f13.net

http://www.variety.com/VR1117951284.html
 
 
George Lucas has a message for studios that are cutting their slates and shifting toward big-budget tentpoles and franchises: You've got it all wrong.
The creator of "Star Wars," which stamped the template for the franchise-tentpole film, says many small films and Web distribution are the future.

And in case anyone doubts he means it, Lucasfilm is getting out of the movie business.

"We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature film thing, because it's too expensive and it's too risky.

"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas told Daily Variety. "Because that's where it's going to end up."

Lucas spoke to Daily Variety after the groundbreaking ceremony for the for the renamed School of Cinematic Arts at USC.

He gave $175 million -- $100 million for endowment and $75 million for buildings -- to his alma mater. But he said that kind of money is too much to put into a film.

Spending $100 million on production costs and another $100 million on P&A makes no sense, he said.

"For that same $200 million I can make 50-60 two-hour movies. That's 120 hours as opposed to two hours. In the future market, that's where it's going to land, because it's going to be all pay-per-view and downloadable.

"You've got to really have a brand. You've got to have a site that has enough material on it to attract people."

He said he's even discussed this with Pixar's Steve Jobs and John Lasseter.

"If you don't do very many movies, and you're really lucky, and you really know what you're doing, you can get away with it. But you know at some point you're going to lose a game."

Lucas said he believes Americans are abandoning the moviegoing habit for good.

"I don't think anything's going to be a habit anymore. I think people are going to be drawn to a certain medium in their leisure time and they're going to do it because there is a desire to do it at that particular moment in time. Everything is going to be a matter of choice. I think that's going to be a huge revolution in the industry."

That doesn't mean Lucasfilm is diving into online distribution, though. "Having had a lot of experience in this area, we're not rushing in," he said. "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."

Nor is Lusasfilm's exit from features instant or absolute. "Indiana Jones 4" is still in development. "Steve (Spielberg) and I are still working away, trying to come up with something we're happy with. Hopefully in a short time we will come to an agreement. Or something," Lucas said, without a great deal of enthusiasm.

Lucasfilm also is working on a film about the Tuskegee airmen of World War II called "Red Tails."

"I've been working on that for about 15 years," he said, adding he's also been working on "Indy 4" for 15 years.

And Lucas Animation does plan to start making feature films -- eventually.

"Right now we're doing television, which looks great. I'm very very happy with it," he said of his animation division. "And out of doing the animation, we're getting the skill set and the people and putting the studio in place so we can do a feature. But it's probably going to be another year before we have the people and the systems in place to do a feature film."

Lucas admitted the big-budget strategy has done well for him in the past, but, "We're not going to do the $200 million investments."

He calls himself "semi-retired" but reiterated his plans to direct, "small movies, esoteric in nature," after his other projects are launched. He expects to serve as exec producer on the two features and the TV shows, including a live-action "Star Wars" skein.

At the USC groundbreaking, Lucas was honored amid canon-shots of confetti and fanfares from the USC Marching Band for his gift, the largest in the school's history.

Other bizzers in attendance included Lucas pals Robert Zemeckis and Spielberg.

Lucas said the gift is intended to set an example for the rest of the entertainment industry, as well as other universities.

"In a lot of industries, the people in the industry give a lot of money to the schools that produce the people who are their employees," he said, pointing to the auto industry as an example. "The film industry doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic about that idea. I'd love to see the industry do more."

"As self-interest, it's good to have the best trained people working for you. And the best trained people come from film school.

"The world of moving images hasn't had a lot of respect (in academia)," said Lucas. "But it's the major form of communication in the 21st century."

This $175 million, he said, is meant to "put other universities on notice that this is an important discipline that needs to be fostered."

I'm pretty sure that good movies can still make money.

It's the shitty ones that do poorly.

Except sometimes the exact opposite happens.

Hm.

He's going to hire writers for the new stuff, right?

So, we'll be getting star wars easter, fourth of july, holloween, mother's day, father's day, thanksgiving, and valentine's day special in addition to the holiday special? Quantity over quality, remember...

Oh, and Lucasarts, the development studio is tanking like a motherfucker. Mass exodus. People don't want to move. Anyway, ya, Lucas sucks wind. TV is a big fucking error for him unless he hires, ya know, people better than his giant ego.

God, I hope he gets writers.  Those Star Wars films were dreadful.  All of them.

If he's knocking the idea of "blockbuster" films, then he's a decade late. They died in the 90's (while small films got big), but they're even bigger now than they were in the 80's -- Pixar, Shrek, the Matrix Trilogy, LotR, King Kong, Spidey, X-Men, Batman, some other comics films, Pirates, historical films like Gladiator and Troy, Adam Sandler films in general, Harry Potter, and of course, the Star Wars prequels. So far, people have been happy to pay for all of these big movies.

Not the time to be prophesying doom really.

In the 90's, very few "big" films stand out. Titanic was huge, Jurassic Park was huge, Terminator 2 was huge....But then you've got a lot of smaller films like Blair Witch, Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting, Sleepless in Seattle, Se7en, and Basic Instinct -- All made good money and better define their generation than the bigger ones.

The average blockbuster attempt back then (say, for example, Point Break or Waterworld) wasn't nearly as profitable as the average blockbuster attempt today (say, XXX or 2Fast2Furious). Same goes for the average indie or small film then -- They made more cash than the ones nowadays.


As for the TV thing....

Serialized Star Wars. Yeah. Done deal. Of course he's going to make shitloads of cash. I don't see why he expects that formula to work for everyone else though -- He's the only one with the Star Wars franchise.

I don't know if doing fifty movies for $4 million each is really the way to go, but I think he's probably close to the mark in downplaying the future of the super-high budget flick.  They'll never go away completely.  There will always be someone willing to throw a pile of money behind a property like Harry Potter or whatever.  But I think the days of every Poseidon and Wild Wild West and Speed 2 getting a $200 million budget are numbered.  It's a fuckload of money to lose in one go if you turn out a turd, and also a hell of a lot of work to have gone through if all you end up doing is breaking even.

Anyway, as is well-known, I like me some Star Wars.  But here's the thing.  Star Wars is over.

I got my Episode III.  I got my Anakin versus Obi-Wan fight, Vader going under the helmet, Obi-Wan handing baby Luke to his aunt and uncle.  The end.  I had fun, and now it's finished.  If Lucas needs to beat it into the floor like Star Trek because he wants more money to throw around, well, I won't bother to watch him do it.  Star Wars is supposed to be about huge universe-changing events, and it's only supposed to come around once every few years.  Tuning in to watch As the Death Star Turns week after week is just not something I'm interested in.

Lucas is just straight-up pathetic.  Talk about pissing away promise to chase one project around your entire life.  What he did is analagous to Scorsese milking Taxi Driver for 30 years, or Kurosawa making umpteen different versions of Rashoman.

You know why they don't do that, George?  They have at least a tiny little ounce of something called integrity.

because movies are also becoming  disposable ?

*snorts* Uh huh. Lucas always intended Star Wars to be a serial. And honestly, making six movies with almost 2 decades between the trilogies isn't exactly pissing away promise. He did lots of other things between them. Not all of them were exactly successful (Howard the Duck anyone?) but he did do other things. I think his biggest mistake in that 20 years was not directing and writing anymore. He got very rusty.

But trying to bring integrity into it? Is that like saying Paramount has no integrity because they love them some Star Trek? Or whoever it is that does the Bond franchise has no integrity? The only difference is that Lucas is one man behind Star Wars. It's his baby and he stuck with it because he couldn't let it go. It's not a matter of integrity. More like a parent not wanting their child to leave the nest.

Piss and moan about the prequels all you like but don't start going overboard with all this "he wasted his life" bullshit. The man could probably buy Blizzard with his pocket change. So I think his life went pretty well.

I like Howard the Duck.

50 movies at 4 mil each shown at a reasonable time slot on TV can be expected to at least make back their 4 mil as long as they don't completely suck.  It's just a much safer investment.  You aren't relying on one directors vision, one writers talent or one casts emotional state.

If you make a bomb you are out 4 mil.  If you make a hit you probably stand to make almost as much as a very successful feature film with re-airings and syndication and dvd sales and such.

It makes sense to me.  At the moment.

The part I wouldn't count on is production costs staying in the 4 mil range.  Once you are competeing with others with the same model those costs are going to creep up and up and up.  Eventually you may even be looking at the same sort of risks they are trying to get away from.  The gambling on a major hit to pay off all the failures.

20 years from now I imagine they will be back at square 1.

Honestly, I think we could fix this $150 million to make a movie bullshit by paying actors something a bit more reasonable.

Fixed that for him.

Personally, the reason I don't go to movies is $16 tickets. I might take a risk on a passable-looking $8 film. The only thing I'd pay $16 for is a sure thing. And if I wait six months my wife and I can see it as many times as we want on DVD, for the same price.

I never go to the movies, either.  I hate everyone in the place immediately.  They're all dumbasses and go out of their way to purposely annoy me.  It's true.  I've seen them do it.  It also smells bad in there and it's never properly cleaned.  Movie theatres are dirty, germ infested, holes filled with horrible wanky smelling assholes.

You would probably enjoy them more if you spent less time sniffing the clientele and more time watching the screen... :evil:

I can't help it.  I have a very sensitive nose.

Lucas:  So yeah, we make a whole lot of movies on relatively small budgets, that way we don't lose a billion dollars the first time one goes tits-up.  So what I was thinking was...

Underling:  Hold on sir, I have a message here from the internets!

Lucas:  Whatever.  It's like five guys, all repeating over and over how much I suck, and how much some movie that ends up making like four dollars is better than everything I've ever done.  Throw it away.

Underling:  But sir, it contains a vital piece of advice on the business of making movies!

Lucas:  Fine, fine, read it then.

Underling:  Okay, here goes...  "Like instead of spreading your money between a lot of different projects, why don't you still make super-expensive movies, but only make GOOD ones!  ROFLCOPTER!"

Lucas:  Yeah, right.  Quick, get a pencil and take down a reply for me.  Ready?  Ahem...  Dear interweb.  Fuck you.  Any chance anyone was going to take your advice on movies seriously went up in smoke with that whole Snakes on a Plane thing.  And tell those two guys who voted 12000 times each to make Serenity "the most anticipated movie of the year" that I'm rofflechoptering right back at them.  In conclusion, blow me.  Love, George.  You got that?

Underling:  Yes sir!

Great, he's a rich douchebag.  Yay.  Supposedly he chose directing as his vocation, and instead of actually doing anything interesting after 1977 he rode the Star Wars money train.  This was a guy who showed some serious promise, and none of it was realized.  Does anyone remember American Graffiti?  That was really a quite decent movie, and then he follows it up with Star Wars, which is by anyone's count a pretty awesome sophomore effort.

To the best of my knowledge none of his peers sold out as thoroughly as he did, not even his closest peer, Spielberg.  Shit, Spielberg could have coasted on Jaws for a good long while but real directors try to move on to other projects.  So yeah.  Hack, pathetic, rich moneybags loser.  These are all appropriate terms for Lucas.

I somewhat agree with Lucas on this thing.

Let's face it, since Waterworld, movies HAVE gotten to expensive to make. And they haven't made better movies (see Waterworld), they've just made more EXPENSIVE movies. I mean, $150 million fucking dollars for a typical Hollywood film? That's retarded. Spastastically retarded. It is too much of an investment to put in the hands of soulless marketing fucks and the general public, which is full of a bunch of shuffling zombie-fied mongoloids who will spend $30 for 2 hours of a movie they picked out while standing in line at the theatre. And if it sucks, they tell all their other mongoloid friends and your movie shits the bed, eeking out a break-even stance on DVD if you're lucky. The sad fact of the movie biz is that despite all that upfront money on marketing and shooting and big-name actors, most movies do no better than break even at the box office; most movies are going to make their profits in broadcast and syndication rights, and DVD and pay-per-view sales. It's ridiculously high risk investments.

Meanwhile, you can have movies that cost a fraction of that and make back their budget in spades at the box office. Projects like The Blair Witch, or Kevin Smith's movies or even things like the original Matrix, which come out of nowwhere with little marketing budget and make back their budget and then some at the box office. They prove you don't have to have the huge budget or big starsto make a profit. It just has to be done right, and with a bit of luck.

BTW, one of the projects Lucas is working on for TV is a Clone Wars animation series, using 3D computer animation. Yay. If he's writing it, it'll likely suck.

Everyone's focusing on the television thing, but that's not what he's talking about.  At least not in the future sense.   He's envisioning a world where the public has abandoned movies.  They're too expensive (mentioned in this thread)  they cost too much to market (mentioned by Lucas) the movie 'experience' has been ruined by the downward spiral of the social contract (also mentioned in this thread) and movie going requires you to work around someone else's schedule (the theater's).

Home-viewing is almost to the "cheap" point on replicating the surround-sound big-screen phenom at home - so why deal with the cost, the people, and the inconvienance?  How many movies have most of you gone to in the last year?  (Myself, 2 and my co-workers who go only go to second-run theaters.)

Instead, he's seeing a 'net distro site like Youtube or your cable/ satellite provider's 'movies on demand' that holds a huge library of cheaper movies.  Smaller budgets, cheaper prices, folks more willing to take a look for $5 when they want it instead of $30 - only 4 showings starting at 5:00 because it's the second week.   

He's missing the 'how will people hear about the good ones" part.  Probably the same way you hear about good youtube videos, or rent netflix movies.

Were this anyone but Lucas, there wouldn't be so much ire from the forum.  Some cynicism, sure, but all new ideas get that. 

I know I'm already there.  A 52" HDTV and a 5.1 surround sound system have made the theaters obsolete for me.  Shit, the last movie I went to was Batman Begins.  There have been some movies that I wanted to see this year, and especially the Departed and Borat movies coming up, but I'll wait for the DVDs.  No theater jackasses to deal with, no sitting through a half hour of combined advertisements & previews, and I can drink and smoke.

A lot less headaches, a lot more enjoyment.

This all sounds awfully familiar. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8145.0)

What I'm cynical about isn't the move to TV, nor the move to alternative distribution*. Rather, I take exception to the implication of Lucas's wording. He seems to be saying that "quality" equals "expensive," and therefore he's going to shotgun a bunch of cheap projects and hope that a few of them are good. To me, this indicates that he's learned absolutely nothing about why the prequel trilogy didn't have the legs of the original.


* Though I have never downloaded a movie, nor watched anything pay-per-view (hell, I haven't even rented a movie in 4-5 years). If the proposals that currently exist don't change somehow, I can't see that changing.

Number one, I don't think he wanted to learn any lessons.  SW was his baby, and for better or worse, nobody was going to tell him how to do it.

Two, in the collective minds of the intraweb fraternity of geekdom, it might hot have "had the legs", but that it is nothing more than an opinion on the quality.  Each of the six movies in the franchise are on the list of 25 all-time top box office hits, and in no particular order.  How the prequel trilogy will stand the test of time may be a more interesting speculation, but do you honestly believe he won't manage to turn a dime on them?   How many fanbois and average fans do you think would shell out for, say, a HD or Blu-ray version?

I don't want to be argumentative, but I think people tend to measure George's success too much on their opinions of (versus expectations) what the prequel trilogy offered.  Those are fair assessments, but certainly fail to take all things into account.  The dude is practically a quadrillionaire, and he created a franchise with unimaginable staying power.  Not bad things for his resumé.

The criticism had less to do with the quality or merit of the Star Wars movies (Sorry, but fuck that. We don't need to have that discussion again), and more to do with the directions he's taken as a filmmaker (or rather, the directions he hasn't taken).

George Lucas came from the same crop of young student directors who emerged in the 60's and 70's (i.e. Scorsese, Coppola, De Palma, Spielberg), but somewhere along the way, he stopped being an actual director. He has more in common now with Walt Disney and the Kentucky Fried Chicken Colonel than he does with other filmmakers. Even Spielberg, for all the big franchise titles he's done (like Jurassic Park + Sequels), can still crank out a Schindler's List, Munich, or Catch Me If You Can. And as far as comparing Lucas to Scorsese goes -- Forget about it.

People who feel GL is supposed to care how much they think the prequels suck are forgetting how savagely (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=197859) the old movies were reviewed back in their day.  Go look.  Empire and Jedi both took it up the ass from critics worse than Phantom Menace did.  Ignoring criticism and deciding that his movies must be well-liked if people keep going to see them isn't exactly something Lucas only started doing in 1999.

Or to put it another way, given that the prequels made piles of money and generally received better reviews than the originals, why is he supposed to think he did anything wrong at all?  Because the internet says so?

I never thought I'd agree with WUA, but he is 100% on the money here.  This board, while brimming with infinite rage, is nonetheless c ynical enough that most of its members are long past their "OMG SELLOUT!11!" phase.  George Lucas is the exception, and can seemingly revert most of you to your 14 year old 1996 phase, when your first crappy band "went over to the Man."

Hey, I was 22 in '96.

How about a discussion of the substance rather than Star Wars and Lucas (again).   If it helps, pretend Gates or Jobs just said the same shit.


I'll agree the wording was very poor, because I got the same sentiment reading one of the lines.  Let me find it..
Yeah, that's the problem quote.  However, it needs to be taken hand-in-hand with this
He's not saying 'quantity over quality' necessarily. You all are implying that based on your own opinions of his work.  He's saying you need a LOT of content offered up to draw people.  Then you need to make sure you're diversified enough to cover all the various movie types.

In essence he's talking about a return to the "golden age" for movie studios.  Lots of stars instead of a handfull, and studios producing tons of movies a week instead of one or two a year.    We forget that the "golden age" produced a LOT of shitty movies because all we see these days are the classics.

The Golden Age of films was also the 40's.

War had a lot to do with it.

...

I have no idea what Triforcer is talking about. I like the Star Wars movies -- But my comments have nothing to do with that either way.

The SciFi channel is already doing this with their $1 million Saturday night movies.

Christ.  Would the extra three million really make those any better?  Did you actually watch the one with Jud Nelson in it?  I did.  The wife made me.  She's got the wets for him and even she said it sucked ass.

But I understand that. I realize that the original trilogy was fairly bad, and I judge the new series on that criterion. And by that criterion, I think Clones was okay, and Sith was actually pretty good. Yes, I enjoyed Sith. I looked forward to it on DVD. Someone may now burn me in effigy.

What troubles me about the new films is that they lack the spirit of adventure in the old films. Not in content, but in context. Somewhere George seems to have forgotten that making films can be fun. He doesn't seem to find the process of filmmaking fun anymore - limitations and obstacles must be crushed by slathering computers all over everything. Cutting back on the budget won't make his films any more fun. For that, he has to learn to relax, to not obsess over every pixel in every frame.

My phrase "don't have the legs of the original series" was carefully chosen. I know they made more money. They had more anticipation. The original movies stayed in theaters longer, and people talked about them longer. Honestly, between Clones and Sith, I didn't hear anybody in my office talking about Star Wars.

this is just such a beautiful snipit of a quote considering its source.

Perhaps in his last 3 films if he had achieved anything remotely resembling quality he might be singing a different toon?

Well, I am cynical about the move to TV. And I work in TV, or at least the Internet arm of a TV network, in the TV network's offices.

The problem is that surveys show old people are now watching more TV than young people. Young people increasingly do not want free-to-air or pay TV. It's the reverse of how it was in my youth, when young people were the big TV watchers. Investing in traditional TV is now a risky decision. Give it some interactivity or something that lends it to online or on-demand use, and you may have something. Or not, depending on how this cultural shift pans out.

Exactly. I can't belive he would even say that. What a tool.

I do believe Lucas is on his money here. The future is internet publishing, via some organ we don't know of yet. TV as we know it is dying, just look at all the reality TV thats showing up. The counterweight are some high-quality TV-shows (BSG, Lost, CSI), some of which are quality through and through, others excel in presentation. As I see it, Warhol is cheering in his grave. Have a look at YouTube and all the "intarweb-celebs" it has spawned, hell someone called "lonleygirl15" is supposedly going to become a UN spokesperson. We're moving more and more into the territory of celebrities being people everybody could become. It's not admiration, everything related to celebrities is purely cringe-worthy. If you ever watched Big Brother, you'd spend most of the time on the couch hiding your face. I'm not saying it's happening NOW! But slowly it's creeping up, and a generation that grew up on the web is coming off age.

Some might call it TV-Democracy, low-brow becoming no-brow. People who should be in charge are losing it to the masses. Driveling, dumb and uninteresting masses. But the attentionwhores get their confirmation on their existence, and the rest get a good laugh. So we all win, right?

Decadency; fall of man.

You still have yet to explain how he sold out? This sounds like more ex-fanboy whining to me and I've heard a ton of it since 1999. Boohoo. Lucas sold out. He wants to make money off his films and not be a starving artist! Boohoo!

Fuck that noise. I think George Lucas dabbled in directing (let's face it he's directed how many movies now? ) and decided he liked other aspects of the movie business better like producing and essentially becoming his own studio. It's not about selling out, it's about control. Lucas could be a director but be beholden to studios or he could go the route he has gone and live his own dream which is to have total control of his movies. You act like Star Wars is only this cash cow that he sold his artistic soul to.  Star Wars freed the man to live his true dream.

George Lucas is a control freak (it's why he rarely directs, it's too stressful because he can't step back.) and Star Wars has enabled him to have control over his life and his finances to a level he probably never dreamed of. It's that simple.

So stop with the selling out shit. The guys making movies for studios? They're the sell-outs. Lucas is living his own dream. You just don't like his dream and feel like he pissed on your childhood. Get over it. If he sold out he would have made the prequels the fanboys were crying about. He made the prequels he wanted to see. And they made a ton of money and non-cynical people actually found some enjoyment in them. They're not art, they were never intended to be. But fuck art, art is usually boring and pretentious.

Star Wars Bed sheets.
Star Wars cereal.
Star Wars toothpaste.
Darth Vader on Burger King commercials with that creepy pedophile King character.

And that's just the small bits. If you can't see how someone could consider him a sellout, you are blind. I have no problem with merchandising, I think it's great for the creator if he gets a share of it. But when he starts merchandising his creation on everything from motor oil to Target, he's sold out.

If you could make money selling GameAngst-branded bedsheets, would you?  Be honest now.

What exactly is Lucas supposedly selling out from?  His goal is to make movies/TV/contentstuff and he needs money to do that.  Because he wants to make HIS content and not someone else's, he wants to be financially independant.  If selling Darth Vader Strawberry Preserves (tm) helps ensure that, that's what he's going to do. 

His cause has basically been to make money... you can't sell out from that. 

Edit: spelling

Exactly. You guys act like Lucas was pretending to be some kind of Stanley Kubrick rebel film-maker who was all about the art. You're deluding yourselves.

I'll be honest, it would depend. If I needed that money to continue, probably. If that money was the difference between the 1500 square foot house and the 3000 square foot house, maybe but likely not.

If that money was just .01% of the other 99.9% of a billion-dollar merchandising smorgasbord, no. No, I wouldn't. It isn't that he merchandised the brand that bothers me. It's that he not only merchandised the brand, he whored that bitch dry. We're not talking about a guy who had trouble feeding his family, we're talking about a guy who has made one of the most money-making, successful fim franchises of all time. There has to be a point as an artist or a businessman or an anything where you really just don't need that extra bit of money enough to dilute the brand any further. It's a fine tipping point, but he long ago reached that point and his Jabba-like blubber pushed him far far over the edge.

That's the problem with American capitalism and selling out. At some point, enough has to be enough.

You're more principled than I am by a long shot.  The only thing stopping me from selling out is a lack of buyers.   :-(

Lucas isn't hurting for personal money, and never will no matter what happens.  That isn't the point.  If he wans to keep doing what he likes doing, he needs money to fund his business.  While his personal future is secure, that of his company isn't.  One sour movie could significantly impact his ability to do that, and part of what he's railing against.  Look at the production schedule for LucasArts; they are close to gambling their company on every film they make.  They're going to grab for every dollar they can get, if not for capitalistic reasons, then very practical ones.  Yes, even if it's only 0.1% of their income.

Seconded.  I'd sell my grannies dentures if they had gold in em.


Seems to me, any time someone takes their art in a direction that someone doesn't like it's called selling out these days.  If we're actually talking about, you know, the proper definition then, Yeah, Lucas sold out.  Ages and ages ago.  For pots and pots and pots of cash.

So what ?

Thirded.

And even if Lucas is an evil sell out, it's not as if he sold anything out thta he didn't create in the first place. Teh intarweb "community" would do well to realise that it did not create the star wars universe and does not own it.

That said I think he's missing the point on why television is becoming more dominant than film.

It's not about volume per se, it's about convienience (I'd *always* prefer to watch anything on my nice television and my nice sound system, in my nice living with nice people, then put up with out of focus pictures, distorted sound, and sitting next to mouthbreathing retards with dubious personal hygenie in a cinema), and it's also about risk taking, smaller TV episode budgets allow more risk taking and more originality.

I usually enjoy your posts Haemish but here you're either being pretentious or you're lying either one. I'd whore myself out all day long for that extra 1500 square feet as would most any American. It's the American dream damn it...

There are lots of people with plenty of opportunity to "sell out". Some of them don't. It happens. Shouldn't be that hard to believe.

This is why I don't work.  I don't want to be in the position of "selling out."  I let Righ do that.  In fact, I encourage it!  This way we get piles of money and stuff and when I blink my eyes and say, "I'm innocent!",  it's genuine.

It gives me a warm feeling when Internet ppls discuss "selling out".   :heart: :heart:  Lucas is the embodiment of the American Dream- he's made money doing something he loves. 

It's a valid discussion area.  Just not in regards to douchebag directors.

The whole "15 year old" thing is getting real old. Do you realize how much you use it, Triforcer? I think I've seen you resort to that dumb accusation in every single thread you've posted in.

Think of something else. Offer something else. Talk with people.


As for "Internet ppls  :heart: :heart:" --- The fact that you even use words like "ppls" and heart emotes means you are more enamored with the Internet than most people.

Wow, board's grumpy today.  And thanks for demonstrating your inability to understand sarcasm, Stray.

Don't bullshit me.

Some don't but they're rare enough that I think most people are full of shit when they say they wouldn't.

In years past, maybe I would. After I bought my house, I got a strange sensation, one that I'd not gotten before. A warm fuzzy deep in the cockles, maybe in the subcockles. I'm walking my dog around the marina about 30 yards from my house, I have a great wife and that feeling said, "I'm not completely satisfied. Things could get better. I could sell that novel and make a little more money. I'd like a fenced yard, another bedroom and a bigger kitchen. I'd like a garden tub. I'd like a bigger TV. But if it never got better than this house, in this place, with this woman and this dog, that'd be ok too."

So yes, if it meant the difference between 1500 square feet and 3000, I could live with the 1500 square feet if it meant I wouldn't feel like a complete goddamn cumguzzling whore who takes the people that believed in him, that dug his writing and used their obsessive devotion as a cash cow, squeezing out every drop to feed his own little overindulgences.

Despite what American media and corporations will try to tell you, 1500 square feet is a pretty damn nice house. You don't NEED that other 1500 square feet unless you are housing a second family.

QFT.

Not to interrupt your repartee, but George dueled Stephen Colbert last night (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzTPpfoi1k). It may be the most whimsical thing I've seen him do in years.

Yes.  I know exactly what you mean.  But you want to know the horrible thing ?

When the first kid arrives that changes.  Suddenly EVERYTHING isn't good enough.  EVERYTHING.  And you'll rip out your guts to make sure it is.

Yeah, that was funny.  I'm glad he did, because he fell terribly flat during the interview.  Lucas stabbing Stephen through the crotch was gold.

Hahaha. They both sucked pretty bad though.

I was watching the making of Mystery of the Nile (IMAX) and one of the producer guys mentioned that they had 45 different cuts of the movie and how Hollywood uses prescreenings to test out audience reaction to different cuts. That is 45 slightly or vastly different movies for the same budget. For crackhead fans thats 45 different versions of the same movie for them to buy.

One way to capitalize on the long tail of that would be to release the official main cut in theaters and on wide distro DVD. Then you take the other 44 cuts or whatever and make them available for online viewing. The viewers can watch a low quality version online, rank the 45 different cuts of the same movie, and order a high quality DVD of that cut instead of buying the offical main cut DVD.

At some point, there needs to be an official "storyteller". Not forty five different Alan Smithee's. I don't like the idea.

If people get picky to that extent, then they should just make their own movie.