Paranormal Activity-15 000 to 64 Million

indietalk said:
I'm not commenting on the acting (being good or bad) but I don't think that sums it up. It sold on some hype, like Blair Witch. The acting is what you see after you've bought into the hype.
Click to expand...

By selling, I was referring to the studio that picked it up. I was addressing grinner's claim that a show with bad acting will not sell, "period." That claim undermines his own argument that PA has bad acting, since the show DID sell and went on to gross $123 million.

So either PA has good acting, which would make his first claim wrong. Or a show can sell despite the bad acting, which makes his second claim wrong. It's one or the other (or both- which is what I'd argue).
 
indietalk said:
I'm not commenting on the acting (being good or bad) but I don't think that sums it up. It sold on some hype, like Blair Witch. The acting is what you see after you've bought into the hype.
Click to expand...

Word of mouth plays a big part Indie...can't deny that helped.
 
I think the simple answer to why PA was so successful is...who knows?!

If we knew the answer, we'd all be doing it. :)

But the response to the film was not just hype. The film was so strong that Peli was signed by CAA back in 2007 based on a screening of PA at Screamfest. Jason Blum then shopped the film around to the studios. Dreamworks, including Speilberg himself, was so impressed with Peli that they wanted him to direct a big budget remake of the film.

And this was all BEFORE the release of the film, before anyone outside of the business knew what PA was.

Obviously these are people who know what they're looking at and don't toss around money lightly. In fact, Paramount was so impressed with PA's performance that they started a whole new film division.

So there's something there for sure.
 
Beeblebrox said:
By selling, I was referring to the studio that picked it up. I was addressing grinner's claim that a show with bad acting will not sell, "period."
Click to expand...
Misquoted. I said none of MY shows would sell if I sported bad acting throughout. I don't have 10mill of marketing behind my content. That's what sold this movie... not the filmmaking or acting. Most that I've talked to felt the same way I did. Excited to see it.
then disappointed.
That's good marketing for ya.

When I get better marketing, I'll be able to turn out crap for a profit.
 
grinner said:
Misquoted. I said none of MY shows would sell if I sported bad acting throughout. I don't have 10mill of marketing behind my content. That's what sold this movie... not the filmmaking or acting. Most that I've talked to felt the same way I did. Excited to see it.
then disappointed.
That's good marketing for ya.

When I get better marketing, I'll be able to turn out crap for a profit.
Click to expand...

So...the marketing is what made this film muh-zillions of dollars? Not word of mouth saying, 'this was scary, go watch it!'?

Hmmm...odd, I thought 'word of mouth' was one of the more powerful traits a product can have. I guess what I've learned and seen has been wrong all along.

By the way Grinner...how do you *know* that if your show had bad acting it wouldn't sell? I'd like to see your show, and see the acting. Also, how do you know your show has good acting? I personally totally disagree with your assessment of PA's acting... by what you're saying, your show sells, correct? And the acting is one of the reasons it sells? I'd like to see what you consider good acting.

:) I'm not being confrontation to be confrontation...I'm just being the devil's advocate.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Again, good acting is when you don't detect acting. It may be a subjective thing but to me, it's as obvious as a bad shot or poor editing. More so, actually. A good shot and great editing can't fix bad acting.
You can view Disbeliever here: http://grinnerhester.com/disbeliever.html
I have other sizzle reels to shows at grinnerhester.com
Same concept... an average joe pretending to be scared/concerned when he's just shooting on a low/no budget. While I've been acting since the 80s, I'm not claiming to be the greatest actor on the planet. I just don't overdo the same gag over and over. I gave it one wtf and two heavy breatjings vs 2 hours of non stop repitetion. ;)
Do I think I could have sold Disbeliever had I overdone it like the kid on Paranormal State?
I do not.
 
grinner said:
Again, good acting is when you don't detect acting. It may be a subjective thing but to me, it's as obvious as a bad shot or poor editing. More so, actually. A good shot and great editing can't fix bad acting.
You can view Disbeliever here: http://grinnerhester.com/disbeliever.html
I have other sizzle reels to shows at grinnerhester.com
Same concept... an average joe pretending to be scared/concerned when he's just shooting on a low/no budget. While I've been acting since the 80s, I'm not claiming to be the greatest actor on the planet. I just don't overdo the same gag over and over. I gave it one wtf and two heavy breatjings vs 2 hours of non stop repitetion. ;)
Do I think I could have sold Disbeliever had I overdone it like the kid on Paranormal State?
I do not.
Click to expand...

Firstly, although I agree that ‘good acting is when you don’t detect acting’, that is a broad statement. Many performances through out the ages have been fantastically acted, but not completely on the ‘naturalistic’ side. Even the greats have come across as ‘acty’…but nonetheless, the performances are thought to be great.

Your acting in your 'film' is on the same level as PA...it’s not the same thing as your standard film. You set the camera up and make it up as you go along…that tends to come across as good acting…but it really isn’t acting. Yes, it’s hard to improve and be real…I’ve said that before. But there is a fine line between natural improve and boring. It’s like Ghost Hunters…you’re film is the same thing. It’s almost like you’re tricking yourself into really doing what you’re doing…I know that sounds odd…but you are ‘acting’ like you expect to find a ghost for real, and then you add gags later. Does that make sense?

With PA, there was an extremely tight through-line, with a very well executed build-up, and an awesome conclusion. Your film wasn’t nearly as masterful in its editing, through line and build up. That’s what makes PA what it was. It’s not just some people shooting themselves with friends, all playing this ‘lets make a film and try and catch a ghost’ video…PA was actually crafted, and crafted well…it wasn’t like an episode of Ghost Hunters—which your film reads like.

I’m not being mean here, I’m just calling out the difference.

And in terms of acting…there is no difference between your movie and PA…other than PA had a better developed arc and climax. I wasn’t at all scared in watching your film…and PA scared the shit out of me. Very disturbing (and I’ve made my fair share of horror films).

I admire what you’ve done…but there is a big difference between your film and PA. And the acting in both examples are improvisational naturalness…but don’t think that there aren’t moments it’s obvious you guys are acting also…

Thanks for posting that. Don't get me wrong, I thought you had some good stuff in your movie. We'll chat more.
 
Last edited:
I thought the sleep moments were the most tense. Watching the time-code speed along, then have it stop...that's where the tension drips like ectoplasm. Watching...waiting for a change. What will happen? What sounds do I hear?

I thought the sleeping scenes were great--especially at the end.
 
This movie is only as good as your imagination. :D I liked everything about it, the concept, the acting. I got the full effect. I liken it to watching a stage play or old movie, where the sets are clearly cardboard props. I don't let those destroy my illusion. If Captain Kirk is fighting a guy in a lizard suit, then I'm willing to believe that his character is in danger. That takes a certain train of thought to suspend certain things and experience the tale.

PARANORMAL is far above the lizard scene and fake set scenes, though. I keep hearing about some people who thought it was real footage. Also, a lot of people hated how Micah acted, yet, that is how I would react in some situations - hiding my fear, being a smartass and taunting the supposed danger.

This movie requires certain things, like your full attention, during a quiet nighttime viewing, with one other person. A crowd of impatient, drunk people expecting EXORCIST type scares won't work. You need to be alone, after viewing it, so your mind can ponder. I saw a midnight screening (before full release) and went to bed, by myself. The "after" part was more scary than the movie.

Speaking of imagination, any of you guys grow up listening to Radio Mystery Theater? Brilliant stuff. A lost art in these 500 channel days.
 
lol. I've acted in handful of horror films...in addition to working the production of a handful of horror films...and even *I* was spooked.

:) To each is own obviously.
 
Just like the Blair Witch Project, it sucked.

1. The audience I watched it with didn't react like in the trailer, dah.
2. Over acting by the guy.
3. Just not believable in any way.
 
Actually, now that I think of it, I hired 3 bricklayers to make my wall higher, in the backyard. I didn't want people being able to see our sets, so it was part of our budget.

dragcomp2.jpg



If you look at the white wall in the background, you can see where the extra layer was added - the unpainted bricks and above:


drag.jpg



Next time, I need to shoot a landscaped forest scene in my yard, so I have more to show for it. So, without the wood floors, PARANORMAL must have cost $1000, plus $10! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top