Why bother with a $100 million movie when low budget will do?

Paranormal Activity 3 smashed box office records over the weekend for a horror release with a $52.6 million swoop, so why is Hollywood still keen to spend big on special effects filled movies?

Paranormal Activity, which was shot on a $15,000 budget grossed over $200 million worldwide when it was released in 2007 and proved that low budget at the box office can be hugely successful. So why are we not seeing more of these movies on a wide release?

Paramount have clearly shown that backing lower budget productions with a strong marketing mix can bring big returns at the box office, and while the costs of productions keep falling, it seems that producers are still keen to push out ‘star vehicles’ and big explosions to guarantee profitability.

The indie film market is so large yet it hasn’t really taken off in a commercial sense, at the cinema, because indie filmmakers don’t have the means to promote and distribute their films to bigger audiences. The web is providing that answer, but you still need a significant amount of money to have an impact.

It would be great to see more Hollywood studios and big producers investing in high quality indie films which have a broader appeal, or are genre specific that we can go and see in the cinema. Also, audiences are now more than ever open to a more diverse range of content because of the web. How many hours a week do you spend watching videos that were shot on a home video camera with average sound? Probably more than the length of a feature film you went to see this week at the cinema. The format has opened up, and so it’s time to embrace that quality, and make it more available in theatres with great storytelling.

What do you think about the choice of movies at the cinema? Is there room for improvement?

film industry network members