CREATURE - Besmirching Indie Filmmakers

rayw

rayw

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/creature-feature-s-opening-one-of-the-worst-ever-at-the-box-office.html
470_1792159.jpg


While it played to a precious few fans, the indie horror film "Creature" did manage to put the fear of god into its producers, and pretty much everyone else associated with the film, at the weekend box office.

The film grossed only $331,000 opening up in 1,507 U.S. theaters this weekend, making it the worst premiere ever for a film opening in 1,500 locations or more, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com.

On a per screen basis, the horror film's debut was even worse than that of "Transylmania," an indie horror comedy that set the record for worst opening for a film opening in 1,000 or more theaters.
Click to expand...

What's the deal, IT folks?

All GIGO snark and petty jibes aside, how much is production quality, how much is B & C-string actors don't even pull their paychecks, how much is promotion & advertising (P&A) in terms of dollars/euros/rupee/wampum, or marketing approach?
1,507 theaters is no small feat.
WTH happened?

I've been looking at the numbers of 2009 indie films, distribution & their numbers of theaters shown in, reviews, and above/below line cast & crew.
Pretty consistently 9 out of 10 lose for everyone.

Whassup?
Where's all this headwind coming from?
Is it reeeeealy all about the P&A Benjamins?
 
Last edited:
Just from the trailer...

Maybe because it looks awful as hell?

Hopefully they didn't spend more than thirty or forty thousand on this... all in, advertising included.
 
Haven't seen the movie. Haven't seen a trailer. I know nothing about it. But for something showing in a theater alongside all the Hollywood big budget options, absolutely nothing about this poster would make me want to spend theater ticket money to see it. In fact the poster makes me actually NOT want to see it. Zero mystery or creepiness. Don't show the rubber suit monster squatting on a log. Show a close up of the girl covered in blood and screaming in terror. At least it would make me want to know what she was so scared of.

Now if the movie turns out to be a horror comedy movie about the making of a low budget horror and it really is a guy in a rubber suit, then that's a different kind of movie and I stand corrected. Even still, this would not be the right poster for it.
 
I read this just the other day:

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/4839/review

0/10 from Bloody Disgusting!

The poster does look terrible, very amature. Not being from the US I can't comment, but I'm guessing there hasn't been any advertising for the movie, TV spots, etc? No advertising, your only hope would be that people go to the kino, see the poster and think "maybe i'll see that instead of...". I'd bet the producers were hoping that Sid Haig's name would put butts in seats. I'd also bet he probably features in the movie for about 3 minutes, max.
 
It's amazing.. You show people some images (the trailer) or a photo (the poster) of a merchandise (the film) and expecting the people to be foolish enough to pay 10 bugs for it... :lol:

Now, that they can download it for free :P
 
How does this get into 1,007 theaters?

How did 1,507 theater booking agents turn down other obviously more worthy entertainment options for this? (and I can't argue that it's not pure puppy poop)

Good indie films with favorable previews can't regularly get this kind of booking.
WTH were theater owners thinking?
How were they fooled into losing revenue on this?

My primary issue is not with the film's quality.
It's how they pulled off their booking - WITH - such quality, dubious as it is, God love Sid Haig and all.
How can I/you/we duplicate that ourselves I guess is what I'm getting at.
It looks like a real David & Goliath situation.
 
Last edited:
mad_hatter said:
I'd bet the producers were hoping that Sid Haig's name would put butts in seats
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but then they should've made a poster of HIM squatting on a log.

Just now watched the trailer. Honestly I've seen a lot worse. I'm a fan of B-movie horror. Trailer could've been cut a lot better but there was enough decent material in there they could've cut around the stuff that made it look cheesy. That and a completely different poster and I wouldn't have dismissed it so quickly. That of course doesn't mean I'd enjoy it once I saw it. But it could've done a much better job sucking money out of my wallet before it pissed me off.

Like Mad said though, if you don't have the budget for a big ad campaign but you did manage a theatrical release, you need a poster that makes your movie look cooler than the one I originally came in to see.

At the moment, the title "Creature," on a marquee with no poster would have a better chance of me opting to see it.
 
Trailer isn't remotely scary. Looks like a guy in rubber suit. Girl isn't that hot. Wonder how it got theatrical release...
 
I've never even heard of this film. Couple that with a horrible poster and of course no one is going to see it. Once you have a wide distribution it's completely about marketing to get people in the seats. They obviously didn't have any; even the poster looks like something thrown together in photoshop in an hour.
 
Ok, so, they show the monster...more than once in the trailer, AND on the poster art??? Bad move.

Trailer doesn't look that great speaking as a viewer.
 
mad_hatter said:
I read this just the other day:

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/4839/review

0/10 from Bloody Disgusting!

The poster does look terrible, very amature. Not being from the US I can't comment, but I'm guessing there hasn't been any advertising for the movie, TV spots, etc? No advertising, your only hope would be that people go to the kino, see the poster and think "maybe i'll see that instead of...". I'd bet the producers were hoping that Sid Haig's name would put butts in seats. I'd also bet he probably features in the movie for about 3 minutes, max.
Click to expand...

Wow, they slaughtered this one, lol.
 
aceofspades70 said:
Wow, they slaughtered this one, lol.
Click to expand...

article said:
Yes, you read that correctly, the entire (final) fight sequence took place off camera.
Click to expand...

Heh, in Night of the Living Dead 3D (once again with Sid Haig as a name, fwiw), there's a huge fight scene that is entirely off-camera, when Sid Haig fights through a horde of flesh-eating zombies (all off-camera) to gain entrance to the house. We see the people inside the house reacting to the v/o & sound FX of the battle outside, and following the noise from wall to wall on the inside while the action "happens" elsewhere.

Sure, there's a time for implying things (as opposed to actually showing them), but these kinds of movies ain't that vehicle. It's lazy filmmaking that somehow found an all-access pass.
 
I saw this tonight. I was in the theater with 5 other people. I go
out of my way to support independent film.

I thought it was silly and fun, with plenty of gore and T&A - a
real throwback to ‘80’s DTV fare. What I always called “boobs and
blood”. I made a dozen of these. I loved the man in a suit
alligator man.

Unlike the rest of you I was thrilled to hear about a wide release
of an indie monster movie with one (barely recognizable) name. It
gave me that little bit of hope that some distributors were
willing to take a chance. Clearly the audiences wanted nothing to
do with this. Even independent filmmakers are actually insulted by
its release.

After this financial disaster I don’t think any distributor will
be taking another chance for a long time.
 
I don't know the details, so I'm just musing...

I can't imagine they took a chance on this in the way that "Hey, this is a good movie! Let's get it into theaters to put eyes on this!"

Only could see it going "Hey, we can put this in the theaters for next to nothing as long as it's a digital projection screen, we got it for nothing, let's see how much we can make on it."

In this case, if that's true--then they're up a few hundred thousand.

Again, I'm just thinking out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top