Most of you probably know this, but bear with me.
In 1999 a movie came out that changed the film industry. And it wasn't a major studio and had actors in it that nobody knew. And it cost around $25,000 to make but with some cleaning up and fixing, it cost around $60,000.
It made around $240 million dollars world-wide.
And it created a whole new genre along with a nickname; "lost footage movie".
The Blair Witch Project was about 3 young people who were looking for an urban legend called the Blair Witch who lived near a small town called Blair in Maryland. With a film and video camera, they hiked into the woods and were never seen again.
The movie is made up of footage that the three students were shooting, and it was found some time later. What we see is what they saw (or heard) during their search. Thus the term, "lost footage".
The movie worked for several reasons; one of them being that it was such a bare movie, camera was shaky and you never really saw anything. It was a great example of not showing blood and gore, rather it left whatever happened to the 3 kids to your imagination.
And your imagination can come up with some horrible things.
The makers of Blair Witch made a sequel, this time with a structured screenplay, but it didn't have the impact of the original.
So what does Hollywood do when a movie that almost all of the studios passed on makes $240 million? They copy it.
There were a handful of imitations but none with the freshness and originality of the Blair movie.
Then another movie came out with similar themes; it was called Paranormal Activity and again, revolutionized the "lost footage genre".
It had a camera trained on a bedroom where two people slept with their door open. We watched nothing happen for the first part, but then we see things like lights going on and off in the hallway, bumps in the night and other strange things.
Then we see the wife wake up and leave and then the husband leaves. And then... well, you have to see it.
And Paranormal Activity, which cost $15,000 made almost $200 million.
It spawned 2 sequels, none as original as the first. It also signaled producers that the lost footage genre was alive and well. There have been a handful of them that made it to the big screen and probably a few handfuls of copy-cats that never made it to anywhere.
Last night I watched an interesting one; The Last Exorcism, which started off good, and actually had good actors (something that isn't always considered in lost footage movies) and had some really good suspense.
But it fizzled out with an ending taken from Rosemary's Baby, except not as good.
Which leaves me.
I had a screenplay based on a jetliner being retired and flown to the junkyard. I called it Deadhead, the term used by airlines and others to describe flying back to their base and not working. But I didn't like it. It needed something else.
And it came to me watching a Resident Evil movie (I love Mila Jovovich, a fellow Ukrainian). There was also something else that I remembered, a movie called The Ghost of Flight 401, based loosely on a true story of a jetliner that crashed and supposedly the ghost of the pilot was seen on other jetliners of that airline.
Whenever I get these epiphanies I take them with caution as they could become horrible ideas when I wake up the next day. But this one lingered.
I would have to make some major changes in the original screenplay but it wasn't really that hard. I asked several of my film friends, directors, writers and producers. They all liked the change.
Doesn't mean that they're right, after all, they are my friends. But they are also brutally honest to a fault.
I always find it odd how I can write warm, cuddly family movies for Hallmark and then turn around and write supernatural and sci-fi movies (refer to my credits on www.imdb.com). My first movie was a supernatural that maybe lacked a bit of supernatural but was high on the creepy meter. Maybe it's not odd at all.
So as of now, I'm at page 35 and having a lot of fun. "Having fun" in a writer's world means that it seems to be finding legs, that you can see what the next page is going to be. And that's a blessing because if you have to struggle, it's got a good chance of falling by the wayside.
So is it a copy? Am I just copying something someone else did before me?
I guess it's "yes". But there's not much in this film business that hasn't been done. Mine is a little different as this ghost is on the airplane and the 8 people on board have no way to get out, nor land.
Blair Witch was fresh for it's time, but the idea's been done before. Everything has been done, it's just how it's done.
One question though; How many silent movies do you think will be done since The Artist won a ton of oscars? That's at least a whole other blog. Tell me what you think; yes or no.
So, we're at a crossroads now, Travel Day is losing steam in that Manitoba didn't deliver as they said they would and the U.S. investors, who get several people asking them for money each week, are beginning to waffle.
Ironically, my friend Rachel, of Eh Channel, who had lost her job due to company belt-tightening is back in another great position to help us. It's no guarantee but we've had one preliminary discussion and hopefully it will lead to more.
I'm now prepping a short proposal for Chaser, the script I want to make for a low, low budget, maybe less than $100,000. The timing is good, the fall release of Paranormal Activity, the low budget film of $15,000 has made over $120 million world-wide.
This has made the studios and producers look at similar projects, one just sold at Sundance, I mentioned it a few posts ago, Buried , with wannabe A-List star Ryan Reynolds about a guy who's being held for ransom in a box underground somewhere in the middle east.
The whole movie is about him in the box.
Chaser is about a guy in his car for 3/4 of the movie. I wrote this 2 years ago as an experiment. I wanted to see if I could keep audience interest in the character even though he is in his car for most of the movie.
These two stories fit into that category labeled "non-recurring phenomenon", in other words a film that would never get major or even minor studio financing because it doesn't fit into the formula of action movies, romantic-comedies, horror, family and giant blockbusters.
So they don't want it.
Until one of them makes a ton of money.
The first movie to do this was arguably Easy Rider which was released in 1969 for a budget of around $350,000 in a time when a regular studio picture cost $5 million. It took Hollywood off guard and in no time they were giving money to any long-haired hippie to make movies.
Naturally most failed. You couldn't copy the success of Easy Rider because it was a non-recurring phenomenon. In other words, they didn't know why it made money so they gave it a label.
After that a few more of these types of movies came again, Blair Witch Project, costing $25,000 and making over a million. There was Open Water, which made about $40 million and cost about $150,000.
This year, Paramount is opening a division to make movies for $100,000, to try to catch "lightning in a bottle" as the popular saying goes.
Now you're thinking that maybe Chaser is the right idea for this moment. I think it is. But do I think it's going to make $100 million dollars? I'd be happy if it made back it's cost. The last thing I would ever attempt to predict is how much it could make at the box office. I'd be a fool to do that.
But as long as the studio heads think they can find the next Paranormal Activity they might as well listen to our pitch. In the next few weeks, I'll complete a budget, a proposal and more and then start" shopping the project."
Shirley and I have now been "in development" as they say on Travel Day since June of 2009 so it's been a little over six months since we put out our proposal for financing. We began with a bang, one investor came forward and said that if I could find half the financing he would probably be able to come forward with the second half.
Well, that second half seems to have disappeared as we are very close to the first half, coming from a small investor and the tax credits and equity from a Manitoba producer. I will be going to Manitoba next week to see Dane and discuss the completion of his end, which includes an LOI which is simply put, a letter of intent that he will commit to his side with the inclusion of a Canadian bank's LOI to loan money on the tax credit amount.
While six months seems like a long time, in the world of independent financing, it's barely a start. I had a meeting years ago with Dustin Hoffman's production company and his development exec told me Hoffman had a project to film in Ireland that he had been trying to fund for at least 10 years.
10 years. Dustin Hoffman who is a major star and legend.
And he can't get the money for his movie.
There's a movie out now called Up in The Air with George Clooney. It took writer/director Jason Reitman six years to get it made. And he has a famous dad, Ivan Reitman who did Ghostbusters among other films.
There are hundreds of stories like this; some projects linger for years before they are "discovered" by someone who will finance them. My own screenplay Emperor of Mars which I wrote in 1989 was optioned to be made at least 6 times as far as I can remember and as of last Wednesday, is still in the running to get made in summer of 2010 with me directing.
If the producers find the money. It's their third shot at it, having failed to get the money in 2008 and 2009.
Why does it take so long?
First of all let's define indie movies. In short, it's a movie that is made without studio financing. No Warner Bros, No Paramount or Universal, etc. There's only a guy looking for money from distributors or financiers or shopping mall owners or dentists, thus "independent" shortened to "indie". And why does it take so long? There are a hundred reasons, maybe more but mostly it has to do with the film being a "difficult sell".
What does that mean?
It means it doesn't have huge special effects, or superheroes or Will Smith. Smith is arguably the biggest consistent box office star in the world. His movies never lose money. Never. I like his movies too. But even he can't be in every movie made although many studio executives look at any script and say "is there a part for Will Smith in this?"
Now the irony here is that the obvious answer is no. But studio executives these days somehow believe Will can be in every movie. And it's also a great excuse to say no to a project and save their job. If Will can't make it, then it won't make money and they won't have to explain to their bosses why their last $100 million movie flopped.
For Example:
- Eddie Murphy's "IMAGINE THAT" cost $55 million and made $16 million.
- Adam Sandler's "FUNNY PEOPLE" cost $75 million and made $52 million.
- Land of the Lost cost over $100 million and made $48 million
Add in $20-40 million for prints and ads and the loss is even greater.
Another ironic factor that occurs in many indie films that take so long to get made is that they end up being very good movies that make a lot of money and win awards, even the big gold statue itself. How many times have you heard some actor or director winning an award and saying how many years it too to get made. Let me answer; very often.
Juno was turned down by studios and had financing problems until finally getting financed over a period of a few years and went on to make $100 million dollars, all on a budget of around $6 million and filmed in Canada.
Little Miss Sunshine was looking for money for 5 years before they found it. And of course, every studio turned it down.
And for what reasons? Well, no special effects or big stars or a remake. Studios today are terrified, and I repeat TERRIFIED of movies like the ones I just mentioned. And it's because they are character-driven stories and one can argue that since studio execs have no character, it's easy to see why they won't finance it.
When one or two men ran studios, guys like Warner and Fox and Cohen and the others, it was easier to get a good movie made. They went by their gut rather than research. Look at 1939 and tell me how many of these movies would never get made today:
They include Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and Men, The Women, Beau Geste, Dark Victory, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Drums Along the Mohawk, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Ninotchka, Love Affair and Young Mr. Lincoln.
All released in 1939. And there were at least 200 more movies made in the same year!
Can you name that many great movies in 2009? Classic movies.
I can't.
Studios now are competing like hell for viewers and they are afraid to take chances on anything that doesn't lower itself to the lowest common denominator. More people buy Big Macs than gourmet burgers. That's why the studios are always on the look for a "franchise" which means a movie that can have sequels. X-Men, Batman, Spiderman, Pirates of the Carribbean. You notice something there?
BIG. Big means big money.
Unless you make an indie film for $15,000 (yes 15 thousand dollars) called Paranormal Activity and has made to date over $100 million. And Paramount bought it 2 years ago and KEPT IT ON THE SHELF because they wanted to make a big Hollywood remake first. But finally someone noticed that college students liked it and finally when they made it, it made a fortune.
Why would anyone want to tackle this system and try to make a movie. All I can say is that there's nothing else I can do and nothing else I want to do, hell, even someone beat me to the moon.
It all comes out to screenwriter William Goldman's famous saying about the entire movie industry.
Nobody knows anything.
I've mentioned that expression, non-recurring phenomenon before and there is an excellent example coming soon to your movie theater. That term is what is used to describe a movie that comes out of nowhere, sometimes costs very little and wipes up at the box office.
Blair Witch Project is one of those, it cost somewhere around $25,000 (estimates vary) and ended up making $280 million.
Another one was Open Water, the story about a scuba diving couple who were accidentally left behind in the ocean and were never rescued. It also made a ton of money, around $53 million. It cost around $125,000 to make but they added more money when it was bought.
There is a new one coming, called Paranormal Activity, which is expected to do very well, not as much as Blair, but after two weeks of exclusive showings at a group of university campuses it already has made over $535,000 far more than it cost.
It cost $16,000.
Right, sixteen thousand dollars.
And it won't really open until next week when they will drop it into hundreds of theaters. The buzz word on this had been growing as their website now shows one million people who want tickets.
What is it about?
I saw a copy a few days ago and it's gonna be one of those movies where some love it and some hate it. I have to admit it had some incredibly tense scenes and I even felt chills through some of it. And it can scare the hell out of some people.
What happens in the movie?
Well, nothing really.
Then why is it being touted as one of the scariest movies ever? Because you don't see anything. No torture scenes, no gruesome bodies, no special effects (well, just one, a door swings shut), no big movie stars and no monsters, vampires, zombies or psychotic killers. Just six people in the whole movie.
Okay, I'm enjoying stretching it out. Here's what the movie is about.
It's about a young couple who move into a new house. But the soon-to-be wife keeps complaining about bumps and sounds in the night. It turns out that she's been haunted by weird things all her life. One of those things that should probably be mentioned to your about-to-be husband, you think?
So the soon-to-be husband decides to put a video camera in their bedroom and let it run all night. Then the next day they look at the video and begin to see strange things. Like the door closing by itself. By lights turning off and on in the hallway. And by one particularly giant thump that even scared the hell out of me.
But then we begin to see a slow progression as the bumps and lights seem to be building towards something that won't be very nice.
I mentioned 6 people, One is a friend of the woman's, there are two policemen who have a very small role, and a paranormal expert who visits them then returns to handle whatever is happening. But when he enters the house the second time wants to leave immediately as something in the house warns him that it is not safe for him to be in. He exits hastily and leaves the couple. Now the big question of course is:
WHY DON'T THEY GET THE HELL OUT OF THE HOUSE!!!
Because there wouldn't be a movie if they left. What happens afterwards is pretty damn scary but again, you really don't see anything, you just hear it, except for the final scene.
That's the movie.
It was made in the director's house in San Diego. The actors are not anyone you'd recognize but they are actually pretty good in portraying upscale 30-somethings, they look like normal people and act like them. And the entire movie is the camera view whether it's on a tripod in the bedroom or being carried by the husband.
Paramount had it for nearly a year and wasn't sure how to release it until internet demand began to build. Apparently Steven Spielberg watched it in his bedroom and got spooked when the bedroom door mysteriously got locked from the outside. So judge for yourself when it comes out.
It is worth seeing if only to see how you can scare people without resorting to monsters and CGI. You can see a trailer on the Internet, just google it.
.jpg)
