Low Budget B-Z Grade Films - Why greenlit and released in the first place?

[PhantomScreenwriter]

The low budget films that are released straight to dvd/blu-ray, digital download etc - how come these are even greenlit and released despite their quality?

Where I'm going with this thread is to discuss what makes these films good enough to be released? These types of movies make it look far too easy to get your film made. If someone were content with making these types of films then do you think it's a good path to go down?

All the discussions about making sure your film has characters written well, stories told well and all the things that are needed to make a really good and entertaining film - with these poorly made films being accepted it might make one think that road is the better one to take if they want to make movies because it seems easier.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Whatever is profitable and marketable is releasable.

 

[Scoopicman]

PhantomScreenwriter, my question to you is, do you realize that you are on a filmmaking board that is full of people making the movies you are talking about? Good! With that out of the way, I know that you and I have very similar tastes and are fans of the same stuff - ALIENS, TERMINATOR, etc. We are rabid fans! I am also one of those people who has made some of the movies you talk about, so I can give you my perspective on it.

Trust me, there are flicks you've never heard of, and never will. I'm one of those people who collects and makes no budget cinema. I like these movies, because they aren't perfect, which means I can learn from their faults, yet appreciate what works. In fact, I find studio movies to be too perfect - made assembly-line style, by hundreds of workers, where a style or the original vision can be homogenized into public consumption. I'm much more interested in what a person (or an auteur leading a talented crew) can make, especially if it is imaginative.

The simple answer to your query is, no one sets out to make a bad movie and 95% of those made do not see wide distribution. (Ask anyone who has made a no budget drama.) Unfortunately, it's just a fact that a 20K dollar movie is not going to look like your average 40 million dollar Hollywood movie, or what goes for "low budget," nowadays - you know, the 5 million dollar indies, like MOON. (Excellent, btw.)

Of those that get picked up, the main reasons are that they kind of look like something else that sold (or will sell) well. This happened with my movie, TERRARIUM, which Lionsgate tied in to Tom Cruise's WAR OF THE WORLDS. Hence, my film (yes, 16mm film) was retitled to WAR OF THE PLANETS.

Sorry to those who've heard this before, but it has been marketed around the world and it's usually sold to sound like something else, currently EXODUS, which is also the title of a new Ridley Scott movie. Sure the latter is a biblical subject, but the general public doesn't know that yet and Scott is synonymous with ALIEN (and PROMETHEUS), so it's no coincidence that someone put that on my movie's box cover.

The low budget films that are released straight to dvd/blu-ray, digital download etc - how come these are even greenlit and released despite their quality?

Like most other filmmakers on these types of forums, no one greenlit my movies. Some of them (not I) may get investors, by selling them on the script and concept....and then compare analysis to similar themed, multi-million dollar movies. It's a lot easier to make a slick looking short and sell the idea, than it is to make a feature that maintians interest for 90 minutes. Anyway, they get released based on the strength of "high concept" appeal or the box cover.

Where I'm going with this thread is to discuss what makes these films good enough to be released? These types of movies make it look far too easy to get your film made.

As an armchair quarterback or critic, watching something always looks like it is easy to top. That's not the case. To be honest, that was also me. I rented a low budget movie, GAME OF SURVIVAL. I thought it was so bad that I produced my first feature (THE BLACK CRYSTAL) and got it picked up by the the same distributor as GAME OF SURVIVAL. There my movie was, right next to it. All of a sudden, GAME wasn't so bad. It sure is easy to judge.

If someone were content with making these types of films then do you think it's a good path to go down?

It's the only path I know. Unless you want me to barrage you with Kickstarter money requests, so I can have a proper 5 million dollars for a sci-fi flick! In the meantime, I will apologize for the shortcomings of THE AWAKENING (made for $5'900) or EXILE (33K - everyone got paid). But, I sleep well, knowing that I put my heart and blood into them and that I'm one of the few people in the world who could actually pull off finishing them, instead of talking about possibly making a great movie.

There are those who think that things must be as perfect as possible, or not done at all. There's no truth to that thinking. Unless you have the systemic support of a crew/company, you have to stumble for many years, before pulling off "perfection." It's kind of like saying that people are an overnight success, and forgetting about the years of practice it took to get over the hump.

All the discussions about making sure your film has characters written well, stories told well and all the things that are needed to make a really good and entertaining film - with these poorly made films being accepted it might make one think that road is the better one to take if they want to make movies because it seems easier.

The studios go through thousands of scripts, before deciding on what they will invest their money in, hence we have a lot of remakes. Again, you are seeing the result of unfiltered writing. The FDA, er agency or studio didn't check it, first! I get hundreds of script offers sent to me and I think they are just weak. I'm a big enough movie fan that there is little that I don't find overly derivitive.

Anyway, I'm with you on this. You've seen pictures of my screenwriting/story books. I've also said that it takes a good director to convey that story to the audience. He/she has to make it appealing and understandable. A good script, by itself, is nothing when people can't properly hear it, see it or they get a jumbled sequence of it. It is said, if you give the same material to 5 filmmakers, you will get 5 versions of it. Point of view affects the telling of a story, and a filmmaker must determine that point of view for each scene. And then you have the undertones of the music, the lighting, sound design, etc. So many things that manipulate the viewer's experience.

 

[directorik]

As someone who has made my share of these DTV features my take is not
much different than Scoopicman's.

The low budget films that are released straight to dvd/blu-ray, digital download etc - how come these are even greenlit and released despite their quality?

You make a poor assumption – few of those movies are “greenlit”. Most are
made using personal funds or using money gathered together bit by bit from
friends and family and “investors” putting in under a thousand dollars. It is
the sheer determination, dedication and hard work that makes these films
good enough to be released. There are many small distributors who cannot
afford to market and sell big budget films but still love the business and can
eek out a small profit on a lot of no-budget titles.

Where I'm going with this thread is to discuss what makes these films good enough to be released?

In my case I worked for several prodCo/distributors who did pay. Very, very
little but I was never out of pocket. And they had specific requirements for
their specific markets. And they had very little money. The reason those movies
were "greenlit" was because the distributor knew their market and what would
sell. They actually made a profit over a period of time. "Good enough" is often
meeting genre expectations.

These types of movies make it look far too easy to get your film made. If someone were content with making these types of films then do you think it's a good path to go down?

I will echo what Scoopicmas said; it's the only path I could take. I wasn't offered
big budgets very often. It is not easier to make a Z-grade, ultra-low budget movie.
But when I am not offered a good enough budget I have two choices – make a
Z-grade, ultra-low budget movie or don't make a movie. Many people spend years
not making movies because they are “perfectionists” or can't figure out how to make
a movie with no money or don't want to make a movie with no money.

There there are those who make movies because, well, they are movie makers.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

My apologies if I have offended anyone with this thread, it wasn't my intention if I have caused offense.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
PhantomScreenwriter, my question to you is, do you realize that you are on a filmmaking board that is full of people making the movies you are talking about? Good! With that out of the way, I know that you and I have very similar tastes and are fans of the same stuff - ALIENS, TERMINATOR, etc. We are rabid fans! I am also one of those people who has made some of the movies you talk about, so I can give you my perspective on it.

I echo my sentiment at the start of this reply, apologies if I came across as arrogant and to be critical of what you do as a filmmaker. Yes I love those types of movies for sure. I'm thankful to hear your perspective.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
Trust me, there are flicks you've never heard of, and never will. I'm one of those people who collects and makes no budget cinema. I like these movies, because they aren't perfect, which means I can learn from their faults, yet appreciate what works. In fact, I find studio movies to be too perfect - made assembly-line style, by hundreds of workers, where a style or the original vision can be homogenized into public consumption. I'm much more interested in what a person (or an auteur leading a talented crew) can make, especially if it is imaginative.

I'm sure there are That's a good perspective to have, to be able to learn from their faults as well as appreciate what works. Perhaps that's how I need to evaluate these movies too.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
The simple answer to your query is, no one sets out to make a bad movie and 95% of those made do not see wide distribution. (Ask anyone who has made a no budget drama.) Unfortunately, it's just a fact that a 20K dollar movie is not going to look like your average 40 million dollar Hollywood movie, or what goes for "low budget," nowadays - you know, the 5 million dollar indies, like MOON. (Excellent, btw.)

Moon was a great film, really enjoyed that one! I guess I should look at it in terms of actually getting a film finished instead of whether it's not as good as a high budget production. Films of any budget can be poorly made, so I shouldn't just label all low budget productions as poorly made, especially if I haven't watched them individually to make a more balanced and fair judgment. I shouldn't judge these movies just by the way they look, but how each film fares in regards to content and execution of story etc

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
Of those that get picked up, the main reasons are that they kind of look like something else that sold (or will sell) well. This happened with my movie, TERRARIUM, which Lionsgate tied in to Tom Cruise's WAR OF THE WORLDS. Hence, my film (yes, 16mm film) was retitled to WAR OF THE PLANETS.

Congratulations for your film being incorporated by Lionsgate. See this is good, it is changing my perspective even more. You've made a film, finished it and it has been distbributed - that's a hell of a lot more than I can say of my own work

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
Like most other filmmakers on these types of forums, no one greenlit my movies. Some of them (not I) may get investors, by selling them on the script and concept....and then compare analysis to similar themed, multi-million dollar movies. It's a lot easier to make a slick looking short and sell the idea, than it is to make a feature that maintians interest for 90 minutes. Anyway, they get released based on the strength of "high concept" appeal or the box cover.

Yes shorts are easier in that respect. They are difficult in their own ways though cause you have a limited amount of time to tell the story in an effective way. But overall a feature of course, is much more difficult because even with the extra screen time for your story, all elements become more challenging to achieve, and someone who doesn't like a feature would say their time and money were wasted, but if they saw a short they didn't like, they might still say wasted their time and money but it wouldn't put them out as much as with a feature.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
As an armchair quarterback or critic, watching something always looks like it is easy to top. That's not the case. To be honest, that was also me. I rented a low budget movie, GAME OF SURVIVAL. I thought it was so bad that I produced my first feature (THE BLACK CRYSTAL) and got it picked up by the the same distributor as GAME OF SURVIVAL. There my movie was, right next to it. All of a sudden, GAME wasn't so bad. It sure is easy to judge.

Yes you're right it looks easier if you have that perspective on it. In my rant, as I guess it could be called, I forgot to think about the actual hard work that needs to be put into a project to get it from concept to distribution.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
It's the only path I know. Unless you want me to barrage you with Kickstarter money requests, so I can have a proper 5 million dollars for a sci-fi flick! In the meantime, I will apologize for the shortcomings of THE AWAKENING (made for $5'900) or EXILE (33K - everyone got paid). But, I sleep well, knowing that I put my heart and blood into them and that I'm one of the few people in the world who could actually pull off finishing them, instead of talking about possibly making a great movie.

And you feel like you have accomplished something because of the hard work you put in, and the people involved were happy because their time was valued and they received payment for their hard work.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
There are those who think that things must be as perfect as possible, or not done at all. There's no truth to that thinking. Unless you have the systemic support of a crew/company, you have to stumble for many years, before pulling off "perfection." It's kind of like saying that people are an overnight success, and forgetting about the years of practice it took to get over the hump.

Exactly what I forgot to remember - the work it takes.

Originally Posted by Scoopicman:
The studios go through thousands of scripts, before deciding on what they will invest their money in, hence we have a lot of remakes. Again, you are seeing the result of unfiltered writing. The FDA, er agency or studio didn't check it, first! I get hundreds of script offers sent to me and I think they are just weak. I'm a big enough movie fan that there is little that I don't find overly derivitive.

Anyway, I'm with you on this. You've seen pictures of my screenwriting/story books. I've also said that it takes a good director to convey that story to the audience. He/she has to make it appealing and understandable. A good script, by itself, is nothing when people can't properly hear it, see it or they get a jumbled sequence of it. It is said, if you give the same material to 5 filmmakers, you will get 5 versions of it. Point of view affects the telling of a story, and a filmmaker must determine that point of view for each scene. And then you have the undertones of the music, the lighting, sound design, etc. So many things that manipulate the viewer's experience.

Do you have an agent or are you freelance? I agree with you. We all have our own perspective on stories and will create something that won't be like another person's perspective on the same material.

Originally Posted by Directorik
You make a poor assumption – few of those movies are “greenlit”. Most are
made using personal funds or using money gathered together bit by bit from
friends and family and “investors” putting in under a thousand dollars. It is
the sheer determination, dedication and hard work that makes these films
good enough to be released. There are many small distributors who cannot
afford to market and sell big budget films but still love the business and can
eek out a small profit on a lot of no-budget titles.

Poor assumption indeed, and that's a lesson I've learnt from the responses so far in this thread , so thank you for your help in this.

Originally Posted by Directorik
In my case I worked for several prodCo/distributors who did pay. Very, very
little but I was never out of pocket. And they had specific requirements for
their specific markets. And they had very little money. The reason those movies
were "greenlit" was because the distributor knew their market and what would
sell. They actually made a profit over a period of time. "Good enough" is often
meeting genre expectations.

See the more I think about it, this path is something that I wouldn't mind going down because I've realized that it's more important that you create something and see it through to the end, make sure that it's the best that it can be. That it shows that the filmmaker can at least complete a production, therefore if they are given the opportunity to work at a higher budget level they will have the skills required to go the distance with it.

Originally Posted by Directorik
I will echo what Scoopicmas said; it's the only path I could take. I wasn't offered
big budgets very often. It is not easier to make a Z-grade, ultra-low budget movie.
But when I am not offered a good enough budget I have two choices – make a
Z-grade, ultra-low budget movie or don't make a movie. Many people spend years
not making movies because they are “perfectionists” or can't figure out how to make
a movie with no money or don't want to make a movie with no money.

Then there are those who make movies because, well, they are movie makers.

I see your point

Thanks to both of you for your input, these are the types of in-depth responses I like to read.

 

[Scoopicman]

My apologies if I have offended anyone with this thread, it wasn't my intention if I have caused offense.

None taken. I like having these exchanges. Phantom, you are one of the people I have really enjoyed enjoyed talking (writing) to, as of late. I feel a kindred bond with the movies we both like.

Perhaps that what strikes me a little odd, as usually people who love sci-fi have been exposed to Kirk fighting a Gorn, OCTOMAN, ESCAPE FROM GALAXY 3 and all those movies that we could out do! "No budget" should be an old concept for you.

Then and now...

And you feel like you have accomplished something because of the hard work you put in, and the people involved were happy because their time was valued and they received payment for their hard work.

Partly, it's rather that I know I got more bang out of my production buck than what should be possible. Some of the scenes and effects were extraordinary in these movies (check out "Cops at IndieMeet" short, below). For instance, we built a 64' long spaceship in my backyard, trucked in 20 tons of sand and boulders. We created a noteworthy set.

More than a million people saw this. Sure it was largely panned, but the breadth of exposure was the stuff of dreams.


THE AWAKENING was a fan feature (idea presented to me, via a story by Erik Manion) that I directed, co-wrote, scored, edited, etc. The producer asked if I could make it for 5K and like a fool, I said "yes." With that 5K, we had to outfit (via army surplus) black ops, a marine force, the superhero's costume, tip over a van (for real!) and blow a bunch of stuff up, as well as many other FX, all the while keeping a pretty good story going.

This was the producer's 3rd attempt at making this and I saw the footage from the other two tries, which was pretty horrible. Our result was lauded as the best super girl fan film, when it came out, in 2005. Plus it turned a profit. There was a whole slew of AWAKENING fan tribute videos. We gave the fans something they liked and that's what made me feel like we accomplished something. I remember a reviewer telling me that he had watched the movie over a dozen times. That's always a bonus. His REVIEW.

Congratulations for your film being incorporated by Lionsgate. See this is good, it is changing my perspective even more. You've made a film, finished it and it has been distbributed

Thanks! I've actually had 4 features get distribution.

Do you have an agent or are you freelance?

Producer's rep and lawyer.

Yes shorts are easier in that respect. They are difficult in their own ways though cause you have a limited amount of time to tell the story in an effective way. But overall a feature of course, is much more difficult because even with the extra screen time for your story, all elements become more challenging to achieve, and someone who doesn't like a feature would say their time and money were wasted, but if they saw a short they didn't like, they might still say wasted their time and money but it wouldn't put them out as much as with a feature.

My point was also that many filmmakers use shorts to gain investor support for a feature. They really are different animals. A few years ago, people were saying to me, "why don't you make features as cool as your shorts are?" Most of my shorts are shot in a day, where as a lot of the features are spread out and actors tend to become unavailable, etc.

David Lynch spent 4 years to make ERASERHEAD. Peter Jackson spent 4 years making BAD TASTE. Those are different animals than shorts! Speaking of which, when I was talking about enjoying the stylish auteur, I am a huge fan of these directors when they start out - Peter Jackon doing his own effects on BAD TASTE and MEET THE FEEBLES. DEAD ALIVE was amazing. When his 600 person WETA team started churning out LORD OF THE RINGS and KING KONG, it had all become so corporate. I prefer the lower budget stuff, like Sam Raimi's EVIL DEAD 2 and Robert Rodriguez's EL MARIACHI. I mean, DESPERADO was too style over substance for me.

On the other hand, James Cameron suffered with PIRANHA 2, but with 6 million (1983 dollars), THE TERMINATOR was awesome. ALIENS also felt bigger than the 18 million should have been. I felt the big budget he had for T2 or even AVATAR didn't stop them from being his babies.

Limitations are a good thing, otherwise, we would have been watching JAWS' mechanical shark more than suspenseful POV scenes. Limitations were also the best thing for STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE. Lucas said it was only 40% of the movie he wanted it to be. Later, I new what he meant and I didn't like the dam break of CGI.

My point is, somewhere between no budget and over budget, people can be their most creative. A small amount of resources is good! What's not there, well.....story has to take over.

Some of my shorts, that I think you would like:

Cops at IndieMeet (This is only a minute promo, but the miniature work is worth watching!)

BUG COMPLEX (Giant bugs bother you? This is a hoot.)

CONTINGENCY PLAN (My ex-wife has a bomb in her head. Enough said!)

TEQUILA (Drunken horror flick.)

A SOLDIER'S SON (Supernatural drama.)

SCREAMIN DEMON (Demon drama!)

THREE STRIPE (Spy chick!)

ROADKILL (16mm retro-looking flick, with stunts and squibs!)



Post edited, so I could add some pics, above.

 

[directorik]

My apologies if I have offended anyone with this thread, it wasn't my intention if I have caused offense.

I wonder what is was about Scoopicman's and my reply that caused you
to assume we were offended and needed an apology. Did my honesty
come off as offended? Did my direct answers to your questions come off
as written by someone who was offended?


I hope to be able to answer questions, ask questions and enjoy a discussion
without coming across as if I am offended.

 

[Deeve]

Great thread, good to see some debates going on,
I love all movies cheaper the better sometimes, for the same reasons as above. I take more out of watching these budget movies.

Its great to see what people can achieve on a shoe string budget.

 

[PhantomScreenwriter]

Originally Posted by Directorik
I wonder what is was about Scoopicman's and my reply that caused you
to assume we were offended and needed an apology. Did my honesty
come off as offended? Did my direct answers to your questions come off
as written by someone who was offended?

I hope to be able to answer questions, ask questions and enjoy a discussion
without coming across as if I am offended.

I appreciate your answers and I respect your opinions because I know that there is truth behind the words, and I like to be respectful towards people. It was more about looking at the responses and pausing for a moment to reflect back on what I had posted in the first place. From a new perspective I looked at what I had posted and thought to myself that perhaps I came across as arrogant and sounding like I thought that people who worked on these types of movies were inferior.

So it's more about what I saw in my original post that made me feel as if I had offended both of you, and anyone else who may have read this thread but not posted. I enjoy having discussions like these that are more than just one sentence responses. I appreciate in depth comments and I welcome honesty and directness.

One thing I've learnt in life is that making assumptions about things often leads one to be wrong about what they are assuming. I have assumed I had offended people and I know now that wasn't the case at all.