The Production of a Double Edged Sword

The Production of a Double Edged Sword

By Richard Romero

    It seems like recently, all of the big name directors in the genre have jumped onto the production ship in an attempt to give lesser-known directors the limelight. This can be seen most recently in the latest efforts from Eli Roth and Guillermo de Toro in their films Aftershock and Mama. These directors seem to go years without coming up with something entirely “theirs” on screen. Is there a magical profit equation in this production plan that is causing the trend? The production game is far from a new profession, but one must wonder, what are the pros and cons of this career route for directors? Why not just make your own movies consistently?

PROS:

1.The opportunity to skyrocket a new Director’s career

This is one reason that, although somewhat rare, is a definite pro, because if the film is a hit, then who gets the credit? Not just the director, but the famous producer behind him as well. Taking a look at Eli Roth (HOSTEL I and II), it is well known that he got his big break from Quentin Tarantino’s executive production of his euro-horror Hostel franchise. Roth is proof that it is possible to start on the path of gold from a generous production name behind one’s film.

2.More credit to a Director’s name

Looking at the top three recent Directors in this horror trend, Eli Roth, Guillermo Del Toro and Michael Bay, it seems like we haven’t gotten enough of them over the last five or six years. It would appear that they had been putting out consistent horror films once, sometimes even twice a year (Roth this year with Aftershock and Hemlock Grove). However, the truth of it is, the promotion of the film, pegged their names in bold and they were the real reasons that people flocked to see some of these movies. Let’s face it Del Toro’s last picture was Hellboy II and Roth’s last release was the less that enjoyable Hostel Part II. However, they have been consistent with their production and have managed to keep their names fresh on the tongues of horror fans all around the world.

3.More $ for less work 

This observation may be a bit rough, but think about it. Would it be more fun to write your own epic term paper, or put your name as co-author on someone else’s paper, where they do all the heavy lifting and you get some dough off of it? Especially when your last paper was just a “C”! Eli Roth sure took the hint when Hostel Part II brought in $17 million Domestic Total Gross in theaters. He took a hiatus from behind the chair and went on to produce the low budget, yet highly publicized chiller The Last Exorcism, which raked in $41 million DTG. That’s no $78 million DTG of MAMA, but 41 million of anything is nothing to be scoffed at. So far, Roth’s latest production effort, Aftershock has proven successful, even with a limited 100 theater release, raking in $40,000 opening weekend. For a review of Aftershock, see the embedded video below.

So I’ve examined the three most evident Pros in producing a low budget film, but the move is also a major double edged sword. Here are the major cons that I have found as an avid moviegoer and critic.

CONS:

1.Limited releases could damage efforts

Although Roth’s production of Nicolas Lopez’s Aftershock is making somewhat of a start to a profit, some productions from big names don’t get off quite as lucky. Just last year, Roth and Quentin Tarantino both had their names behind RZA’s kung fu film The Man With The Iron Fists. Not even two big names were able to save the film from only making $16 million, with a $15 million budget. Part of this was due to the film’s limited and rather short release in theaters. Del Toro has also suffered a similar fate when J.A. Bayona’s ghost story, The Orphanage only made $7 million on a limited release…which is sad because The Orphanage is such a great film. This is proof that promotion is a big deal, especially when looking at other films like MAMA and The Last Exorcism.

2.The film may not even take the ACTUAL Director anywhere

Okay, this CON is most definitely premature if looking at directors of the last five years that have worked on these films, but the risk is STILL there. Daniel Stamm, the director of The Last Exorcism Part I did not return to helm the lackluster sequel, and I haven’t found another thing he’s made since that movie. The same goes for Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark’s Troy Nixie, who I would have never even known had I not looked this up. He has made nothing since that movie and has nothing planned on IMDB. That is sad, because I found Dark to be a relatively enjoyable film.  However, on the flipside, The Orphenage’s Bayona recently directed the downer, but Oscar acclaimed The Impossible. So it was nice to see him going somewhere.

3.The film could backfire and taint a Director’s name and image

For a while it seemed as if every single horror film had action mogul Michael Bay behind it. I mean, he’s “okay,” Bad Boys II and The Rock were genius, though I can live with just one Transformers movie. Bay is a good action director, but his production choices in Horror have been the biggest piles that I’ve seen as a viewer. He butchered Friday the 13th, massacred Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning, and he shot The Amityville Horror in the head. Since then, I’ve pretty much groaned whenever I’ve heard the name Michael Bay mentioned in any sentence involving movies. Had he stepped back and just stuck to his own films during those horror years, maybe his name wouldn’t have the sour taste that it does today, minus Pain and Gain.

There are several directors not mentioned in this article and I know I just skimmed the surface, but these are just some of the reasons that I found to both like and dislike the production efforts of popular directors.

For more Horror information be sure to visit livinginthedarkness.com.