Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on November 28, 2016 at 6:50pm

I think Speilberg will always be remembered for Schindler's List, Jaws and Jurassic Park.  I do agree I think that Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles are probably going to be more sought after.  Part of that is because Hitchcock was a personality as well as director and Welles also an actor. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sling on November 29, 2016 at 7:03am

yeah, forgot about schindlers list, although for future generations the value will be in not forgetting Schindler himself-they may not know who  directed it.

Jurrassic Park will be forgotten.  Its jurasssic world is  simply too old technology.  kids themselves can do much better having grown up with digital tools Spielberg could only dream of back then.

StarsvWars will srvive case of its franchise and new episodes use new tech.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kayla B on December 2, 2016 at 6:41am

Disagree heavily with that, Jurassic Park will always stand out among that franchise. Jurassic Park used practical effects, I mean Spielberg made the all the animatronic dinosaurs for close up shots. The only time he used CGI was in far away shots. When you see the close ups of the T-Rex and velociraptors, they look real. You can tell the quality versus the quantity in Jurassic World. In fact, my big problem with Jurassic World was the constant CGI. They had one practical dinosaur for less than two minutes screen time. I thought the movie was okay, but the main plots and story were a mess (militarizing raptors?) and the CGI wasn't great. There's a thing as too much CGI when it looks like it did in Jurassic World. If you ask most movie buffs which one they'll pass down to their kids and make them watch it will always be Jurassic Park.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sling on December 2, 2016 at 8:05am

perhaps you are right but I don't see Jurassic as a strong franchise.  The mix of ANALOG AND DIGITALTECH MAY not have worked for Spielberg, but todays tech is so much greater than what he had.

Parents msy give t to their kids, but 20 years from now thw id will likely toss it in the corner and watch more current and better tech science fiction. ut I can see them watching African Queen for storyline, acting, and that technology cold not improve it...Give e a signed pix of Africn queen stars and it will grow In value-don't thin a signed Jurrasic will over 20 years

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on November 28, 2016 at 6:25pm

The internet killed the rock star and gave birth to the kadashians.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sling on November 29, 2016 at 6:47am

I wonder if live muscicans were saying that when phonograph came out?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Xwiesy on November 28, 2016 at 6:58pm

There isn't anyone now that will be worth in 50 years what the Stones are worth today.

It's all disposable now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sling on November 29, 2016 at 6:46am

yeah, they span generations although some like Phish might

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on December 2, 2016 at 12:02am

Sometimes i ask myself about artist who were incredible in the past and their autographs arent worth much at all,artist like Joe Cocker and Curtis mayfield, they seem to be forgotten.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on December 2, 2016 at 1:45am

Hi Paul,

I think of Laurie Anderson (O Superman (For Massenet), Only an Expert), Kraftwerk (undervalued, except perhaps vintage)...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on December 2, 2016 at 3:46am

I also would think David Byrne would be worth more, but his graph seems easily forged as it is mostly the printing style like how Flea does it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on December 2, 2016 at 10:15am

I agree totally but he seems to have had a little surge in value. But yes, undervalued for his contribution but, like Anderson and Krafwterk, does the contribution have truly wide appeal (even if serious pioneer)?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page