Interesting, but a little scary.

Steven Spielberg: Film Industry Implosion Lies Ahead

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, two of the biggest filmmakers of all time, expect some massive upheaval in Hollywood as the division between TV and film content disappears. Spielberg even forecast that the film industry would "implode."

Both see changes in the way movies are made, the way content is distributed and to the business itself, they said during a panel discussion at University of Southern California's School for Cinematic Arts, where they are board members.

But Spielberg also said that it's like 2008 in the business again, with the market bottomed and on the way up. There has never been more exciting potential, he added.

Spielberg and Lucas expect consumers to watch more content, including movies and TV shows, on giant screens at home, as the separation between TV and film content disappears and theatrical releases are limited to fewer, big-budget films.

"There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budgeted movies go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm again," Spielberg said.

Lucas predicted that the movie-going experience would become more of a luxury.

"You're going to end up with fewer theaters, bigger theaters with a lot of nice things," he said. "Going to the movies will cost 50 bucks or 100 or 150 bucks—like what Broadway costs today, or a football game."

He forecast that the movies that do make it to theaters will stay for a year, similar to the run of a Broadway show.

The two joked that they barely got their films "Lincoln" or "Red Tails" into theaters. Spielberg ribbed his friend that more people saw "Lincoln" than saw Lucas' "Red Tails" but admitted that it was a close call, adding that the presidential biopic almost ended up on Time Warner's HBO.

In the future environment, neither of those films would have made it into theaters but would have been available instead on the big screen in people's living rooms, in a new video-on-demand paradigm, they said.

In a building full of high-tech tools to help the next generation of filmmakers tell stories, Spielberg and Lucas had warnings for students.

First, technology should never be in the driver's seat, because the narrative is always the most important thing, they said.

"There is going to be a day when the experience is going to be the price of admission," Spielberg said. "What I fear about that day coming is that the experience will trump the story or the ability to compel people through a narrative. And it's going to be more of a ride, a theme park, than it is going to be a story, and that's what I hope doesn't happen.
.He doesn't want movies and TV to become too interactive. The best movie experiences are ones "where we lose control, and the movie and the images and the excitement is washing over us," Spielberg said.

But he seemed optimistic about entertainment's potential to be immersive. "We will be literally inside the experience, so the imagery will envelop us," he said. "You won't even sense you are in a chair. ... You'll totally be ... enrapt and drowning in images, and that is going to happen someday."

tl;dr version: TV and home viewing technology are hurting the film industry. Spielberg sees a future where film are interactive experiences. And much like Broadway will cost upwards of $150 a ticket and run for a year or more at a time. He seems the industry as we know it know imploding and a new almost amusement park paradigm taking over.

He's not wrong. Movies almost seem to have lost the middle class. Everything is either a $300 Million blockbuster, or a small independent film at this point. And movies dont have the same level of social togetherness that say a sporting event has. The premium is on NOT talking to your friends, or meeting people in the seats next to you.

Couple that with the fact that it seems audiences are seeking more of the long form story that a quality television show can provide, theaters will continue to become more niche.

He's not wrong. But I'm not sure he's totally right, either.

But I do agree about long form storytelling and the quality of TV. Absolutely.

Do you think we'll ever see a day where all the major studios have premium paid channels that show their films? Just like HBO, you'll have to purchase the PARAMOUNT channel and you'll have access (for a fee) to all of the movies Paramount releases, exclusively through their platform.

If so, what does that do to things like Netflix and HBO?

Do you a viable way for studios to deliver their less expensive, less "immersive" content to viewers besides Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO etc? Is it too risky for all parties to splinter things further?

Maybe there are talented people who can do the job for less than 40 mil a picture?

First, technology should never be in the driver's seat, because the narrative is always the most important thing, they said.

District 9 cost 30 mil and looked just as good from a special effects perspective as 200 mil movies. Maybe that's the future?

And it's going to be more of a ride, a theme park, than it is going to be a story, and that's what I hope doesn't happen

Just because Steven Spielberg says the sky is falling, is the industry really in trouble?
Could the 'implosion' he talks about actually be a good thing?

BY DREW MCWEENY SATURDAY, JUN 15, 2013 2:10 AM

I think it's safe to say that the film business is in a period of transition.

I think it's dangerous to pretend that anyone knows how that period of transition is going to resolve itself.

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas made headlines this week when they spoke at USC as part of the grand opening of the new Interactive Media Building, which is part of USC's School of Cinematic Arts. I think the reason the quotes ended up getting the sort of traction they did in the press is because there's something irresistible about hearing two of the men responsible for the age of the modern blockbuster talk about how blockbusters are ruining Hollywood. There have been a wide range of reactions to the quotes online, but by far, the leading sentiment seems to be a sort of gloating over the idea that these guys are finally realizing what they've done to the industry.

It's an easy claim to make, but it's a hard one to actually back up. By now, it's almost just accepted as a given that "Star Wars" and "Jaws" created the system that exists today, but there's a world of difference between the films that launched Lucas and Spielberg to the top of the business and the films that show up in our theaters week after week right now, and trying to claim that these guys were the ones who lowered the bar does a disservice to the films they made and to the conversation that's worth having about the way decisions are made at the studio level today.

No matter what success George Lucas eventually had with "Star Wars," when he made it, there was nothing about the film that was a guaranteed easy hit. He was not adapting an existing piece of material. He was paying homage to what was essentially a dead form at the time, the space opera serials, and he started production on the film not even sure it was technically possible for him to finish it. And "Jaws" was hardly a guaranteed success for Spielberg, who spent most of the shoot so famously stressed out that it's amazing he finished it. When we talk about the effect these guys had on the business, it's in hindsight, and even once they had a few successes under their belts, they continued to do things on a much smaller scale than today's tentpole filmmakers. If you tried to make a big summer action movie for the same budget as "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" today, no studio on Earth would give you the greenlight because they'd say it was impossible. Sure, "E.T." may have shattered box-office records, but it was made for a fairly modest budget. Even "Jurassic Park" is, compared with most of this summer's movies, a mid-budget affair, with less than 80 visual effects shots in the whole film.

The game that is being played today is so different and so dangerous that it makes sense that Spielberg and Lucas would speak up about it and be somewhat aghast at how things work. One of the reasons everything is based on something else, whether it's a remake or an adaptation or a sequel or a prequel or whatever, is because Hollywood has become incredibly nervous about taking risks, but at the same time, they've allowed the average studio budget to either skyrocket out of control or they're determined to do it for pennies on the dollar. When everything you make costs either less than $5 million or more than $150 million, the model is broken. There's very little room for failure with the big films, and you really can't count on the tiny films being giant performers.

When Spielberg said that he sees an implosion as inevitable, I think he's right. Look at Disney right now. They're pinning their hopes on the Marvel movies, the "Star Wars" franchise, and the Pixar brand, with very little room for them to do anything else. You're talking about giant movies, like this summer's "The Lone Ranger," where they're staking $250 million on the idea that the viewing public wants to see another Gore Verbinski movie where Johnny Depp clowns around during well-orchestrated mayhem. If they're wrong, that's a pretty serious kick the balls, no matter what else you release in that same year.

The part of the prediction that I think Spielberg and Lucas get wrong is the idea of movie theaters moving towards a Broadway model, where you pay more for the big giant films and less for the smaller indie movies. That's suicide. At that point, just stop releasing the smaller films to theaters altogether. When you tell the audience up front, "This is worth less than that," you are slitting the throat of the smaller film. And besides… it's not true. I get just as much bang for the buck out of a ticket for "Before Midnight" as I do out of a ticket for "Man Of Steel." One of the reasons I love movies is because I can pay the same thing to see "Stories We Tell" that I would pay for a screening of "Iron Man 3." Small does not mean lesser, and if you start training the consumer to think that the only films worth paying for are the giant spectacles, you are contributing to the death of the smaller films. Hell, you are encouraging it at that point.

I think the really shocking part of the article is Spielberg admitting that "Lincoln" was almost an HBO film. This is where we should focus our anger. Spielberg and Lucas have managed to remain fairly potent commercial forces over the years, but most of the guys who were big filmmakers at the time they were first making movies have been pushed to the margins by the industry, and it is infuriating to me to watch it happen. If you went into most studios in town and told them you wanted to make a big film with William Friedkin or Joe Dante or John Carpenter or Brian De Palma, you would be laughed out of the room. It's easy to say, "Well, their new work isn't good," but considering how few opportunities they get these days to prove their chops, I think it's more a case of the industry creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Spielberg and Lucas created entire companies that have been a big part of what has kept them in the game, but not every filmmaker wants to do that, and frankly, not every filmmaker should have to do that.

Ultimately, what Spielberg is describing is something that I think has to happen and should happen. More importantly, it's something that has happened before. Hollywood had lost its way completely in the late '60s, and the things they were cranking out were increasingly aimed at an audience that did not exist, an audience that used to exist but that simply wasn't there anymore. Audiences were hungry for something new, and in a post-"Easy Rider" world, they got it. Someone finally started speaking to audiences in a language they recognized again, and the power order shifted completely, and the industry managed to grow back in a new and different way. Well, that time is here again, and the real lesson to take from history is that filmmakers will find a way to bend the system to their will, and the ones who figure out how to reach this new audience and how to speak to them in a way that connects will help create whatever the next version of our industry is. Distribution may change, the places and the ways we watch things may change, but deep down, it will always be about filmmakers telling stories that people want to see. Big stories or small stories is not the point now, and it never really is. What matters is that we stop chasing the money and we stop pretending that cranking out pre-processed crap is the way to fix anything. Audiences deserve better, and so do filmmakers.

I have no doubt change is coming. But I refuse to be afraid of it.

The part of the prediction that I think Spielberg and Lucas get wrong is the idea of movie theaters moving towards a Broadway model, where you pay more for the big giant films and less for the smaller indie movies. That's suicide. At that point, just stop releasing the smaller films to theaters altogether. When you tell the audience up front, "This is worth less than that," you are slitting the throat of the smaller film. And besides… it's not true. I get just as much bang for the buck out of a ticket for "Before Midnight" as I do out of a ticket for "Man Of Steel." One of the reasons I love movies is because I can pay the same thing to see "Stories We Tell" that I would pay for a screening of "Iron Man 3." Small does not mean lesser, and if you start training the consumer to think that the only films worth paying for are the giant spectacles, you are contributing to the death of the smaller films. Hell, you are encouraging it at that point.