Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

George Lucas To Quit Movie Business 520

CaroKann writes, "Variety is reporting that George Lucas is getting out of the movie business. Mr. Lucas laments that today's big-budget franchise films are too expensive and too risky. He believes American audiences are deserting their movie going habits permanently. Instead of making major films, Lucasfilm will instead focus on television. Lucas states that for the price of one $200 million feature movie, 'I can make 50-60 two hour movies' that are 'pay-per-view and downloadable.' Notably, he does not plan on distributing movies online, calling online distribution a 'rathole.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

George Lucas To Quit Movie Business

Comments Filter:
  • by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#16322567) Homepage Journal
    Me thinks you were part of the problem, Georgie...how much did the last three of your films cost? Yeah.
  • Re:Ho Hum (Score:4, Insightful)

    by minion ( 162631 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:01PM (#16322601)
    Everyone retires or downgrades their career. Most of us even change gears once or twice. Nothing to see, move along.
     
    Yeah, except he should have quit before Howard the Duck [imdb.com].
  • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:03PM (#16322645) Homepage

    Lower proffits.

    *rimshot*

  • by electrosoccertux ( 874415 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:03PM (#16322653)
    And lead the way towards producing movies with substance. Last I checked, his most recent blockbusters were anything but character driven. Special effects look cool once or twice, but good scripts and acting make us feel over and over again. That never gets old. _That _ is why I watch movies, and if the movie business wants to stay alive, that's what they're going to have to give us.

    George dug his own grave here, now he's lamenting he has to lie in it. I just hope he realizes it's not too late. There's always room for movies like "Walk the Line" and "Signs". Neither had awesome special effects, but they were still a joy to watch.
  • by east coast ( 590680 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:10PM (#16322827)
    Disclaimer: I am not a Star Wars fan.

    We're all tired of the prequels.

    Really? My understanding from my Star Wars loving friends was that the prequels could have been fantastic. Going into the fray they were all enthusiastic about the films. But, IMHO, it appears that it was the films themselves that killed their love for SW, not the concept of a prequel.

    Who knows, maybe Lucas' number was up... maybe him time was over. Maybe the older core of SW fans just couldn't relate. There is a thousand things that could have gone wrong. I don't think he was brought down for doing a sequel, I think he was brought down by doing bad films.

    But again, I'm not a Star Wars fan. Doubtlessly some will offset what I've said. But also consider that artists sometimes lose their focus on what once made them great artists too.
  • I for one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:11PM (#16322857)
    think this joke needs to be retired.
  • by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:15PM (#16322951)
    Actually, Lucas made the SW movies very cheaply. Phantom was only $110M and the other two were comparable. They actually came in UNDER budget... very rare for the film industry.

    What he needed to do was recoup some of that cost into other things. When you make a "blockbuster" you trash almost all the sets with in a few weeks of shooting... sets that are more detailed and cost more than most of our houses! Compare SW:TPM to SG-1 where they use simple sets, and reuse, reuse, reuse to cut costs. They made more fully decorated sets for SW:TPM than an entire season of SG-1. Then let's get started on the digital models! Again, the cost nearly as much to create as the "meatspace" models, but they aren't being REUSED in anything else! Movies are full of huge non-recurring set costs that nobody thinks about. Lucas could do 3-4 seasons of a TV show with just the leftovers/reused props/efffects from his movies.. and we'd probably like the story better too.

  • by grapeape ( 137008 ) <mpope7@kc.r r . com> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:15PM (#16322961) Homepage
    Your kidding right? You would seriously rather see Manquito or KillerCroc than something that is actually SciFi? The best SciFi original I have seen was still Ed Wood or Roger Corman worthy, i'd love to see Lucas try to up the standard. Lucas's biggest weakness is his writing, but visually I havent seen anything from him that wasnt top notch.
  • story line (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mortonda ( 5175 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:16PM (#16322979)
    Lucas states that for the price of one $200 million feature movie, 'I can make 50-60 two hour movies' that are 'pay-per-view and downloadable.'
    ... and yet still have no story line or acting. If I wrote movies that poorly, I'd be afraid to make one too. (Not that I *can* write better, but this is /., where anyone can be a critic)

    Seriously, if the special effect overshadows the story line, you've lost. The first three Star Wars were great, not because of the special effects (which were good at the time) but because of the people. Not computer generated crowds, but real people; Not a fake looking Jar-Jar, but a real actor pulling strings or whatever.

    Peter Jackson did a great job with LotR. There were lots of special effects, to be sure, but most weren't relly all that spectacular. It just that they came in second to the actual story line and acting. Gollum was believable because of Andy Serkis; Jar-Jar just looked fake, as did many other CG characters in Star Wars.
  • Re:Alas, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fishbot ( 301821 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:16PM (#16322989) Homepage
    Choice quote from the article:

    "I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas said

    In other words, he's not going to make more movies, he's just going to make loads and loads and loads of terrible TV spin-off series.

    Oh my.
  • by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:18PM (#16323015)
    Yes, it's easy to make jokes about the Prequels prompting this, except for one little thing - he made buckets of money on them.

    However, it's pretty clear that Hollywood is getting into a self-destructive cycle. Bigger movies, worse scripts, and ever-dropping returns due to too many OTHER forms of entertainment competing for your dollar. Yes, the SW Prequels and the Matrices and LOTR all made money... but in the past 7 years, how many summer mega-movies have bombed terribly? It's a much higher number, and most of them titles we don't even remember a couple years later.

    What he's advocating IS the rational move. And if he can get a few more high-profile directors to join him, he could make a real difference in the industry. (again)

    And it'd be terribly ironic (and Campbellian) that the man who basically invented the summer blockbuster would be the same man to end its death throws.

  • by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:21PM (#16323085)
    Just keep him off of SciFi, please.

    Anything he offers up has gotta be better than wrestling.
  • by openright ( 968536 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:21PM (#16323087) Homepage
    DVD(effectivly drm free),CDs,cassettes were all profitable without DRM. Copies often help the market.
    Software is/was profitable without effective DRM.
    People will buy online DRM-free content from official sites if it is available. It's quicker and cheaper (timewise) than hunting on questionable sites.

    DRM, by nature cannot be solidified.

    The current DRM model requires that DRM:
      - be secret. This means that there is bound to be many incompatible formats.
      - always changing. because the user is required to be given the decrypting mechanism to play. It is bound to be continuously broken.
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:24PM (#16323131) Homepage Journal
    There have been a lot of films even recently that have done quite well with small budgets. One of my favorites is "Lost In Translation" which only cost $14 million, and movies have been done for a lot less than that which are still spectacular. Just because Lucas cannot tell a story without that much money doesn't mean it is impossible.
  • by zulater ( 635326 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:26PM (#16323181)
    yes. sadly some of the better stuff (Dead Like Me) get canceled for stupid reasons.
  • by Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <kaboom108@bellsou[ ]net ['th.' in gap]> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:31PM (#16323265)
    Wow, Signs? You think Signs is an example of a great movie? Can I remind you Signs is about an alien invasion of Earth(A planet 75% water, with an atmosphere of water vapor) by Aliens for whom water is deadly? That's kind of like us invading a planet where Acid rains from the skies, the atmosphere is made of nerve gas, and everywhere we look theres giant pools of cyanide. I'm not one to harp on realism in movies, but the entire premise of Signs is retarded. Besides, the budget for Signs was 72 Million, which while not the $200 million blockbuster Lucas is referring to, is still a fairly large budget.
  • Did anyone RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gorehog ( 534288 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:42PM (#16323479)
    I'm perusing the comments here on slashdot about this article. And I am not really impressed by the quality of discourse on this subject.

    It seems like a lot of people are busy trying to yell at Lucas for going too heavy on the effects and not writing a good enough story. Let's say this is true, that the story writing was actually bad in the prequels (cant prove it to me though), and that the problem with it was NOT that the actors were shooting most scenes in front of a green screen and having a difficult time reacting (imagine if Dagobah had been all CG instead of an elaborate set in a London soundstage, how silly would Mark Hamill have looked then?)

    What Lucas said about ratholes is linked to his not knowing how to get paid for online distribution. It's a simple enough question if you're a filmmaker, or a musician. "How does the money get from the consumer to me?" He uses a big word...monetization. He's asking how does a producer get paid. Gotta get paid, yo. Until somone can answer that question he feels it's a rathole.

    And yeah, he's looking at the industry's current state and considering how much money and quality the Sopranos, Galactica, Lost, Firefly, Desperate Housewives, and looking back he's looking at Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction. He's realizing that low budget good stories with high quality actors are the way to go. He's realizing that people will be patient with a good story.

    Just because he called your bitorrent addcition a rathole doesnt mean he's wrong. I'm sure he's so sorry he hurt your feelings.
  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:48PM (#16323579)
    I found light sabre duels with no words and no character conflict to be pretty empty.

    Bad kung fu movies have more character conflict that Darth Maul and Mr. Master Jedi.

    That was what was great about the real #1 to #3 and what was so lacking from the new #1 to #3.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:51PM (#16323625)
    its not like he's spending more than anyone else, especially considering the intense special effects.

    You think that Lucas's ILM charges the same prices to Lucas production company as they charge to everyone else? I seem to recall a comment somewhere by Spielberg that he wished he could get access to ILM at Lucas' prices.

    Yeah, Weta did Peter Jacksons movies but not sure they have the client base that ILM has.

  • by boyfaceddog ( 788041 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:52PM (#16323643) Journal
    Lucas NEVER does ANYTHING without wieghing the profits first. If he calls internet distribution a rathole, you can bet your house he's signed a mega-million dollar deal with a distribution house. When the Dist. House starts sending his material down the 'Net, you can be sure he'll recant along the lines of "the internet is much more mature now".
  • by burtman007 ( 771587 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:52PM (#16323655)
    > "What mirror universe deems a $110M production to be cheap?"

    One that makes over $320 Million profit?

    http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross [imdb.com]

  • by FriedDylan ( 859163 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @01:07PM (#16323911)
    I for one deny that claim- there's no way he's to be considered a decent writer. His strength is in the vision but not the telling of a story. He might have good connections for effects here and there but the substance is all over the board- how else do you explain the backwards (no, backwards is a solid direction)... HAPHAZARD StarWars "saga". A this isn't Memento, George.. Tell us about the laser sword knights and blaster toting robots IN ORDER from beginning to end.. Don't supply us with crappy timelines and forgettable plug and pray style twists and turns. He's insulted our intelligence long enough- and like cavemen we sat and watched him flick his Bick completely amazed. So long George!!
  • Get with the times (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SnapperHead ( 178050 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @01:07PM (#16323921) Homepage Journal
    Hollywood needs to wake up. Yes, people are losing interest in movies for a long list of reasons.

    1) Expensive. Not just the ticket cost, but the cost of food is unbearable now.
    2) Less on story, more on special effects. Don't get me wrong, I really love special effects. But, there are a ton of movies with nothing BUT special effects, the plot is just trash.
    3) Cell phones in movies really drive me nuts.
    4) People who won't STFU in movies are worse. I can't tell you the last time I went to a movie and DIDN'T have some jack off yelling, laughing with his friends, standing up, etc. The movie theaters don't do jack about it these days also.
    5) I am not amused about going to a movie, and hainvg to sit through 2 coke commericals, 4 car commericals, 2 fandago commericals, 1 about the snack bar, 1 about not using your cell, 2 commericals about the internet being evil and then, we finally get to the previews. The previews are my favorite part of the movie experience. Now, I am so annoyed by this point I can't even enjoy them.
    6) Movie studios are tossing out good movies, and replacing it with quick easy to make movies that can line their pockets with quick green cash.
    7) The bathrooms are like the bathrooms in Grand Central station. You don't wanna use them.

    Looking at all the above, I can very well see why people want to download movies (legal or illegal). Personally, I would rather wait till I can buy the DVD, or download it from iTunes or what not. I have a very extensive DVD collection of well over 500 DVDs. In the past 5 years, I think I have seen 8 movies in the theater vs the few hundred DVDs I have purchased.

    Hollywood now reminds me of what the postoffice was crying about when E-Mail first started to become popular. Then will learn to adapt, or be crushed and put out of business along the way.

    Ok, so now that that is out of the way. On to George Lucas quiting the movie business. Good, its time. I enjoyed the last Star Wars, he should leave now while he made a good movie. If he tries to stay around, things will go down hill very fast. Steven Spielberg is a good example of this, that bastard should have quit a long time ago. His movies now are trash.

  • by CyberLord Seven ( 525173 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @01:18PM (#16324103)
    George Lucas did NOT invent the summer blockbuster. Steven Spielberg did with Jaws in the summer of 1975. Hollywood was dying up to that point with films like "A Bridge Too Far" and that "Barry Lyndon" or whatever it was called movie with lots of big name stars and huge budgets. The only movies that were making money up to that time were the "Blaxploitation" movies and other low-budget films.

    Those of us who lived through those times might remember when directors were critisized for spending too much money on their films as that was seen as a sign that too much emphasis was being placed on sets, stars, and other things besides the story. I remember Steven Spielberg being interviewed on Dick Cavett. When asked about the budget for his upcoming movie (ET: The Extraterrestrial), he was reluctant to talk about it because he feared some complaints and he gave the humorous example of using a multi-colored bedspread and being critisized for production values that were too high.

    What George Lucas did give us was the dreaded sequel. Give him credit for that, but don't rob Steven Spielberg of credit for the summer blockbuster. Jaws had people waiting in lines around the block and dwarfed even "The Godfather". It was an impressive accomplishment.

  • by KevDude ( 115267 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @01:29PM (#16324307) Homepage
    I agree the quality of many new shows is very high, but tv series almost never have a satisfactory conclusion. They either get cancelled premeturely before they can be wrapped up properly, or they get such high ratings that the networks insist they get dragged out forever... the worst example being the X-Files. I fear Lost is heading that way too.

    I'm really surprised that no one is taking on the one season as a 16-22 hour movie format. I would think this would finally be an opportunity to make a movie with the depth of a good novel.

    To be good though, it needs a decent, well thought out conclusion.

  • by mmell ( 832646 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @01:34PM (#16324391)
    First - lots of people plunked down their hard-earned to see this guy's work, especially since "Star Wars, Episode IV - A New Hope". I see a lot of people here unhappy with the Star Wars franchise, but hey - what did you expect? "Star Wars, Episode IV - A New Hope" was a virtually plotless hunk of drivel, and exactly what I went to the theater to see. Not an epic saga, not thought-provoking drama, not comedy - I wanted a really cool light show so that I could suspend disbelief.

    Second - While the "Silver Screen" and its smaller relative "The Tube" have some differences (format, resolution, audio quality and the overall environment), they are essentially the same thing - moving pictures with speech. Now, in terms of cost to produce product, quality of product, ease of delivery to target audience . . . "The Tube" wins hands-down, especially with the coming implementation of digital transmission, HDTV, etc.

    FInally - Mr. Lucas has shown great savvy in the past, demonstrating that he has an excellent grasp of the nature of his profession (his fame and bankbook are adequate proof of this assertion, I think). I've heard of George Lucas - the same cannot be said of his many critics here. There's a point in there somewhere: disinterring it is left as an exercise for the reader. I don't believe he would have his current ambivalence toward internet distribution of his work if there were a clear path for him to profitably ply his trade there.

  • Re:Alas, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by honkycat ( 249849 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @02:26PM (#16325211) Homepage Journal
    True, though I know plenty of people (myself included) who thought they sucked, knew in advance they would suck (especially after the first two), but went anyway. Why? Because they'd been waiting almost 20 years to see the rest of the series. It was just something they had to do. Actually, I didn't think the first one was *that* bad, but I very nearly abandoned the whole thing after the second. (I wish I had).

    Anyway, I don't have any interest in anything else that George Lucas would do. If he wants me to go see something else he does, it will have to sell itself on its merits. If he puts out a shit movie that isn't a Star Wars, people just won't be interested. They want to see Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi, not George Lucas.
  • American Graffiti? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @02:31PM (#16325295)
    There's a difference between what someone CAN do and what someone CHOOSES to do.
  • I have no idea why you would like lost in translation so much. There was nothing really going no there. Famous guy goes on business trip, finds hot lady, doesnt sleep with hot lady, and then goes home to his family. Whoo boy let me tell you, I was glued to the screen....
  • by Troy Baer ( 1395 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @03:56PM (#16326721) Homepage
    suppose Lucas permitted Joss Whedon to create the Star Wars tv show?

    A friend and I were discussing George Lucas' skill (or, more accurately, lack thereof) at writing dialogue and thought the same thing. Lucas has a knack for coming up with good stories, but lousy dialogue; his best movies have been where somebody like Lawrence Kasdan wrote a script from his story. Whedon's probably the best dialogue writer I can think of off the top of my head, and he appears to be a huge Star Wars nerd (eg. regarding how reading The Killer Angels led to Firefly: "This led me to the Millenium Falcon, as most things do."). Heck, half of Firefly's charm was that it was basically Star Wars without all the Jedi stuff that ended up being the focus of the prequels. (The other half of Firefly's charm had everything to do with Kaylee...)

    Of course, given that both Lucas and Whedon appear to be control freaks of epic proportions, it'll probably never happen.

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...