HORROR ON A SHOESTRING

[defrog]

My all-time favorite holiday of the year is coming up, so you’ll be seeing a few related posts, starting with some nifty trivia from Neatorama on three classic horror films: Night Of The Living Dead, Halloween, and The Exorcist.

I love all three films: you’ve got zombies, you’ve got John Carpenter and you’ve got Max von Sydow fighting Pazuzu. But here’s the thing I wanted to call to yr attention:

• Night Of The Living Dead budget: $114,000
• Halloween budget: $325,000

Adjusted for inflation, that works out to roughly $672k and $1 million, respectively.

Compare that to, say, Michael Bay’s Transformers ($150 million) or Pirates Of The Caribbean At World’s End ($300 million, which is also reportedly the budget for the Transformers sequel). Yr opinions of those films may vary, and granted, both ended up making a profit. But that’s not the point.

The point is: you can make an enduring classic film for chump change. Just ask Robert Rodriguez if you don’t believe me. For what Hollywood spends on movies these days, we could have established a Mars colony by now. Or at at least covered the cost of the AIG bailout.

But then I love B movies, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?

FUN FACT: The Exorcist (budget: $12 million) is, for my money, the scariest movie ever made. Expect a list soon.

Cheap thrills,

This is dF

Comments

[jasonfranks.livejournal.com]

You are the second person on my friends list to post something like this in the last 24 hours.

For what it's worth, I agree 100%. Those are some of my favourite films.

-- JF

[def-fr0g-42.livejournal.com]

About what – the horror movies or the budgets?

By the way, "Evil Dead" was made for $375,000. And it kicks a snow leopard's ass.

[jasonfranks.livejournal.com]

It was his top 10 horror films. If you combine his list with the three you've mentioned and jigger AUDITION in there somewhere you've pretty much got my top 10.

-- JF

[thelastaerie.livejournal.com]

There are a number of reasons why horror movies are cheap to make - even the good ones. First of all, they don't require A-list stars, marketing is usually more creative than just throwing money to ad agency (less first-class tickets & hotel bills for flying stars around and more verbal/viral media marketing)...

In any case, horror movie is never the blockbuster genre which is part of its charm. Even when it's bad, at least you'd think - that's a less costly mistake.

[def-fr0g-42.livejournal.com]

All good points. On the other hand, even non-blockbusters these days tend to cost at least $5 million or so. It's gotten to where $100 million isn't all that big a budget, relatively speaking.

[figmentj.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the Exorcist. I watched it when I was 6 and I had nightmares for a year.

[def-fr0g-42.livejournal.com]

I watched it for the first time when I was 18 and I have nightmares TO THIS VERY DAY!

Okay, I don't really. But suffice to say that very, VERY few "scary" movies actually scare me. This one does. It still does, actually.

[bosswriter.livejournal.com]

Exorcist = freaky scary, puts Friday the 13th, Halloween etc to shame. I can't comment about the new crop like Saw etc as I am not into those kind of flicks anymore but I will always remember the Exorcist.

[ziyda.livejournal.com]

I'm way too impressionable to be allowed to watch 'The Exorcist'