Straight to video... the future?

Started by Weak2ndAct, March 20, 2004, 03:36:14 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Weak2ndAct

Apologies in advance if this is moved or redirected, I'm pretty lost where to put this.  That being said...

Roll with me on this.

When you go the video store, sandwiched between the A-list titles, the shelves are peppered with movies you've never heard of, starring people who's careers are about as warm as my stool, and most often are not-so veiled rip-offs of what's hot.  Yes, those wonderful direct to video movies starring Lorenzo Lamas, Steven Baldwin, Seagal, etc.  I often wonder who in god's name actually rents this crap, if at all, but it happens more often then you think.  There is a market.  Sure, there's nary a good film in sight, but it's a business.

Takeshi Miike, the supreme gross-master and workaholic-director of Japan, got his start in that same market, and despite having a semi-successful theatrical career, he still makes movies straight to video (and even TV!).  They sell on his name and the envelope pushing, though I highly doubt he's looked upon as lowly as say... the director of 'Ghost Rig' (yes, a rip off of Ghost Ship, it boggles the mind).  When Miike does these 'V-movies' as they're called out yonder, the budgets are lower, the schedule's tighter, but in exchange there's total creative freedom due to the fact that there's no real worries about whether or not the film's number one opening weekend.  The title is pre-sold.

To bring it back to the first part, is it possible to break this stigma that the lack of a theatrical release means the lack of a good film?  I think Miike has successfully proved so.  Between the antics of the MPAA, overinflated advertising budgets, and other madness, I wonder if this could be the future, and that a successful (yet hopefully artistically fulfilling) career can be made this way.  

In my eyes, the 'failure' of these rip-off B-movies is not for the lack of good actors or special effects or whatever, but the mentality that they aspire to be something they can't achieve-- a big Hollywood production.

These days, practically 90% of all 'art house flicks,' are essentially direct to video, their releases seem only to generate critical blurbs and mild public awareness before the eventual dvd release.  Sure there's an occassional breakout hit, but too many get swept under the rug.

Yes, I think there's nothing better than sitting in a theatre and having the experience-- no arguments here.  But movies don't play in theatres forever and will eventually be a title on someone's shelf or a something to watch on HBOwestcomedy2 on a random Sunday.  

Is the (theatrical distribution) middleman needed?  Is snobbery the problem?  Am I talking out of my ass?

In my book, a good film is a good film, regardless of the format I see it in.  I resist to bring this back to Miike (because his films bring up a stigma to some), but I'm really in love with the idea of being able to work a lot, maintain your vision, and not have to wait around for years for that one 'big' movie to come together (Aronofsky's troubles comes to mind).

Anyone follow me here?

Chest Rockwell

You're probably on to something. Some of them are probably less bad than others. But I thought in Japan you pretty much HAD to start with direct-to-videos, or something like that.

SoNowThen

I follow.

I've often thought of how it might be possible to break in by doing a few genre pictures that you basically self-distribute as straight-to-dvd...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

grand theft sparrow

For every straight-to-video gem that someone makes, there's 20 soft-core porns starring Eric Roberts and Shannon Tweed that you'd have to wade through find it.  Not many people have that kind of patience.

Breaking in via STV was Robert Rodriguez's line of thinking when he did El Mariachi; he was lucky enough to get picked up at Sundance and have a major studio career right out of the gate, though.

John Dahl did Red Rock West which went STV and then had a run on HBO before getting noticed and being given a small theatrical run, if memory serves correctly.

The sad truth is that most people who watch movies won't rent something they haven't heard of.  But if they do, they go for something that's pretty out there.  That's why softcore porn (disguised as a psychological thriller) and crappy horror flicks are the most prominent STV flicks that get rented.  More people would be likely to rent Leprechaun 6 over a (hypothetical) Mike Leigh-esque STV drama.  So a genre film has to be the best way to go to get recognition.  

Personally, I think a lot of filmmakers could get good starts if there was something for video like what AIP and Roger Corman were doing in the 60s and 70s.  It's not too far-fetched to think that a film has a better chance of getting noticed if you only have to pay $4 instead of $10 to see it.  If there was a distributor (maybe there is, I don't know) that specialized in indie films, foreign or domestic, and could get a thing going with major video rental chains to showcase their products on one display, who knows?  Maybe that would lessen or get rid of the stigma attached to "straight-to-video?"

modage

this is an interesting idea, but ill totally agree about the stigma that comes with the 'straight to video' film.  however, like was mentioned above, any movie thats GOOD enough will probably get a theatrical release (like el mariachi) even if it was made with the intent of going straight to video (or no intent at all).  so, most times they seem to sort themselves out.  maybe this will change?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ghostboy

I think cable TV, like Cinemax and HBO, is a better option than straight to video. It's already got the prestige. When I was in high school, I used to rent straight-to-video films with friends and we'd just go straight for the goofiest looking thing, because we basically just wanted to have a good time. That's how I ended up seeing Jack Frost and Jack Frost 2.

On option, though, would be for a legit company to release films in a series...like, say, Focus Features releasing a series of straight to DVD films under a 'prestige imprint' of some sort, so that film buffs would know to look for them and actually seek them out.

Weak2ndAct

Good points by all, gents.  I will agree that pay channels like HBO is another good avenue (a lot of pretty decent movies get made that way), but I guess what I was getting at is that this whole area of movie-making is shat upon, and why couldn't there be something wonderful to transform it into?

But what I really like is the theory that another Corman-esque company should (or has already?) come to fruition.  Or a specialty line.  I feel like a lot of small movies that get released are just kidding themselves about their prospects.  For instance: 'Young Adam' already has the stigma of NC-17 and its outlook is dodgy.  Why not piggy-back on the press and release it now on dvd?  

I guess a lot of my thinking stems from my current obsession w/ Asian cinema, specifically Japan.  The original 'Grudge' was 70 minutes, shot on dv, straight to video, and one of the scariest flicks I've seen in ages.  BUT I know for a fact that something like that would never ever get made/shown here if countries were switched.  It was made for probably 50 bucks, but the current mentality would keep it grounded in a director's reel if anything.

Also, why is it that people are compelled to blind buy dvds, yet can't be bothered to make it to a theatre to see the movie for less?  This could also factor in, who knows.

ono

With a DVD you often get extra (special) features, and the ability to play the film as many times as you want.  So, that's a plus.  I like seeing movies in theatres, but only in the right ones.  For some, the features are selling points, as are the low prices.  Sometimes you can get a DVD for cheaper than a movie ticket, and others, watching the movie twice on DVD will have made up for any ticket costs had you gone to see it in a theatre two or three times instead.  Good investment, that.

As for the original question, I don't know if I'm thinking things or whatnot, but I recall someone, I think it may have been either Kubrick or Coppola, saying something about the next generation of films and filmmakers (pretty sure it was Coppola), how they would be young kids with video cameras, and the ways in which films would be distributed in the future would change greatly from multiplexes to things like the Internet and DVDs.  I know in my two there's at least one feature length film the local Independent Weekly magazine has done a piece on for its selling online tickets for viewings of their film.  It's been moderately successful, too.

grand theft sparrow

Quote from: Weak2ndActFor instance: 'Young Adam' already has the stigma of NC-17 and its outlook is dodgy.  Why not piggy-back on the press and release it now on dvd?

Is there anyone who visits this site that knows the ins and outs of video distribution?  I'd like to know if this tactic would be beneficial to the studios, and if not, why not?

Quote from: Weak2ndActThe original 'Grudge' was 70 minutes, shot on dv, straight to video, and one of the scariest flicks I've seen in ages.  BUT I know for a fact that something like that would never ever get made/shown here if countries were switched.  It was made for probably 50 bucks, but the current mentality would keep it grounded in a director's reel if anything.

The reason why Roger Corman is the man, producer-wise, is that he never was looking for something that would make a billion dollars; he was just looking for something that would turn some sort of a profit.  Any sort of a profit.  If a shitty biker movie could be made for less than it could potentially take in, he'd do it.  Today, the video market has taken over for the B-picture market.

These days, every studio wants every movie to make Titanic money; if it doesn't have that kind of potential, then it's of no use to them.  A few studios are making ballsy choices but the successes were lucky accidents, mostly to do with marketing (like Blair Witch).

But if only there was a video distributor that would pick up something that any one of us could have directed... Let's say you made a movie, shot on DV, pretty cheap, not a chance in hell it would get picked up by Miramax.  If that distributor (let's call them Fucknut Video) bought your flick for the amount it cost you to make it, promised you a percentage of the profits from rentals and sales after they recouped their loss, then you could potentially be set to at least make another movie, and you'd have something to put on a resume as well.  "My movie was distributed by Fucknut Video."  And if you get famous, then Fucknut Video has the bragging rights to discovering you.

Not only that but, if it was successful, more companies would be doing this.  Is this the future of filmmaking in general?  God, I hope not because nothing beats sitting in a dark theatre for 2 hours.  But it might be a profitable way to get some new talent out in the open and onto bigger, better things.

But it could also open the floodgates for a lot of shit too.  :?

md

Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Also, why is it that people are compelled to blind buy dvds, yet can't be bothered to make it to a theatre to see the movie for less?.

because when i blind buy dvds there usually highly recommeneded...i dont go to the theater to often (trying to more) but when I do its only for movies I really want to see, kill bill, eternal sunshine, punch drunk love, and other indy flicks...i cant waste 10 dollars on a movie i know will be shitty
"look hard at what pleases you and even harder at what doesn't" ~ carolyn forche