web
counter
 

Why Bad Horror Movies Will Never Go Away

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (49)



unborn-poster-UK-hotass-full.jpg

Both Halloween 2 and The Final Destination open tomorrow, and you’d wonder if the last weekend in August — a typically slow weekend — could support two horror flicks. But the answer is yes. Yes it can. Studios have been dumping disposable horror movies into slow weekends for years. And it’s been a hugely successful strategy. Until I started crunching the numbers, it never even occurred to me how successful it is. The cinematic murders of nameless actors and actresses in otherwise throwaway horror flicks is a massively profitable enterprise. To paraphrase Brad Pitt in Inglourious Basterds, studios are in the killin’ bidness. And bidness is booming.

In fact, with minuscule budgets, usually in the $15 million-$25 million range, it’s difficult not to eke out a profit at the end of the day. Consider one of the least successful horror remakes of the past decade, last year’s Prom Night, a movie that opened with terrible reviews and essentially disappeared after its first week (50 percent of its domestic box office take came in that first weekend). It opened on April 11, against one movie starring Keanu Reeves (Street Kings) and another starring Ellen Page, just a couple of months after Juno made her a household name. And guess which movie was the more profitable one? Prom Night, of course. And by a healthy margin. After you account for worldwide box-office gross and DVD sales, Prom Night netted $47 million in profit. Compare that to Leatherheads — which opened the week before and starred two of the most popular actors in Hollywood in Renee Zellwegger and George Clooney (plus John Krasinski) — which lost $17 million. And keep in mind that the Prom Night example is a typical one, and it was a remake of a movie that few — especially among the target audience — were even aware of.

Moreover, do you know why there is a Saw movie every Halloween? Because after five years, the Saw franchise has grossed, before DVD sales are even accounted for, around $700 million against a total production budget on all five films of around $65 million, or less than half of what the typical summer blockbuster costs to make.

In fact, in future years, we can expect to see more and more disposable horror movies. Even the duds are profitable. Remember Eli Roth’s Hostel sequel, the movie that precipitated the downfall of the torture-porn subgenre? It made $25 million. In profit. What about Pulse, the infinitely forgettable Kristen Bell horror film? $10 million in profit. Turistas? $4 million in profit. And we’re talking about the least successful horror films of the decade, which means the downside to a bad horror movie is a minimal profit of $5 to $10 million. The upside is something like the Final Destination franchise, which has already netted around $250 million in profit, before the release of tomorrow’s movie.

Which begs the question: Why wouldn’t Hollywood continue producing a horror-movie of the week? Why plunk down $100 million for a Will Ferrell vehicle (Land of the Lost), which lost $38 million. Or $100 to produce The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, which so far has netted a profit less than what Turistas made. Eddie Murphy’s Imagine That — $30 million in the red. Sure, the upside in hugely budgeted films is a movie like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but you need one of those just to cover the losses on two or three other big budget disasters.

The point I’m getting to is this: Disposable horror movies aren’t going away. They’re cheap to make. They make a profit. And marketing them is as easy as sending a trailer and a movie poster to a few fans sites, which will pimp them for free. The Unborn, in fact, made $50 million in profit based almost exclusively on the image of Odette Yustman’s ass. It doesn’t mean we have to watch them. In fact, I doubt very many among our readership do. Their audience is populated largely by teenagers thrilled with the prospect of seeing their very first R-rated film without a parent accompanying them. It also doesn’t mean it has to be a bad thing because, every once in a while, one of these movies featuring a no-name cast and a $10 million budget forces a good filmmaker to dig deep, work harder, and come up with something like The Descent. Although, unfortunately, even the good ones that find success will be diluted by a series of sequels and, eventually, a remake. The Descent 2 will be out in the fall.

Before I sign off, however, here’s the seriously random list I promised: The ten most successful disposable horror movies of the decade, and by disposable, I mean: They didn’t feature a well-known star (Ryan Reynolds, when The Amityville Horror opened, was fairly unknown) or a name director, and they were produced to turn a profit without any regard to quality. Also, either you didn’t see the movie, or you completely forgot about it by the next week. I’ve even excluded The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which amassed $125 million in profit, because at least you know who Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson are, even if you don’t remember another damn thing about the movie.

1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (remake)
Worldwide Box Office: $107 million. Production Costs: $10 million. Profit: $97 million.


2. The Omen (remake)
Worldwide Box Office: $ 119 million. Production Costs: $ 25million. Profit: $ 94million.


3. The Amityville Horror (remake)
Worldwide Box Office: $108 million. Production Costs: $19 million. Profit: $89 million.


4. My Bloody Valentine 3D
Worldwide Box Office: $93 million. Production Costs: $15 million. Profit: $78 million.


5. Friday the 13th (remake)
Worldwide Box Office: $90 million. Production Costs: $19 million. Profit: $71 million.


6. Urban Legend
Worldwide Box Office: $72 million. Production Costs: $14 million. Profit: $58 million.


7. The Hills Have Eyes
Worldwide Box Office: $70 million. Production Costs: $15 million. Profit: $55 million.


8. When a Stranger Calls
Worldwide Box Office: $66 million. Production Costs: $15 million. Profit: $51 million.


9. The Unborn
Worldwide Box Office: $76 million. Production Costs: $16 million. Profit: $50 million.


10. Boogeyman
Worldwide Box Office: $67 million. Production Costs: $20 million. Profit: $47 million









My Super Sweet 16 Slasher Soul Train Movie | Imogen Heap - Ellipse Review













Comments

Do u want to have a romantic summer? just on—T a l l l o v i n g.c O m .where are many hot girl upload their videos on this dathing site. hope u can find ur perfect one!

Posted by: andy at August 27, 2009 11:39 AM

11. Spambot - The Punctuation Killer
Blogwide Box Office - $42 million. Production costs - $6.25/hour. Profit: $41,999,993.75.

Posted by: Kballs at August 27, 2009 11:43 AM

This couldn't be more true. These films don't amount to a fart in a whirlwind, but that fart just happens to be worth 50 million dollars. What the hell was I thinking? I don't need a law degree to make money, I need to make one of these things.

Posted by: George at August 27, 2009 11:46 AM

Fuck me sideways.

And to think my broker wants me to get into commodities because "they have a really strong upside."

Has any of these movies actually lost money?

Posted by: Neodiogenes at August 27, 2009 11:46 AM

I've fallen asleep to most of these. Even with killer bud these movies suck. I'll be in the 80's if any one needs me.

Posted by: TSF at August 27, 2009 11:50 AM

Honestly? I'm a sucker for this kind of movie. It's not that I think they are good. They aren't. But I have fun watching them.

Posted by: FabMax at August 27, 2009 11:59 AM

I'd much rather have one of these lists, the kind that are interesting, than the usual "10 Biggest Noses in Hollywood" style.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at August 27, 2009 11:59 AM

I just love the stunning lack of creativity and originality of "The" Final Destination.
Studio Boss: How do we make this different from the others?
Lackey: Add a number to the title?
Studio Boss: Aren't they all taken by now? Besides, our target audience can't count higher than 10.
Lackey: What about putting "A" in front of it?
Studio Boss: Too Vague. We need something specific.
Lackey: What about "The"?
Studio Boss: RAD!!

Posted by: Odnon at August 27, 2009 12:00 PM

Not to be too much of a stickler, but production budget doesn't include the advertising dollars. I don't think it's unrealistic to guess that "The Unborn" spent two to three times as much on advertising as it did on the movie itself. And worldwide box office isn't quite free money either; you have to pay for all sorts of things (advertising, mainly, but also translations, minor edits to fit the local sensibility, etc.). Edward Jay Epstein goes into all of this at considerable length in "The Big Picture." Your overall point is sound -- a cheap horror film is always profitable -- but that level of profitability is far, far less than you think it is. That's probably why we see them come out in slow weekends instead of every single weekend.

Posted by: Sonny Bunch at August 27, 2009 12:02 PM

When you say "worldwide box office," you mean what it made in actual ticket sales, right? So the studio doesn't get all that money, does it? Because the theaters take their cut before they send the check to the studios, or however that works.

Posted by: Todd at August 27, 2009 12:02 PM

I’ve even excluded The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which amassed $125 million in profit, because at least you know who Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson are, even if you don’t remember another damn thing about the movie.

Oh, I remember how damned terrified I was when Emily's boyfriend found her staring and contorted on the bedroom floor. Gah. GAH!

Posted by: Julie at August 27, 2009 12:03 PM

When a Stranger Calls and The Hills Have Eyes are also a remakes. The original version of the former was released in 1979 and the latter in 1977 (which scared the ever-livin' pee out of my 9-year-old self when I saw it on Showtime).

This face still freaks me out.

http://www.evilgeniuscomics.com/uploaded_images/hills_have_eyes_orig_poster1977-725637.jpg

Oh, My Bloody Valentine also had a plain old 2D incarnation in 1981.

Posted by: appwitch at August 27, 2009 12:08 PM

This list makes me think of the underpants gnomes.

Step 1: Take a generic horror idea, or remake an old one.
Step 2: Hire some marginally talented people to make movie.
Step 3: ??
Step 4: Profit!

Posted by: MM at August 27, 2009 12:15 PM

I haven't seen any of these movies in the theater, and I've only ever seen one (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Still, any excuse to re-post that image of Odette Yustman’s ass is a good one in my book.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at August 27, 2009 12:15 PM

Which begs the question:

It doesn't beg the fucking question, it raises it. Begging the question is a logical fallacy "in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises".

For example, some of the writers on this site are stupid because they are idiots, while true, is begging the question.

And before any of you start bitching, he put a fucking colon in there(I count four, at least). He wants to be taken seriously.



I'd imagine it's sort of a goose that laid the golden egg scenario. Wait, no, that's a horrible example. Anyway, if they made one each week I think people would get tired quickly. You can't do that shit every week.

Posted by: pissant at August 27, 2009 12:25 PM

I have to take the winter off one year and make one of these because daddy could use the writer/director/producer's cut of $25 million.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at August 27, 2009 12:32 PM

Re: The Omen - So, do Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles not count? Don't we know them about as well as we know Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson?

Posted by: tamatha at August 27, 2009 12:33 PM

Hey pissant, raise this.

Posted by: Kolby at August 27, 2009 12:38 PM

Okay I've just been in the shower thinking about these movies and getting angrier and angrier.

I want to enjoy these movies. They are trashy horror movies and I'm a trashy horror movie kind of guy. But it all went to shit in the God awful year of 2002 when the mother of all terrible ideas rambunctiously muscled it's way into cinemas the world over. Yes, I speak of the Ring remake. The first, the original unoriginal remake of the girl-with-hair-in-her-face genre.

You see, I loved Ringu. I loved it. The 1998 Japanese original is the only film that has scared me in my adult life. And it fucking terrified me. For months. For months I saw reflections of things that weren't there in television screens. For months I felt her there, with me, as I lay in a dark room, alone, quivering. My girlfriend once put her long, dark hair over her face and staggered towards me in the manner of Sadako and I freaked out, ran screaming and wouldn't have sex with her for a week.

Then, the remake. The original was set in a drab, realistic and almost boring world. You know, like life. That's what was frightening. Everything was normal and the film slowly built up the most terrible feeling of dread. The remake, however, gave birth to that hyper-stylized drabness that affects every single one of these movies, including the remakes of American films. There is nothing remotely frightening about it. Everything is slick and gray. And it makes everything look like a week old dog turd INCLUDING THE LOVE OF MY LIFE, KRISTEN BELL.

And so, every time I see one of these films I am reminded of the horror that was. Or, rather, the horror that wasn't.

I'm off to sharpen my machete and google Gore Verbinski's address.

Posted by: TSF at August 27, 2009 12:43 PM

i love horror movies but only the good horror movies

Posted by: carrie at August 27, 2009 12:49 PM

I unabashedly love Urban Legend. It has Jared Leto before he went all emo rockstar; Robert Englund being creepy sans Freddy get-up; and Joshua Jackson (R.I.P.). Plus, Rebecca Gayheart gives good crazy eyes.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at August 27, 2009 12:49 PM

Also, the calculations for The Unborn are off.

Posted by: Todd at August 27, 2009 12:52 PM

Hmph. I really thought it'd be Jay who gave me the same, tired "begs the question" lecture someone gets every. single. time. someone uses the phrase. I guess Jay has given up, finally.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at August 27, 2009 12:53 PM

I've watched one. Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Some college friends rented it, so I didn't pay for it or anything. And I remember absolutely nothing about it. I'm quite glad about that.

Oh I think I also saw a bit of The Omen before I fell asleep. Damn that thing was boring.

But ooooh, Final Destination is awesome. Every time I look at the new trailers a little fig inside me does a happy dance.

Posted by: figgy at August 27, 2009 12:53 PM

Past 10 years - Blair Witch wasn't in the top 10? I'd be curious to know what that made.

Posted by: Jez at August 27, 2009 12:56 PM

I love horror movies. Even the bad ones. If I had to choose between a bad horror movie and a bad comedy I'd choose the horror movie every time.

I think the reason they do so well is because they're like amusement park rides. They're good for a quick rush and then you move on to the next ride.

By the way what is Pajiba's official top ten good horror movies.

Posted by: John W at August 27, 2009 1:02 PM

Blair Witch was '99, but I wouldn't consider it disposable. It was, for a lot of people (including myself, the first time) a pretty decent horror flick. That said, it made nearly $250 million on a $60,000 budget.

And yes: The Omen may have been a bad example, but I saw it (I may have even reviewed it), but it was so forgettable I completely forgot that Liev was in it.

And any quibbles with the math -- there's a reason I'm a movie critic. I can barely make a calculator work.

Also, the point about the marketing budget is a valid one, but figures aren't provided for marketing budgets. Plus, they are generally fairly cheap to advertise. As I mentioned: Just drop a few still images and a trailer with Bloody Disgusting or Fear.net, and you've got free exposure to a large segment of the target audience.

Finally, the point about how big a cut the studio gets is a good one, too. In general, the studio gets something like 80-90 percent the first few weeks of a movie's run (the percentage falls in subsequent weeks, which is why dollar theaters exist -- by the time it gets to discount theaters, the exhibitors receive the larger percentage share). However, I've never been sure what the advertised box-office total represents: The gross amount of ticket sales, or the net studio take home. I should investigate that.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at August 27, 2009 1:06 PM

That ass. THAT ASS!!!!

That is all I have to add. Good day.

Posted by: logar at August 27, 2009 1:11 PM

I assume The Blair Witch Project isn't being classified as a "Disposable Horror Movie" since it wasn't a souless paint-by-numbers studio horror flick (it was an effectivley marketed indie gimmick).

The numbers can be found on imbd or elsewhere on the internet. The Production budget:Box office ratio is off the charts for Blair Witch, but as has been pointed out before that doesn't factor in marketing and other expenses, nor does it account for DVD sales, royalties, etc. It's actually really difficult to pin down actual profits generated by specific movies.

Posted by: Yossarian at August 27, 2009 1:11 PM

I am sorry but I am offically coming out of the closet. I am a shitty horror movie fan. I love all of these movies sans-torture porn. When I was in HS I worshipped Urban Legend so much that it isn't funny. Scream and Urban Legend coudl do no wrong! I even go as far as forgiving Scream 3.

PLEASE, SOMEONE HELP ME! I HAVE A PROBLEM! T_____T

Posted by: Angelmonster at August 27, 2009 2:10 PM

I second the request for a guide of the BEST Horror Movies. Unless there's one already and I completely missed it. I'd love to see it anyway.

Posted by: figgy at August 27, 2009 2:13 PM

Hmph. I really thought it'd be Jay who gave me the same, tired "begs the question" lecture someone gets every. single. time. someone uses the phrase. I guess Jay has given up, finally.

And, yet, people still use it incorrectly.

Also, I feel like "tired" should be reserved for lectures about subjective things(unless you wanna go all prescriptive/descriptive).

Posted by: pissant at August 27, 2009 2:25 PM

Horror movies are awesome and make me want pizza.

Posted by: TWoP Fan at August 27, 2009 4:06 PM

Can't disagree with this list even though I was anticipating a major rant. You win.

The Hills Have Eyes was a remake. My Bloody Valentine 3-D was also a remake. When a Stranger Calls was also a remake. That means 7/10 films on this list were remakes.

Urban Legend was another generic slasher trying to fit the Post-Modern mold popularized in Scream. The other two aren't even worth acknowledging.

Posted by: Robert at August 27, 2009 4:34 PM

Forgot one thing: The Exorcism of Emily Rose shouldn't have even been mentioned in this article, especially as a disclaimer. It was, for once, an original approach to a modern American horror film. Whether or not you liked the court room drama setting and multiple perspectives on the mental health and death of Emily Rose is irrelevant. The creative team produced something novel for the genre by taking a huge risk and, whether a success or a failure, that means it is not disposable. The cast, in this case, does not define purpose or detract from the merit of the film.

Saying "I’ve even excluded The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which amassed $125 million in profit, because at least you know who Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson are, even if you don’t remember another damn thing about the movie" is just an effort to attack a film you don't like out of an appropriate context. Conversely, known actors and directors make disposable films, too, and not including them on the list is kind of stupid. Or have we forgotten that directors like The Coen Brothers and Peter Jackson can produce mediocre films like Burn After Reading and King Kong that fade into the abyss of forgotten memories shortly after leaving the theater?

Posted by: Robert at August 27, 2009 4:43 PM

I have still not seen Exorcism of Emily Rose. Or The Descent. Maybe I should run to Lackluster...

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at August 27, 2009 4:43 PM

I will pontificate on why "Slumdog Millionaire" or "Magnolia" were flawed, yet I will sit and watch some piece-of-shit horror movie slackjawed for hours on end. I don't know why, but I have endless mercy for horror movies.

That being said, TSF - I'm with you. Perhaps we should just leave the truly kick-ass horror movie-making to Asian filmmakers ("Two Sisters", anybody?). They are somehow able to tap into these primal fears with absolutely horrifying images.

Posted by: samantha t at August 27, 2009 5:02 PM

I loved "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." I thought it was legally fascinating and that Jennifer Carpenter was great.

Posted by: samantha t at August 27, 2009 5:08 PM

Samantha,

Two Sisters. Yes, yes, yes. So much yes.

Posted by: TSF at August 27, 2009 5:58 PM

AvB,

You need to rectify that immediately!!!

"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" and "The Descent" were both highly worth watching if you are at all a horror movie fan, which I know you are, cuz I been lurking around here awhile...

And because I suspect that you are actually me, except the East Coast version. The West/East Coasts are really just parallel dimensions anyway, right?

Posted by: MM at August 27, 2009 6:05 PM

Also, since The Exorcism of Emily Rose keeps coming up I've just gotta....

The film wasn't terrible. I saw it in the theatre and everything. It wasn't great but it was definitely above average and had that woman from Dexter with the giant chin. But as you may remember it was "based on a real story".

That story was taken from an incident in Germany in the 1970s when a young women who was thought to be possessed died during an exorcism.

"more than loosely based and perhaps completely unrelated to true events" may have been more apt.

There is a 2006 German film that is closely based on the events, however. It is called "Requiem". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454931/

It is an amazing film. I strongly, strongly recommend it to anyone who can find it. I have no idea if it was even released in the US, but it did have a very limited release in the UK. The DVD is available, but hard to find. Downloading illegally is

Posted by: TSF at August 27, 2009 6:16 PM

*damn it*

downloading illegally is a pain too as you will most likely end up with Requiem for a Dream. Or a copy without subtitles. But it is well worth seeing. Equally disturbing and moving, it's greatest strength is that it is not a horror movie. It's just tragic. And I'm all upset now.

Posted by: TSF at August 27, 2009 6:19 PM

hey! i saw ALL of these in the theater, even the omen remake the day is came out: 06-06-2006.

like an apology for cancer, well, i'm sorry. sorry that i encouraged them.
i'll never do it again.

until tomorrow at 8pm. i bought 6 tickets to FD4/3D! (i know, i know...figgy's fist, my general direction)

Posted by: gp at August 27, 2009 8:08 PM

In general, the studio gets something like 80-90 percent the first few weeks of a movie's run (the percentage falls in subsequent weeks, which is why dollar theaters exist -- by the time it gets to discount theaters, the exhibitors receive the larger percentage share).

Dustin, do you have a source for this? This is different than what I remember from when I worked at a theater, and also different from what I've read online (particularly in John Scalzi's posts at AMC).

Posted by: Paul D at August 27, 2009 8:32 PM

OK. So here's what happened. I was wandering around Lackluster Video, which I just shouldn't be allowed to do. I wound up renting Adventureland, The Wackness, Emily Rose, and ... wait for it... The Unborn. ( I also the 3rd and 4th Poison Ivys in my hand, but put them back because why spend money on something that's always on cable?)

So far, I've watched the latter pair. I actually rather enjoyed Emily Rose, thought I feel like I wouldn't necessarily classify it as horror; it's like a courtroom drama with some horror mixed in. I thought it was pretty well done though, and different, which is always nice.

Then I put in The Unborn. Now, pseudo-Mr. vB was still at work, and I was a little bit nervous about getting freaked out, because that occasionally happens to me. But. But. OMG. What the hell was that that happened to my television?! That thing was ridiculous! Nothing made any sense! And then Gary Oldman was a rabbi, and it made even LESS sense! Really, I'm supposed to be afraid of a dead fetus named, I kid you not, *Jumby*?! What the fuck kind of name is that?! And twins don't have twins, it skips a generation, even if one twin strangled the other in the womb with her own umbilical cord! And - well, okay, Upside-Down Dog was still pretty creepy. So was Upside-Down Old Man. But there was no context! Why were they randomly upside down?! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, WHAT DID I JUST WATCH?!?!?!?!

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at August 27, 2009 11:04 PM

oh AvB, i rented adventureland last night and took it over to the boyfriend's house.
the first, say 20 minutes was alright. i didn't want to murder anyone...
i ended up leaving with a good 30 minutes left of the movie.
seriously, it's like 7 hours long.
or feels like it.
watch the trailer.
the trailer's cute.
it's also all that piece was worth.

heed me.
or don't.
it's your sanity (which i doubt frequently anyway :)

Posted by: gp at August 28, 2009 12:04 AM

oh, gp... I rather liked it. Don't break up with me! I thought it was sweet. And while I enjoyed Emily Rose, that was the one that felt like it was on forever.

Oh.. and MM.. I forgot to say, if by "parallel", you mean "bizarro", then yes. Absolutely. ;)

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at August 28, 2009 5:06 PM

your judgement is officially in question! fuck all y'all hipsters!

Posted by: gp at August 28, 2009 7:11 PM

I love that you mentioned the Unborn poster ... I am not a fan of horror movies, but every time I saw that poster I'd be mesmerized for a few minutes, and then would try to rationalize seeing it with stuff like "BUT GARY OLDMAN IS IN IT, IT CANT BE THAT BAD."

Posted by: Joe at August 29, 2009 11:40 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time