Spielberg and Lucas Think You’re Not Paying Enough To Watch Their Movies


Hey, Marvel fans, how much are you willing to pay to see Avengers 2?

$20? $40? How about $100?

And, at that price, are you gonna see it twice?  Three times?

Cinema legends Steven Spielberg and George Lucas recently spoke at a symposium dedicated to the opening of a new media center, and what they had to say about the future of movie pricing sent shock waves around the world. Discussing the future of the box office, they warned that films costing $250 million to make could inevitably cause Hollywood to ask you – the consumer – to pay more for seeing these films.

According to Steve: “You’re gonna have to pay $25 to see the next Iron Man; you’re probably only have to pay $7 to see the next Lincoln.”  (Did Steve leave Lincoln open for a sequel?  I didn’t see that coming.)

In fact, Lucas even predicted that this impending ‘implosion’ would dramatically force studio executives to re-think how they ask theatres to present their films to audiences. He even suggested there be fewer theatres dedicated to films tagged with ‘blockbuster’ status but they be equipped with more amenities, similar to the way Broadway plays offer patrons more plush seating and (apparently) first-class treatment. Lucas — the man who never met a price-tag he wouldn’t charge – believed going to the movies should cost you around $100 – $150.


The principle of this whole debate really centered on the fact that Spielberg was lamenting the fact that he ‘barely’ got Lincoln into theatres; it nearly premiered on HBO. Lucas chimed in that his feature surrounding the Tuskegee airmen – Red Tails – ‘barely’ received a theatrical release. Their point was that too many big budget films are forcing smaller films off of the silver screen platform, and, consequently, this is bad for ‘art.’

Well … woe is me!

You’ll have to pardon me if I sound more than a bit cynical about this whole debate, but if there are two men more responsible in the last half-century for the emergence of the blockbuster mentality – one super-big film per weekend taking up one-quarter of the multiplex’s screens – then those two men would have to be George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. You’ll have to pardon me if I say it’s more than a bit ironic (if not downright insulting) to listen to these two billionaires wax on about how unfortunate it is they can’t get their latest garage film down at the cinema.


And what’s the best way to fix this problem?

You pay more for what you want to see.

It’s no secret that Hollyweird has been struggling throughout much of the last decade to make end meet ends, but the truth here is that Tinseltown math has never added up. (Google any lawsuit that challenged studio bookkeeping for a taste of reality.) Rather than chalking it up to their own increasingly bloated salaries and actors’ demands for studio perks, the creators of the summer blockbuster apparently believe it’s OK to have filet mignon on the craft services table so long as they can pass that cost on to the consumer.

Steve, did you actually see what you and George did to mankind with the last Indiana Jones film? You’d really want me to plunk down $50 to see that piece of garbage once? Do you realize what that single experience would do to your reputation? Do you think after experiencing that for a mere $50 that I’d even chance watching your version of Lincoln at the low, low price of $10 a head?


And, George, Red Tails had been percolating in your mind for years – I can’t remember a time that you didn’t speak about it being your ‘next’ project – so maybe, just maybe that meant you didn’t quite have a property audiences would embrace, certainly not in the same way they did the Star Wars franchise. Maybe, just maybe you should stick to what you do well … which, at this point, might be merchandising.

Star Wars Angry Birds? Really, George? Really?

Still, it looks like Hollywood may already be experimenting with exactly what Misters Lucas and Spielberg have been hypothesizing. The other day, I read a piece over on Breitbart.com about Paramount Pictures charging a whopping $50 a ticket to sit through an advance special screening of Brad Pitt’s latest, World War Z. (Yes, Max Brooks’ novel is the bee’s knees; yes, it should’ve been on TV as a huge, epic miniseries instead of reducing to a starring vehicle for Brad Pitt, of all people.)
What does your $50 get you?

Well, the five participating theatres were all IMAX theatres, so, at least, you get the finest image available to man. Also, Paramount was throwing in a digital copy of the film (once it becomes available, of course). They were also throwing in a limited edition poster, some special 3D glasses (which you’d need to see the film in this setting anyway), and (get this) a small popcorn.
$50 … and all I get is a lousy small popcorn?!
How’s that for premium treatment?

How about you keep the stuff and I get my $50 back if the movie turns out to be a stinking pile of crap?

costume group 1

Look, Hollywood, I get that you’re not making enough scratch to keep ponying up movies with budgets of $250 million or more, but, seriously, am I asking you to invest that much in any single motion picture? I get that you think it’s OK to pass these production and marketing costs along to me – the lover of movies – but at what point do you accept the responsibility for making a product that the marketplace economics don’t support?

I’ve always been of the mentality that, if it’s a good movie, people will see it. Somehow. Sometime. Somewhere. It may not be at the megaplexes – have you seen what it costs a family of four to actually go to these places today? The math of reality sometimes means that we can’t get to every one of your bloated blockbusters, and the fact that many filmmakers have grown more than a bit lazy about the finished product really makes me question paying a cent more than I am now to take in anything you and your ilk put out.
We’ve all been disappointed with movie returns, as of late. You? You’re disappointed with the financials. Us? We’re disappointed with the story. Reality is always somewhere in the middle. Let’s meet there, talk about it, and then – and only then – would I be willing to live with a price increase.

Otherwise, there’s always Red Box.

Similar Posts


  1. 1) Stop paying “Hacks” huge sums of money to make movies (looking right at you two M.Night S. and M. Bay)

    2) Stop paying so called “Stars” insane amounts of money.

    3) Stop refilming classic movies over and over and wondering why they fail at the box-office.

    4) Stop paying millions of dollars for CGI and 3D effects and concentrate on making tight intelligent films that run between 80 to 90 mins. instead of bloated 120 min films that leave your audience glancing at their watches, wondering when its finally going to end.

    Thats my outlook on things, I doubt anything will ever change, but yeah.

    And Lucas needs to shut up. He lost all the brownie points he’s earned over the years with what he did to Star Wars.

  2. I agree with everything Shawn just said… and I’d tack on one of my own personal pet peeves about the movie industry…

    — Stop showing me 8 weeks of TV adverts leading up to a film!

    A big issue I have with “blockbuster failures” is that with so much lead time, I am genuinely disinterested in seeing the movie. I was pretty much burned out on Star Trek promotions by the time the movie came out, that I didn’t go see it. It had my interest months before when TV spots first ran.

    Three weeks should be more than enough marketing time (television wise at least, which is where most of the cost lies) to get buzz about your movie for people that aren’t already aware and to capture people’s curiosity in the moment without having the “I’ve seen all the good parts in the commercials already” attitude.

  3. These guys seem totally out of it. So if I want to take my wife and son to see the new Iron Man its going to cost me $150 just to get in there? Nevermiind popcorn or drink. Part of me would like them to actually try this and see how much they would fail. It would literally be the death kneel of the cinema. So out of touch with how much things cost the average person. Reminds me of someone


  4. @Shawn:

    Didn’t you know? They already stopped paying (so much) for CGI and Effects driving OSCAR WINNING EFFECTS STUDIOS out of business. Just ask rhythm & hues.

    But overall, i agree, especially when it comes to paying the stars.

    Robert Downey Jr is a great, fun actor, but when he comes up with an absurd sum of money (say 50 Million Dollars) just to try the limits of certain movie studios (say Disney/Marvel)…he’s not supposed to actually get paid that much!

    Seriously, 50 Million.

    You can make almost two ENTIRE District 9 Level Movies off the salary of ONE GUY. (While, once again, entire COMPANIES with dozens of employees go out of business because they get scammed by the same movie studios)

    They need to fix that, right now, before they ever even try to bullshit us.

  5. Easy ways for a studio to save money…

    Performance related pay for actors and directors. Give say Tom Cruise $10million up front and anything else is based on the box office, same for directors.

    Stop using pointless CGI, concentrate on script and storytelling.

    Stop with the effing 3D!

    Stop buying million dollar superbowl ads.

    Stop with the pointless advertising (The posters on every bus, the cardboard cut-outs in theatres,)

    Hire students who are eager and hungry to prove themselves to do your posters.

    Stop making movies that are obviously awful, stop so many remakes, sequels, concentrate on your craft.

  6. I’m not sure that anger at Lucas and Spielberg is really justified here. They’re simply looking at an industry in the middle of an identity crisis and a bit of a financial hard spot and theorizing that current trends can’t continue. I’m not sure I agree with their specific assumptions of how that will all shake out, but it’s certainly not an opinion I’ve never heard and it’s good to keep the issue out in the air.

    Personally, I think the notion that the industry can’t keep putting all its eggs in these hugemongous movies’ baskets is a pretty astute one.

    It’s also worth mentioning that Lucas and Spielberg never had any intention of inventing the modern blockbuster. Most of their movies have been pretty risky in some form or fashion, and Star Wars in particular was basically an experimental film in a lot of ways. Not that they aren’t billionaires now, but as filmmakers they’ve always been innovators and typically been pretty thrifty. They aren’t personally making massive, $250 million movies, which are the ones they’re specifically critiquing. If I’m reading it right, that is.

    It’s a continuation of the conversation Steven Soderbergh started with his “state of the union” address a few weeks ago.

  7. Another solution would be to do what the smaller indies do anyway and release the film on VOD after opening weekend. Three days in the theater exclusively, then anyone can rent it at home for cheaper than the price of a ticket. Expanding access works to turn a faster profit on indies; why not big Hollywood films?

  8. The market is over saturated with blockbusters too now. I remember back in 93 when Jurassic Park came out, It was the only Mega Blockbuster that summer. 20 years later we have at least 7 all vying to be the mega hit! Iron Man 3, Star Trek, Superman, World War Z, Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim, Elysium… Who has all the money to see this stuff? Hollywood slow your roll. That’s why your tanking. Throwing money into sub par scripts just to say you have a blockbuster. I mean who actually thought Battleship deserved to have a budget of 209 million?

  9. Um…it’s convenient that you didn’t post or link to the actual conversation had over the matter. If you did it would be clear that you missed the whole point of what they were trying to say. The title of your article is horribly misleading to the point of almost trolling. For some reason you’ve overly personalized the conversation that was had and somehow made it into a situation that these two man are doing something to you. They aren’t, that’s not was the speech was about, and you’re really misleading readers.

    As an example: “Lucas — the man who never met a price-tag he wouldn’t charge – believed going to the movies should cost you around $100 – $150.”

    I’ve actually read what was said in the discussion between Lucas and Spielberg, where exactly does Lucas say that going to the movies SHOULD cost you around $100-$150? I ask because at no time was it mentioned. What WAS actually said was that with the way trends go, we MAY face a situation where theaters raise prices to Broadway-like levels.

    It was hypothetical, and cautionary, and came out on the side of the viewer not the studio. I’m sorry that, in whatever way, these two men have hurt you. Maybe it was the Star Wars prequels. Maybe it was the Crystal Skull. Either way, whatever it is, you should pump the breaks on all the vitriol, because they weren’t being the bad guys in this instance. You actually are with this misguided article.

  10. Sorry, but I have to ask . . what the FUCK are you talking about?? I read the same goddamn article a week ago and Spielberg and Lucas weren’t saying you SHOULD pay that much, they were warning the industry and those going into it that basically the whole thing was going to implode. All of this shit you are bitching about they were trying to warn you about. They did help the rise of the blockbuster (and they both have a huge hand in the most recent films that have contributed to this, I know), but it is the studios that pushed for this stuff. For every piece of shit money grabbing film Spielberg or Lucas produces, there are probably one or two good movies that don’t get made. Granted, I don’t remember the last of their movies I cared for that much (I liked Tin Tin alright, I suppose) but my point is everyone goes on and on bitching about how the industry sucks, but it sucks because of YOU, not them. They sell what people are buying, and you are buying shit. You are going out to only see big budget, Iron Man 8 type films, then they will only throw out big budget movies. But they run out of shit to turn into a movie, so they remake old movies so you already know what the hell they are selling, and give it a huge budget. I don’t remember the last time I went out and saw a big budget film. I haven’t seen the new Iron Man, or Star Trek, or any of that. Last movie I watched was Upstream Color. It might make me pretentious, but at least I’m not throwing money at hacks who make millions off of barely structured screenplays with annoyingly witty actors making up for lack of original content.

    That being said, and me not wanting to ever be all negative (sorry I ranted), I do understand the enjoyment of these kinds of films, and I have enjoyed my time with The Avengers and whatnot, but go see something else for a change. Make the market swing.

  11. I feel the same way about the video gaming industry. I’m sorry that it is a tough industry and that AAA games are getting more expensive to make. If you think I’m magically going to grow a few hundred dollar bills in my backyard though, you’ve got another thing coming. The market might be in for a re-alignment, maybe less AAA games or blockbuster movies. Maybe the companies need to find ways to cut costs. Heck, maybe, people are willing to pay more. I somehow doubt that last one though. At least, given the current state of the economy. Point is, don’t blame all your problems on your consumers.

  12. Also, both of those guys are obscenely wealthy and probably have more money then I’ll ever see in my lifetime. How the hey am I not paying enough to see their movies??

  13. ^^ Agreed, Jake. UPSTREAM COLOR was a brilliant flick. Absolutely brilliant sci-fi that (unfortunately) very few people can truly appreciate.

    As to the rest of what you said, you might actually wanna read more than one version of an article (the one you cited from a week ago). Lucas was clearly SUGGESTING that this is what industry executives eye as the future model of cinema business, not saying that that’s the way it was heading. In fact, Lucas was the one SUGGESTING that going to the movies “should” (his word, not mine) take on the experience of going to a Broadway show.

    Spielberg’s comments were to the effect that unless something else changes then this kind of pricing structure would be necessary to support studio economics OR the industry would implode.

    In the end, however, I think blaming the consumer is the wrong way to go. Downey Jr. made $50M for his work in THE AVENGERS. I personally support capitalism, and, if that’s what he makes for his participation, then that’s what he makes. That pay-out will only further increase with AVENGERS 2 & 3 — which inevitably forces the studio budgets higher and higher — and that puts us right back where we started at before my editorial was printed.

    Happy? I hope not.

    As always, thanks for reading.

  14. I agree with the sentiments of the article and fellow commenters. But Breitbart.com? Seriously?

    @jake. I read something similar. I think its possible that the source material for this story is somewhat misleading and deceptively inflammatory. That’s kinda how that site rolls.

    The true intentions of these directors notwithstanding, these issues are relevant. You don’t need an ad budget of tens of millions to promote Iron Man or The Hobbit for example. Anyone who honestly hadn’t heard of these already wasn’t going to see them anyway.

    As for actor’s salaries… I think about shows like The Wire. Think of the amazing performances from a relatively unknown cast of actors. There are countless similar examples. I think it’s shameful that there is all this untapped talent out there who would put their heart and soul into their performance for pennies on the dollar compared to Tom Cruise… who plays Tom Cruise in every movie anyway…

    I haven’t seen a summer blockbuster that lived up to the hype since The Dark Knight.

  15. ^^ J. Morales:
    The issue here was that, for Spielberg (who, arguably, is one of the most influential men in Hollywood EVER) is that he couldn’t believe he had a studio spend $65M (IMDB.com #s) to make LINCOLN, and he was being told by the same studio marketing & distribution wing that they couldn’t get it (the film) on enough screens to make back their return on investment and, thus, were suggesting to market the film to HBO. (Again, this is always an issue b/c it costs anywhere from $20-$40M to market films these days — that is, a SPIELBERG or LUCAS-caliber film, so the studio was essentially looking to ‘break-even’ at that point.)

    Now, think what any of us may, but that HAD to be a blow to Spielberg’s ego. After all, he’s Steven Spielberg, and I’m thinking he didn’t like hearing the economic reality of what it would cost to put LINCOLN in as many theatres as he wanted in order to just ‘break-even.’ My suspicion is this is the thinking process the man went through b/c the basic thrust of his point from the reading I’ve done (I’ve read five pieces on this just to try to get as many particulars as I could), and this is what led him to hypothesize that the studio execs would have to — in the future — SUGGEST you (the consumer) pay more for them to keep ponying up movies the caliber that Spielberg and Lucas invented (i.e. the summer tentpole blockbusters).

    Essentially, this is the same arguments we heard when JOHN CARTER was in trouble. It’s the same argument we heard when Disney wanted THE LONE RANGER to come in under budget. If you make a picture for $200M and it costs $40M to market and that picture is only ‘tracked’ to gross, say, $150M, is the film then worth making?

    My point in indicting Spielberg and Lucas specifically is that it’s more than a bit ironic for these two to have anything to say about the reality of Hollywood math since they’re two of the people most responsible for the explosion of the megaplexes. They’re two of the people most responsible for the fact that an absolutely stellar film like UPSTREAM COLOR can’t find a screen to be played on except in NY or LA. STAR WARS VII will play on fifty screens at the same megaplex, while every other release that weekend will struggle to get a single playing.

    These guys are billionaires b/c of the way the industry functions today — they’re practically responsible for making this Frankenstein monster — and now they’re lamenting how it’s killing the marketplace for not only everyone’s smaller films but, in particular, THEIR smaller films.

    I could go on, but I’m hoping you get the point.

  16. It’s official: Hollywood has become the US government. Insane amounts of unnecessary expenditures we get no say in for no reason other than an excuse to pay billionaires billions more, and we get to pay for it out of our pockets. I got one word for them if cinema prices go up again: YAAARRRRR!

  17. @Mr. Zimmerman

    I have nothing but respect for you and your contributions to this website. At no point in my comment were any personal aspersions made or even considered. Rather, I questioned a suspect source of information with a questionable history of inflammatory stories. As I said, I agree with nearly all the points made here. I was merely speculating about one aspect of this issue; the motivations of these directors.

    Again, I appreciate the thoughts of everyone here. I would hope all commenters feel the same.

  18. “These guys are billionaires b/c of the way the industry functions today — they’re practically responsible for making this Frankenstein monster — and now they’re lamenting how it’s killing the marketplace for not only everyone’s smaller films but, in particular, THEIR smaller films.”

    The way it came off to me is them saying “hey, if WE can hardly get these movies made and into theaters, what chance does a less established filmmaker have?” Not so much a “woe is me,” but a self-aware statement about how screwed the system is.

    Indicting these two guys for making the movies they want to make, and doing it with ambition and an eye for keeping budgets reasonable, while still being financially successful and inspiring a slew of less artistic copycats, is simplifying the issue. Attack of the Clones cost half of what The Avengers cost, and the Star Wars prequels are technically independent productions.

    I don’t know Lucas personally, but I’d bet money that he would love for Upstream Color to have more recognition than it does. The guy, after all, made THX. And has said that he’s going to be pursuing smaller, more experimental fare from here on out. Episode VII will be ridiculously huge, but Lucas doesn’t even have anything to do with that franchise anymore beyond some indefinite story contributions.

    It’s totally fine to argue against the conclusions these two guys have come to, but it’s more than possible to do that without bringing in personal attacks. These are two of our great American filmmakers. Debate their positions, not their worth.

  19. Well said, David R. While the point that E.L. Zimmerman is making may be a valid one, it gets lost in his personal attacks on Lucas and Spielberg. In reading his responses to comments, though, it seems that taking things personally may be his M.O. (I have to ask what exactly Postal said outside of disagreeing with SOME of your points to warrant you telling him/her to “grow up”)

    This isn’t a discussion to weigh the personal merits of either one of these directors. The point is to discuss and comment on the (sad) state of Hollywood at the moment. Unfortunately that can’t happen if you spend half your argument railing against how you personally feel slighted by these people.

  20. Oh, please. I’ve not attacked either George or Steve personally; rather, I’ve attacked their professionalism, or lack thereof. I understand perfectly that they’re going to have defenders — this is what happens when you put ’em up so high on a pedestal. I’ve only pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of their now whining about a system they themselves are fully responsible for creating.

    I do agree that Lucas would probably be pleased as punch if a flick like UPSTREAM COLOR did find a larger audience b/c it’s probably exactly the kind of film both of them are addressing in underscoring the need for smaller (i.e. garage) films to get play somewhere in the multiplexes. The fact remains that it didn’t, and the reality is despite what little good we in our little corner of the e-universe can do to promote it now does very, very, very little good in seeing more content like that made in the future (under the present Hollywood economics system).

    And, Postal, no harm no foul. You were disparaging Breitbart.com; you can do what you like to try to cover your tracks, but I read it clear as day. Also, I read your post 3 times before I responded to it. (Part of that is I’m old and feeble and I do want to make certain I understand to the best of my ability what your intent was, and you intended to disparage Breitbart.com when, as I said, all I did was cite “facts” as they appeared in their piece.) Still, methinks I took something from it that — by your later response — you didn’t intend. Sometimes, this happens in cyberspace when your voice isn’t there to preface your intent. Let’s all chalk it up to that. No apologies are necessary. This is the web, after all, and none of us need to give the NSA any more reason to listen in.

    David R.: you could be right in taking away that message from what George & Steve said. I interpret it differently, and I do that based on the sum total of everything else they said, talked about, sounded off about, etc. One of the things I try to do — and, yeah, it pains me to a certain degree b/c (like Paul does here with Unreality, too, and many others) I try to analyze a lot of what I read, I hear, I write, etc. It’s the downside to being one who writes regularly (I do anywhere between 5,000 & 10,000 words a day, no bragging or boasting, just clarifying). As a consequence, those of us who write (and you guys know this, too) can be our worst critics. Sometimes we don’t always say what we mean in the most concise way possible, and even the most influential writer can make a massive screw-up when he or she tries to think in articles of substance at 1,000 words or less. Such is life, methinks.

    And, (sarcasm) Greg, you’re a jerk! (/sarcasm) I kid, I kid. Everyone who contributes to any online forum has the right to an opinion, and, sadly, that includes the author, which would be me. You don’t have to like it; heck, you don’t even have to read it; but maybe it would help if you read the piece before you reply to it as it doesn’t appear to me — based entirely on what you said — you did so. Rather, you read what others took from it — much like someone else did above by only reading a single article on George & Steve’s amazing adventure (speech) from last week.

    Now, all of that said, I don’t mean to disparage anyone. I, like you, reserve the right to be as judgmental or sarcastic or even snarky b/c that’s what fuels our online existence. So — in summation — let me put this to you (in case you’re still here and reading): “Do you think George & Steve ALSO could’ve said what they meant better?”

    As always, thanks for reading, and have a great weekend! Go see Supes a second time!

  21. ELZ,
    Yes, I completely agree that they could have said what they meant better. I don’t think all the back and forth has gotten in the way of the fact that Hollywood needs to get it’s head out of it’s ass. In that you are spot on.

  22. I’m sure they could have, but I also think that they’ve kicked off a pretty legit conversation all over the internet and I don’t especially need them to at this point.

  23. ^^ Greg:
    Agree perfectly. I, too, think that’s what they probably intended to say (“wake up, Hollywood, or this will be the evil you bring”); I just find it ironic that these two are the ones saying it. I’ve e-chatted with a few media distributors who took much greater offense to what George & Steve said than I did.

    ^^ David R:
    Then I’m at a loss to understand why you’re commenting still? I don’t mean that as a slight; I just don’t understand. I mean … why participate in a dialogue, at all? I think that’s what we do on the web, and I think we do it quite well.

    But, again, no harm no foul to anyone. I appreciate the chance to sound off, as do you folks.

  24. Ok, just to clarify… That article is a liiiitle bit deceiving. They never said that the customer SHOULD pay that much. They said that the ways the movie market is going, once a few big blockbuster fail, price WOULD probably go up and that going to the movies wouuld logically become a luxury, similar to how going to the theatre is nowadays.

    From what I read, they are deploring this state of affairs, not encouraging it.

    So… yeah. Enough bashing, already, guys.

  25. I was simply responding to a question that I assumed was kinda to everybody you were responding to. It also kinda came off like you were claiming writer/analyst cred over myself, which I didn’t really have a non-snarky reponse to TBH.

    I don’t see the point in calling Lucas/Spielberg hypocrites, nor do I feel that they need to clarify their statements since they’ve done what they wanted to do, which is get people talking.

    Personally, I think the industry needs to find a better system for both producing and marketing mid-budget movies, and relying more on talented artists instead of name recognition. The snarl of money and politics in the system, however, makes this unlikely without some sort of paradigm-shifting force. I’d like to say the internet could be that, but the big corporations have quickly seized that too, and the independent producers online seem to already be facing similar problems there.

  26. ^^ BenTipex:
    Actually, Ben, methinks you’re the one who has it wrong. In fact, George was the one who said that studio execs WOULD like to see going to the movies akin to going to live theatre, and the current model of studio finances puts them on path to do that. Steve’s comments were much more cautionary than George’s, but — from everything I’ve read and heard from folks at the event — both predicted their would first be an implosion and then this would be the likely outcome to salvage the studio system.

    ^^ Laura Frances:
    Sorry, but there’s no Paul here.

  27. Seems like there is lots of that over spending going on nowa days. How about they control their spending instead of charging us more? I’m willing to bet they could do away with half these summer “blockbusters” and no one would care. If they are really worried about getting there money back they shouldn’t making such crazy expensive movies. Not every movie needs CGI and some big name actor. Smarter smaller movies.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.