Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Alas, (Score:5, Funny)

    by acvh ( 120205 ) <geek@m s c i g a r> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @11:58AM (#16322523) Homepage
    Three movies too late.
    • Re:Alas, (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nos. ( 179609 ) <andrew&thekerrs,ca> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#16322579) Homepage
      I sense a disturbance... as if a million voices suddenly cheered all at once.
    • 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.
    • Re:Alas, (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:24PM (#16323135)
      Time to stop watching TV and start going to movies again! :)
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @11:58AM (#16322529)
    Instead of making major films, Lucasfilm will instead focus on television.
    Praise the gods. Just keep him off of SciFi, please.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by GotenXiao ( 863190 )
      I'm all for him if he funds (note; FUNDS. No control over end result) another few series of Firefly ^^
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by grapeape ( 137008 )
      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.
    • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by digitizit ( 836711 )
      Keep him off SciFi? As if that channel could get any worse.
  • by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @11:59AM (#16322541)

    Wouldn't that make all of us rats then? Is that a bad thing?
  • You should have quit while you were ahead, dude.

    Wait, he's going to keep making stuff? Aw, crap.

  • by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#16322567) Homepage Journal
    Me thinks you were part of the problem, much did the last three of your films cost? Yeah.
    • 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.

    • Me thinks you were part of the problem, much did the last three of your films cost? Yeah.

      It's hard to tell this early, after all he's only released them once so far. Maybe after the 3D versions you'll be able to get a good estimate of how much they cost to make overall.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 )
      Meesa admire himsa for taking big-big riskas though.
  • by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311@yahoo.GAUSScom minus math_god> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#16322571) Homepage
    Once you've spent $100 million on a movie... ...what exactly do you get for the SECOND $100 million you spend?
    • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:03PM (#16322645) Homepage

      Lower proffits.


    • by thelost ( 808451 )
      publicising it.
    • by thrillseeker ( 518224 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:03PM (#16322659)
      Once you've spent $100 million on a movie... ...what exactly do you get for the SECOND $100 million you spend?

      An actor that likes to jump around on the furniture?
    • The first $100 Million pays for the movie and the next probably goes right into someones bad habits (or poor business sense).

      And if your very lucky you can make a down payment on the next rehab...
    • by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:14PM (#16322923) Homepage
      actually lucas himself is not known for mega bucks movies

      attack of clones 120 million
      revenge of the sith 113 million

      king kong 207 million
      alexander 155 million
      final fantasy 137 million
      pirates of the carribean 143 million
      pearl harbour 132 million

      its not like he's spending more than anyone else, especially considering the intense special effects.

    • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:43PM (#16323503) Homepage Journal
      More explosions, mostly.

      Explosions are really, really expensive. A film crew is the size of a mid-sized company. Sit through the credits some time, and see the names of the script girl and the second second assistant director and the backup plasterer. Each camera takes several people (camera operator, loader, focus puller, and sometimes more), and for an explosion you're going to have to catch it from several angles because otherwise all that work ends up as only a fraction of a second of screen time. They call cost money, not just in salary but in insurance, craft service, studio rental, the rental of the camera equipment they're holding, etc.

      And every single one of them is sitting around while the explosives rigger is making 200% certain that none of them get hurt when the explosion goes off. And another 200% certain that the explosion is going to do the right thing the first time, because otherwise you'll have to start from scratch.

      It's literally tens of thousands of dollars to make even something simple blow up. If you want something big to blow up, it'll cost you a few hundred thousand. Add a few dozen explosions into the movie, and suddenly you're talking about real money.

      If they're on location, they have to have bathrooms, and hauling a porta-john into the desert isn't cheap, either. It's not any one thing that makes it pricey. It's eight million little things.

      Plus the eight million little things that go into the digital effects (light matching, wire frame artists, shading artists, data center ops, plus a studio to put them all in, usually close to the studio which means the high-rent district).

      Why bother? If you don't do all of that, your movie comes off looking cheap. Scrimp on the continuity girl, and the lack of continuity becomes glaring to the audience. It works for indie movies, which the audience expects to look cheap, but your summer blockbuster is going to look corny, and audiences won't enjoy it if it looks corny.

      Lucas figures that the small screen is cheaper. The low resolution means that makeup that used to take two hours now takes only half an hour. Sets are built to a far lower level of detail; even where the audience can see the difference [e.g. Firefly vs. Serenity] you have lower expectations. (It used to be that you could save money shooting with three cameras rather than one, which means you can do in one take what used to take three, but these days quality dramas are usually shot movie-style with just one camera.)

      It can all be done cheaper than it is. As in any organization a lot of money goes to waste between the cracks. Better organization means less wasted time and unnecessary equipment, but it's like at your office: you have a spare printer or ethernet cable sitting around not doing anything. It cost money to buy, but if you need it you'll be glad you have it, especially if the lack of it drives the entire company to a standstill. When those resources are people, though, it gets pricey fast.
  • I felt... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tx ( 96709 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#16322587) Journal
    ... a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of sequels cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
  • by cyclomedia ( 882859 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#16322589) Homepage Journal
    I think a general move away from Movies to TV Series's is a Good Thing. Don't get me wrong, I still think some stories will always work well when told over ~2 hours but think about The Lord of The Rings, for example. Could that have worked better as 13 1 hour episodes (on dvd, sans adverts!) or even 24 1 hour episodes? giving the viewer the opportunity to skip the (Two Towers Extended Edition equivalent) Faramir ep entirely if they like, allowing the director and producers the chance to span the three books better and such like. I probably think so, note I'm not talking traditional TV Series here, there would never ever be a LOTR season 2, for example, but so long as the production values (and therefore costs) were suitably high i see no reason why The Hobbit couldnt come out, not as a 3 hour film, but as a 6 part miniseries ... so long as the "marathon" option is available on the $NextGen DVD release for the nutters amongst us (myself included)
    • by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:07PM (#16322781) Homepage Journal
      On a very special episode of "Those Hairy Hobbits," Merry and Pippin disclose a long-kept secret relationship.
    • by dmomo ( 256005 )
      Sounds good, but I think one problem with the idea in the "Hobbit" case would be the time restriction. If they made a 6 part mini-series, the entire film would have to be divided into 6 40-1hr chunks. They would all have to end reasonably. Even if there had to be no cliff hanger, scenes would have to be editted such that they did not end mid-dialogue. For something like the Hobbit, this would not be acceptable. It would lead to a product that is not true to the book. This isn't to say that our viewing
    • In Latin America many of the most popular TV shows are never meant to last year after year. They have a story arc that they are going to tell and they are progressing to that particular end. If the show is popular they might add more filler in the middle, if it isn't they might trim it, but it was born in order to die. This is very liberating for the writers because they can kill characters off or have them get married without worrying about the long term consequences for the show, since it is going to e
  • by richdun ( 672214 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:01PM (#16322613)

    '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.'"

    I haven't been more confused since, well, about five minutes into Episode 1.

  • What about the next 3 Star Wars films? He could keep the "machine" moving forward and make three more. We're all tired of the prequels. Get someone else to direct the next three films, and he can spend $200M on each.

    50 TV series! Bring back Firefly! He can spend his money there...and be a silent backer...ok, maybe not.
    • 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.
  • 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 Kaboom13 ( 235759 ) <> 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.
  • ...we find out that actually, the movie business is quitting Han So... erm George Lucas.
  • He'll stop dickering around with whether Han Solo fired first or not? Or coming out with a revised Star Wars DVD box set every few years?
  • Still (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ravenscall ( 12240 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:04PM (#16322693)
    I have a bad feeling about this.
  • He called it "a" rathole, not "that" rathole. And he's right, for the moment.

    Until all the DRM gets solidified (and legal downloadable larger-studio content won't happen without DRM, regardless of what anyone says) and the bandwidth to pull down large files reachs a larger share of the American populace I wouldn't waste my time either.
    • Until all the DRM gets solidified (and legal downloadable larger-studio content won't happen without DRM, regardless of what anyone says) and the bandwidth to pull down large files reachs a larger share of the American populace I wouldn't waste my time either.

      DRM is a pipe dream that will never happen. I happen to agreen with Bruce Schneier's views on DRM: []

      The reason we're seeing this -- and this is going to be the norm for DRM systems -- is that DRM is fundamentally an impossible problem. Making it wo

  • by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:05PM (#16322729) Journal
    is truly inflammatory. It is horribly taken out of context, which makes you wonder if the submitter works for mainstream media because they love taking things out of context. The quote goes: We're trying to find out exactly where the monetization is coming from. We're not interested in jumping down a rat hole until such time as it finally figures itself out.

    He is saying, "We do not want to rush into this and have the method we chose to enter the online realm explode on us." Online movie distribution is in its infancy. We have already seen the Wal-Mart/iTunes debacle. He is simply making a methaphorical statement to describe that they are being cautious, but he does not openly say, "Online distribution is a stupid."

    So, this one again proves that you must always RTFA.
    • So, in other words, mainstream media is a rathole. I agree. In fact, I like the way the word "rathole" rolls off the tongue so much. that I'm going to call everything "rathole" today. I'm glad he used that word, even if it was taken out of context.
    • Exactly! I would mod up if I had points. He's using the term "rat hole" to describe online distribution as untested territory. He doesn't think it's bad, and doesn't eliminate the possibility of using it at a later date, he just doesn't want to jump in too early and get burned.
  • '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.'"

    Don't worry Mr. Lucas, the guys here at BitTorrent got you covered!
    • by DrDitto ( 962751 )
      Don't worry Mr. Lucas, the guys here at BitTorrent got you covered!

      And you wonder why content creators like Lucas call on-line distribution of movies a "rat hole". This is exactly why they want and need DRM technologies.
  • Well that's somewhat hypocritical. What Lucas never seems to understand is that part of the charm of Episode IV was its relatively low budget production. Great movies don't need to be made with massive budgets. In fact all of the expensive computer graphics lowered the quality of Episides I-III. Concentrate on what makes a great movie: a great story. He seems to feel there are only 2 choices for movies he'd want to make, huge budget or no movie at all. Well if he only plans on spending a huge budget o
  • Yes, the movie marketplace is glutted with a lot of pseudo-scifi action films. The spectacular success of the first Star Wars trilogy was a large part of that happening.

    It's interesting to hear him say this, and it will be interesting to see if he really means it. However, since I think George's point of view hasn't touched down on earth in a few decades, I dont think what he has to say really has much bearing on reality.

  • Thank God! George Lucas really lost his way a while back. Obviously he still hasn't found it. He thinks that a big budget film is all about spending money on special effects and forgets that they story telling part is important too. There was even a Simpson's episode where they made fun of Lucas. Considering he voiced himself, he should have taken a hint. The last few films Lucas did left a lot to be desired because the plot and acting just seemed ho hum. Never mind the fact that making set of movies where
  • Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
  • by jchenx ( 267053 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:13PM (#16322917) Journal
    My wife made an excellent observation the other day. Anyone else notice that TV shows seem to be far better than the movies that have come out recently? Last year, ABC's Lost and Desperate Housewives dazzled many viewers (ourselves included). This year, I've been really impressed by NBC's Heroes and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The writing has been quite good, although some may argue that it does degrade over time. Not to mention lots of the great shows on HBO, Showtime, and some of the excellent comedies that have come and gone (Arrested Development comes to mind). And keep in mind that most of these are original shows. TV is in a far better situation than it used to be just a few years ago, when everything had to be a "reality TV show".

    This is in comparison to movies, where it seems like everything is a sequel nowadays, or some book->movie or TV->movie or game->movie port.
    • Stupid > tag ..
    • As crazy and unbelievable as it can get, "24" is still more fun than most action/thrillers to hit theaters these days.

      As for gritty crime drama, "The Shield" pwns all.

      Stuff like Family Guy and Adult Swim and similar shows are orders of magnitude funnier than most "comedy" films.

      And then there's Battlestar and the Stargates, although Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" is heading to theaters soon.

  • Care to guess what it is?

    Yep, []
  • 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.
  • I can make 50-60 two hour movies . . .

    Are those the originals or does that number include the special editions, extreme special editions, and hyper extreme special editions? [ducks]

  • 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 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.

  • He says "I think the secret to the future is quantity," he says, and says "I can make 50-60 two-hour movies" for the $200 million cost of a Star Wars epic.

    Now, it's possible to make good films on a low budget, but I doubt that it's possible to crank them out _quickly._ I have the idea he is not talking about 50-60 "American Graffittis" or 50-60 "Easy Riders" or 50-60 "CSA: Confederate State of Americas" or 50-60 "Wordplays" or even 50-60 "Kukla, Fran and Ollies."

    Somehow I think it will be more like 50-60 "C

  • Well, a lot of people have posted some good mockery of Lucas now. But, even though there's enough and it's gotten old, I'm going to come along some time later and post MORE mockery, mockery that's increasingly silly and boring and actually undermines your memories of the original, quite good, mockery.

    And, uh, that was it.

    Seriously, though, I think his remarks only go to show what was obvious anyway -- like much of Hollywood, he doesn't understand that people are more willing to pay for _good_ movies than f
  • > Variety is reporting that George Lucas is getting out of the movie business.


    > Instead of making major films, Lucasfilm will instead focus on television.

  • I sense another Star Wars series coming soon... imagine Episode Two meets Dawson Creek.
  • Notably, he does not plan on distributing movies online, calling online distribution a 'rathole.

    Translation: "Online distribution. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
  • When does Wookie Christmas 2 come out? In time for this holiday season? Can't wait!
  • 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.
    • There's a difference between what someone CAN do and what someone CHOOSES to do.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Durrok ( 912509 )
      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....
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Um, I think you missed the point. To me(and I could be wrong, this is just my own interpretation) it wasn't really a "love" story, it was more a story about self-discovery vis-a-vis the other. Whether the "other" be a completely alien culture in a new land with an unfamiliar language or someone from a different generation. They discovered more about themselves by changing their environments whether they wanted to or not, challenging themselves to do something different, to at least temporarily escape the
  • Lucas states that for the price of one $200 million feature movie, 'I can make 50-60 two hour movies
    ...or, more talented writers and directors for the mere price of a few hours of TV one can make a really damned good feature SciFi movie - Serenity, for example, and there are others.

    Lucas has way too much money and not enough ideas. The format, be it TV or Features, won't change that.
  • LOST, on Dagobah.

    Yoda : "Statue inside what this is?" ...

    Yoda : "On cliff stuck Jedi plane Hmmmmm..." ...

    Apologies Jedi Masters... Native language mine Yoda speak not is.
  • Yeah, yeah, don't let that light sabre hit you on the ass on your way out...

    Seriously, though, I'd love to see more (at one time, at least) gifted directors do this. I've been thinking lately that a lot of series/miniseries on TV I enjoy a lot more than the relatively limited "two hour experience". In a miniseries, they have the luxury of time to develop the characters, etc. Some examples: HBO Deadwood, the A&E "Hornblower" adaptations, hell, the TV series Lost is excellent, which is basically a seria

  • 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.
  • Thank god (Score:3, Funny)

    by I Like Pudding ( 323363 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @12:46PM (#16323557)
    I tagged this "thinkofthechildren".
  • 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 MarkGriz ( 520778 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @01:41PM (#16324523)
    * 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.
    * 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.'

    And in summary... "Screw you guys, I'm going home"

The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.