FEATURE: Micro-budget horror films vs microbudget action films.

K

KNIGHTBLAZE

Member
[TABLE="class: tborder, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1"]


I found this posting on another filmmaking site and thought it interesting to share here. What are your views about this? To me, I would say do the film you feel you can do and don't let no one discourage you. However there are two excellent books to view if this is the avenue you want to take.

ACTION FILMMAKING... Nathan Masters

DV REBELS GUIDE: An All Digital Approach to Making Killer Action Movies On The Cheap.... Stu Maschwitz.



Micro-budget horror films vs. microbudget action films.

A lot of indie filmmakers believe in making horrors rather than action since action is harder to do. But I think making a microbudget action film is just as do-able possibly. I mean look at high budget horror compared to low budget horror. Which would be like Sleepy Hollow compared to Paranormal Activity. One had a lot of special effects, and the other had to compromise. Look at high budget action compared to low, such as True Lies compared to El Mariachi.

So why is that a lot of indie film makers seem to think that action is un-doable when you can just shoot it very low budget. Unless a lot of audiences prefer to low budget horror as oppose to low budget action.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"][/TD]
[TD="class: alt1, align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Some have said before that horror is easier to do on a lower budget but that's not always true I wouldn't think. Look at fight scenes. Need a choreographer to make it look real right? Well wouldn't you need a choreographer for a slasher film too, since the slashings and knife fights are the same as knife fighting in an action film, and still need to make it look real, and choreograph well?
 
I have to go with low budget horror. Modern mainstream action movies have set the bar so high, in terms of production value and the quality of the stunts and effects that trying to compete with that on a low budget is, IMHO, a very futile enterprise. The true essence of horror is psychological/emotional and while it does take great talent and skill to pull off, even on a large budget, the essential elements to pull it off might just be more available to low budget filmmakers than the essential elements of an action film. There also seems to be a much larger established fan base for low budget horror than there is for low budget action films. There is an infrastructure of low budget horror that a smart filmmaker can tap into much more readily.
 
what he said ^^^^

I chose horror because thats what I like, but I knew that it had a vast fanbase to tap into that other genre's don't. There are horror conventions all over the place, haunted houses, theme parks with horror themes.. etc.

how many other genres have that kind of extra support going for it?

I think both genre's can be done well on low budgets but the reason I stay away from it.. is because most of them are the equivalent of the low budget horror films where its just kids in the woods the entire time..

instead though its people with guns, with very badly done CGI effects.

I respect the writer of that book and he makes alot of action films, while they aren't my cup of tea.. he obviously has a market for his stuff or he wouldn't be doing em.
 
Well Freddiew seems to be doing pretty well with the low budget action genre and they only spend a week on each short. I say do what you like. Personally I hate horror films.

I think psychological thrillers are good though for low budget and they have aspects of both.
 
Action/Horror is a good way to go. It simply travels better. And there are still tons of low budget actioners on the market, the names are just bigger.

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top