Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Will 'Paranormal Activity' Teach The Movie Industry A Lesson?
Techdirt: "I have to admit I don't usually like scary movies, and I didn't like the Blair Witch Project at all. But I can't help but be impressed that the Blair Witch movie cost just $60,000 and pulled in a cool $140 million back in 1999. That kind of return makes me wonder why more movies aren't filmed on really small budgets."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that the largest challenge that studios face is how to justify funding marketing materials for a low budget film like this. On an $11k budget, its difficult to justify $2k on a limited release screening. I think asking the audience for feedback determining a wider release of the film is an interesting tactic and I am extremely surprised that it worked. There was a lot of hubbub when The Blair Watch Project came out about how there was going to be a revolution in low-budget film making, but that never came together. My guess would be that it was never about the high percentage of the profit margin, but what kind of income comes from merchandising. The big budget "flash and trash" movies reach beyond the initial box office scores.
I would be highly surprised if this film changed anything in the traditional studio release models we have come accustomed to.
It does go to show that the cost of the film is not proportional to how well it does. Alot of people don't realize that the first Star Wars film was low-budget film that was completely expected to flop. The initial budget for Lord of the Rings was comparatively small as well. It's the concept that matters in a film, not how much money can be thrown at it. Just as mentioned above by Kservice, its rare for these low budget films to actually get much marketing attention. I'm sure for every 1 of these small films that gets attention another 10 great films go unnoticed.
WARNING: SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD
I saw this movie yesterday, and looking back on it, I do see the $11,000 production value that has already brought in over $33 million.
However, I do not believe that the movie would have been any more successful given any more money. The movie had a strong artistic vision and it stayed consistent throughout. This style was integral to the telling of the story, and the fact that the filming budget was low had no effect on the effectiveness of the story.
Movies like this and Cloverfield, rethink the way in which an audience takes in story. While I did not feel great fear (beyond the shock of something coming at you etc.) while in the movie theatre, upon coming home, the fear set in. This creates a more "real" fear than would a more traditionally shot film.
this seems to fit into the age old debate of theatrical or cinematic. the industry knows big budgets mean explosions and car chases, which are very easy ways ti draw in crowds. Low budget films are a risk because they don't have a formula for success. Independent films, low budget films dont get studio backing because they dont fit the profile and so they dont get properly advertised. the Blair Witch Project was revolutionary but movie like this a Cloverfield are almost just helping to establish a new "profile" for the industry - low budget, poorly shot, horror films. I would be hard pressed to see a drama work on a low bugdget just because movies are almost exclusively based on strict realism. I think low budget films will work when mainstream movies become less "real"
Plenty of independent filmmakers make really good, low budget films, but as Kevin mentioned, getting people to see the film is what matters (aka marketing). My guess for why the studios prefer to do big-budget films is that for marketing, they have a higher probability of doing well with a big name, which costs money. For a good quality, low budget film, the problem with marketing is that if there's nothing people recognize (actors, familiar story, etc.), then it becomes a much harder sell.
The other factor is that even if the film doesn't cost much to make, there is still a cost in distributing the film, which doesn't vary nearly as much as the other costs, so as Kevin said, it's hard to justify that cost.
Post a Comment