaculars at that price.