Hollywood is doomed, according to Steven Spielberg. He almost couldn't get Lincoln released in theatres, because it's not about explosions and superheroes and stuff like that. Spielberg, George Lucas, and Steven Soderbergh have all recently expressed extreme pessimism about the future of Hollywood, believing the current route is unsustainable and it will collapse. That seems like good news to me.

Though I don't hold any ill will toward all the workers in this large industry and I want it to come about in the least tumultuous way possible, I sort of hope that the Hollywood studio system (and theatre system as it exists right now) will collapse entirely within the next 10 years or so. That would open a lot of doors for independent filmmakers and a new way of distributing films to theatres. The old, massive distribution system isn't really necessary anymore; with digital technology, anybody can afford the necessary resources to get a movie to thousands of theatres nationwide very easily. We'd need the distributing companies to collapse, though, before theatres would have a motivation to seek out independent filmmakers who are self-distributing. In the end, it would be beneficial to the theatres; they could charge more for slightly less widely distributed films, and they would be able to keep a larger cut of the profits.

Very interesting thoughts there Smeagol.

Your idea does have a few flaws, but might could work.

#1, Indie films bring in a lot less viewers, and even higher prices may not make up for the difference.
-I think they would much rather have the popular "Explosion" films, because money is money, and they'd rather have more of it.

#2, Theaters would have to set up some sort of screening process to pick which films they do/don't show.
-Either the requirements would be really high, and only a few films would make it, or they'd be really low and the perception of the overall quality would plummet. Possibly leading to less movie going in general.

#3, Theaters are failing as it is, (Or so I've heard.) even with billion dollar films, so loosing those may lead to theaters being few and far between. -If they did become more rare, they may evolve into a more "Special Occasion Only" type of entertainment, and may become more picky with the films they show. Leading to only the most popular films being shown as opposed to unknown Indie features.

Still, I'm fairly un-knowledgeable on the subject, so your predictions may very well come true. Just thought that I should throw some things out there.

Yeah George Lucas isn't really a good example to be bringing into this.

And I don't really have a film career in mind, more of a computer one, but I am pretty sure money shouldn't be your goal, sucks out the goodness in a film when the directer doesn't care about it.

Well, Hollywood has really just become a political money-making machine. They have sorta created a nice little system to make sure certain movies don't get made. Its sad really.

I agree this might be the collapse of Hollywood. With the help of the internet and companies like "Redbox" or "Netfilx", I think that independent films shall take their place! (But I obviously can't predict the future.)

However, I am almost completely positive that the film industry is going to have changed drastically within the next 10-20 years.

I don't think anyone would contend that Lucas isn't technically or even artistically innovative, but I don't see how that success translates to special insight into the future of marketing and distribution. If anything, I would think the fact that he's been able to self produce since the 1980s and his tendency (since then) to make market-safe projects like his franchise films means he deals less with the painful parts of the industry than smaller directors. While that alone certainly doesn't discount his opinion, I haven't seen any evidence that he has invested in alternative distribution methods (unless you count his frequent forays into television, which would be stretching to say the least given that TV and film are similar in corporate structure). That said, I don't follow film news much and it's possible I've missed something significant.

I just don't see compelling evidence for a near future not dominated by theaters and big name producers. I want, but don't expect the industry to fold in the next ten years- blockbusters are making record earnings. Will there be small changes in that time? Sure, there are always minor shifts in how people consume and those shifts could lead to something larger eventually. Yet even with piracy a common and viable option (uh... don't pirate, folks), the public feels compelled by tradition or for experience to patronize the big-screen when a new film comes out. Beyond the next decade, maybe things will start to dissolve more quickly. Really, tomorrow the large studios could randomly shoot themselves in the foot and make it all come down, invalidating everything I've written here. For now though, the only thing I see that might indicate disaster ahead is the ballooning Hollywood film budget. The internet is here, streaming video is here, and Hollywood still has a firm grip on the film industry. It's going to take more than a handful of (very) successful people stating that the situation will change rapidly to convince me.

Frankly whatever happens in Hollywood won't affect me. I'm not going to aspire to be a famous holluwoo director, I'm sure going to make the best films possible. And While I haven't started thinking about it much yet, after college or whatever I could probably take like small editing jobs for local tv stations or weddings or something, all the while making my own films at the same time

Squid, that's exactly how it was when I went to see Rise of the Guardians. Everyone was talking, there were kids trying to clamber over the seats. That was also how it was when I saw Gulliver's Travels at the cinema. It was awful.

Hollywood spends too much money appealing to empty spectacle, name recognition, and dead franchises. Their industry is collapsing, and what's hilarious is that they are blaming everything but themselves. The Host didn't fail because it had a female protagonist - it failed because it bloody sucked. World War Z didn't fail because of Brad Pitt, it failed because the zombie apocalypse genre is more tired than the bromance-comedy, and because the script was a complete mess. Man Of Steel didn't do as well as you hoped not because of all the competition, but because it was completely bland.

The triple A gaming industry is trying to appeal to difficult-to-develop-for graphics, cheap gimmicks, and bland trends that its forgetting about the actual games. Consoles should serve the games - the games shouldn't have to bend over for the consoles. That's why companies such as Valve and DoubleFine have walked away and are just doing their own thing. Even Lord British has severed ties with EA and launched a Kickstarter campaign because he knows how much major game companies suck. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are praying that people will just buy their stuff out of brand loyalty rather than actual quality - because that plan worked so well with Atari...

TV is just generally crap, and with the invention of webshows its been ages since I've sat down and watched something that wasn't a re-run. Its begging for Twitter to help it out, forgetting that Twitter is filled with mindless drones who will just re-tweet anything their favourite celebrity says without actually thinking about it.

No-one reads books any-more. Even if I was to write the next War and Peace, no-one will care because no-one cares about books. Which is a shame, because writing a book and self-publishing it on the Kindle is unbelievably easy. Anyone can write a book now...its just a shame that no-one will be there to read it.

Eventually all these mediums are going to either implode, fade away, or find some way to move on. Either way, stuff is going to change soon.

Honestly I do think filming has a positive future. I think people complain too much about the state of film making and are acting like there haven't been any poor films in prior generations. I think of movies kind of like I do with music, many people think that for music to be good it has to have some sort of lyrical story. I disagree, as I think for music to be good it has to be produced properly so that it sounds pleasurable to the ear. The truth is that good music is what you make it to be - people choose music subjectively. I think of movies in the same way. Although there are some truly terrible modern movies now a days (i.e. "Battle LA") most are just mediocre, nothing more, nothing less. There are some gems and some crappers, but most are just churn of the mill. This isn't different from previous generations.

I think film making will be stable for the foreseeable future, so as long as these $200 blockbusters are stagnant in price and don't continue to rise.