Not exactly sure of the numbers here, but the new direct-to-dvd movie American Pie Band Camp has sold 1 million units, at a retail price of about $18 on Amazon, that would translate to something like an $18-20 million opening week for a non-theatrical film (which would rank it at about #4-5, without any of the big ticket stars).
I saw the movie, and it’s not as good as the other American Pie stuff (though I now have a special place in my heart for this young woman), doesn’t this sort of tell the studios that making a low cost movie targeted to one demographic is a much better way to make a profit than yet another box office disaster?
Most of the films you feature on this site seem to be comic book or vieo game derived. They all feature oodles of sfx and bugger all scriptwriting talent (I don’t count a ’scooby-doo’ plot as a script). I think this is the cheapest film I’ve ever seen on this site.
Your point about playing to the demographic is well made, but this leads to some great stories being shoehorned into a high-school setting (eg Jane Austen, Shakespeare etc, you know the Dangerous Liasons/Cruel intentions route).
Blockbuster in the UK recently reported a downturn in rentals, and blamed it on “poor recent films”. I think that was fair, but also the fact that if a film is over 2 years old and not a classic/part of a series, it drops off the face of the Earth in blockbuster terms.
You couldn’t be more wrong, Oliver. Going that route, “making a low cost movie targeted to one demographic is a much better way to make a profit” will likely result in 90 – 120 minute “Movies of the Week” Like Twister, and 10.5.
The way to improve movies is to improve movies. I might also suggest, thinking way outside the box, that we bring back the idea of the “A” and the “B” movie, which was before your time, Oliver — the double feature.
What’s left out so far from the discussion is what are the potential returns for the direct-to-DVD releases of AP-BC 5, 6 & 7?
The deeper issue, which bryan touches, is that most movies are crap. I think there’s a desperate level of unoriginality out there. The ratio of sequels and purchased franchises (mostly comics/videogames) to original stories is rising at a frightening rate.
Don’t get me wrong, a good comic/action film (think Spiderman 1 or 2 or the first Michael Keaton Batman) will draw me in, but those have compelling characters and stories. I think Peter Parker is the most interesting story in all of comics, with Bruce Wayne right there with him.
But in the pusuit of dollars you get Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, huge pieces of Joel Schumacher poop that nearly killed the franchise.
IMO, people would rather see a good movie than a BIG EVENT movie. And a good movie starts with a good story.
Not with a big director, not with a big star, and not with a big franchise.
It’s possible to take a great concept (billionaire in a batsuit) and drive it into the ground with bad story and bad direction. And casting doesn’t matter.
I don’t see any major studios out there who are willing to devote development dollars to finding good stories that will make good movies ahead of re-treading tired ideas that worked five or ten or 63 or 20 years ago.
bryan, I like other kinds of movies as well, but there’s only so much you can fanboy about a great flick like LA Confidential.
Frank: Twister, with a budget of something like 70 million is not exactly what I’m talking about. American Pie prolly cost them less than a million to make, and its profitable out of the gate. It’s not great cinema by any stretch, but if I were a studio chief I’d take 20 Band Camps over another big budget disaster like XXX 2 or The Island. As to your other suggestion, as a fan of the movie theater, I think it’s going to have to go the Imax route – an experience you simply cant replicate at home – if it has any chance of surviving by the end of the next decade. That, and cheaper popcorn.
As for Blockbuster’s excuse about poor movies…I doubt it. The fact is that Netflix is taking a big, fat chunk out of Blockbuster’s ass, and they know it. My Netflix waiting list is about 300 movies deep at any given time (340 at the moment), so there are plenty of good backlist titles that people will still rent and watch, even if the current crop sucks (per your point).
Wal-Mart already caved and started referring customers to Netflix. I wonder how much longer Blockbuster can last, especially if another big name gets into the game? :::coughamazoncough:::
Disney does milk their franchises, true, but I don’t think they make the mistake of telling the same story over and over and over again.
Little girls will always love a good princess story, but they will tire of the same princess story all the time. That’s why the new stories do so well.
Plus Disney has had the wisdom to pull all their titles off the market for periods of time, giving the illusion of scarcity, which helps drive sales, too. That’s a GREAT business decision, which far outweighs the milking of the franchises, because they put the franchises back on the shelf for a while until a new generation of parents with 3-10 year olds emerges to buy them all over again.
Disney knows where the money is and how to get it. It’s a great strategy.
What s left out so far from the discussion is what are the potential returns for the direct-to-DVD releases of AP-BC 5, 6 & 7?
Well, Disney has made a business out of milking their franchises for direct to video sequels (to the detriment of the brand in the pursuit of profit, in my opinon) and don’t look now but there have been two sequels to “Wild Things”. There’s obviously money there.
A big film can generate _billions_ of dollars, no exaggeration, for a movie studio. Read Epstein’s “The Big Picture” for the jaw-dropping numbers.
In my (amateur) view, spending a relative pittance to make a larger pittance isn’t the kind of business that’s going to change Hollywood. (Yes, I’ve read “The Long Tail” too.)
but I don t think they make the mistake of telling the same story over and over and over again
You’ll find no bigger Disney fan than me, but this just isn’t true.
Child is orphaned, has tough life, must face enemy, lives happily ever after. That’s been the template since Walt was around.
It can generate billions, but wtf is the use if the profit margins are crap? I’ve got Epstein’s book on my soon-to-read list. I don’t think this is going to change Hollywood, but if I were to get into the movie business I would spend $20 million to make 15 movies direct to video versus $40 million on one movie direct to theater.
One of the problems with BAND CAMP as a template for a new narrowcasting paradigm is that it’s built on a highly successful, pre-existing franchise. If BAND CAMP had come out without the AMERICAN PIE movies having ever been produced (or if, say, AMERICAN PIE had been a relatively low-key direct-to-video release), I tend to doubt it would’ve sold a million copies by now.
“wtf is the use if the profit margins are crap?”
Oh, of course. My point is that the profit margins aren’t crap. One of Epstein’s big points is how much accounting razzle-dazzle obscures where profits go. He uses “Gone in 60 Seconds” over and over to show how a movie that did great box office still lost money when you just consider theater revenues… but then made truckloads of money on DVD and ‘ancillary’ markets, much of which was moved around on the books so that the profits go first and foremost to the studio and other creditors get effectively shafted.
But wouldn’t it make more sense – I know, Hollywood making sense – to skip the whole $50million production + $50 million ad campaign/theatrical release to make a $2million movie that makes $15 million+ on DVD? Not as glamorous, but a better business.
I think I agree with Aaron: Band Camp is probably a “nonrepeating phenomenon”.
(Also, it’s estimated at $7M, not $2M… and you’d get lower rates on Pay TV, etc deals if at all, and besides which, the blockbusters drive the packages. Hollywood needs huge successes to sell their package deals.)