Blarg's Beefs

Lucas recently said the following according to numerous web sites:

Movie mogul George Lucas predicts Hollywood will soon start shifting away from mega-budget blockbusters in favor of making more independent films for less money. Alongside Steven Spielberg, Star Wars creator Lucas is cited as being chiefly responsible for the blockbuster phenomenon that has gripped the movie industry for the last three decades. But he now believes big-budget films can no longer be profitable and are going out of fashion, as evidenced by this year's Academy Award nominees, including independent movies Crash and Good Night, And Good Luck. Lucas tells the New York Daily News, "The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie. Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with King Kong. I think it's great that the major Oscar nominations have gone to independent films. Is that good for the business? No - it's bad for the business. But movie-making isn't about business. It's about art. In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies. I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million."

Is this guy really that stupid? How many ways can we debunk this idiotic reasoning? Let's count:

1. King Kong's gross so far stands at an estimated $519 million. Do you think King Kong has recouped its $200 million costs? And this is before DVD, cable, and other post-theatrical revenue streams. Same with War of the Worlds. And I don't think movies like Spider-Man 2 or X2 have had too many problems recouping their investment. Heck, even Pearl Harbor has made its money back and then some! So Lucas is flat out wrong when he says blockbusters can't make their money back anymore.
2. How much did Lucas spend on his little, tiny, independent Star Wars films? The budget for Star Wars Episode III is estimated at $115 million, not exactly the $15 million per film he thinks films will cost. He couldn't do it for $15 million, why does he think everyone else will?
3. "Movies aren't about business, they're about art"??! These words coming from the man who is credited with opening up movies to commercialization and product placement, when he created his Star Wars toys and made millions upon millions of dollars? These words coming from the man whose last THREE films have inarguably not been at all about art but instead about toy and videogame tie-ins? These words coming from the man who created the Jar Jar Binks character so that kids would have someone to laugh at in a movie? This man believes movies are all about art??? Sounds like a man who's made his millions and has lost touch not only with the public, but with himself and who he has become inside.
4. $15 million by the year 2025. I think with inflation, those $15 million are going to be about $7 million in today's dollars. Somehow I doubt that $7 million is going to be the "average" budget of all the fimls. Even when studios go cheap on a movie they spend more than that. For example, She's All That, a film with a cast of young teenagers who weren't making blockbuster money and a director who wasn't exactly A-list, still received an estimated $10 million budget.
5. Blockbuster movies have always had a place in Hollywood. Remember Gone With The Wind? Ben-Hur? Throughout time people have wanted to see huge spectacles, sweeping epics, big dramas, on the screen, and those types of movies cost a lot of money to make. This isn't going to change.

Once again, George Lucas shows he is an idiot who is full of himself and his own idiotic ideas. Hollywood moves in cycles. After several big-budget calamities in the past few years I'm sure a lot of studios (most notably Sony) will go into low-budget mode. But all it takes is one monster hit and blockbusters will be back again. Saying anything else is just ignoring the facts and loving the sound of your own voice a little too much.