Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/paranormal-activity-becomes-most-profitable-movie-ever

Just goes to show you don't need to spend $200M+ to make a good movie. Haven't seen it yet but the box office numbers don't lie.

Good on them. I haven't seen it, but I've heard good things.

Id like to see it but my theatre is closed for renovation until thanksgiving....ugh.

The problem with this type of investment is:

Can you tell the director is good , or if you know the movie would do well?

Can you trust your own taste to find a project that is worth investing.

Its very hard to analyze compared to other type of investments.

Yeah, those movies are sort of like the ".com" boom. You can make a huge return, but you probably won't.

Still, if it's not too much to invest, and you think the movie was quite good personally...

The thing about small budget movies is you don't lose a lot if they are crap.

There are tons of really crappy cheap movies made but they only lose a few million each, compared to $200 million plus for a big budget movie which flops.

Well, the crew who made this movie ought to be happy. Turning $15,000 into $65M so far. Sure the studio gets its cut but they people who filmed and produced this will walk away millionaires.

Fateweaver wrote:Well, the crew who made this movie ought to be happy. Turning $15,000 into $65M so far. Sure the studio gets its cut but they people who filmed and produced this will walk away millionaires.

Pretty much only Oren Peli. Most others will benefit from exposure, but not monetarily. People get hired to work on a movie. The people who invest in it make the money. The actors make money by "investing" their pay towards success, deferring a certain amount with returns. Doubt the actors here did.

Of course I don't know the deal Peli had with his crew and actors. If he isn't a giant douche I am sure he would find ways to compensate.

As for the movie, it deserves every penny. I loved it. Just do me a favor and DONT watch ANY trailers for it. Really big time spoilers. Try to go into it with as little knowledge as possible. They aren't trying to sell it like the Blair Witch as a "real event", its just filmed that way.

If the film really was made for £15,000 they can't have paid the actors and crew hardly anything so it's possible nearly everyone was on some kind of cut of profits deal.

Would be nice.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the film really was made for £15,000 they can't have paid the actors and crew hardly anything so it's possible nearly everyone was on some kind of cut of profits deal.

Would be nice.

Or they used a bunch of people looking to break into film, who were just interested in experience and resume building. But even if that was the case, you'd like to think they'd be given some reward as a thankyou. Although I doubt there's going to be that much profit filtering down to that level, as while the film cost about 15k, the advertising was more like 10m. I think Paramount will be recouping most of the profits for this.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the film really was made for £15,000 they can't have paid the actors and crew hardly anything so it's possible nearly everyone was on some kind of cut of profits deal.

Would be nice.

Apparently this is how they decided to work it after it went from Screamfest to theaters. The Actors were originally paid something like $50 but got more after it hit big.

The thing I don't get is why Paramount is doing a sequel.

Also, here's hoping the DVD contains the original ending and first alternate ending(shown only once publicly).

Kilkrazy wrote:If the film really was made for £15,000 they can't have paid the actors and crew hardly anything so it's possible nearly everyone was on some kind of cut of profits deal.

Would be nice.

I agree with you KK , im not even sure if that amount of money can cover the equipment cost as it is .
( but i can be wrong since i didnt watch the movie so i dont know how cheap it is >< , home handy cam lol? )

LunaHound wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If the film really was made for £15,000 they can't have paid the actors and crew hardly anything so it's possible nearly everyone was on some kind of cut of profits deal.

Would be nice.

I agree with you KK , im not even sure if that amount of money can cover the equipment cost as it is .
( but i can be wrong since i didnt watch the movie so i dont know how cheap it is >< , home handy cam lol? )

The Director supplied the camera and it's his house they filmed it in. The Ouija board was hand made by the Director and his then girlfriend/co-producer. Even for the original cut, there's only like 10 members of cast and 3 crew.

Platuan4th wrote:
The thing I don't get is why Paramount is doing a sequel.

Honestly, I understand this more than I understand the film's success.

I mean, it was a good horror flick, but I was surprised it played as well as it did given the general blase attitude I've seen most film fans take with regard to the 'found footage' genre.

I saw it today was not impressed at all. It got excellent ratings but I thought the Blaire Witch Project was much better.

G

I haven't seen the movie, however I am a video producer so I have some idea of about how cheaply a production can be pulled together.

It's possible to shoot on a Handycam and edit using iMovie on a Macbook, but it's bloody hard work and still ignores all kinds of sundries which tend to mount up the bigger a production becomes.

Stuff like transport, feeding the crew and talent, location insurance (compulsory if shooting in public.)

You can avoid a lot of costs by being clever and getting people to do stuff for nothing.

If the "found footage" genre is not exciting to the general public I expect that's because they see so much of it on YouTube that it needs an exceptionally good story to make a movie stand out. And because "found footage" only works as a minority genre because of being a contrast to 'properly' shot footage.

Will need to keep an eye on this. I went againt the norm and *Gasp* enjoyed Cloverfield!

I 'ent seen Blaire Witch though.

I liked Cloverfield. I saw it on DVD not in the cinema. It was so slow starting that I gave up after five minutes and had to start again a few days later when I was bored. Once it got moving, though, it was very good.

It reminded me of the kind of amateur disaster footage we have seen from 9/11 and the Christmas Tsunami -- a feeling of ordinary people caught up in titanic events completely beyond their control.

If it wasn't popular I expect that was because there was no sense of 'closure' and the good guys winning. People normally expect that.

Yeah Cloverfield was ok, but like Blair Witch they struggle to justify why you would be filming at certain points. Big monster? Feth the camera, run!

That seems lampshaded often enough though.

"Drop the camera! Run!"

Something in that vicinity seems to be uttered throuhout Cloverfield.

Kilkrazy wrote:If it wasn't popular I expect that was because there was no sense of 'closure' and the good guys winning. People normally expect that.

It made 80 million in the US, on a production budget of around 25 million, and it rated 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's a popular movie.

And people really don't have a problem with the good guys losing, if anything the opposite is true. It isn't often used in stories because it's really hard to do well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:but the box office numbers don't lie.

Transformers II grossed 400 million in the US, so I'd say the box office numbers do lie. Cruelly and pathologically.

dogma wrote:That seems lampshaded often enough though.

"Drop the camera! Run!"

Something in that vicinity seems to be uttered throuhout Cloverfield.

This.

From my memory, I remember around a third of the movie concentrating on that subtle cover... yes, very subtle indeed.

I didn't mind it, but it really never struck my fancy to be honest. If I am trying to figure out how to amuse myself with my hands every 15 minutes, I can safely say that I was more amused by my hands... and the scenes with the monsters ended up just irritating me. As I said though, it was watchable.

I saw it this past weekend. It was worth the $6.50/ticket I paid.

Honestly, it's one of the best movies I've seen. I highly recommend that everyone scrounge the change to go see it.

The pace of the movie is perfect and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

I give it 2 Dakka's out of 2.

Flashman wrote:Yeah Cloverfield was ok, but like Blair Witch they struggle to justify why you would be filming at certain points. Big monster? Feth the camera, run!

Part of the reason we got amateur footage from 9/11 and the Tsunami was because people didn't run, they stopped and filmed it.

I didn't like cloverfield, because the monster looked goofy.

It was different.

G