The Roger Cormans and the Samuel Z. Arkoffs have been replaced by UFO Films, Nu Image, York Entertainment, and whatever direct-to-video crap Artisan drops on us and it's rather depressing. I guess movie making costs so ridiculously much nowadays it costs too damn much to start up another New World or Cannon or AIP.

Ebert has written about this before. He made the observation that The flicks Corman made have evovled into big budget B-films. Tons of cash are poured into shlock like "Fast and The Furious", "Charlie's Angels", "Final Destination 2", etc. Well, "tons" as compared to Corman's relative budgets. Conversely, less money is put into artier fare.

Also, the distribution chain has been turned on its head since Corman and AIP did their thing. Theaters are sown up by the studios, and the turnover of movies is so ferocious that word-of-mouth success stories are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Add to that the fact that the Internet allows us to hear everything about a movie before it even hits the screen, and the market for quick cash-in is all but dried up. Corman could churn out a movie in a week for a handful of change, AIP would sell it to a handful of theaters, drive-ins and local territories, and then move it around the country until profits dried up. You can't do that any more. The only movie I can think of that's even approached this sort of thing is Bubba Ho-Tep, but even that has taken years to find a distributor willing to take it on.

Home video used to be the modern equivalent of the drive-in, but ever since Hollywood's A pictures became big budget B-movies, the market just isn't there. When Universal can throw the best part of $200 million at Van Helsing, a movie that has all the hallmarks of a cheap knock-off bar the pricetag and cast, then what hope for an independent?

The industry just isn't geared towards independent and innovative entrepeneurs now. It's geared towards, as Foy says, companies like Nu Image who know exactly what the bare minimum they can get away with is. Corman, for all his penny-pinching and commercial drive, was also a consumate entertainer who sold movies based on what audiences wanted. The industry today has reversed that, and audiences are now sold on the movies they're told to want.

Hollywood right now is in a similar situation as it was in the 1960s - the studios are over-extended, pouring vast sums of money into projects in an increasingly self-destructive cycle, hoping that one of their bloated movies will hit big and pay for all the shit.

Then again, it's at times like this when unlikely saviours come from leftfield and turn things on their head. We're probably overdue another revolution. Somewhere out there, there's a 21st Century Corman working out a way to deliver the goods through the cracks in the studio system.

Not to mention how many great artists Mr. Corman fostered, Scorsese and Jim Cameron both started under Roger Corman and were given the opportunity to go onto to bigger and better things.

I was thinking about that whole Corman film school thing the other day. You don't hear about any new talent coming up through the ranks like that anymore. Filmmakers seem exist in a bubble these days. A young fresh standout will emerge from Sundance or Cannes and get thrown into the Hollywood machine. A few survive (Tarantino), but most just don't have the work experience to build a career like Cameron or Coppola.

That's also because Hollywood is more interested with finding directors who are more adept at making a movie look good than making a good movie. Look how many get movie directing gigs based on their work making music videos and Madison Avenue commercials and look how few of them have actually amounted to anything because most only know how to make the visuals look slick and are totally lost when it comes to things like storytelling and what not. Now it's all about the guy that directed those Mountain Dew commericials or the latest Britney Spears video.

Di-no-croc! Di-no-croc! Di-no-croc!

Yes, I do believe that is the name of the movie. It beats CARNOSAUR and BLOOD SURF any day of the week.

EXACTLY!

I think alot of people think Corman made one kind of film. This simply isn't true. Corman went through various cycles, depending on the market. From his early monster films, to the really very good POE films, to the WWI fighterplane movies, to "trashier" bikegang/carchase films in the '70's. His filmography is as diverse as anyones. But the market HAS changed unfortunately. Perhaps it's time for another government driven de-regulation of theatres, as happened earlier in the last century.

I bet John Sayles doesn't. He was working like a mutherfucker back then.

I think it's a mirror of what's happened in the bigger studios. They know their market TOO well, and form fit films to past audience success.

Don't forget Ron Howard.

RON HOWARD POPS THE CLUTCH AND TELLS THE WORLD TO EAT MY DUST!

I laugh everytime I see that DVD case at work.

This topic reminds me; I really have to rent Death Race 2000 in honor of Kill Bill Vol. 2.

Despite the chances and opportunities he has given many an up and coming actor, director, etc. Let's not forget that A) many more people involved in his productions went on to do nothing or crap their entire careers, and B) Corman himself is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE director.

Where indeed?  Watching Machete Maidens Unleashed! and a gaggle of Shout! Factory's recent Corman releases has me longing for a new explosion of exploitation cinema.  I'm sure it will happen eventually.  I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Speaking of machetes, I think Rodriguez's Machete was amazing.  I loved it.  Maybe only a Rodriguez-type self-contained outfit ready to make low budget horror flicks can get movies like this made.

 

I was reading this thread and thinking how relevant all of it still is, even moreso.  I think particularly Foywonder's comment about filmmakers making good looking films rather than good films is astute.  I have a theory that a lot of it has to do with up and coming filmmakers learning techniques through film school and watching DVD commentaries rather than developing their own on the fly the way so many filmmakers in the "Corman school" had to.  What do you think?

I agree.

 

Personally, I won't be surprised if someone takes up the Corman mantle within the next decade.  The death knell of Roger Corman and his comrades in the industry was films like Star Wars and Jaws arriving in the late '70s.  B-movies with A-movie budgets.  While they all still managed to carve out a niche for themselves in the '80s (particularly in terms of straight-to-video productions), most of that ceased by the time the '90s rolled around.  The major studios were tackling the same sort of material with budgets a thousand times greater than what Corman could match from the late '70s until fairly recently.  Things seem to be changing though.  Take a look at all of the blockbuster "B-movies" that have tanked over the past few years.  Conan the Barbarian, Green Lanter, Prince of Persia, etc.  Try and tell me that Cowboys & Aliens doesn't sound like something Roger would have produced 30 years ago!

 

For better or worse, the blockbuster B-movie is dying out.  Granted there will always be a few released to success, but overall the well seems to be drying up.  The same goes for all massive studio projects really.  The industry just can't sustain itself in this state anymore.  The same thing happened decades ago and when the system finally crashed, independent films and directors flooded the market.  While he had been chugging along well before that happened, that was the time when Corman shot to the top and became an exploitation powerhouse.  Mark my words, it will happen again.  It might be in five years or ten, but it'll happen.  Eventually independent cinema will reclaim exploitation and I can't wait for it to happen!

 

That said, I completely agree that Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino are in the absolute perfect position to get this industry pumping again.  Robert already has his own autonomous studio and merely uses Hollywood to distribute his films these days.  I see absolutely NO reason why he couldn't start up a separate production company and start releasing films under a Grindhouse-esque banner that he and Quentin could produce.  Just spitball some ideas and turn the filmmakers loose to make whatever kind of picture they want to as long as they stick to the budget.  If some of the films can gain enough steam to land a theatrical release, awesome!  If not, there's always the DTV market where stuff like this still thrives on Netflix, Redbox, and (while they still exist) Blockbuster.  I'm sure there are plenty of filmmakers that would jump at the chance to be involved in something like that.  John Gulager, Scott Sanders, Michael Biehn, Jason Eisener, Roel Reine, Scott Mann, and Isaac Florentine all come to mind.  Obviously Robert and Quentin could contribute from time to time, along with some of their pals (Wright, Roth, Zombie, Del Toro, etc.).  You could also rope in previous exploitation luminaries such as Joe Dante, John Landis, Monte Hellman, Frank Hennenlotter, Brian Trenchard-Smith, Lewis Teague, Allan Arkush, etc.  I'm sure many of these filmmakers (and others) would love a shot at making a down & dirty picture that is 100% their own vision.  Hell, name the production company RIP (Rodriguez International Pictures) after the faux logo in front of Planet Terror.

 

There's absolutely no reason why this couldn't happen.  Grindhouse may have tanked at the box office, but it has STILL become a franchise regardless.  The audience is there, but someone needs to be smart enough to realize it.

I have often said here that Hollywood really needs a Corman like figure. Even if he doesn't stick with genre films, even if the budgets are a bit higher this time someone must step up. Just set a budget range, whether 5 million or 15 or whatever and have him turn out movies. Just get directors and say "here's the money, do whatever you want as long as it's a *insert movie description here* and in the can in three months." And then go and sell it. Not chasing half billion dollar BO like everyone does. Go for 30. Or 20. Or 10. 

 

 

If a new Corman-style studio were indeed set-up today, judging from recent comments he has made in interviews.....................as well as clips from that upcoming Corman doc, I wouldn't be shocked at all if Martin Scorsese signed up to make one.

 

Like you said, there is absolutely NO reason why someone couldn't fashion a successful studio pumping out genre (or non-genre) projects that were made for 10 million or less.  This NEEDS to happen.  I don't care who does it.  Just make it happen right fucking now!  The world needs a new Corman.  Someone please step up and take on the mantle!!!

Here's part of the answer to the question (the director worked for Corman at one point but I don't know in what capacity though not as a director from what I understand):

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/dec/09/creature-biggest-box-office-flop?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

 

 

Meet Creature: the biggest box-office flop of all time

It had everything: nudity, gore and the most superfluous lesbian sex scene in the history of film. How could it possibly fail? Stuart Heritage goes behind the scenes of a real Hollywood disaster movie

It seems he was merely an errand boy for Corman back in the day.  Anyway, they were moronic for giving Creature a full-on wide release.  In the end, it will make back its money on home video..........which is where it should have debuted in the first place.  There is nothing wrong with making a low budget creature feature and gunning for theatrical release.  In fact, it really is only a matter of time before "monster movies" make a comeback.  That said, making an intentional schlockfest of a monster film and then expecting it to make a bunch of money when you idiotically give it a wide release these days is a different matter.  For better or worse, this is a textbook example of what NOT to do for whoever takes on the "Corman mantle" at some point down the road.

 

Honestly, the business model for a new Corman-esque outfit should be aiming for high-quality DTV projects.  If they manage to turn out well enough to go wide theatrically, then go for it.  If not?  Snag a tiny limited release and then go VOD/DTV.................pretty much like just about everything that Magnet buys these days.

 

 

Incidentally, that article convinced me to add Creature to the ole' Netflix queue.

That's the whole point. They shouldn't be aiming high. Spend 5 million on a movie, aim for 15. Spend 10 aim for 20. Considering the huge amount of distribution methods available right now this should be easily achievable.

 

How the hell is gambling two to three hundred millions, or a single product multiple times of the year supposed to be a sustainable business model? Just one of those behemoths crashing and burning will be enough to take a major studio down with it. And with home video being a shadow of its former self during the DVD heyday, it feels like Hollywood is asking for it.

Exactly.  If you can spend 5 million on a project and manage to score 15 million of it (be it off of VOD, temporary exclusivity rights, home video sales, etc.) you've already won.  If you are lucky enough to get a limited (or on rare occasions, a wide) release as well...............then that's just icing on the cake.

 

Aiming too high in this field is a no-no these days.

To (try and) answer Prankster's embedded question, "why aren't there entertaining low budget films like Corman used to make?", I'd point out that most films made by Roger Corman's studio sucked. Sure Deathrace 2000, the Poe films etc were good, but they are outnumbered by all the films that no one remembers anymore, with good reason. Time has allowed the cream to rise to the top.

 

In years to come I think people will come back to flicks like Black Dynamite, Attack the Block, and Bubba Ho-Tep and have fun with them.

 

I think it's also true that we now have a new film "genre" that didn't exist in the 1950's-1960's: the "Indie film". They are today's low-budget/no-budget equivalent. They consist of quirky characters acting quirky, and thus save on FX budgets.

You're right, of course.  The problem with today's indie films is that a lot of times, filmmakers will use a cool horror/scifi/action premise for a mumblecore nightmare of two annoying twentysomethings arguing for two hours.  I had such high hopes for Monsters, but everything cool happened in the background.  Even the leads were good, production values good, setting great, everything was there ... except the script.  The closest you got to monsters attacking either a) happened off-screen or b) was too far away to be seen (while the characters either argued or kissed in the foreground). 

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that everything produced by AIP and New World Pictures was a masterpiece.  Most were horrible.  That said, the majority of films that ANY studio puts out are all that great (or are down right terrible).  What we're all saying is that there is a hole left to be filled during this day and age.  The potential is there for someone to start up a Corman-style studio where a lot of creative low budget projects can be cranked out for profit.  I'm willing to bet the market is there as well.  If it weren't, we wouldn't be seeing waves of new Asylum and SyFy Original films year after year.  That shit gets rented (be it at Blockbuster, Redbox, Netflix, etc.) like CRAZY.  You have no idea how many times I've been standing behind people at a Redbox who are actively excited when they come across that crap.  Same goes for people sifting through the $5 and $10 DVD selections at Wallyworld. 

 

The industry is already in place.  Someone just needs to have the balls to start putting out QUALITY low budget genre pictures.  And by quality, I mean something that is watchable and entertaining..................not necessarily a full-on "good movie".

 

As for Black Dynamite, Attack the Block, Bubba Ho-Tep, etc.?  We are always going to have a few filmmakers that are lucky enough to bring projects like those to fruition.  What we NEED is a "home" for those types of projects.  Someone/someplace willing to bankroll them on a regular basis and more frequently.  Such places will return to prominence eventually, but not until the studio system crashes again.............................which honestly can't be too far off at this point.

I'm 110% with ya, SD. If there was one studio putting out films by all the Directors of those films, why that studio would own my patronage for life!

In the old days, there was New Line, New World, other distributors that could "four wall" their movies to various regional movie theaters.  Now, distribution is so monopolized it's much trickier, although there are still some indie exhibitors like Landmark.  The trick would be to knit some kind of network together of independent theaters that do midnight movies to secure some kind of guarantee that these movies could be seen on the big screen. 

We should be moving into a new golden age of cinema but the problem is that consolidation has killed off most of the smaller distributors while the major studio's paid off politicians to close the tax shelters that allowed people to raise money for a feature. Digital tech is soo cheap and easy to use but you still need a budget to get your movie made. Fuck me, I can't imagine what some tech savvy movie maker could do if he/she were able to raise, say, 100K! But that's impossible today, not only in terms of distribution but also considering the economy. It fucking sickens me that people like Spielberg and Mr. Digital Tech himself, Turkey Neck Lucas, wouldn't put their billions together and finance, say, 24 features a year at 100K each. 2.4 million dollars, fucking pocket change to those two assholes. Sure, you'd get some shit but those with real talent would shine. It also bothers the living fuck out of me that someone like Scorsese would be following that jerkoff Cameron's lead with the whole 3D thing which doesn't help cinema beyond allowing the studio's to put a higher premium on the fucking trash they continue to spend 150-250 million on these days. If Scorsese was 40 years younger, he'd be using pro-sumer camera's and his home computer to make movies, not 3D gimmicks and spending 170 million fucking dollars. Furthermore, the Weinstein brothers are in the perfect position to tap the huge amount of undiscovered talent out there but those two fat fucks are too busy making glossy prestige pictures.

 

There's absolutely NO ONE looking out for independent movie makers. You DON'T need to spend tens of millions on movies. We're back to where we were in the 60's as the studio's made movies like Cleopatra. 

 

Oh and you should all make it a priority to buy the documentary "Moguls and Movie Stars", about the creation of cinema itself until the collapse of the studio system. Great, GREAT stuff and well worth your money at 7 hours long.

Well Netflix is financing movies now. You've got Tyler Perry (not my cup of tea, but he's not in the Studio system). The UK seems to be experiencing a renaissance starting last decade.

 

And there are still small "art house" theaters, at least in any sizable city with a University.

 

As for the "big guys". Francis Ford Coppola is out there making interesting films as well.

 

It's not quite dead out there.

 

Perhaps the real question is, is there a sizable audience for low budget exploitation films? If people prefer to spend their time and cash on dreck like Tranformers, how will quality flics like Transmorphers succeed?

I think we're living in a massive transition period right now, really have been for the past ten years or so with the digital revolution.  In 100 years people will look back on this time as probably the most important period in movie making.

 

Thing is, transition periods tend to be incredibly chaotic and difficult.  As great as all this new tech and ways of doing things is, no one has been able to truly take advantage of it, because every 6 months to a year, there seems to be some kind of new innovation.  Whether its super cheap pro sumer (RED/Scarlet) cameras getting cheaper and cheaper, 3D filmmaking, motion capture, digital projection, online content distribution, youtube, facebook, the PC tablet/mobile device revolution, Cloud OS, and it just goes on and on and on...

 

I don't think Spielberg and Lucas has seriously sat down and thought about this and how it affects the upcoming filmmaker.  Their advice is like everyone else's advice:  Work on your craft, make connections, pray for luck.  It's really the only way to make it in this town.  I've been out here 11 years and working on my craft, making connections and praying for luck is just now starting to pay off big for me. 

 

Another issue that most don't seem to understand is, you can make an indie film today with hardly any money with all the new innovations, but you still need talent in order for people to take it seriously.  And the agencies have a stranglehold on that talent.  Now you can pull a Primer like Shane Carruth or a Slacker, or a Clerks, or a Pi, but those guys had seriously innovative ways of doing those films which was successful in hiding how amateurish the acting was.  And in some meta universe if Tarantino had made Reservoir Dogs in black and white 16mm for the 30K he had in selling True Romance, I'd be including his innovative way of telling that story.  Sadly, most beginning filmmakers have terrible ideas and no talent, and the ones who do, simply don't have innovative ideas...they want to make Leaving Las Vegas with the Red Cam, 10K and local Vegas actors...well you can do that, but no one is going to sit through such a straightforward film with amateurish actors.  You can make that movie AFTER you've established yourself.  As a new director, you need to literally hold nothing back and throw everything you can at the movie like Aronofsky, Carruth, Rian Johnson, Linklater, Rodriguez, etc. etc...it's the only way to stand out in a sea of mediocrity, which is even more full because everyone now has access to these filmmaking tools.

 

Hollywood is awful forgiving of low budget and mediocre talent if the direction is strong and innovative.  And they will give your film a shot and hype it as the next big thing, etc.

 

 

Yeah but how do you distribute those films with all the major cinema chains tied so closely to the big studios?

 

...and if you can't do that how do you recoup your investment? If you release it to the net won't most people simply download it if it's good? Who'll pay besides people like us who understand what it is we're supporting and why?

Yeah, distribution is really the ace up Hollywood's sleeve...it even destroyed Coppola's Zoetrope dreams in the 70s when he tried to independently produce films.  You cannot get people to see movies unless you control the distribution apparatus.  And you need leverage in order to do that.

 

"What's that?  Don't want to show Tuskegee Airmen?  Okay, then you don't get the new Star Wars films when I make in a few years."

 

"Fuck you!  You better book this film or you don't get the next Brad Pitt sci-fi epic we're shooting in the summer."

 

Indie filmmakers don't have that kind of leverage.  Their only way is to get accepted into a prestigious film festival (and you have to know and be friendly with someone on the selection committee or know someone who has an influence over them), get an agency to see your indie film and fall in love enough to show it to a studio for them to buy (Rodriguez and El Mariachi), and your film has to fucking be a cinematic blowjob to do that...OR, come up with some weird, innovative way of getting publicity for your film at a grassroots level for people to pay attention...OR, put a kick ass trailer or scenes from the film on youtube and pray somebody of influence falls for it, like Raimi did with that terrible short film called Panic Attack (the director of that is directing The Evil Dead remake).

 

That's why all this innovation doesn't mean shit, because Hollywood controls the distribution.  The only way this is gonna change is when these online content distributors start expanding and find some way of distributing indie films...but even then no one is going to see your small town drama starring the local talent.  The hype machine has to indoctrinate your film somehow.

Ambler, you sound like some flunky chasing after studio gigs. No offense but "Work on your craft, make connections, pray for luck." sounds like "kiss as much as as possible" to me. Also, your assertions that you need access to "talent" sounds like star fucking. There's PLENTY of talented unknowns and, yes, maybe there's some amateurish stuff in the low budget end of the spectrum but that's just the way it is. Furthermore, when you say that you've been "working on your craft", what does that mean exactly? Did you start off making low budget flicks, develop your abilities, show that you have talent and, as a result, get more financing and access to better actors? Because that's the way that most of the Directors of the 70's did it. That's how Aronofsky, Carruth, Rian Johnson, Linklater, Rodriguez etc.... did it.

 

YOU are the talent. Your ability to tell a story. You work with what you've got and, if you're any good at it, the opportunities will open up like all those other Director's. Don't chase after people who you think will get you ahead, make your own breaks. You can do it. 

 

 

 

 

You can label it any way you want, I'm just giving the reality of my situation which applies to pretty much everybody because I've seen it all out here.  Working on my craft means I've been writing scripts for 15 years as a way of trying to gain representation, directed some short films (one of which played at Cinespace, a Hollywood festival), worked on other films, etc.  And you're basically just backing up what I said about talent.  YOU are the talent, yes, IF you're talented at all, and most aren't...and if they are, they're not making a film that is going to be seen.

Do what you like dude, but the only real way ahead is to make your own way. The time you've spent waiting could have been spent doing. But what do I know, I make a living writing philosophy for fortune cookies.

How did this turn into a "follow your dreams" motivational speech for Ambler exactly?

Or at least Charles Band 17 years ago ;) ...

 

 

There's always SyFy or Asylum...

Oops. Nevermind. Yeah, quality is an issue. Corman even produced some of those Syfy flicks too. SHARKTOPUS, etc.

So what's Ed Burns' excuse for "success"?

 

 

That's the thing, dreck like Transformers and Transmorphers DOES succeed.  There is absolutely NO reason why someone couldn't make a quality version of Transmorphers and have it do well on the rental/DVD/BR market.
 

 

     Quote:

 

When you're right, you're right!

 

 

 

Which is pretty much what Corman & Co. have always said.  If you don't have any stars, you need to make your film stand out in other ways or you are dead in the water.

And thus, guys like Marty and Cameron were able to cut their teeth on projects where they were encouraged to get maximum entertainment for minimum cost and they were even given the privilege to fall flat on their arse in the attempt.

 

It's a shame there's nothing like that now for young up and comers.

 

...and yes, having worked on many student film shoots, the majority of people that want to be film-makers have awful - really fucking awful - ideas for films mostly.

Blumhouse Productions is the closest thing we have operating at the desired level these days.  Judging the the remarks from filmmakers have have worked or are working with Jason Blum's company (and its sister outfit, Haunted Films), the rule of thumb is that they can make whatever they want as long as they keep to the budget.  Here's how they've fared so far when it comes to "genre" entertainment...

 

 

Paranormal Activity (2009)

Directed by Oren Peli

Distributed by Paramount

Budget: $15,000

Domestic Gross: $107.9 million

 

Paranormal Activity II (2010)

Directed by Tod Williams

Distributed by Paramount

Budget: $3 million

Domestic Gross: $84.8 million

 

Insidious (2011)

Directed by James Wan

Distributed by FilmDistrict

Budget: $1.5 million

Domestic Gross: $54 million

 

Paranormal Activity III (2011)

Directed by Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman

Distributed by Paramount

Budget: $5 million

Domestic Gross: $103.6 million

 

 

 

Their 2012 line-up....

 

The Amityville Horror: The Lost Tapes (completed)

Directed by Casey La Scala & Daniel Farrands

Distributed by Dimension

Budget: $5 million

 

The Bay (completed)

Directed by Barry Levinson

Distributed by Lionsgate

Budget: $2 million

 

Sinister (post-production)

Directed by Scott Derrickson

Distributed by Summit

Budget: $5 million

 

Area 51 (post-production)

Directed by Oren Peli

Distributed by Paramount

Budget: $5 million

 

The Lords of Salem (post-production)

Directed by Rob Zombie

Budget: $1.5 million

 

 

The Diary of Lawson Oxford, Mockingbird, Insidious II, and Paranormal Activity IV are all also in various stages of development...........along with currently untitled projects from Oren Peli, James Wan, and Jaume Collett-Sera.

 

Universal just signed a three-year "first look" deal with Blumhouse Productions back in June, which easily gives a firm outlet for any future projects.  Anything that they don't take, I'm sure Paramount and others will be more than willing to pick up.

 

 

Aside from Blumhouse, the only one close to moving towards churning out low-budget entertainment on a full-time basis is Robert Rodriguez.  While his own Troublemaker Studios has mostly functioned just to handle the films that he himself directs (Predators and Death Proof being exceptions), he set up a new production shingle early this year called Quick Draw Productions with the intent of producing low budget action-oriented commerical fare.  RR will direct some himself, but the main intent is to produce films for up-and-comers.........as well as established directors.

 

Like I said, the time is vastly approaching where the "Corman-type" films are going to make a comeback.  Indie and art house theaters are NOT a concern anymore when studios are more than willing to purchase distribution rights to a low-budget effort that they think they can make a quick buck off of................be it theatrically or DTV.  I've said before that I think Robert Rodriguez (along with Tarantino) is the perfect man for this sort of thing, so here's hoping it pans out for him.

Then there's the international* gross which they get. Even if it's as low as the 10-15% figures I've heard, that's still a hefty chunk of change. Throw into the mix revenue from the present video formats, streaming and so on, well quite a lot of money for relatively little outlay I'm guessing.

 

*edit: How on earth did I write 'internal' instead of 'international'? Somehow my sentences just keep having these screw ups up the time on the web. Why does this keep happening?

Edited by Shan - 12/13/11 at 8:47am

I hope you're being intentionally thick headed.  I didn't spend 11 years waiting, I was DOING, making connections, working on films, honing my craft...this is what you do until something pops.  The saying is, "this is a ten year business" and I've paid my dues.

 

 

Weirder things have happened.  Actually alot of industry people felt it was undeserved. 

 

Of the movies already released, Insidious is the only decent title.

 

 

Edited by yt - 12/13/11 at 10:32am

 

That may be true, but my main purpose was to illustrate how what we are asking of filmmakers/producers in this thread actually IS achievable and absolutely DOES have the potential for great financial success without any massive risk.

 

I mentioned this in the Crank 3 thread but Crank 2 was shot for 15 mill on mini-HD and there is NOTHING wrong with the way it looks. This is why Cameron and Scorsese promoting 3D pisses me off when they should be pushing for low cost alternatives. Same thing with Nolan and IMAX. FUCK IMAX because the format is too big, bulky, expensive and out of reach to 99% of moviemakers. If I ran a studio I'd finance low budget exploitation movies and cap the budgets at 10-15 million and force people to shoot on HD. Crank 2 looks fantastic on HD and that's where the future of indie moviemaking needs to go. Shit, there's videos shot by kids on YouTube that look beautiful.  

And that just may be the future of indie/grindhouse cinema. The big studios investing more in more in the expensive spectacle. Putting all their eggs in the popcorn bucket, hoping for that huge return... "Why should we invest in something small when anyone (not really true) can make one of those flicks?" It's a weird transition time. We have this amazing distribution system that is the internet. But how do you use it to market your film above all the other noise? How do you battle piracy? Without a prod company, where do you get funding? TV and cinema are still the money-makers and the pipeline for the big studios, but, like so much has changed in the past 10 years, the next 10 are hard to see.

 

I still want to see studios (or independent producers) take more of an interest with the small, less-risky genre stuff. LIONSGATE (like New Line and others before it) and MAGNET (a bot more prestigious with a focus on foreign) seem to want to be in that game, championing quality low-budget horror... well, at least on the distribution front.