Why do people take Spielberg's comments on the direction of entertainment seriously?

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Steven Spielberg is one of, if not the most acclaimed director in Hollywood. His name is on more blockbusters and oscars than probably any other. The man has an authoritative voice when it comes to that industry, it's that simple. When one is at the top of their fields they have an undeniable authority when it comes to the subject of their industries. If Spielberg speaks about movies, he does so from experience and understanding that comes with being a part of the field for decades, much of which spent at the top.

TBH, it's arguable that James Cameron is probably the actual number one. I believe financially his films outshine others by a long way, giving birth to many franchises and influencing those who came after. But regardless, the top, most acclaimed directors like Spielberg, Cameron, Copolla, Scorsese, Jackson, Scott have a name that carries weight because of their contributions to the industry. You may not agree with an opinion, you may not like it, but they speak with more authority than this entire forum and all other Internet forums, combined.

And here we now stand, 9 years after DVDs where made obsolete it's still the only format some movies and television series are being released in due to the fact so many people continue to refuse to update to Blu Ray (granted some movies today can only have DVDs bought as part of a Blu Ray/DVD bundle, but that's another story).

You just contradict yourself saying "DVDs where [sic] made obsolete" followed by "so many people continue to refuse to update to blu ray". DVD is NOT obsolete. Blu Rays exist, are technically superior, but require less common equipment, more expensive eqmt and cost more. DVDs were a revolution over VHS, bringing all the digital benefits and removing the analogue negatives. A picture that never loses quality, no fast forwarding/rewinding, digital surround sound, interactive features and menus. Blu Ray just increased the capacity of the disc. It is an evolution and one that relatively few have caught onto.

4K is a thing, Blu Ray is a thing, Streaming is a bigger thing, DVD is still a thing. Blu Ray is fine for cinephiles and those buying a new HDTV and disc player, but TVs and entertainment eqmt lasts YEARS, unlike tablets/mobile phones that are obsolete within 12-24 months. Granted, they rarely last the decades of stuff from the 80s-90s, but millions of people still have non-HD screens and other eqmt bought prior to blu ray. Many more don't care. I don't know a single person that can watch 4K on an actual 4K screen. I own blu rays but not a player with which to play them. There are many more choices now than there have ever been on how to watch content and DVD is still one of them. As well as being physical and conferring "ownership" over the copy, they're cheaper, more widely supported and ideal for many things. Not to mention there are many shows that are still popular now that never existed in digital 1080p form (Friends, Star Treks, Futurama, etc).

 

[Zontar]

One quick question have you made $3.6 billion out of movies? I would suggest that $3.6 billion is a good indicator that he is good at guessing what people want to watch.

Wouldn't that argument also mean Trump, also being a billionaire, makes good guesses as to what people want to buy?

 

[Albino Boo]

One quick question have you made $3.6 billion out of movies? I would suggest that $3.6 billion is a good indicator that he is good at guessing what people want to watch.

Wouldn't that argument also mean Trump, also being a billionaire, makes good guesses as to what people want to buy?

Err no, Trump made his money in property development.

 

[Zontar]

One quick question have you made $3.6 billion out of movies? I would suggest that $3.6 billion is a good indicator that he is good at guessing what people want to watch.

Wouldn't that argument also mean Trump, also being a billionaire, makes good guesses as to what people want to buy?

Err no, Trump made his money in property development.

That's still prediction of what people want (you need to sell those properties after all, and fortunes have been lost making bad predictions in that market)

 

[Albino Boo]

Wouldn't that argument also mean Trump, also being a billionaire, makes good guesses as to what people want to buy?

Err no, Trump made his money in property development.[/quote]

That's still prediction of what people want (you need to sell those properties after all, and fortunes have been lost making bad predictions in that market)[/quote]

Please explain why you don't think someone who has made $3.6 billion out producing and directing films does not know how to predict what people want to see. Please explain why anyone would take your opinion, who has made $0 from making films, as the better judge. As I said you are entitled to your opinion but Spielberg's opinion will rank higher in the average person's mind because of that $3.6 billion. You make as many quotes as you like but he will still have $3.6 billion and you still won't have $3.6 billion

 

[Zontar]

Please explain why you don't think someone who has made $3.6 billion out producing and directing films does not know how to predict what people want to see.

Because his two biggest predictions about the way the industry was going turned out to be completely wrong to the point that anyone who would have followed his advice would have lost a lot of money if they had.

 

[Albino Boo]

Please explain why you don't think someone who has made $3.6 billion out producing and directing films does not know how to predict what people want to see.

Because his two biggest predictions about the way the industry was going turned out to be completely wrong to the point that anyone who would have followed his advice would have lost a lot of money if they had.

Oh dear what fail to understand that his biggest predictions about people want to see come from making films that people go and see. He sees a script that he think people will want to see and that made him $3.6 billion. Now the guy that made $3.6 billion from guessing what people want to see, thinks that people will not keep wanting to see a superhero movies, it gets more attention than you, that hasn't made $3.6 billion from guessing what people want to see. Those facts will not change

 

[Zontar]

Oh dear what fail to understand that his biggest predictions about people want to see come from making films that people go and see. He sees a script that he think people will want to see and that made him $3.6 billion. Now the guy that made $3.6 billion from guessing what people want to see, thinks that people will not keep wanting to see a superhero movies, it gets more attention than you, that hasn't made $3.6 billion from guessing what people want to see. Those facts will not change

But as I said his predictions haven't panned out in regards to where the industry is heading. As I stated before, ever since the mid 80s he hasn't been taking on scripts that one could call a risk. You may as well praise George Lucas while you're at it.

He was wrong about how we would watch movies, he was wrong about the format shift, and he has repeatedly shown no real understanding of the global movie market. The US domestic market sure, but not the international market. Which admittedly is understandable since during his time as primarily a director the US domestic was the only market that mattered.

I'm not saying there aren't topic within the entertainment industry that he is a good authority on, but predicting anything in terms of trends is not his strong suit, so it seems odd people would give weight to his statements on movies which use a story element, then going on to compare a story element to a whole genre, especially at a time where it isn't even the most prolific genre (if one considers it a genre) in movies. That goes to big budget spy movies.

 

[Albino Boo]

But as I said his predictions haven't panned out in regards to where the industry is heading. As I stated before, ever since the mid 80s he hasn't been taking on scripts that one could call a risk. You may as well praise George Lucas while you're at it.

He was wrong about how we would watch movies, he was wrong about the format shift, and he has repeatedly shown no real understanding of the global movie market. The US domestic market sure, but not the international market. Which admittedly is understandable since during his time as primarily a director the US domestic was the only market that mattered.

I'm not saying there aren't topic within the entertainment industry that he is a good authority on, but predicting anything in terms of trends is not his strong suit, so it seems odd people would give weight to his statements on movies which use a story element, then going on to compare a story element to a whole genre, especially at a time where it isn't even the most prolific genre (if one considers it a genre) in movies. That goes to big budget spy movies.

Oh for god sake man he has successfully predicted that people would see 91 moives for which he has directing or producing credit. 91 times he has picked something that people wanted to see and didn't pick a something that did not. So without doubt he has on 91 times predicted, when choosing a concept, what will people see and in the process he has made $3.6 billion dollars. People given him 100 millions of dollars to spend on making a film based on his predictions on what people will see. That's his job

 

[Zontar]

Oh for god sake man he has successfully predicted that people would see 91 moives for which he has directing or producing credit. 91 times he has picked something that people wanted to see and didn't pick a something that did not. So without doubt he has on 91 times predicted, when choosing a concept, what will people see and in the process he has made $3.6 billion dollars. People given him 100 millions of dollars to spend on making a film based on his predictions on what people will see. That's his job

Most of those movies where not exactly risky bets, at most 20 could be argued to have held real risk given their concepts and the crews behind them, almost all of which where his earlier works.

As I stated before once could easily make a comparison to George Lucas, who has made a similarly large fortune doing much of the same as Spielberg, though his name doesn't hold the same weight.

On top of that, Spielberg, while good at making short term predictions (such as selecting which movies and shows to support financially, though on the show side of things he tends to not do very well in that regard) his long term predictions have had a terrible record. So when he speaks about movies which use a plot element and compares them to a genre which had over 10 as much saturation during its peak, it's hard to take it seriously. I mean for got sake high budget spy movies are being made more yet no one seems to be saying those are going to collapse despite their being a higher saturation in the market for that specific genre, and as stated before superhero movies have long passed the point of being a genre since very few would be considered of the same genre had they not have their stars wearing costumes.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Oh for god sake man he has successfully predicted that people would see 91 moives for which he has directing or producing credit. 91 times he has picked something that people wanted to see and didn't pick a something that did not. So without doubt he has on 91 times predicted, when choosing a concept, what will people see and in the process he has made $3.6 billion dollars. People given him 100 millions of dollars to spend on making a film based on his predictions on what people will see. That's his job

Most of those movies where not exactly risky bets, at most 20 could be argued to have held real risk given their concepts and the crews behind them, almost all of which where his earlier works.

As I stated before once could easily make a comparison to George Lucas, who has made a similarly large fortune doing much of the same as Spielberg, though his name doesn't hold the same weight.

On top of that, Spielberg, while good at making short term predictions (such as selecting which movies and shows to support financially, though on the show side of things he tends to not do very well in that regard) his long term predictions have had a terrible record. So when he speaks about movies which use a plot element and compares them to a genre which had over 10 as much saturation during its peak, it's hard to take it seriously. I mean for got sake high budget spy movies are being made more yet no one seems to be saying those are going to collapse despite their being a higher saturation in the market for that specific genre, and as stated before superhero movies have long passed the point of being a genre since very few would be considered of the same genre had they not have their stars wearing costumes.

Your ability to nitpick Spielberg's record is (fortunately for Spielberg) not up to the task. His success over decades, in drama, science fiction, comedic action, all really trump your online "Well you know a billion isn't really that much"-ing. The man made E.T. That alone would be impressive as a one-off. Consider that M.Night Ohmygodsomeonekillme still gets funded and really it's all on the basis of Sixth Sense.

Since he also made everything from Indiana Jones, and Back To The Future, to Schindler's List, you're just not doing your job if you want to make your case. You're making an extraordinary claim in the face of evidence, and offering your own mid-collegiate "insights" just doesn't cut it, no matter how many times you repeat them or stretch them out. "Oh you know what he does right is really easy" is too sophomoric a position to be entertained, unless you bring a goddamned study to the table to back it up.

 

[Zontar]

Your ability to nitpick Spielberg's record is (fortunately for Spielberg) not up to the task. His success over decades, in drama, science fiction, comedic action, all really trump your online "Well you know a billion isn't really that much"-ing.

Well then thank god that isn't what's happening.

Since he also made everything from Indiana Jones, and Back To The Future, to Schindler's List, you're just not doing your job if you want to make your case. You're making an extraordinary claim in the face of evidence, and offering your own mid-collegiate insights just doesn't cut it, no matter how many times you repeat them or stretch them out.

So what you're saying is because he has made or funded movies that have been successful, his predictions on long term trends which he has shown a repeated inability to predict accurately should be taken seriously? You may as well say that because Trump make a fortune off properties that makes him qualified to be president, the two don't connect. You're equating short term micromanagement of money with long term trend predictions, being good at one doesn't make one good at the other, which is probably why despite being good at one Spielberg had shown himself repeatedly to be pretty bad at the other. With his consistent inability to predict where the industry will be in 5 years, why would anyone think he'd suddenly change and manage to predict something in 20? I mean hell even in the late 80s he was predicting the death of the blockbuster, and now 30 years later they're not just still the driving force of the movie industry, but are a large part of where his fortune came from.

TL;DR: the past 30 years have shown he's brilliant of dealing with the micro side of the industry, but terrible at predicting the macro side of it.

 

[Redryhno]

Because Spielburg, just like Miyazaki in the Anime industry, is a giant, but ultimately not all that knowledgeable about anything outside of his sphere of direct influence(also, c'mon, anyone using the oscars as a benchmark for greatness really needs to remember how easy it is for period pieces to sweep awards even if they're the most generic bits of the year). It's not a knock against either of them, they both are very good at what they do and deserve to be praised for nearly everything they've been a part of(with the exception of E.T. and Ponyo respectively).

But both have never had a great track record of predicting much. Miyazaki still calls Anno the future of anime despite the guy having one project in his career that is polarizing for people that watch it(you get one of three extremes, love, hate, or "can't be bothered to watch it again"), and a dozen different things he's worked on as middle management essentially. When there's far more deserving members of the industry that have worked as heads of countless projects that were acclaimed by fans and critics alike.

I will say that like alot of people here saying that oversaturation screws with the market value of any particular product, but let's be honest, superhero movies are only called superhero movies because of the characters. Cap1 is not that different from alot of World War 2 movies, Cap2 not that different from any espionage movie, etc.

 

[Albino Boo]

So what you're saying is because he has made or funded movies that have been successful, his predictions on long term trends which he has shown a repeated inability to predict accurately should be taken seriously? You may as well say that because Trump make a fortune off properties that makes him qualified to be president, the two don't connect. You're equating short term micromanagement of money with long term trend predictions, being good at one doesn't make one good at the other, which is probably why despite being good at one Spielberg had shown himself repeatedly to be pretty bad at the other. With his consistent inability to predict where the industry will be in 5 years, why would anyone think he'd suddenly change and manage to predict something in 20? I mean hell even in the late 80s he was predicting the death of the blockbuster, and now 30 years later they're not just still the driving force of the movie industry, but are a large part of where his fortune came from.

TL;DR: the past 30 years have shown he's brilliant of dealing with the micro side of the industry, but terrible at predicting the macro side of it.

Yet again all you have shown is inability to understand how spielberg makes his money. It takes 3-5 years from the start to been shown in the cinema. So you have to predict what people will want to see in at least 3 years time. You like superhero movies, thats fine but guess what you are not the only person in the world. Spielberg, by anyone other your idea , has a better understand of the movie industry than you do. The number of posts that you make will not change the facts. Ignoring the salient point that Spielberg has made $3.6 billion out of predicting what people want to see and you haven't, will not change anything. So there are few conversations more pointless or boring than the ones conducted with people who have an axe to grind. You've clearly made your mind up. I have no interest or investment in changing your mind. I hope your views and outlook bring you great happiness and contentment. However the rest of the world will continue serenely on holding Spielberg's statements about the film industry in higher regard than yours.

 

[Zontar]

Yet again all you have shown is inability to understand how spielberg makes his money. It takes 3-5 years from the start to been shown in the cinema. So you have to predict what people will want to see in at least 3 years time.

I don't see how that contradicts my previous statements on the fact he has shown a consistent inability to predict things in the long term for the industry.

I hope your views and outlook bring you great happiness and contentment. However the rest of the world will continue serenely on holding Spielberg's statements about the film industry in higher regard than yours.

See here's what I'm trying to figure out: Spielberg knowns how to make a movie, and when to support a movie, but he has shown a consistent inability to predict trends. As I stated in the OP two of his biggest predictions about entertainment where so far removed from reality a ransom guess by a laymen likely would have been more accurate.

As Redryhno stated he's brilliant at what he does (making movies or selecting movies to support) but predicting trends is not part of that beyond figuring out if the script before him would work in the market by the time it's made.

I mean hell, the idea of superheroes as a genre itself is something of the past that's disconnected from the current market. Outside of the two Amazing Spider-Man movies, the original two Fantastic Four movies, Superman Returns and The Incredibles I can't think of a big budget movie of the past 15 years that could be called a distinctly "superhero genre" movie, and certainly nothing from DC, Marvel or Fox other then what I just mentioned could be considered as such, had their movies not used comic books as a source material (and in Marvel's case had its movies in a shared setting) no one would have "superheroes" be the first thing that comes to mind when explaining those movies to people. After all if one brakes down what a superhero even if it's easy to trace their dominance of movies all the way back to Star Wars, which was itself a revival of the concept from decades past. The only thing that makes superheroes different from the characters who have been dominant in cinema since before even Spielberg made his fortune is the use of colourful spandex, and even then that's becoming less popular.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Your ability to nitpick Spielberg's record is (fortunately for Spielberg) not up to the task. His success over decades, in drama, science fiction, comedic action, all really trump your online "Well you know a billion isn't really that much"-ing.

Well then thank god that isn't what's happening.

Yes it is. Your arguments, backed by nothing, but your own lack of authority, attempt to undermine someone else's very narrow established authority. The fact is that your question, "Why do people take Spielberg's comments on the direction of entertainment seriously?" has been thoroughly answered. We're now at the point with you doing the internet thing, and arguing from nothing for the sake of argument, but there isn't anything left here.

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

 

[Redryhno]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

How generous of you to grant that he can, "Make some damn good movies..." I do at least appreciate that where Zontar was going on for paragraphs, you're keeping your attempt to nitpick someone's expertise in their expert field, from your position of anonymous laity to something mercifully brief. I'm not sure what you think you're claiming after all. Most people are not able to become even tangentially involved in a successful film project, never mind dozens over decades. That he didn't personally write and direct them all doesn't in any way detract from his expertise, including that expertise as an investor.

In fact, when you get right down to it, the core of your argument argues against itself. Which is a ridiculous thing, even on the internet.

 

[Redryhno]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

How generous of you to grant that he can, "Make some damn good movies..." I do at least appreciate that where Zontar was going on for paragraphs, you're keeping your attempt to nitpick someone's expertise in their expert field, from your position of anonymous laity to something mercifully brief. I'm not sure what you think you're claiming after all. Most people are not able to become even tangentially involved in a successful film project, never mind dozens over decades. That he didn't personally write and direct them all doesn't in any way detract from his expertise, including that expertise as an investor.

In fact, when you get right down to it, the core of your argument argues against itself. Which is a ridiculous thing, even on the internet.

You might want to re-read what I've put here. I said that with a handful of exceptions, anything he hasn't been directly involved in at the top has not gone over well. I'm saying he picks the wrong horse. He plants the tree at the wrong angle that can't be seen from the window. Projects he doesn't personally oversee do not come out well in the wash. Is this driving the point home?

It's not that he's not an expert in his field. I'm saying that picking projects that largely just have his name attached isn't one of the fields his expertise is in. I'm saying that he can personally make a movie work, but he doesn't predict trends all that well if he's not at the head of the project.

Also, as an aside, what exactly is it you're arguing? That if you aren't in the biz don't try to criticize? Seems awfully...short-sighted. I'm just a nameless mook on the internet, you're right. Doesn't mean that my opinion on what is and isn't a decent movie is completely invalidated.

 

[Sampler]

But this is Spielberg, a man who's famous for a Shark movie that was a hit because of the moody suspense built by never seeing it - which would make him an auteur director if that was his intention, but nope, fake shark kept breaking so this was plan B.

Most iconic Indian Jones scene? The dude with the fancy sword dance and Indy just straight up shoots the guy, intention? Nope, was supposed to be a prolonged dramatic fight sequence, Harrison Ford had a cold and couldn't be arsed to do the stunt work.

The guy's not a genius who understands his craft, he got lucky, so producers gave him money, so he made more films, got a name, and then banks on that alone so can run out any old crap he likes and will fill a cinema, but genius he is not, so you'd take his word on how things are going with as much stock, as, well, mine..