Spielberg foresees 'implosion' of film industry

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,565
1,152
126
When you step back and look at it though, how stupid is that? The computers are doing most of the work, and a lot of the CG animation is way over the top. It almost seems like hand-drawing would be cheaper (and perhaps more memorable).

The computers are doing the rendering, not designing/creating the effects. And rendering cgi isn't cheap either.

Its the same reason game development costs continue to go up for games with bleeding edge graphics. Better graphics means more(many more) artists to make those graphics.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,770
126
It has nothing to do with that. It's just the idea of going to a theater is only tempting if there are amazing audio and visual experiences. I've got books if I want a story.

There you go, that about sums it all up, plot?,none needed. Character development?, takes away from special-effects time. Good acting?, naw, big bouncing boobs and a hefty weapon are much better.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,565
1,152
126
You're in the ever decreasing minority who still go to theaters. The rest of us have, for the most part, almost quit going. Though, i do go to the drive-in theater about every other week. $6 for two movies??! I always wonder how big theaters always claim they barely make any profit at all from tickets - when their tickets cost at least three times as much. My local drive-in is just switching over to digital projection this weekend - so apparently they're doing good enough to even put capital back into their business. Must be from all the huge tubs of popcorn for $3.50.

ver 60%(anywhere between 63-66%) of the population of the US and Canada still go to the theater at least one a year with the average being slightly over 5 times a year. Ticket sales(not money, but actual number of tickets) was around 1.36billion. Down 210 million tickets from its record high in 2002.

A whole shit ton of people still go to the movies. Is it shrinking? Yes but no where near as serious as you imply it to be.
 
Last edited:

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,770
126
Lucas and Spielberg...the ones who decided to, respectively, introduce Jar-Jar Binks, and replace guns with walkie-talkies? One of them said that movies aren't being sufficiently adventurous?



And the volume is just absurdly loud, all the way down to very quiet. I was brought along to see Iron Man 3 a few weeks ago. There was just a simple ad at the start for some nature-oriented nonprofit organization. Good christ they really ratcheted the volume up just for that, for simple scenes of waterfalls and trees. Someone in the audience mockingly yelled, "Louder!!!"

Oh, and the previews at the start. They show so damn many previews, I shouldn't have to pay anything to watch the movie - their advertising department can pick up the tab.


Bleh. Give me DVDs, plus a software player that so kindly ignores the industry's dickish movie of adding "prohibited user operations." Mandatory advertising? Go to hell.




(I don't like obtrusive ads. :p)

Way back in the mid '70's they came out with a new gimmick, "Sensurround", they put huge woofer cabinets for rumbling enhancements for movies like "Earthquake" and "Midway". We were going to see a film and got in the dark theater, I saw a large box at the corner, didn't know what it was so I walked over to it, right then the preview for " Midway" came on, holy shit I about crapped myself, I hadn't heard about "Sensurround" being installed at the local theater LOL. Back in the '50's the tried a technology called "AromaRama", certain odors would be fed to the AC ducts to "enhance" the movie experience. The critics soundly thrashed this idea as tacky and most theaters didn't want to install the equipment for a handful of films that had an AromaRama "smelltrack". I always wondered if a scene were shot in a restroom would they inject imitation crap stank for that scene..
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
There you go, that about sums it all up, plot?,none needed. Character development?, takes away from special-effects time. Good acting?, naw, big bouncing boobs and a hefty weapon are much better.

That's why Die Hard was one of the best movies I've seen all year in theaters.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
ver 60%(anywhere between 63-66%) of the population of the US and Canada still go to the theater at least one a year with the average being slightly over 5 times a year. Ticket sales(not money, but actual number of tickets) was around 1.36billion. Down 210 million tickets from its record high in 2002.

A whole shit ton of people still go to the movies. Is it shrinking? Yes but no where near as serious as you imply it to be.
If the average is that high I am positive the median is WAY lower. I literally know nobody who goes that many times a year now. As a teenager I went at least once a month.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
The computers are doing the rendering, not designing/creating the effects. And rendering cgi isn't cheap either.

Its the same reason game development costs continue to go up for games with bleeding edge graphics. Better graphics means more(many more) artists to make those graphics.

The more pressing question is how the hell studios spend so much yet on visuals yet fail at something as basic as the script when it is the easiest part of the movie. *cough* Prometheus *cough*

Just like $100M+ AAA games with shitty UIs and completely dumb gameplay decisions which only consists of mere numbers and formulas that makes people go "wtf were they thinking?" like Diablo 3.
 

JimKiler

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2002
3,561
206
106
I think last year's John Carter is a pretty good example. 300M budget (thereabouts anyway) tentpole film crashes and burns with a 75M domestic gross. Globally it rakes in $290M and racks up another $20M in domestic video sales. That's even before you figure online, PPV, and other TV based revenue.

So what would have been an epic, possibly studio crippling, bomb 10 years ago becomes slightly profitable.

Funny enough i heard John Carter was a decent enough movie, just not marketed correctly.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,449
0
0
The quality of movies has dropped so much. That's the problem. I used to go to the movies all the time. Now I go 2-3 times a year. Who wants to keep watching these shitty movies for these prices?

I randomly picked a year. Decided to go to 1989. Look at the movies that came out:

Batman
Field of Dreams
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
License to Kill
Back to the Future II
Honey I Shrunk the Kids
Ghostbusters II
The Little Mermaid
Parenthood
Dead Poets Society
Born on the Fourth of July

Lets compare that to 2012

The Avengers
The Hobbit
Skyfall
Dark Knight Rises
Men in Black III
Hunger Games
Iceage IV
Amazing Spider Man
Madagaskar III
Twilight Part II

There is no comparison. None.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,757
6,635
126
The quality of movies has dropped so much. That's the problem. I used to go to the movies all the time. Now I go 2-3 times a year. Who wants to keep watching these shitty movies for these prices?

I randomly picked a year. Decided to go to 1989. Look at the movies that came out:

Batman
Field of Dreams
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
License to Kill
Back to the Future II
Honey I Shrunk the Kids
Ghostbusters II
The Little Mermaid
Parenthood
Dead Poets Society
Born on the Fourth of July

Lets compare that to 2012

The Avengers
The Hobbit
Skyfall
Dark Knight Rises
Men in Black III
Hunger Games
Iceage IV
Amazing Spider Man
Madagaskar III
Twilight Part II

There is no comparison. None.

I enjoyed most moves from both of those lists.
 

OlafSicky

Platinum Member
Feb 25, 2011
2,364
0
0
The more pressing question is how the hell studios spend so much yet on visuals yet fail at something as basic as the script when it is the easiest part of the movie. *cough* Prometheus *cough*

Just like $100M+ AAA games with shitty UIs and completely dumb gameplay decisions which only consists of mere numbers and formulas that makes people go "wtf were they thinking?" like Diablo 3.
I don't get that one either all you need is a pencil and a piece of paper total cost $3 for a movie they spend 100mil + on. If anyone has an answer I would love to hear it.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,372
1,881
126
I think we are now at a good period for indie/art films. I have seen many great movies over the last decade or so. The cost entry level for filmmaking is lower now that it has ever been before.