Steven Spielberg Predicts 'Implosion' of Film Industry

The Hollywood Reporter ^ | June 12, 2013 | Paul Bond

[2ndDivisionVet]

George Lucas echoed Spielberg's sentiments at an event touting the opening of a new USC School of Cinematic Arts building, saying big changes are in store.

Steven Spielberg on Wednesday predicted an "implosion" in the film industry is inevitable, whereby a half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.

George Lucas agreed that massive changes are afoot, including film exhibition morphing somewhat into a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher. His prediction prompted Spielberg to recall that his 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial stayed in theaters for a year and four months.

The two legendary filmmakers, along with CNBC anchor Julia Boorstin and Microsoft president of interactive entertainment business Don Mattrick, were speaking at the University of Southern California as part of the festivities surrounding the official opening of the Interactive Media Building, three stories high and part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts.....

[Craftmore]

Dunno where you guys watch movies,,Here we have a 10 theatre showing all movies for 4.00 popcorn,hot dogs,soda and candy just 1.00 each.

[Craftmore]

He didnt give a “music Box “ to the older witch,she created it with her magic to fool her younger sister,,watch the movie again.

[wally_bert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFOn4jjN30w

[stonehouse01]

“..not been to a movie thater this century...”

I went once this century - to see “The Lion Witch and the Wardrobe” with my daughter several years ago on her birthday - other than that, me too, and I haven’t missed it and have no plans to waste money in a movie theater. I don’t even watch at home, I read the books instead. Once in a great while we order a classic movie from the library to watch at home.

[WVNan]

LOL. I had no idea it had made it to You Tube. My granddaughter will be happy.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, I’ll keep that in mind when I watch it again. Thanks for the pointer.

[willyd]

Plots are optional and secondary to long, impossible car chases (if you actually took a physics class) and never ending machine gun fights.

Throw in the political BS and money funnel to the Dems from Hollywood and I refuse to spend one dime.

[a fool in paradise]

The BIG money in IMAX is busloads of school children being walked through, money in hand, as a “school trip”.

[a fool in paradise]

My 9 yr old granddaughter’s favorite movie is “The God’s Must Be Crazy”. It’s so un-PC that I love it too. Very funny.

Did you ever see the Chinese made sequal (Crazy Safari?) completing with hopping vampire and a cameo by Bruce Lee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgwAZy0wYT4

[mylife]

The Chinee so Cwazah!

[mylife]

Yes, but occasionally something of worth gets through.

[mylife]

What is stunning about liberal Hollywood is that the very people that promote lousy morals, ie gun violence, debauchery, and self centeredness, are first in line to ascribe this behavior to the Right.

[discostu]

At the start of it Evanora is evil, and Theodora is kind of good but easily angered and kind of a sucker. Oz then makes her mad and Evanora leads her to evil. She didn’t bite the apple because Oz is an abuser, she bit the apple because she was angry and Evanora used that against her, Oz angered her, but she already had the core of being over trusting and seeking vengeance.

[Mat_Helm]

It is already dead. The major studios send all their CGI work out to China and India. Lucas and Spielburg do this as well. George could not even afford his own studio when he made “Red Tails” and the work was done overseas. While rough modeling in CGI is done here in the U.S., all the major work is farmed out to cheap labor. Old George sold of Lucas Film Animation to Disney and they did not need a third one with Pixar and Disney Studios, who were already laying off, so the whole Lucas division was laid off as well. New films will be made inexpensively, cheaply, the old fashioned way with true fresh story telling and actual acting, and produced by independents when major studios lose control of the movie house theaters and the independent films have the ability to be distributed and seen again.

[DoughtyOne]

At the start of it Evanora is evil, and Theodora is kind of good but easily angered and kind of a sucker. Oz then makes her mad and Evanora leads her to evil. She didn’t bite the apple because Oz is an abuser, she bit the apple because she was angry and Evanora used that against her, Oz angered her, but she already had the core of being over trusting and seeking vengeance.

Although I don't disagree with most of that, I am still somewhat led to a different interpretation.  Oz was shown to be a real womanizer.  You don't go to all the trouble they went to, to portray him that way to simply take a pass on it being the cause celebre.  It is reasoned to say Theodora was manipulated.  I believe that to be true.  I do have to come down on the side of Oz tilling the soil so that she was ultimately susceptible to being manipulated though.  Had he not been a womanizer, she would probably never have been inclined to bite the apple.  Heretofore, she hadn't been convinced to do it.  It was only after exposure to 'this man and his vile ways' that she was at her most vulnerable.

He was shown to have toyed with the initial thin brunet, the visiting blond girl a former assistant, and a former assistant only referenced as leaving with a broken heart, before he ever entered Oz.  And in Oz I thought he was shown to have toyed with the two sisters as well.  One person said he didn't Evanora, but I'm going to have to review that.  I believe he did.  I do know Theodora was standing there thinking he was.

The message at the end seemed to be, that if he would only mend his ways, he would find true happiness.  Why that message, if his womanizing ways weren't the central focus?

I still believe this is somewhat of a nice fable framed to cause evil men to reconsider their vile ways, and then find true happiness.

Why was it necessary to loft this transparent stereotype causing both young guys and girls to think this is what men, well at least some men, are all about?  It's not exactly a nice sweet fairytale IMO.

I enjoyed the movie, but I didn't care for the central sub-plot.  A different form of angst could have been a better contribution to the production overall.

[discostu]

It’s true Oz was shown to have a woman in every town, thus the behavior that pushed Theodora over the edge. But the choice to go all the way to evil over it was all Theodora, not to mention the choice to hero worship him from the first minute they met, and to decide their one night together meant they were forever. Theodora is well established as being a kind of crazy all or nothing girl.

Actually given that she hero worships him even before deciding she was in love with him, she pretty well set herself up for a crash even if there are no hookups. Oz is bound to let her down eventually, even if he isn’t deeply flawed. Look at his relationship with Glenda, she too has extremely high expectations of him when they first meet, and he lets her down also. But she doesn’t fly into a rage, she doesn’t bite the apple to become evil, she shames him a bit and then helps him find his core of good.

It’s “necessary” for exactly why you don’t like it. It’s a transparent stereotype that’s well understood by the audience, even a young audience, because it’s a standard Hollywood trope. How do you show a guy has character and loyalty issues in less than 5 pages of dialog? Multiple women. Add him being sorry for the hurt he’s caused (one closeup of sad face) and you’ve established he has a core of good that keeps being overridden by his bad instincts. Transparent stereotypes are very useful in movies because story telling time is short and these stereotypes can be referenced quickly, audiences are familiar with them, they give tons of fake back story for free (it only takes us 2 girls to know Oz is a ship in every port guy), and they inform us what to expect (as soon as he meets Theodora we know he’ll let her down, as soon as they hookup we know there’s a breakup coming). It’s easy story telling, not necessarily good, but it give you room for other stuff.

I would have liked Raimi (the director) to do more Raimi in the movie and less Disney. But Disney was paying the bills, and given the money it made their decisions were right, even if it made the movie kind of disappoint me.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s true Oz was shown to have a woman in every town, thus the behavior that pushed Theodora over the edge.
Okay, that's all I was saying.  Theodora at her age hadn't gone all-in for evil.  It was the evil 'if you will' nature of the man she was exposed to that pushed her over the edge.  I'm not trying to take advantage here, because you do touch on this differently in your next sentence.

But the choice to go all the way to evil over it was all Theodora, not to mention the choice to hero worship him from the first minute they met, and to decide their one night together meant they were forever. Theodora is well established as being a kind of crazy all or nothing girl.
This is actually a good argument to make, because it clearly depicts a character flaw in Theodora.  There is one problem with that though.  Society more often sees weak flawed women as victims.   Flawed men, not so much.  He took advantage of her.  Flawed men as depicted in Oz are judged, but flawed women like Theodora are encircled, sympathized with, and embraced.  Circle the wagons...

Actually given that she hero worships him even before deciding she was in love with him, she pretty well set herself up for a crash even if there are no hookups. Oz is bound to let her down eventually, even if he isn’t deeply flawed.  LOL< I am so tempted to talk political figures here, but I won't.  Theodora is shown to have a seriously under-developed social skills set of tools.  No doubt about it.  As unrealistic as she is, I agree that he will let her down.

Look at his relationship with Glenda, she too has extremely high expectations of him when they first meet, and he lets her down also. But she doesn’t fly into a rage, she doesn’t bite the apple to become evil, she shames him a bit and then helps him find his core of good.  Well, to be honest Glenda isn't offered the apple.  She is the healer here, the super good girl that transitions men into a good person.  Guy bad, girl vulnerable, girl a molder of men, to change them into a better person.  Interesting stereotypes...  Feeds a certain mindset IMO.

It’s “necessary” for exactly why you don’t like it. It’s a transparent stereotype that’s well understood by the audience, even a young audience, because it’s a standard Hollywood trope. How do you show a guy has character and loyalty issues in less than 5 pages of dialog? Multiple women. Add him being sorry for the hurt he’s caused (one closeup of sad face) and you’ve established he has a core of good that keeps being overridden by his bad instincts.  I'm not convinced he is ever sorry for what he has done.  Instead of revealing him to be sorry, I think they show a sour-puss face, and then him doing it all over again.  It actually reveals more of his craven nature, than a truly caring core.  At least that's how I see it.

Transparent stereotypes are very useful in movies because story telling time is short and these stereotypes can be referenced quickly, audiences are familiar with them, they give tons of fake back story for free (it only takes us 2 girls to know Oz is a ship in every port guy), and they inform us what to expect (as soon as he meets Theodora we know he’ll let her down, as soon as they hookup we know there’s a breakup coming). It’s easy story telling, not necessarily good, but it give you room for other stuff.
I agree with your thoughts here.

I would have liked Raimi (the director) to do more Raimi in the movie and less Disney. But Disney was paying the bills, and given the money it made their decisions were right, even if it made the movie kind of disappoint me.
I couldn't comment on that.  I don't follow directors much, so I couldn't comment on his other films unless I looked them up.  I was ultimately left wanting a bit more.  I don't weigh the things I touched on here as a make it or break it facet on the movie over all.  They are simply observations, my consideration for how these stereotypes impact young minds.  I think most people will like the movie, but I do think they could have done better.  Can't put my finger on it exactly though.

Thanks for the discussion.

[1010RD]

Lucas runs a toy company that advertises via movie releases. Spielberg’s dumb as a rock if he thinks movie theaters will survive the next decade. They’re mostly empty.

[GeronL]

bump

[1010RD]

You’d better either raise your standards or watch it again. Oz is a terrible movie and one that continues to send the wrong message to everyone.