Lucas and Spielberg Predict Big Changes to the Film Industry

Published 2 years ago by

george lucas steven spielberg movie industry Lucas and Spielberg Predict Big Changes to the Film Industry

People tend to sit up and notice when the men who gave us the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises (among other game-changing blockbusters) have something to say about the future of Hollywood tentpoles and the film industry in general. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg recently spoke at the University of Southern California, to commemorate the opening of the Interactive Media Building, and their comments at the event have gotten movie buffs of all shades talking.

The pair echoed the feelings and thoughts of many a journalist, professional filmmaker and general cinema-lover alike, when they addressed how writing for television has become more satisfying than movie screenwriting; that is, because it allows for a richer storytelling experience, with greater complexity and breadth of content (see: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, etc., etc.). Similarly, TV writing doesn’t require artists to jump through so many hurdles as working on big-budget Hollywood fare.

However, it’s what the duo predicted would result from this growing discrepancy, that’s got people buzzing (via THR):

Steven Spielberg on Wednesday predicted an “implosion” in the film industry is inevitable, whereby a half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next — or even before then — will be price variances at movie theaters, where “you’re gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you’re probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln.” He also said that Lincoln came “this close” to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.

Spielberg clarified that because some young filmmakers “are too fringe-y for the movies,” television is going to become the route they take with greater frequency. That could set in motion a chain of events that leads more and more people away from seeing the latest over-hyped tentpole at their local theater, and thus cause “a big meltdown” once several “megabudget movies… go crashing into the ground.” Lucas supported his longtime friend and collaborator’s theory, adding that the route to getting your movie into theaters “is really getting smaller and smaller.”

John Carter vs. White Ape Lucas and Spielberg Predict Big Changes to the Film Industry

‘John Carter’ struggled to recoup its $250 million budget

Those who’ve followed developments in Hollywood over the past decade are, no doubt, familiar with what Spielberg and Lucas are talking about here. Studios have become increasingly hesitant to green-light projects, unless they are some kind of remake, franchise reboot, or adaptation based on a lucrative pre-established brand.

However, possessing those qualities is no guarantee that a blockbuster will make a profit, due to factors like niche subject matter, lackluster marketing and/or weak critical word of mouth. Indeed, cracks in the industry blockbuster model-for-success have already begun to show, with films like Green Lantern, Battleship and John Carter (all of which either failed or struggled immensely to cover their expenses). We’ve also got a handful of risky box office bets arriving in theaters over the next month, which could lend more (or less) credibility to this argument.

Lucas and Spielberg had additional thoughts, about what could transpire (When? If?) Hollywood continues its trend of releasing tentpoles that cost $200 million and over:

George Lucas agreed that massive changes are afoot, including film exhibition morphing somewhat into a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher. His prediction prompted Spielberg to recall that his 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial stayed in theaters for a year and four months.

This claim is a bit harder to swallow, if only because services like Netflix, Video on Demand and online entertainment content (a la Amazon Studio series) are continuing to grow and expand the amount – and range – of original content they offer, in addition to incorporating more and more older films/TV shows into their archives.

So many alternate options for entertainment are now available, and it raises question about how feasible (or profitable) it would be for either studios or theater chains to prolong the theatrical runs for certain films, with the hope of attracting both new customers and repeat business despite significant inflation in the ticket prices for blockbuster fare. (Mind you, that’s not to say that Lucas and Spielberg are necessarily wrong, either.)

Altair Ibn LaAhad in Assassins Creed Lucas and Spielberg Predict Big Changes to the Film Industry

Finally, Lucas and Spielberg talked about the contemporary video game market and the upcoming wave of movie adaptations that will be arriving over the next few years:

Lucas and Spielberg also spoke of vast differences between filmmaking and video games because the latter hasn’t been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters. Which isn’t to say the two worlds aren’t connected. Spielberg, in fact, has teamed with Microsoft to make a “TV” show for Xbox 360 based on the game Halo and he is making a movie based on the Electronic Arts game Need for Speed.

Again, the assertion that gamers don’t care about the stories or characters they play is open for debate. Hollywood studios are banking on fan’s love of the increasingly well-developed protagonists, settings and narratives found in modern video games, in order to ensure that upcoming movie adaptations like the Tomb Raider reboot, Assassin’s CreedTom Clancy’s Splinter Cell, and numerous other titles prove worthy of the financial investment. If that’s not really the case, then we could have a major problem.


What do you think? Are Lucas and Spielberg right, about us being on the verge of a paradigm shift in the film industry? What changes lie ahead for the current Hollywood system? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section.

Source: THR

Follow Sandy Schaefer on Twitter @feynmanguy
TAGS: Lincoln
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Pfft please…they forget that the people set the demand. That sort of supply wouldn’t be sustainable. I love Iron Man but there’s no way I’m paying $25 to see it. I agree there’s change afoot, but nothing that extreme.

    • That’s what I would have said back in the day about paying the $12 they cost now. Prices have tripled since I was in high school, so to think of prices doubling isn’t too shocking. And everyone will pay it. It’s no more rediculous than paying the prices now…if you have even a short memory.

      • The difference is ALL movies cost that much, basically its a general increase in cost. If you go into the cinema, and see one movie for 25, and another movie for 7, people are going to SEE the difference and get pissed.

        Not only that, some people will actively avoid the higher priced blockbuster movies and see cheaper ones just because of the cost, this will also make the higher cost movies unsustainable.

        Add to that.. the movie industry ALREADY complains about the price of piracy, if you start charging three times as much for some movies than for others, piracy will skyrocket.

        • Seven Psychopaths cost $15m to make, has as great a cast as any in recent years and was fantastic. If the movie was given a proper release it would have grossed far more than it did. Studio’s fail to capitalize on movies like this. In this scenario 7S would be a $7 movie and would trump most $25 movies.

          Websites like screen rant give smaller budget movies, indie movies and smaller distribution companies a far better platform than previously existed. If I want to discover a movie I visit these types of websites so that I can discover the ones that are not shoved in our faces with constant TV ad’s and $100m marketing campaigns.

          I must disagree with Spielberg in parts. He has clearly overlooked the power and importance of independent movie websites, bloggers etc. The major studios, cinemas and distributors should ignore them at their own peril.

          What is the point in showing 12-15 different movies a month at a cinema when 70% of the screenings are almost empty. Give people a greater variety and bring down the price a little.

          It’s not as though there isn’t enough movies being produced to increase options. People would think ooh I wonder what is on at the cinema, check the listings and overlook the movies that have been shoved down their throats that they have either seen or have no intention of seeing. Then there will be listings people will be like… oooh what’s that movie I have seen no ad’s for that… and do a little research, read a few reviews, watch a trailer and go and see it.

          An empty seat is a wasted seat.

    • I get pissed when I have to pay $12 for a movie. Speilberg better get a grip, people are only going to pay what they are willing, if they jack up the price I will wait for home video and the theater can go out of business for all I care.

      • I totally agreed with you. Count me in! :D

      • I remember at my local theatre, before Matinee it was like $3.00 and $5.50 after. Now I’m paying $6.00 before Matinee, and $8.00 after.

        I see change, but it may be extreme. It depends.

      • I disagree entirely. Granted there are people who may wait until a movie is available for home viewing but many people (myself most certainly included) love going to the theater. My television simply doesn’t compare too that giant screen and great sound system. That being said, there seems to be an abundance of s***** movies. If this trend continues I will most likely go to the theater less and less unless a movie just gets incredible reviews.

    • i agree with you i would not pay that kinda cash to see block buster movies

    • A 3-D Imax movie in New York City costs about 18 dollars right now, & many theaters do not show them in matinees during the start of the run. 25 is not far away in some markets….

  2. It’s the Gruesome Twosome!

  3. They are right, but we are not on the verge… we’ve been deep into this change for many years, from the first bootlegged vhs, to the invention of internet movie downloads, the expansion of the global movie market, inception of “home theatres” and the revamping of 3D tech, TV and Movie actors “crossing over”, going from TV to Movies and reverse, fan-financed TV shows… yeah we are smack dab in the middle of the change.

    And why wait at all to rent a movie? We should be able to rent a film on our TV, computer or iphone, the same day it’s released in theatre. The reasons behind this delay are economical not logical.

  4. How come they don’t mention better film making? The large movies that flopped… Green Lantern, Battleship and John Carter were not good.. They were just OK movies at best… But I guess if you throw enough $hit against the wall, something is going to stick!

    • Today there are home theaters that rival or flat out beat the local movie theater. So why not do something like have an MGM channel or a Warner Bros channel and pay for the movies on demand the day they come out? Doesnt that money go directly to the studio like pay per view revenue does for boxing and MMA?

    • I agree. There have been so many horribly bad movies lately it almost makes me sick.

  5. At some point, Hollywood will say “enough” to reboots, remakes, rehash, re-engineering, re-imagining, and just say “rerun”. Imagine this: the movies we saw in the 80s haven’t been seen by the younger crowd. My nephew and niece are 15 and 13 and they love the original Star Wars (IV,V,VI). Think about having a season every year where movies from older generations (15-20 years ago) will be released again into theaters for a one or two month run. Think about it. It’s already “in the can.” Already on DVD. The newer generation with disposable income who never saw it in the theater can now have that “cinema experience”. Why not show them again? No risk of pirating. They’ve already been pirated. It’s all profit at this point, minus “second-dollar” residuals – if there is such a thing. My nephew and niece, despite seeing Star Wars repeatedly, would be in the theaters in a heartbeat. With advances in cinema technology, I’d probably be in there too.

    Think about it. Haven’t we seen some Disney movies recently released into theaters again for a weekend or two? Wasn’t Titanic shown again a couple of years ago? I’m inclined to think that Hollywood isn’t just thinking about it. It’s had a test run.

    • I agree. I would pay money to see certain movies in the theater again…would love to see Superman from 1978…only because the only Superman film I have watched at the theater is the Awful Superman Returns.
      Well, Friday Man Of Steel will erase that horrible experiance.

      • I would certainly pay for Back to the Future or The Empire Strikes Back:)

    • I would see more old movies in theaters if it wasn’t only in 3-D

  6. I’ve been saying this for a long time. It doesn’t make sense to me that a movie that costs $200 Million is the same to see as a movie that costs $10 Million.

    That makes me much less interested in seeing small budget movies compared to action/adventure/sci-fi spectacles. I’m not saying I want to pay more. The prices now are OK for spectacle movies, but cheaper movies should cost less to see because they have less to recoup.

      • …just in time for their DVD/Bluray release that used to take 6 months to a year after the theatrical run. Now it seems it takes mere weeks to appear in the home market.

  7. While some of these claims may be to extreme, but I think film is changing, but what they don’t know is that these 2 changed the way of movies for years to come (for the better). Jaws and Star Wars anyone?

  8. $25 for Iron Man, id pay that if I could see it immediately in my own home and not have to deal with crowds

    • LOL. You know…that may be the next thing. They may start a service where you can watch a new release from the comfort of your own home. No need for lines and the concession stand.

      • They already have that service (by Prima). It costs a ridiculous amount of money to set up though so it’s aimed at only the really rich. $500/film plus $35k for the box.

    • I hate crowds too. Especially hate when people sit in the spot I like to sit in for the perfect view of the screen and maximum comfort.

      • Sheldon ?

    • A world where you never have to leave your house. Sure I’m taking it too far but you see where I’m going with this

  9. Video games haven’t been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters?

    Who wrote that exactly? A non-gamer by the sound of it.

    Otherwise, I agree. As ticket prices go up, audience numbers will go down with only a select few movies being released in cinemas as special events (like the music industry has done for over a decade with live theater screenings of concerts) while a majority of movies will be streamed on release for a fee.

    I’ll bring this up again but when Terry Gilliam was attached as director for Watchmen, he said on day one “this shouldn’t be a movie, it’d be better off as a TV serial” and how right he was when we see the end product as directed by Zack Snyder.

    As we get more options to watch TV on the move thanks to tablets and smartphones, the competition will be there and properties considered too long for movie form these days will be stretched out to better fit the home format, as a few of them should.

    I’d love to watch the 4 hour director’s cut of Red Cliff but the only thing stopping me is that I don’t speak the language the movie was filmed in but putting English subtitles on it and releasing it in increments as a 4 part mini series would help not only get it out to a bigger audience but also teach a little history at the same time.

    I think Spielberg and Lucas are correct. I’ll miss the experience of seeing movies on a huge screen in a darkened room with that sense of awe when the surround sound kicks in but if that’s how things will be then I’ll adapt and maybe get a home theater if I can afford it and find the room in the house to do so.

  10. I just saw Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark at my local movie theater the other day, and that warm feeling I felt after I left. I turned to my wife and said ” I haven’t felt like this with any movies recently, whatever happened to quality film making.” You need characters that will keep you interested enough to sit through what is now at least 2 hours plus per movie. I don’t care about CGI explosions, over practical movie sets and a great story.
    I like the idea of releasing more Hollywood great films on the big screen. I would love to see Psycho, Blade Runner, or even Gremlins once again on the big screen. People love these classics, and the profits go right back to the studios.

    • I honestly still get that feeling with modern movies. I barely experience disappointment because I tend to only go see movies I know I’ll like and enjoy based on the trailers before I even leave the house.

      I think with a lot of people, that feeling isn’t there so much because they seem to ignore trailers and just go in blindly, throwing cash onto the counter and choosing a movie at random then walking out disappointed.

      • ^^^
        I totally agree

    • Disney used to do this on a regular basis before the advent of home video. My Dad saw Pinocchio in the theater during its original release, then took me to see it in the theater when they re-released it for the new generation of mousketeers. Why not start a theater that shows classic films in their original viewing environment? Oh yeah, because the studios make more money from the sale of the low quality print on DVD.

  11. I predicted the variable rate movie ticket years ago, back in the early 2000′s. It makesno sense that every movie costs the same when they all have very different costs to make.

    That said, the movie industry is going to short circuit itself and take a major fiscal dive if it doesn’t do something about its current farmeework from what gets picked to film to who films it to who gets to interfeer with the prduction. Most films that failed when they were exected to do well can often be traced back to interfence from persons who shoudn’t get involved but do solely because they have the power to do so.

    • Actually, it makes perfect sense from a business perspective, if you’re a studio.

      A small, inexpensive film that does very well at the box office helps to recoup the losses of a big-budget film that bombs.

      That is why you will never see variable ticket prices based on the cost of making the film.

      • @mardock

        I get what you’re saying but the times they are a changing. It wasn’t that long ago that most swore that digital downloads for music/video would never be profitable and or would remian the realm of pirates only.

        Same goes for video games and how they would remain a niche entertainment and yet we some games surpassing big blockbuster movies in terms of sales.

        You WILL see variable rate movie tickets, its just a matter of time.

  12. Pirate Bay all the way.

  13. South California???

    Did you mean Southern California or South Carolina?

    • My bad, thanks for catching that.

      It’s been corrected.

  14. For movie theaters, the cost of exhibiting films is identical for a picture costing $10 million or $100 million. Either way, the house has to make its nut; and for moviegoers the imposition of variant ticket prices will prove intolerable.

    As movie theaters become increasingly obsolete, a new form of “cinema house” will evolve. Television, as this modern generation knows, is merely one alternate avenue for producing and distributing films.

    The real cost-effective/cost-benefit issue is how our entertainment is delivered. And an ev en bigger issue (and one to which Lucas and Spielberg may be giving only scant attention) is the diversity of that delivery.

    When some unknown number of “John-Carter-type flops” scare overexcited executives sufficiently to rethink their studio model and nomenclature for what a “blockbuster” must look like (and should cost)…with expectations lowered, skyrocketing budgets in descent, “tentpoles” singular, not plural…will restore corporate sanity.

    Economics, technology and the coming generation (5 to 10 years off) will tranmogrify and re-establish the Hollywood cosmology floating above all that cyber real estate online.

    Nothing is as permanent as change; and for all the innovations that provides the many ways by which we see our movies — now and in the near-term — the changes we’ve already seen is only the tip of the spear.

    It’s the film industry that will get the full shaft.

    • Much of what you say is true.

      Costs of distribution and the costs associated with running a theater are yet another reason why you will never see variable ticket prices based upon the cost of the film.

      I wouldn’t doubt if we see a number of theater closures over the coming decade or so as the production/distribution struggles to find its equilibrium.

      I largely agree with Spielberg. And it’s being driven by two factors, IMO:

      1) People want well-written stories when they go to see a film. Most of these big-budget extravaganzas are so poorly crafted from a script & story perspective, and so dependent on expensive special VFX, that they’re doomed to fail before they even hit theaters.

      2) The rise of cable and quality programming on channels like HBO (where story DOES matter) has dovetailed with big screen HDTVs and content-on-demand. Why would I want to sit in a theater with strangers and sticky floors and 10 mins of commercials on a big screen, when I can stay in the comfort of my own home with my high-tech AV system?

      So I think part of this is self-inflicted by Hollywood, and part of it is just the inevitable march of technology.

      At the end of the day, all of it can be traced to the development of computers and Internet.

      The former gave us tech that Hollywood now uses as a crutch in the form of a “CGI over story” policy; and it gave us HDTV that rivals or beats theatrical screens for image quality.

      Meanwhile, the latter is forever altering the distribution model.

      • Well, I’ve seen cinema closures already.

        My fave place was shut down for redevelopment back in February so I’ve had to start visiting a rival chain that I never really liked due to their much smaller screens and more chance for idiotic college students and young kids making a lot of noise.

  15. The studios can clearly be blamed for their bad oversight of movie creation leading to bad distributed movies. They should pull the plug (or recast, etc…) on a movie way before it becomes a $200,000,000 turd.

    Their poor management skills means all theatergoers have to pay the price as to what will be produced next and what it will cost to produce and view.

    And frankly they should be smarter and develop more low cost movies (like The Purge) that can turn a quick buck. This should give many directors/actors/technicians/story-writers a shot that previously wouldn’t get one.

  16. Such idiots. These guys are just whining cause their last movies, no one went to go see. And what a coincidence; Spielberg says T.V. is the future, right as he’s making new stuff for T.V.
    I honestly think this is just them trying to get publicity and still matter; which they stopped being relevant to the film business since the 90′s.

    • Lincoln made 180 million and cost 65 million. Not a flop

      • Even the last movie Lucas directed (SW E6) made about $850 million off a $113 million budget, so I’d hardly say nobody wanted to see that.

  17. That’s nothing compared to another implosion that is imminent. Just think about it: Homo Sapiens Sapiens exists for about 200.000 years now, but only in my lifetime of 37 years the world population grew by 3 billion people (from 4 to 7). How long do you think this will go on without collapsing in on itself? I’d say ticket prices are the least of our worries in the near future. Am I reading Dan Brown’s Inferno at the moment? Sure am… but that doesn’t make it less true (for a change). ;)

    • I doubt it. I predict a massive World War that will make the last three world wars, (Napoleonic Wars, World War 1, and World War 2) Look like a cakewalk. Either that, We’ll have an ugly combination of World Wars and Civil Wars. Following the closing of the Wars, most of the world’s government will collapse. There will be factional fighting.

      I don’t see an implosion, I see an explosion.

    • Yeah we’re going to screw ourselves soon by overpopulating the earth and ruining our environment and then movie prices won’t be such a concern. But people usually need to hit rock bottom before changing.
      Kind of like what was said about movie studios and remakes/reboots and $200 Million blockbusters.

  18. I think Lincoln would have done much better as an HBO mini series like Band of Brothers was.

  19. I agree wholeheartedly with what a few commenters have said about the need for quality movies, regardless of budget. Most of the flops people have mentioned failed because they had no heart. The studios certainly won’t be able to charge those sorts of prices if they keep making garbage.

    There’s one reason for keeping movie theaters around that I’m surprised no one has mentioned: the communal experience of watching movies. When I pay for a movie ticket, especially to a movie like Iron Man, a big part of what I’m paying for is the experience of going to the theater and seeing that movie with a bunch of other excited fans. Having the chance to chat and share the anticipation beforehand, listening to the audience’s reactions during the movie – to me that’s a huge part of what makes the movies the movies and it’s one of the big advantages of the medium. Whatever else happens to the film industry, I don’t think that will go away.

    • I never mentioned the communal thing because that’s not really why I go.

      When I go, the only people talking to each other are friends or family members who went there together. People don’t talk to strangers because that’s just weird and people find it creepy.

      Also, I hate when people talk or make noise during a movie. Ruins my enjoyment because I’m struggling to hear what’s going on (quite a few movie experiences have been ruined by children and adults of all ages talking, laughing, eating or making noise in general, especially when they keep moving in their seat and all you hear is a creaking chair in the cinema during a tense moment in the film).

      That’s why I like to go during the afternoon when there’s less chance of people around to ruin it for me and I can also grab my fave spot so that I can actually see the entire screen without having to sit sideways or have an aching neck from looking up towards the ceiling to see what’s happening.

      • My greatest ever cinema experience.

        Hero (w/ Jet Li, awesome film) on final day, mid afternoon showing on a week day (was having a week off work to doss about).

        Number of people in the showing…… ONE = ME, bloody loved it :)

    • That is the last reason I go to the theaters. In fact, I am more annoyed by those people.

  20. the last comment made by these jokes is just that. these neanderthals need to play modern games and stop thinking about pong or pacman. old farts haven’t made something decent since their original movies and are just grumpy, cynical and senile old money bags.

    with that being said, i do see there being a price hike for summer movies, especially ones with big budgets…. i don’t so much see eye to eye with anything else they said.

    • “old farts haven’t made something decent since their original movies”
      Have you seen Lincoln?

    • Well Spielbergs original that put him on the map was Duel so after that we have
      Indiana Jones
      Close Encounters
      The Colour Purple
      Jurassic Park
      Schindler’s List
      Saving Private Ryan
      Minority Report

      Now this is just my choice of decent Spielberg movies so to say he’s not made anything decent, well lets just say you must have a limited taste in movie fair.

      Granted George aint done jack but then he didn’t need to, he was racking in the billions from starwars and he must of got something from being involved in Indy.

  21. People care about video game character because they spend over 30 hours whit them. No one can recreate that feeling in two hours.

  22. Hardly sage advice from the duo who grandfathered the art of milking their fans. They’re losing their corner of control and that concerns them most, I’d say.

    • agreed

  23. Tv is more intellectually rewarding then movies. I enjoy Iron Man , but 10 minutes after I saw it I forgot the movie however a show like Game of Thrones stays with long after you watch it.

    • i agree with your words but come on, give GOT a better opponent, inception for example, or even the lord of the rings.

  24. It’s so interesting to see how this plays out — but I would be willing to bet that film studios simply lower their filmmaking costs. People do it all the time. THE PURGE cost $3 million. There is no reason a movie needs to cost $250 million dollars, that is purely Ego-driven; insane expenditures and little producer discipline.

  25. I’m surprised people are believing this stuff. Sure prices will rise but I don’t think it’ll be anything this drastic.

    Varying ticket prices depending on the movie? I doubt it. $25 ticket prices for Marvel movies? I doubt it. Ticket prices have gone up over the years, sure, but it’s just basic inflation. These two are praising TV because they are working heavily in TV now.

    When Whedon or Nolan start saying this type of thing, I’ll believe it.

    I do agree, however, that it’s tougher to get your movies in giant screens nowadays. But that’s true with most mediums. I mean, for publishing it’s tougher to get your books published in a big house and musicians have a rough go at it to get on a major label and go gold. That’s just the times.

    • Nolan won’t have to, in my opinion he is one of the few great film-makers out there.

    • Whedon already said that if he really had to choose, he’d prefer TV over films because he can develop the characters more or something like that.

      Having said that, I think there is room for both. Some of the most satisfying films I’ve seen are ones based on TV shows (First Contact, Serenity) because I already had a kind of relationship with the characters. Of course, the films have to be done well and not just coast off of the love for the show.

      Something like the LOTR trilogy was quite satisfying too though because by the end the characters were also well developed and the quality didn’t really drop off in the sequels.

  26. Lol. IF ticket prices do became variable with ‘blockbusters’ charging more then all the studios are going to accomplish is hastening their own demise, because people will just pirate the movies that much more..

    It would be an insane move to pull, they have to know this surely?