No cinema future for cult films, says producer

[Maurice]

Daily Telegraph
by Amanda Andrews

Films with small budgets like THE KING'S SPEECH or BLACK SWAN have no long-term future at the cinema, according to Peter Guber, the producer of cult movies from BATMAN to RAIN MAN.

Mr. Guber, the chief executive of Mandalay Entertainment Group, said films like his latest Oscar-nominated piece THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT will eventually be released straight to video-on-demand (VOD) in the home, skipping out cinema release.

He said the large film studios, which face pressures such as piracy, need films which are "dead certs", that will work globally and become successful franchises with sequels.

The large studios, he said, are focused on creating 3D spectacles.

"Local repertoire does not travel well, so it does not support their international business," said Mr. Guber, the former chairman of Sony Pictures. "The big studios are leaving small budget films to the independents.

"There will be smaller budget films like THE KING'S SPEECH. However, some of these will be shown theatrically in some speciality environments."

He said the industry shift was just a few years away and could prove difficult for some.

"There are going to be some bumps in the road - and there will be blood," said Mr. Guber.

He said there would be three audiences for movie releases of the future - those seeking large spectacles with costly visual effects, big stars and 3D, the VOD streaming market and films created specifically for the internet.

[Steve Crook]

There were people at IBM who thought that computers wouldn't catch on and people at major record companies who turned down the Beatles. The world has never been short of idiots speaking out and making idiotic pronouncements like this.

In this case, low budget independent films never have had a big future in most cinemas. Most are never seen by the public. But there always will be one or two that sneak through & become a big hit. Despite what idiot producers say

Steve

[will.15]

I think long term the opposite may happen. The studios cannot survive if their entire product is spectacular big budget movies. Whenever the studios have concentrated on those type of movies they were close to ruin. If you spend four hundred mil and it completely tanks, you are in serious trouble. Yes, they would like to make more franchise films like the Bonds and Harrry Potters, but movies are not like making widgets. There is no sure fire formula to make a hit film. What does Guber know? He sucked at making decisons when he ran a studio, making sspectacular flops, and spending lavishly on perks for himself.

[Mr Sloane]

Daily Telegraph
by Amanda Andrews

Films with small budgets like THE KING'S SPEECH or BLACK SWAN have no long-term future at the cinema, according to Peter Guber, the producer of cult movies from BATMAN to RAIN MAN.

Mr. Guber, the chief executive of Mandalay Entertainment Group, said films like his latest Oscar-nominated piece THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT will eventually be released straight to video-on-demand (VOD) in the home, skipping out cinema release.

He said the large film studios, which face pressures such as piracy, need films which are "dead certs", that will work globally and become successful franchises with sequels.



He said there would be three audiences for movie releases of the future - those seeking large spectacles with costly visual effects, big stars and 3D, the VOD streaming market and films created specifically for the internet.

I would n't take an article too seriously from a journalist who thinks Batman and Rain Man are cult films.

[will.15]

I didn't notice that line.

The super low budget films that sometimes have done well in the past may be dead, but The Black Swan and The King's English had budgets in the fifteen/twenty million range, and well known actors in lead roles. As long as a director can entice an actor to make a movie for less than their going rate for a role that could potentially bag them an Oscar (which wouldl at least briefly increase their price for the 3D spectaculars) they will continue to be made.

[zettel45]

As long as a director can entice an actor to make a movie for less than their going rate for a role that could potentially bag them an Oscar (which wouldl at least briefly increase their price for the 3D spectaculars) they will continue to be made.

They will continue to be made, but where will they be shown? I'm not so sure Guber doesn't have a point. The old "prestige-gap" between movies and (US) TV has diminished rapidly just in the last 10 years. We may soon find ourselves in a situation where we naturally look to TV for quality drama and to cinema for eye-popping spectacle.

It's complicated, though.

[batman]

Any discussion about 'cult' films is bound to be complicated further by varying definitions of what a 'cult' film actually is. IMHO a 'cult' film is one that isn't a great financial success on release, but slowly builds up a following of hard core fans which keeps the film 'alive' way past what would have been it's normal sell by date. Cult films = The Wicker Man, Withnail and I, The Shawshank Redemption etc. I can't believe that Andrews really thinks Batman and Rain Man are 'cult' films.

[jaycad]

Any discussion about 'cult' films is bound to be complicated further by varying definitions of what a 'cult' film actually is. IMHO a 'cult' film is one that isn't a great financial success on release, but slowly builds up a following of hard core fans which keeps the film 'alive' way past what would have been it's normal sell by date. Cult films = The Wicker Man, Withnail and I, The Shawshank Redemption etc. I can't believe that Andrews really thinks Batman and Rain Man are 'cult' films.

i totally agree. silly article!

[DB7]

Black Swan's budget was 10m and Rain Man paired Hoffman and Cruise... this is only 'low budget' to Speilberg and Michael Bay.

Anyhoo, most films get cult status years after their release. There's also the festivals that throw up Happy Texas, Juno, Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine etc.

[zettel45]

i totally agree. silly article!

But the article isn't about cult films, whatever we decide them to be. It's about the future of small, independently made movies and whether or not they'll be shown at the cinema on pay TV or the internet.

The journo uses "cult" sloppily to describe a couple of films produced by Guber, but the substance of the article quotes Guber fairly directly (and doesn't talk about "cult" movies at all). To dismiss what Guber's saying because the journo misused an adjective is ridiculous.

[narabdela]

Lol, I loved one of the comments under the original article on The Torygraph website:

"Peter Guber, If I remember right took some massive hollywood studio into the toilet in the 80s, and woz a narcassistic, ego-fueled, coke using, whore mongering, useless bastard...."

[zettel45]

Lol, I loved one of the comments under the original article on The Torygraph website:

"Peter Guber, If I remember right took some massive hollywood studio into the toilet in the 80s, and woz a narcassistic, ego-fueled, coke using, whore mongering, useless bastard...."

His Wiki page is pretty impressive, though it does read like it was written by a narcissistic, ego-fuelled, coke-using, whore mongerer - about himself. Still, I'm willing to bet he knows more about the industry than which ever smart-arse wrote that comment.

[DB7]

Cinema, even low-budget, has survived first the fear of television, then the vcr, then dvd, and it will adapt to the challenges of the internet. There's never been a decade without 'end of' stories but creative industries adapt. Gruber's view (3d, franchises, big-budget) sounds very contemporary but also very short-sighted and indicative of what is wrong about Hollywood currently - a lack of creativity.

[will.15]

Gruber was a good producer of movies, but he was a complete Peter Principal incompetent when it came to running a studio. And Gruber of course wasn't really talking about cult films, but the lower budget movies that get Oscars and often do well at the box office, which the major studios long ago stopped making, but sometimes distribute usually through their art house divisions. The studios even now don't make just expensive 3D spectaculars. But they are reducing the number of movies they make so they can make more of them. You can't fill all the theaters with 3D spectaculars, which will mainly be coming out in summer and Christmas. Plenty of room for smaller budget movies like Black Swan and The King's English. But the quirkier, micro budget films of the past are becoming a harder sell. I'm amazed The Black Swan only cost ten million, considering it had well known actors in the cast and was very slick looking. It was an immediate hit at the box office, not a slow starter, as is often the case with lower budget films.

[Steve Crook]

But the article isn't about cult films, whatever we decide them to be. It's about the future of small, independently made movies and whether or not they'll be shown at the cinema on pay TV or the internet.

The journo uses "cult" sloppily to describe a couple of films produced by Guber, but the substance of the article quotes Guber fairly directly (and doesn't talk about "cult" movies at all). To dismiss what Guber's saying because the journo misused an adjective is ridiculous.

I don't. I dismiss it because he's talking rubbish about small independent films
As I said above, most will never see the light of day but a few will always break through. 'Twas ever thus

Steve