George Lucas pronounces the death of the Hollywood blockbuster

So, I am making a good movie (that I did not pay top dollar for a decent script of),
and hope to release a blockbuster film (that I managed to get a reasonable rate for theatre distribution
and marketing of). But, I need to still keep costs under control, so I do not go outrageously over-budget
and maybe have enough left for post-production refinement.

If I decide not to go with ILM for special effects, and choose not to encode with THX for sound, Lucas
will be alright with that, since that helps me bring the film home for a more realistc cost?

What happened with King Kong, Mr. Lucas? Because as far as I can tell, DVD sales have been competing, if not out doing box office sales, and since last check, King Kong isn't out on DVD yet. Not to mention that we're talking about a film by the very man who knows how to market special edition DVD box sets.

Frankly, I think Mr. Lucas tripped and spilled his marbles somewhere. Won't anyone help him find them?

Good movies may be rare. They don't have to be expensive.

I could not agree more. Compelling characters, a good story, and someone who knows how to tell it - these things make a good movie; not special effects, green screens, and CGI.

All Lucas is saying here, is that the business model is broken. He's just saying that the time has come and gone for big budget movies. No where does he equate big budget to quality. Nor does he do the opposite.

Underlying his remarks is the assumption that the technologies to make movies are getting more and more affordable, so that more and more people will have access to them. In that kind of a market (more competitive), eventually the studios will have to come to grips with the facts that they way they've been going about film making is too expensive and it will have to change. That doesn't necessarily equate to a change in quality either. Just a change in the production process.

What I am hopefull for, is that this democratization of the process will allow more quality film makers to the table.

Did the market forces *ever* exist that made it a good idea to sink $200 million into a single movie?

I can't go link hunting right now, but I'm fairly certain that a *very* small number of films have had that kind of budget, and that it was never something expected or normal.

Let's not forget that the word "Blockbuster" refers to a line of people wrapping around the block to see a movie. Times have certainly changed because lining up to wait for an hour or more, just so I can pay $10 to watch a piece of poo that I've already watched before sounds like an enormously foolish thing to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Hollywood lamenting the loss of the Blockbuster 15 years ago when all of the older style big Theatres were being replaced by Multi-Plexes...sounds like Hollywood is slow to catch on to trends.

To paraphase Todd:
Times have certainly changed from the days of lining up to wait for an hour or more...

Plus the only people that still stand in line instead of buying the tickets in advance are those that
"had" to show thier support for the next big Star Wars, LOTR, or Star Trek type releases; or
those that don't have the means to buy on sites like fandango.