Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what has happened to low budget horror films?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • what has happened to low budget horror films?

    Just wondering what has happened to modern low budget horror films. I try watching the new low budget horror films coming out these days, and almost always the films are so horrible it's hard to make it through them. The low budget horror films from the 50's to 80's were low budget, but they were still not as awful as the ones today. All I can figure is that at least to make a low budget film in those days you had to have some know how about film making because you had to know how to run a camera, and get someone to give you enough money to buy film and process a film and hire actors, the low budget films these days if you have a camera you don't have to buy film, you can shoot it for free basically, and they seem to not hire real actors, they seem to be using I don't know what they are, but they aren't actors. Did I sum it up, or is there something else that is making modern low budget films suck so bad?

  • #2
    Generally I'd say the production standards on modern low budget is much higher than it was back in the day. The difference your talking about is possibly just the difference in actual budgets. Back in the day low budget might mean $100,000. These days it might be a few hundred bucks.

    I don't think the film itself was any barrier to any entry. The writer and director driving the film is rarely the guy handling the camera. That's almost always handed off to someone who knows what they're doing. I've made a few incredibly low budget features myself and the DP and his assistant were always profeasionals and would be on most other people's films as well.
    "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

    Comment


    • #3
      The cheapness of being able to do a movie these days, the cost of equipment being insanely cheaper and easier than ever to use, lead to dilution of the product. Any kid with a camera, a decent PC, access to After Effects/Photoshop, and willing participants can make a genre flick these days.
      Alex K.
      Senior Member
      Last edited by Alex K.; 02-27-2017, 08:20 AM.
      "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

      Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

      Comment


      • #4
        One thing to bear in mind is inflation when comparing budgets. Night Of The Living Dead for instance cost $133,000 back in the day. Today thats a budget of about $850,000. So you should be comparing its production values to, say, Saw rather than your mates shot iPhone opus. That said I've seen $10,000 movies that have better production values than NOTLD (none that were anywhere as good a movie of course). Back in the day there really weren't equivalent movies to the no budget stuff you see being made today.
        "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it's all about equipment costs personally. Roger Watkins' Last House on Dead End Street was made for practically nothing, literally nothing, all because Roger got the equipment for free and was able to convince everyone he knew to appear in it for free. Eraserhead had a budget of roughly 20K and almost all of the equipment and stages he was using was free or dirt cheap.
          "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

          Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

          Comment


          • #6
            Modern technology has empowered anyone to make a film, regardless of talent. That's not to say they all lack talent, but the horror movie slowly evolved over 80 years or more. I'm not sure where it can go now, it needs something radical. People can go out now and make a film that looks like Argento's Dracula and it may even be better, but when the legendary directors are just treading water or even sinking (sorry Dario!) with the means to make something cheaply, I think maybe everything has already been said that can be.
            agent999
            Senior Member
            Last edited by agent999; 02-27-2017, 09:11 AM.
            I'm bitter, I'm twisted, James Joyce is fucking my sister.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Alex K. View Post
              The cheapness of being able to do a movie these days, the cost of equipment being insanely cheaper and easier than ever to use, lead to dilution of the product. Any kid with a camera, a decent PC, access to After Effects/Photoshop, and willing participants can make a genre flick these days.
              What Alex said. And I find that the look of those shot on 16mm low-budget films of yesteryear are more satisfying aesthetically than the DV stuff coming out now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mark Tolch View Post
                What Alex said. And I find that the look of those shot on 16mm low-budget films of yesteryear are more satisfying aesthetically than the DV stuff coming out now.
                Take for example the movie Spookies. Technically it's a crap film but it's a charmingly crap film. All of the practical creature effects are a real treat. Compare that to some straight to video cheapie that uses tons of After Effects CGI and it's not the same.



                This is like fast food. May not be the best for your body but it tastes good and it's cheap.



                This is like canned meat you buy at Dollar Store where you run the risk of food poisoning.




                Shit like Suburban Sasquatch makes Night of the Demon look like a masterpiece. I am not even joking.
                Alex K.
                Senior Member
                Last edited by Alex K.; 02-27-2017, 09:50 AM.
                "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

                Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Similar thing happened to porn....once cheaper equipment and the ability for anyone to point and shoot a movie (regardless of talent) meant it wasnt cost productive to shoot movies the old way with practical effects, heart and creativity...Whereas a low budget movie in the past would have taken GREAT determination and dedication to get made....no matter how crappy you could see the effort that went into making them...and the attempt to tell a story or create and atmosphere..it wasnt just a cheap cash in or whatever.....these days CGI just made things even easier to make a film cheaply and quickly.....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    One big problem is that new movies are too self-conscious and obsessed with being throwbacks.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by IanIcon View Post
                      One big problem is that new movies are too self-conscious and obsessed with being throwbacks.
                      Yeah this also kind of ties into so called "bad" films becoming ironically "hip". It allows lazy filmmakers an excuse to say "Oh, it was supposed to be bad! Get it! Post-modernism!" when clearly that's not the case.

                      Its fairly easy anyways to tell what films actually had effort put into them and what ones were carelessly thrown together.
                      LA PASIÓN ESPAÑOL: THE EROTIC MELODRAMAS OF VICENTE ARANDA (1991-1999)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree with the horror films trying to be throwback to the 70's and 80's, I hate that, I am living in 2017 not 1985, when it was 1985 I liked the current horror films then, I don't want to see a film in 2017 set in 1985, I mean those films were of their time, and they never look correct when they try to make a modern film and set it in the 1970's or 80's. I think that's why the new Friday the 13th films suck, they try to throwback to the 80's, Jason was an 80's character, he just can't translate to the 2010's

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'd like the O.P. (Fundi) to define the term better. As others have pointed out, there is a sliding scale as far as calling something "low budget". There are movies made with iPhones and a budget of a few thousand dollars that have little or no expectation of getting seen outside of a web stream, and then, at the other extreme, there are legit indies budgets that have costs that range up to a million or two where the ambition is much higher. It must be noted that MOONLIGHT, this year's best picture, cost $1.5M which would be considered 'low budget' by Hollywood standards.

                          Many would term some recent horror successes as IT FOLLOWS, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, THE WITCH and THE BABADOOK as "low budget" as well as being good. So, there's a lot of leeway involved.

                          As to the 'self-conscious' charge - guilty! And, it's not just Horror movies. There are 'retro' action, teen comedy and sci-fi flicks made all the time. Most of them pretty unwatchable.
                          JoeS
                          Senior Member
                          Last edited by JoeS; 02-27-2017, 10:20 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X