"Mockbusters"

[largento]

Apparently there's big bucks being made by these ethically-challenged "studios" that put out those direct-to-video knockoffs hoping to trick Moms into bringing home the wrong movie. Here's the LA Times story.

[robcat2075]

I'm surprised they can make money with a budget of $2 million. That's a lot of confused moms.

 

I'm also interested every time Darrel Van Citters' name shows up. I used to work with a cousin of his.

[Wildsided]

All power to them, they're a business and the whole point of business is to make money. If people buy their stuff then it's not the companies fault.

 

Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that DVD's are not launched at the same time as the cinema release and lets be honest if you can't tell the difference between life's a jungle and Madagascar then you kinda deserve to take home the wrong movie. If these so called confused people are too absent minded to remember the name of the movie then it's their tough luck. They're not confused they just think that "Meh the kids won't notice that chop kick panda isn't kung fu panda" and then are surprised when they do.

[zandoriastudios]

I've found that I really like some of these films!

[robcat2075]

I did watch the mock version of "Princess of Mars" with Antonio Sabato Jr. and Tracy Lords. It had its moments of success.

 

 

I suppose this is a bit related to the old B-movie studio tactic of finding a title that would sell (Like "Curse of the Cat People") and then making a movie to fit it. Great, good, bad, it didn't matter because the title was what got the tickets sold.

[Gerry]

I read an anecdote recently attributed to Louis B. Mayer I think: "'Mogambo' is a terrible title. But 'Mogambo starring Clark Gable and Ava Gardner' is a GREAT f@#$# title!"

[robcat2075]

Ultimately it's a sad indicator of the state of the movie watching public: unless they've been lured to a title by a huge publicity campaign, they won't try it.

[zandoriastudios]

By Ben Fritz, Los Angeles Times

 

June 24, 2012

Last year's "Puss in Boots"was made on the lush 13-acre DreamWorks Animation campus in Glendale by 300 people working for four years at a cost of $130 million.

 

Its knockoff was made on the second floor of an office building just two miles away— by 12 people, in six months, for less than $1 million.

 

That is the part of the story that I think is important--I think that there is a mentality that it can't be done except the Dreamworks/Pixar/Sony/BlueSky way: lots of people and lots of time. One of the objectives of The Tin Woodman of Oz project was to road-test the production capabilities of A:M--and it did! There is no reason that producers wanting to try to cash in on the animation craze shouldn't be looking at Animation:Master and this community of animators.

 

[edit] This story inspired me to launch this blog post: Bring your dreams to life!

[largento]

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I don't like that the cover is more important to the investors than the actual content of the movie. That's the part that smacks of "rip-off."

 

Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that DVD's are not launched at the same time as the cinema release

 

It's not lack of intelligence, Wildsided, it's a lack of interest. Most parents aren't interested in animation and are more interested in their own lives than their children's. They wouldn't have paid attention to the trailers to see if it was a theatrical release or a home video release and it's not a movie they ever plan on watching themselves. They are at Wal-Mart, see a Puss-in-Boots DVD, remember their kid asking to see Puss-in-Boots, it's cheap, so they pick it up.

 

There's also the "Zingers Effect." Every kid knows that Twinkies are better than Zingers, but Zingers are cheaper, so Mom comes home with Zingers. Maybe the parent does realize it's just a knock-off, but they think their kid won't know the difference.

 

I remember the horror that I experienced when I asked Mom to get me the Star Wars 45 and she brought home the Meco disco version. When I complained that it wasn't the "real" Star Wars 45, she told me it said "Star Wars" on it and it was good enough.

 

What does excite me about the story, though, is the part about these movies making more money by taking advantage of streaming outlets. If cut-rate productions are doing well, doesn't it make sense that these outlets are open to more content?

[robcat2075]

The problem with any distribution scheme is... how do you get the audience to want YOUR movie? There isn't a shortage of available content, how do you get YOURs to be the one they click on and hopefully part with money for?

 

When I went to the film festival TWO played at i also saw a bunch of low-budget, independent live action features. Most were good, some were great, all were probably at least equal to these "drafter" movies but none had a chance of real "distribution" success. Technically, Netflix will host almost anyone's movie (that has a DVD pressed) but... your movie is "on Netflix"... so? How is anyone going to know or bother to look for it?

 

I've heard distributors say it takes a two-year "awareness campaign" to launch a wide-release animated feature. How does an independent compete with that?

[largento]

Using Netflix as the example, the viewer isn't parting with any money to watch YOUR movie. The household is already paying a monthly subscription.

 

It can be hard to be found anywhere, but using TWO as an example, there's now a Kids Only section of Netflix that allows kids to browse only kids movies & TV shows. Admittedly there are many of them, but it does remove an enormous amount of content from their browsing. At least while it's newly added, it'll show up in that section. Also, a search for Oz or Wizard of Oz should suggest TWO to the child.

 

From that point, the cover art is the salesman. You get the kid to click and boom, you're in business. Also, children are far more likely to watch the same movie over and over and over again.

 

I don't know how the deal works with Netflix, but if it's a per-click fee, you could do well with a kid's movie.