Both are 100% correct, but there's also the issue of the relatively low cost with which Hollywood is able to crank these types of films with. I think the first Saw film was made for around $1 million, but raked in around a hundred mill or so. As long as easily pleased gorefiends keep lapping up story-less drivel such as Saw and Hostel, Hollywood will continue to crank it out, where another intelligent filmmaker could have had their break instead.

Some things I feel need to be clarified.

JW

Hostel : Part 2 will make back little more than it's budget? Look at the numbers. The flick cost $10 million to make. It has garnered $9.8 million has of June 12th.

Granted this film's domestic take will suffer from negative press and poor word of mouth but it is far from a failure. Consider the foreign release and the eventual DVD release. Those who chose to wait for that release will swope into their local mass retailer and swallow that title up. Look at the release of ACES on DVD, to see such a trend. DVD is where the money lies. Expect a Hostel : Part 3.

Also I noticed in a post someone stating that the SAW series was just an excuse to throw gore at the audience. Hmmm, really? Well, how about filmmakers who rely on special effects to blanket the fact that they really have no plot to tell or a story worth telling, i.e. Fantastic Four and some films of that ilk?

SAW being overtly violent? C'mon! So there shouldn't be any violence when said traps are activated? Granted it may be slightly over the top but these are movies about a middle aged man with a genius I.Q., running around in a Wicker Man-ish red velvet robe, abducting idiotic people sometimes twice his size, and crafting medieval looking torture devices to bring out the "best" in someone...what in the Hell do you expect from such a film?

The only differences between these films and the GRINDHOUSE films that preceded them are actual budgets and studios actually willing to back them. Another difference, people are actually going to see them in droves.

As far as Eli Roth goes, I am a fan. I realize his films are teeming with exploitative elements but isn't just about everything released in Hollywood guilty of the same thing? The only misstep I feel he did recently was equate Hostel to some Iraq/Abu Gharib allegories. Joe, I completely agree with you there. It IS about ticket sales and nothing more.

But the point remains, if these films aren't your cup of tea, don't watch them. I saw Hostel : Part 2 out of curiosity and was reminded of the old Giallo flicks coming out of Italy in the '70s. Did I like the film? It was OKAY. Is it overtly violent? No. Is it as violent as the first film? No. Does that mean you all should see it? No.

Joe mentioned that in ACES all the action is man on man with regards to the violence. Well in Hostel : Part 2, Roth has made the violence equal opportunistic. There are scenes of violence towards women in this film but the real standout is a set piece where the bloodshed is commited by one woman to another.

Torture porn and films of that ilk or dubbed with that ludicrous label don't really appeal to me but if a filmmaker whose work I enjoy makes one of those films, I will see it. For me, it's not the subject matter that I clamor for but to see what said filmmaker is going to do and why they were attracted to that particular piece.

RTA,

I posted a response similar to yours a while back and agree with you. We tend to Mc-ify everything available to us. Bigger helpings of food. More videos at a time and so on, so forth. We want it all and we want it now.

Did you really quote CRASH? Oh, you did. Okay film but great piece of dialogue you quoted.

Kevin

Now I read that Hostel II cost $20 mill to make and they paid $20 mill for advertising. My figures are probably way off.

I apologize for the length of my post, Joe.

Had more to say but I'll bite my tongue...for now.

Kevin

ahaha - Wow, this topic really hit a nerve and everyone jumped out of their shell...

Doubler, you're correct. Kevin's right in a sense, but much more goes into a film "budget" than anyone on the "outside" really knows (Joe can step in for any illumination needed)...

I think what also has to be remembered is the fact that audiences could be getting tired of this shoot-em-up, take-em-down mentality of "pure violence" in a film.

Which isn't to say that the American public is becoming infinitely wiser in its choice of film these days (by any stretch of the imagination), but you don't need to go any further than the top 5 at the box office to see: Ocean's, Pirates, Knocked, Surf's and Shrek to really understand what people are choosing to watch.

Mr. Brooks and Hostel 2, combine for about as much as 28 Weeks Later has currently taken in, still less than 30 mill. and taking a closer look at the top 50 for weekly box office yields little to no real Blood, Guts, Bullets or Octane (sorry Joe, it was just sitting there for the taking...).

I think Universal understands this and that's why they chose a DVD release instead...

I don't think there's any doubt Aces 2 should push the envelope, keeping it real with the first one, but which envelope you choose to push is another story.

Joe - you said you had the outline, what's your opinion...?

JW

I work in the industry but in a lesser position than Joe, i.e. mechanical effects. I understand the basic economics when it comes to producing a feature and marketing said feature. There are a lot of costs/figures involved that are usually discarded when a film's success are mentioned.

All budgets aside, these films will continue to profit, studios will continue to make them whether they bypass theatres or not and end up for sale on a shelf in some retail outlet located in some podunk town located outside of Rapid City, South Dakota. I have been to South Dakota on a shoot and can honestly say podunk. Sorry people of South Dakota, it's true.

As for Mr. Brooks, that film cannot really be lumped in with films such as Hostel : Part 2 or 28 Weeks Later. For one, the other films mentioned are sequels to previously successful films. And the other, Brooks is a psychological thriller. And yes, I am a stickler for genre labels to be applied to the right films.

BTW, it's heartening to see a film as great as KNOCKED UP doing the business it's doing and will hopefully continue to do. I implore everyone here to see this film, you will enjoy it.

As far as Universal chosing the DTV route for the ACES prequel, it is simple...consumers are staying home and avoiding theatres, opting to buy DVDs. The ticket prices are almost as much as buying a DVD on sale during it's first week of release. Also, the window between a film's theatrical release and it's eventual home "invasion" is rapidly closing in on each other.

I don't believe the issue of violence has anything to do with Universal opting to produce an ACES prequel DTV. It is an effective way to get more bang for the buck in the quickest way possible.

As far as audience getting sick of violence for violence sake types of film, not buying what you're selling there either. If you throw in a leading man with real box office appeal, some CG, maybe even make it a sequel or a property with such public familarity, a director with a track record, a little more CG, and a decent plot...people will flock to it. When Live Free Or Die Hard hits, we'll see if my theory holds any water.

There is no right or wrong to this argument or debate but I love hearing everyones' opinions.

Kevin

ps Live Free Or Die Hard, WTF? Who titled this movie? Next thing you know they'll let Bruce Willis have a recording career. Oops, too late.

This is a good frickin' debate! Love it.

As for Live Free Or Die Hard, or Die Hard 4.0 or whatever you want to call it, I'll be there, opening day.

Kevin - the problem is that if you look at the films in the top 50 there's little to no violence and I'm not talking Bruce Willis and the Mac Guy or a line like Yippie Kiyae Motherf#cker! I'm talking about the kind of horror violence Joe was referring to and I disagree, I think it has a direct correlation and it's not just my opinion, look at the box office and see what films are going straight-to-dvd and which ones are being theatrically released? Then, out of the films being theatrically released, which ones are doing well?

If you have 50 films and less than 5% are horror, another 5% represent "thrillers" you have to look at that and ask yourself, what does that say...? Then ask yourself, why?

To be honest, I think audiences have been turned "off" of this genre - look at Fracture... 2 big commercial names, a little "twist" and still nothing. People watch enough CSI detective shows on television, enough CourtTV, 48 Hours Mystery, Dateline, 20/20, enough "news" in a day to realize the world around us is already "shoot-em-up, take-em-down" and I think it's honestly affecting their decision on where to go and what to see... don't argue with me, just argue with the box office because that's the only place I'm taking the info from...

In regards to Die Hard, that's already a franchise and therefore, has its built-in audience and that film will be as much about watching the ridiculousness of everything that happens on an unimaginable scale as much as it will be about "having a good time." Look at the trailers and you'll see that...

Mac Guy: "You just took out an airplane with a car!"

Willis: "I was out of bullets."

I agree with you about Knocked Up!

JW

Another thing to realize with horror films, or films that casually dip their foot into that pool, and their success ratio at the box office is their release schedule. Horror films tend to perform well when released in the fall or the winter periods of the year.

To quote you, "To be honest, I think audiences have been turned "off" of this genre - look at Fracture... 2 big commercial names, a little "twist" and still nothing. People watch enough CSI detective shows on television, enough CourtTV, 48 Hours Mystery, Dateline, 20/20, enough "news" in a day to realize the world around us is already "shoot-em-up, take-em-down" and I think it's honestly affecting their decision on where to go and what to see... don't argue with me, just argue with the box office because that's the only place I'm taking the info from..." As far as Fracture goes, two commercially known actors? Really? I'll give you Anthony Hopkins but Ryan Gosling? The population has only seen The Notebook and never heard of Half Nelson, which is an amazing film and truly boasts a great performance from Gosling. Fracture suffered from two things : 1. Anthony Hopkins in a role that he himself has done to death, 2. A plot consisting of elements taken from far better films.

If audiences are "tired" of thrillers or suspense laden flicks, then why is Disturbia performing as well as it has? It's not the genre they tire of but the conventions filmmakers put forth into their cinematic efforts. If it's not original, audience avoid it like the plague. But then again, has any film lately been truly original?

As far as the box office goes, what other horror films are in wide release besides Hostel : Part 2 and 28 Weeks Later? None, due to the studios holding back said films until a season approaches that those films would perform adequately in. So one film underperforms, the genre is dead and audiences tire of it? No, it just means certain films play, others don't. Studios constantly bankroll horror films because they have proven to be successful, whether DTV or theatrical.

Joe mentioned Captivity and remember the saying "any press is better than no press", that will definitely apply with this film. People will see that film due to all the press regarding the ad campaign. Granted the film may be utter sh*t but it to will turn a profit due to public curiosity. Whether the film lights the box office on fire remains to be seen but DVD profits will come pouring in.

As far as the news goes and what other crime based program pours forth from the idiot box, audiences will go see anything as long as it is slightly different from the next. Hell they'll go see the same thing if you slap a fresh coat of paint on it, add a few more zeroes to the budget, and slap a number behind the title. Like I stated to some of my friends, audiences may be sophisicated but some of those in the audience aren't all that intelligent either.

To quote you, "If you have 50 films and less than 5% are horror, another 5% represent "thrillers" you have to look at that and ask yourself, what does that say...? Then ask yourself, why?" What does that say to me and why? I'll tell you. The studios, during the summer, are more concerned with the mighty buck during this time period than any other season. Why you may ask? People tend to have more time to spend at their local multiplex, opening their wallets and handing over their hard earned cash to see a studios' potential franchise release. Go to your box office site and compare the box office revenue between summer and any other season for any year to view where horror pics tend to make it or break it.

Why would a studio release a genre pic, a horror genre pic, during the already crowded summer movie schedule where blockbusters thrive and smaller films either tread safely or drown completely? They place those releases in a season where nothing noteworthy is being placed in direct competition with it.

I guess it all boils down to audiences not tiring of the genre but not seeing any remotely innovative happening in it or with it.

To quote you again, "In regards to Die Hard, that's already a franchise and therefore, has its built-in audience and that film will be as much about watching the ridiculousness of everything that happens on an unimaginable scale as much as it will be about "having a good time." Look at the trailers and you'll see that..." Granted it may be a sequel to franchise with a built-in audience but it still possesses that "shoot-em-up, take 'em down" mentality you speak of that you see on T.V. in the form of shows such as 24. Would people stay away from it if it wasn't a Die Hard vehicle? Or if it reminded them of something they watch at home on the boob tube? Absolutely not. Familarity soothes almost all of the common moviegoers' wallets. Audiences like films that either teeter or completely fall into a grand spectacle. Ask Bruckheimer. Better yet, ask his accountants.

Like I stated, audiences don't tire of a specific genre, they tire of the trappings/cliches those films in that genre fall into.

I don't know. I am very curious to hear what Joe has to say though....

Kevin

ps JW, what did you think of Knocked Up in comparison to Apatow's previous film,The 40 Year-Old Virgin?

In the words of the Texas Rattlesnake (and numerous other people)...

BOOYAH!