 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 4, 2013 - 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Is Spielberg sour over Tintin's reception, or is Lucas about Red Tails?
These guys are the ones who created the predicament. The only ones who get the envision the future and accomplish it are the ones who go against the grain -- something Spielberg hasn't done since Munich and Lucas hasn't done since The Empire Strikes Back.
Well, Tintin was really terrific for me, and it actually did do incredibly well, USA it did good money, and outside the US it did incredibly well:
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $77,591,831 20.7%
+ Foreign: $296,402,120 79.3%
= Worldwide: $373,993,951
This is amazing money for any picture. There is nothing for Steven to feel bad about here.
Over the life of his work Steven is a much more prolific and successful film maker.
---------------
Now Red Tails only brought in about 50 million on a cost of 58 million, so it was very much into the Red as in Red Ink. George has basically ridden on Star Wars and Indiana Jones throughout the past 35 years, two properties amassed his extreme wealth. A total of 10 films out of which perhaps 5 are genuinely good or great films, and with only one exception they were all directed by someone other than George Lucas. His prequels were pretty much digital nerd fests, very expensive, however they were profitable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 4, 2013 - 11:02 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Is Spielberg sour over Tintin's reception, or is Lucas about Red Tails?
These guys are the ones who created the predicament. The only ones who get the envision the future and accomplish it are the ones who go against the grain -- something Spielberg hasn't done since Munich and Lucas hasn't done since The Empire Strikes Back.
I would say that the mere fact that Lucas paid for the Star Wars films (starting with Empire Strikes Back) out of his own pocket, including the prequels, is as "against the grain" as you can get in the film business. Doesn't matter that they were big sci-fi spectacles, they were made with his own money, his own vision and without a committee of Hollywood execs micro-managing. That to me would be "against the grain".
Tom is right that George, despite some great financial success, is not really an inside guy. He built his own company, and ILM and THX with his own money. He made the pictures outside the union system, largely why he made them in the UK also. Despite what you may not like about his films he did his own thing for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 4, 2013 - 11:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
I agree with all of your comments, and Lucas is one of the greats to me (THX-1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars are all masterpieces and sterling examples of his potential) but I'm not here to discuss your personal opinions on Tintin, Red Tails, or how much money they made or that Lucas built his own company (a great triumph, I know it as much as you) but I'm here to talk about these guys being the root of the problem. They did such brilliant work, that they doomed the system by creating "tentpoles" and "blockbusters" and the only way out of this is to look towards the filmmakers who have no desire or need for that. Writers and directors like Shane Carruth, Amy Seimetz, Lynn Ramsay, Rian Johnson, Adam Wingard, Ti West, and even the Duplass Brothers or Rob Zombie show much more potential in this modern era and film fans should be focused on them rather than continuously shelling out bucks for another JJ Abrams movie or superhero swill. The audience is the only way out, but they have made their bed and they'll continue sleeping in it because, ultimately, Spielberg and Lucas spoiled you all when you were kids.
Typical grandparents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 4, 2013 - 12:39 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I agree with all of your comments, and Lucas is one of the greats to me (THX-1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars are all masterpieces and sterling examples of his potential) but I'm not here to discuss your personal opinions on Tintin, Red Tails, or how much money they made or that Lucas built his own company (a great triumph, I know it as much as you) but I'm here to talk about these guys being the root of the problem. They did such brilliant work, that they doomed the system by creating "tentpoles" and "blockbusters" and the only way out of this is to look towards the filmmakers who have no desire or need for that. Writers and directors like Shane Carruth, Amy Seimetz, Lynn Ramsay, Rian Johnson, Adam Wingard, Ti West, and even the Duplass Brothers or Rob Zombie show much more potential in this modern era and film fans should be focused on them rather than continuously shelling out bucks for another JJ Abrams movie or superhero swill. The audience is the only way out, but they have made their bed and they'll continue sleeping in it because, ultimately, Spielberg and Lucas spoiled you all when you were kids.
Typical grandparents.
well, as for the quality of these film makers you are referring to sure, they probably make more interesting and smaller pictures, and they are more interesting because they are not blockbusters.
The problem, though, is that Hollywood wants a huge money hit like Iron Man 3. And Iron Man 3 will easily make more money, one movie, than all of the 8 film makers combined over their entire lifetimes of making movies. Iron Man 3 is at $1.2 billion gross. Even if I knock out $600 for production and marketing and dist the studio will rake in $600 million in solid cash profit.
That is all the studio really cares about. So that is obviously why there will be another Iron Man, and more blockbusters. You can say the audience should be focused on these talented film makers you named, but frankly most of them will not be, they will be giving lots of money to blockbuster after blockbuster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 4, 2013 - 6:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tom Servo
(Member)
|
I agree with all of your comments, and Lucas is one of the greats to me (THX-1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars are all masterpieces and sterling examples of his potential) but I'm not here to discuss your personal opinions on Tintin, Red Tails, or how much money they made or that Lucas built his own company (a great triumph, I know it as much as you) but I'm here to talk about these guys being the root of the problem. They did such brilliant work, that they doomed the system by creating "tentpoles" and "blockbusters" and the only way out of this is to look towards the filmmakers who have no desire or need for that. Writers and directors like Shane Carruth, Amy Seimetz, Lynn Ramsay, Rian Johnson, Adam Wingard, Ti West, and even the Duplass Brothers or Rob Zombie show much more potential in this modern era and film fans should be focused on them rather than continuously shelling out bucks for another JJ Abrams movie or superhero swill. The audience is the only way out, but they have made their bed and they'll continue sleeping in it because, ultimately, Spielberg and Lucas spoiled you all when you were kids.
Typical grandparents.
well, as for the quality of these film makers you are referring to sure, they probably make more interesting and smaller pictures, and they are more interesting because they are not blockbusters.
The problem, though, is that Hollywood wants a huge money hit like Iron Man 3. And Iron Man 3 will easily make money money, one movie, than all of the 8 film makers combined over their entire lifetimes of making movies. Iron Man 3 is at $1.2 billion gross. Even if I knock out $600 for production and marketing and dist the studio will rake in $600 million in solid cash profit.
That is all the studio really cares about. So that is obviously why there will be another Iron Man, and more blockbusters. You can say the audience should be focused on these talented film makers you named, but frankly most of them will not be, they will be giving lots of money to blockbuster after blockbuster.
I was told pretty much the same thing by someone high up in the industry here... everyone wants the studios to take the $100+ million spent on a big Summer film and instead finance 6-8 small scale pictures. This could be done, but the resulting profit from each small scale picture is nowhere near what the studio can rake in from one big blockbuster that plays well worldwide. You can have 6 small scale movies, each made for $20 million for instance, and some of them might pull in $60 million. But if you have one big picture with a $150 million budget that winds up raking in $600 million worldwide... well, that is more appealing to average studio nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
