B Grade movies - how do they do it?

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

You can't just have chicks with big boobs bouncing around in tight sweaters being chased by man-eating plants anymore, you either have a man-eating plant the size of a skyscraper that actually looks real, or you have the chick naked, doing everyone on the block.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah! Once was a time when the women looked real and the monsters looked fake. My how times change, eh?

[Matt Pacini]

Yeah, how things have changed.
You know, I thought I was being really pretty racy with Lost Tribes, having these bi-sexual women cult members kissing each other, and sensually caressing the sacrifice victims that are tied up on the altar in their underwear, waiting to be sacrificed, etc.,
But I kept hearing people (and a few distributors) complain to me that I needed real sex & nudity, and that my film was too tame to do well as a direct to video feature, etc.

So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're making a film for under $5 million, it had BETTER have some naked chicks in it, and better yet, lots of actual sex.

The days of titilating are over, ya gotta actually show the stuff...

Matt Pacini

[Greg Crawford]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cameraguy: they appear to be the work of a demented 60 year old who took too many viagra pills, had a Hi8 camcorder, blank tape, charged battery, $200 to hire some fake boobeb bimbos 50 cents to buy some fake fangs. [/QUOTE

]Try 18-23 year olds!

Usually you find guys making movies with there friends.

[blackangus1]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

But I kept hearing people (and a few distributors) complain to me that I needed real sex & nudity, and that my film was too tame to do well as a direct to video feature, etc.

So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're making a film for under $5 million, it had BETTER have some naked chicks in it, and better yet, lots of actual sex.

Matt Pacini</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, Matt, I think you're 180 degrees off this time.

Pornography is free. People don't have to pay for it. They can get it off the web any time they want, for free. Half the classified ads in my newspaper's "video equipment" section are for adult videotapes, two for a dollar. Do you really believe that adding actual pornography to "Lost Tribes" would have helped it sell more?

Contrast that with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" -- hardly even a kiss in it, yet it's the highest-grossing independent film of all time. A simple, fun story that gave people an emotionally satisfying experience. Heck, even the Blair Witch Project, foul as its language was, didn't have even a smooch in it, yet it's the #2 biggest-grossing indie of all time.

People aren't looking for pornography -- they've already found that. What they're looking for is an emotionally-engaging experience. Provide that and the selling will take care of itself.

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by blackangus1:
People aren't looking for pornography -- they've already found that. What they're looking for is an emotionally-engaging experience. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

That I agree with.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by blackangus1:
Provide that and the selling will take care of itself.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if the distributor isn't being lazy. My experience is that finding a distributor that recognizes a quality product and is willing to find the audience for it is harder to do these days. While I agree with you about what audiences want, there are many, many distributors that THINK the audience wants sex and violence. That's why we get so many movies UNLIKE the two movies you pointed out. Virtually every movie out there these days is based on horrendous violence with gratuitous skin thrown in just to round out that R rating that the distributors THINK is important to a successful release.

So it isn't really about what the audience wants but, rather, what will please the nutballs that pick up independent releases. It's a lot like the publishing industry. I've got a sci-fi novel making the rounds now and the publishers assign book editors that make it a point to tell ME what my audience is expecting. In reality, he's telling me what HE likes; not what the audience really wants. Small minded distributors are the same way. Been there, done that.

Roger

[Scott Spears]

Hey Matt,

Sorry for the delayed reply, but I was having problems with my modem and haven't be able to get here.

Anyway, "Witchcraft 11" was shot on standard 16mm. I think we shot about 16,000 feet.

I just heard that the WC 12 was shot on video. I believe Beta Cam.

Scott

[Matt Pacini]

Barry, I agree with you....
and Roger, I agree with you.

Actually Barry, Roger hit it on the head.

I wasn't at all referring to what the PUBLIC wants, because as I've pointed out to everyone who tells me "only movies with R ratings make any money", almost every single huge blockbuster EVER made, was not an R rating, but G or PG.
(Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Titanic, Jaws, ET, Apollo 13, etc., etc. I could go on for hours).
Rarely are really huge, $200 million+ grossers ever R rated. So obviously, the PUBLIC is not looking for all their entertainment needs to be pornographic, or semi pornographic...

I'm strictly referring to my personal experience of hearing what indie, low budget distributors SAY that the public wants, therefore, they (the distributor) will buy.

In reality, these guys are not able to compete with the major distributors for that market, so they're basically selling to the market which includes horny teenagers, and the foreign direct to video market, (foreign horny teenagers), with sax & violins, baby!
You know; go into your video store under "drama" or "action" and you will see video after video with the cliche' cover of a guy (or guys) glaring at the camera, macho pose, holding a pistol up next to their face, and pictures on the back (or front) of chicks that you KNOW are going to get naked at some point in the movie (yawn...) They all have titles like "The Ultimatum" or "Seductive Enforcer", or .... you get my drift.
SOMEBODY is renting this stuff (horny teenagers?) And unfortunately, if you make a low budget movie, the guys selling THESE films are the guys you're going to be convincing to buy your film.

We all know that good, clean, well written, well executed stories are the biggest consistent draws overall, but when you make a low budget movie, (which My Big Fat Greek Wedding is not!), then you're dealing with the bottom of the barrel distributors, who as mentioned, 99.9999% of them will not touch anything that isn't T&A+.

Remember, "independent" doesn't mean low budget, it just means it was financed by means other than studio financing. The English Patient was an independent film, and it had a budget of $20 million!

And I don't really care about all this, because I'm trying to get into the mainstream, big time business, not make dirty movies (even though my Godplay Dare script was pretty racy...)

Anyway, I'd rather to a Disney movie than a Shannon Tweed movie any day.

Matt Pacini

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 29, 2002 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]</font>