1294 replies to this topic

[indy4]

I suspect this is has more to do with the economy being bad than anything else.

I agree. Taking a look at his most recent films, they've been able to earn a lot of money at the BO.

I'm dissapointed, because I doubt this'll be replaced by a new JW score. At this point, I don't really care too much WHAT movie JW is scoring, just that he's scoring a movie that will be released in the near future. Of course I would prefer him to be scoring popcorn fluff, but I would have settled for a historical drama quite contently. Let's hope Indy 5 or Interstellar replaces this.

[Koray Savas]

Munich is an emotional powerhouse of a score.

Woo hoo! 3 Munich fans on the board:

Jeshopk
Koray
Merkel

[Henry Buck]

Of course I would prefer him to be scoring popcorn fluff, but I would have settled for a historical drama quite contently.

Haha...

[Wojo]

When did Spielberg stop making movies for the fans and start making them for the art critics, movie critics, and awards shows? Indy IV was meant to be for the fans, but it got perverted by post 1997 George Lucas. Was it Schindler's List? Granted, that one was a huge success in every sense of the word, and I'm sure the people who love it do so for good reason. But did SS develop get the idea he could put his name on anything and it would become a critical success, even at the expense of being a financial one? I see movies like AI, Munich, Amistad, WOTW, and The Terminal and just wonder.

[Nick Parker]

I always thought Steven Spielberg made those "personal" films because he wanted to make them. I guess I was wrong....

[Joe Brausam]

Munich is an emotional powerhouse of a score.

Woo hoo! 3 Munich fans on the board:

Jeshopk
Koray
Merkel

Make that four!

[Nick Parker]

Hm, I rented it from the library, but I have yet to listen to it. Maybe I will do that now....

[Koray Savas]

Okay, after actually reading the article, no where does it state this film is not being made. Paramount is contemplating, they didn't say no, and if they do Disney might step up.

[Wojo]

I understand why he would make personal films. It's good, he's earned it, and he spent a lifetime of filming B-movies with A-budgets to define just what a blockbuster is.

I just wonder if the studios are tired of them and would like some mega-hit blockbusters to bring the money in in droves, and they didn't think a Lincoln movie would do it. I think if a Lincoln movie had come out NOW, around President's Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Black History Month, and that CNN list naming Abe the best president ever...that a Spielberg Lincoln movie would do better now than at year's end.

[Romão]

Munich is an emotional powerhouse of a score.

Woo hoo! 3 Munich fans on the board:

Jeshopk
Koray
Merkel

You bet. Fantastic score

And I'm totally with Peio on this one. Sigh...

[Joey]

When did Spielberg stop making movies for the fans and start making them for the art critics, movie critics, and awards shows? Indy IV was meant to be for the fans, but it got perverted by post 1997 George Lucas. Was it Schindler's List? Granted, that one was a huge success in every sense of the word, and I'm sure the people who love it do so for good reason. But did SS develop get the idea he could put his name on anything and it would become a critical success, even at the expense of being a financial one? I see movies like AI, Munich, Amistad, WOTW, and The Terminal and just wonder.

of those only War of the Worlds was a blockbuster, the other films were bombs at the US boxoffice.

Since SPR he's only had 3 films that were very successful and one marginally successful, the rest did poorly.

[Mark Olivarez]

Of course no one bothers to look at the budgets of the current films.

$230 to $317 are nice numbers in the 70's & 80's when your budgets are $7 to $40.

But when they start running $70, $134, $185......well eventually someone is going to say something. The economy just gave it a little boost.

[indy4]

A 132 million dollar profit is still a BO success (I'm talking about Indy 4 here), and let's not forget that that's not even including foreign grosses, where KotCS actually beat out TDK. Spielberg is still a BO success in recent years, just not as much as he used to be (which, as mentioned early, is partially about the economy, partially because of his modern turn towards more artistic films that may not satisfy his usual popcorn crowd, and partially because his films aren't liked quite as much as they used to).

[Jeshopk]

When did Spielberg stop making movies for the fans and start making them for the art critics, movie critics, and awards shows? Indy IV was meant to be for the fans, but it got perverted by post 1997 George Lucas.

Spielberg could have done better, but he seemed to lose interest after the Yale shoot.

[indy4]

BTW, Lincoln isn't dead yet:

So now Paramount is deciding whether it wants to make Lincoln. The decider is Brad Grey—the man the DreamWorks team treated for a long time as a mortal enemy. Paramount already passed on Lincoln a couple of years ago, citing the size of the budget. Since then, Spielberg has trimmed the cost to about $50 million. Still, this doesn't seem like an easy call: The Lincoln movie—an earnest 19th-century drama—calls to mind one of Spielberg's least commercially successful films, Amistad.

[Koray Savas]

Yeah I said that several posts ago.

[Charlie Brigden]

When did Spielberg stop making movies for the fans and start making them for the art critics, movie critics, and awards shows? Indy IV was meant to be for the fans, but it got perverted by post 1997 George Lucas. Was it Schindler's List? Granted, that one was a huge success in every sense of the word, and I'm sure the people who love it do so for good reason. But did SS develop get the idea he could put his name on anything and it would become a critical success, even at the expense of being a financial one? I see movies like AI, Munich, Amistad, WOTW, and The Terminal and just wonder.

Get over yourself, Indy IV aside, Spielberg has never made movies for the fans. That's... arrogant presumption.

Also, this is the dumbest reaction to a news story in a while. That article basically says 'Hollywood is facing the credit crunch,' not 'Spielberg no longer has any clout.' Which I think has more bearing on the studios than Spielberg, and hopefully will put an end to the current excesses of the industry.

I think comparing it with his earlier successes is a bit unfair, as the scope has changed. Back then, films like RAIDERS, E.T. and JAWS were actual event films that did not come along that often, where nowadays we have big budget films opening every week. Not to mention, as people have said, SS now gravitates towards more personal, smaller kinds of films (excepting stuff like WOTW) and historical dramas, which are never going to do particularly well as opposed to films like IRON MAN and TRANSFORMERS or even SCARY MOVIE 5. That has nothing to do with Spielberg, it's just how the movie-going public is.

[Neimoidian]

Munich is an emotional powerhouse of a score.

Woo hoo! 3 Munich fans on the board:

Jeshopk
Koray
Merkel

You bet. Fantastic score

And I'm totally with Peio on this one. Sigh...

Count me in on this one. As a matter of fact, I prefer Williams' recent serious projects (which are either good or very good) to his recent popcorn output.

[Alexcremers]

I always thought Steven Spielberg made those "personal" films because he wanted to make them.

Very good answer, Nick. That a young kid like you can put people like wojo in their place is promising.

[Luke Skywalker]

glad to know he's not got the clout he used to.

YAY! how cool.

And what if interstellar is cancelled because of this very thing? You will be happy that spielberg cannot make his way as he could in the past?

This is sad news. Even if the score had not been great (why wouldnt it, BTW), one or two cues could be excellent material.

And that just means one more dry year Williams-score wise :/


And yes spielberg has lost it... He made the 2nd top world-wide grosser movie last year.

[Maurizio]

The link Joey posted IS NOT a confirmation that Lincoln won't be made, but just a commentary about the fact the film could not be made. That's a very different thing. So, better you read closely before slanting anyone or anything.

As for the fact that there are people here who wants to decide what is better for Spielberg's and Williams' careers, well, I just make a big laugh out loud of their nonsensical posts. It's perfectly fine to dislike or even loathe anything JW and Spielberg do, but there are people here who just want to demolish everything just to bring bad feelings out of other people here and make them clash.

[publicist]

And yes spielberg has lost it... He made the 2nd top world-wide grosser movie last year.

Riding on the coattails of an established franchise.

Let's see, he produced 'Transformers', a huge hit everyone seemed to find atrocious, then he directed 'Indiana Jones 4' which not too many people found that hot, either, despite high grosses.

Gaining audience empathy was one of Spielberg's biggest talents once...now he stumbles through warmed up comic films and literal remakes with producers like Bruckheimer running circles around him. Wasn't 'Gladiator' the last really influential and trendsetting film initiated by him?

[Greg1138]

Munich is an emotional powerhouse of a score.

Woo hoo! 3 Munich fans on the board:

Jeshopk
Koray
Merkel

You bet. Fantastic score

And I'm totally with Peio on this one. Sigh...

Count me in on this one. As a matter of fact, I prefer Williams' recent serious projects (which are either good or very good) to his recent popcorn output.

Count me in too - I have stuck up for this score on many occasions.

[Mr. Breathmask]

(Update: A knowledgeable source told me on Wednesday that Paramount has passed on Lincoln.)

We should probably wait for a clearer statement before reporting this as final news though.

[Jacob]

... I recommend opening your heart meridian using internal QiGong.

[Blumenkohl]

Whoa whoa whoa whoaaaaa! Let's stop throwing $185 million profit around kids! If you don't know Hollywood accounting don't go there.

Let's do an example: Speaking in happy movie box office language The Dark Knight churned out a profit. A BIG profit. It made $1bn worldwide.

But you see happy movie box office language is sort of like saying "Being run over by an 18-wheeler doesn't hurt."


Financially speaking, after foreign printing,foreign shipping, foreign advertising, foreign currency exchange, foreign localization, taxes, tariffs, loans, and contractual pay outs (in the USA theater chains don't turn much/any profit off movies, this is why we have concessions. Abroad, theater chains make upwards of 60% of whatever the movie makes at their chain), and so on The Dark Knight brought in about $440 million for Time Warner. $440 million. That's it.

And I haven't even sliced out the budget yet and US marketing yet.

The quarter in which The Dark Knight came out was a NET LOSS of profit for Time Warner. The Dark Knight was a small source of profit, but financially speaking, the highest grossing movie of this decade is...well small fries.

Generally speaking, box office gross is completely useless money financially speaking, because the margins for films these days are always upwards of 100%. This means that the effective cost of making movies is GREATER than the movie's income.

It's home video and television and merchandising that actually turn viable profits in the movie business. And let's face it, no one is going to go out and buy an Abe Lincoln action figure.

[Drax]

Might be more financially sound to get creative with movies by making them for no more than $100 million, or someone stingy like me, for no more than $75 million. If the blockbusters make the same amount that a hit like The Dark Knight made last year, then Hollywood will be swimming in money, with more to eventually play around with. Enough with these over-priced $250 million money drains.

[Nick Parker]

Would an Abraham Lincoln biopic really have all too much of a bugdet?

[Mark Olivarez]

One of these days some studio is going to look at Steven and say, "you know Steve you're making hits but we're not seeing the same returns. The studio feels we need to step in and make some changes to your film. Dump Williams and get some more contemporary hip composer and then here are some other changes...." etc etc etc


That is why I say what I say.



Frankly I'd rather see Spileberg take the reigns and direct a summer "B" film like Transformers.

[crocodile]

Would an Abraham Lincoln biopic really have all too much of a bugdet?

Given the fact it's a historical biopic, with lots of sets and costumes...

Karol

[Mark Olivarez]

Well he supposedly got the budget down to $50 million but will the return still be high enough?





This could turn out to be a blessing though, maybe Hollywood will start looking harder at how they are spending their money and start putting a better effort into finding material to make.

Or it could go the opposite way and they start churning out more crap that makes a quick buck.

[Blumenkohl]

This could turn out to be a blessing though, maybe Hollywood will start looking harder at how they are spending their money and start putting a better effort into finding material to make.

Hehe, that's a perfect world, read on.

Might be more financially sound to get creative with movies by making them for no more than $100 million, or someone stingy like me, for no more than $75 million. If the blockbusters make the same amount that a hit like The Dark Knight made last year, then Hollywood will be swimming in money, with more to eventually play around with. Enough with these over-priced $250 million money drains.

And you'd be completely right. And you know what? Right now as you stand discussing this topic with me, you could be one of the top number crunchers/analysts/advisers for the big movie studios. You're at least on par if not way ahead of them right now.

About three years down the road, the big movie studios are going to throw millions of dollars at some survey and they'll go "Hmmm it turns out the audience likes these smaller movies more! And they seem more cost effective!" "And by golly, you know what? There's word that some Columbus fella' just found India!"

I don't know if any of you have ever worked with a corporation but you know away from the mothership/headquarters, so a local branch of one. There's an old saying, that to the people at HQ, America still hasn't been discovered. It's just a fact of the corporate world. The people at the center don't generally get it. They have the bigger picture figured out, but at the cost of their practical sense. It's a part of life, the bigger a perspective you get, the more of the details escape you.

The heads of the regional theater chains (owned BY the studios) have been telling the movie studios smaller movies are more profitable for the last 10 years. Hell even George Lucas, the man who started the blockbuster fest has said that. But to them, we're still starting the Renaissance. Soon Isabella will give Columbus his ships though!

You just wait, in a couple of years they'll throw some research money and all of a sudden find out smaller movies are more profitable.

[Mark Olivarez]

Maybe you can answer this Blume, is it true KOTCS took a loss as far as domestic box office goes?

[Joey]

between the cost of production and the cost of marketing KOTCS returned a loss, that is true.

Oh and despite the title change, LINCOLN is DEAD.

Paramount, thy name is John Wilkes Booth.

[Richard Penna]

I was never really interested in it. And while I don't share Joey's fear of a new snoozefest from Williams, I have more interesting/active composers to watch out for these days.

[Luke Skywalker]

Oh and despite the title change, LINCOLN is DEAD.

And 'Raiders of the Lost ark' is Now labeled as 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of thew Lost Ark'

[Joey]

Luke you're clueless in your response.

I'm talking about my thread title being changed

[Blumenkohl]

Maybe you can answer this Blume, is it true KOTCS took a loss as far as domestic box office goes?

I don't know specific domestic information, but the movie was a small loss worldwide (including US+Canada, so there's your domestic)....so I can only imagine the domestic would also be a loss/break even. I do know that is doing fairly strong in home video, so it should bring in another $20-$30 million there, which may or may not mean they might turn a small profit from the overall project.

I do know that merchandising for Crystal Skull was sub-par.

Basically the theater side of movies has become...a big advertisement for home entertainment. It's just marketing for the DVD/Blu-Ray now days. That's where the movies break even/turn their profits.

To give you an idea how unprofitable theatrical releases tend to be...Viacom's profit turners in order of best to least:

1. Advertising
2. Rock Band
3. Home Entertainment
-
-
-
nth. Theatrical releases

[Quint]

The apparent and unfathomable glee in Joe's opening post was enough for me to make this my only contribution to the thread.

Lee - who would like to see Lincoln find a financier.

[king mark]

Williams can start writing themes for Tintin then.