B Grade movies - how do they do it?

[Scotness]

I've always had a soft spot for the old b-grade schlock horror sci-fi monster stuff - and have been watching a few lately - and it struck me whilst watching Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity that despite the fact it was crap - it was reasonably sophisticated crap - ie the people making it (with the exception of most of the acting and the writers) knew what they were doing for the most part - and that they obviously had a bit of money and it must have been shot on 16mm -- so I started thinking where did they get the money for all this - is there like a circuit or definate market for these kinds of films and do they make their money back?

I always understood their appeal but now that I've made a film and know what goes into making them - the fact that there are so many of these films - by people who must have made more than one - must mean there's at least a bit of economic support for them. I'm not trying to sus out some cash cow here - because I don't think that's the case with them! - but I'm just intrigued to get a greater picture of this scene - and how they do it financially/market wise.

I'm tempted to make one myself one day - assuming I haven't already with out knowing it!

Scot M

[Foxfurr]

I wouldn't mind knowing that myself.

A librarian friend of mine told me grants for just about everything exist if you know where to look.

I'd suggest going to your local library and asking for information on obtaining grants for art projects and such.

[cameraguy]

It's guys wanting to look at boobs in a cheesy sci-fi type setting.

[Hanthx]

Who doesn't enjoy that?

Scott

[Scotness]

"Boobs in a sci-fi setting" - that's about all Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity had going for it - well not really - I'm being a bit harsh - but it was pretty low fare stuff - but anyway my point is - how do these films get their money back? - is it all direct sales to video - or cable tv? - are there companies that just specialise in this kind of stuff and manage to survive this way? I think these kinds of films are fun - but I think what really got me is that with the same kind of equipment and money they had but with better actors and script - and aiming for a bit higher - you could come up with a really good film - low budget of course, but something quite good. A good script is just up to you to work on it, and good actors can be obtained from amateur theatre companies - and it's jsut a matter of the standard you're aiming for with your film -- I would have loved to have had some of the resources they made making Slave Girls - so how do they do it? - or how do they get the money from the guys wanting to watch boobs in a sci-fi setting? Is there cable tv in the states that specialises in this - how do they reach their audience so succinctly? Is it a whole underground industry or scene like porn - or is that putting to fine a point on it - it's not that distinct a market - but none the less popular enough?

Scot

[eddie]

well thats the big question isnt it?

no one in their right mind would fund their own film out of their own pocket.
and why should anyone fund someone elses film? film is a suspicious investment.

There is an awful lot of unclaimed money in unclaimed grants and many odd charities have money to offer if asked. Community Arts grants etc...
Just a matter of applying to them all.

That said if a film has t!ts in it then I think it can garauntee some sales. Dont forget foreign markets, I know one person who plans to sell his self funded film straight to asian market.

Or the producers of these films are simply very good at finding naive funders, or freebies - its all part of the adventure.

[cameraguy]

<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 Scotness:
-- I would have loved to have had some of the resources they made making Slave Girls - so how do they do it? - or how do they get the money from the guys wanting to watch boobs in a sci-fi setting?
Scot</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

For years Roger Corman's company kept churning out these type of pics cause they made money. I read somewhere that he told Martin Scorsese (a nobody at the time) that he could make whatever film he wanted (referring to Boxcar Bertha) with a fixed budget AS LONG AS is it had X minutes of boobs and X number of graphic shoot ups.

I personally love movies like Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity but I just don't see their kind being shot on film anymore (if there are email me immediately!). All I see is wannabee semi-porn "horror" stuff shot on video. Its just horrible but they keep showing up at the video store.

I assume these are funded by the filmmakers themselves since 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. Seriously, it seems to be that easy to get a movie into the local video store here in the USA.

[mcarter4121]

As a painter I once made some posters for inclusion in a movie called, "The Liberation of Cherry Jankowski" who worked in a local dildo factory. They appeared in the office shot of the dildo factory president.
Who/how was it funded? Lots of BS, parties, and thick documents. All kinds of friends and family of the producers. Bills that would be paid ... soon ... (I dated the secritary).
You could have crawled under your seat at the opening show in the Castle in Oakland that night. Boy was I embairassed.

[Scott Spears]

Confession time here. I have shot some of these "less than artistic" ventures. I shot a little ditty called "Witchcraft 11". Yup 11. How I got the gig was strange. I called the original DP to recommend an assistant camera person and by the end of the conversation, he offered me the DP job. I had more experience and a better camera. I had a hole in my schedule because another project pushed back, so instead of sitting around the house, I took the job. It was shot in 8 days for under $30,000. Everybody got paid, although the PA pay was something like $25/day.

After that long detour, you asked where does the money come from for low budget films of this ilk. This film was funded by the distributor who knows he can move this kind of thing on video here and overseas. Other films like this are funded similarly.
Two other films I shot were funded by a company (which will go unnamed) that raised money through telemarketing. They had a phone script and list of retirees with money to burn. I got the feeling they took half the money raised and put it in they're pocket, so we got half of what they said was spent on the movies. I also got the feeling that they didn't care much if the investors got their money back.
Others are funded through local investments from friends, family members and biz associates.

Distributors are making the money, not the filmmakers.
I have a buddy who put together well over $80,000 for a film and it's first round of sales brought in $85,0000ish. He got $18,000. Ouch. There's foriegn money coming, so hopefully he can get some more money, but as you can see it's a tough world.

One more note on "Witchcraft 11", the distributor beefed up the crew list so it looked like I had a crew of 6 grips, a gaffer and best boy. The real crew was me, an AC, a PA and helpful sound man. Not the 25 plus listed in the credits. He thought it would help sales and maybe it did. I'm proud of the work I did on the film with virtually no crew and no money, but if you put it up against a film with budget that could have afforded that crew, then it makes me look bad because with a budget that big (probably $250,000 plus) I could and have produced a more nuiances looks. But hey, that the world of show biz.

Scott

[Matt Pacini]

Hey Scott, was WCii shot in 16, S16 or 35mm?

Anyway, my two cents in this conversation, is that the market for these kinds of films is a fraction of what it once was.

Name all the films you guys are thinking of, and I'll bet almost every one of them is 10-15 years old+.
Read Roger Corman's book, and you will see how huge the market used to be for B-films.
He makes some really good points in the book, and that is, that exploitation films (that's what he calls his genre) have really been hijacked by the big budget producers, had a ton of cash tossed at them, and now they're big FX movies, etc.
Like 35 years ago, we had Attack of the Crab Monsters, now we have Jurassic Park, or Speed, or whatever.
He has a point.
The genre has mostly been split into huge budgeted mostly terribly written but brilliantly shot movies (the new Godzilla, for instance), on the high side, and split into almost porn - to outright porn on the low side.
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.


Matt Pacini

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 26, 2002 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]</font>