Nudity to Help Sales?

J

JonathanLB

Carbonite Member
I've heard from a few people that if you make an indie horror film, basically you should have nudity to help sell to international markets, that it's something a lot of viewers just expect anyway. I'm torn because I want to make a pretty clean, suspenseful horror film, mine isn't based on gore or shock value, for instance, and the idea of including nudity just for sales potential is kind of rough, but the reality is I want to make my money back of course so I can do a second film! haha.

Has anyone had any experience with this idea? Or heard the same thing, etc.?
 
Jonathan, I've seen you around the boards long enough that I think you know the score. The odds of earning your money back on a movie with no recognizable stars (we're not even talking about A-List here) is an uphill battle.

I'm not sure what size budget you're thinking about but low budget horror isn't the market it was four of five years ago. At that time people like Lions Gate were buying up low budget horror movies. Even at that, depending on the budget, the filmmakers were lucky to break even on any amount larger than a few thousand dollars. Were there exceptions? Of course, there were. But they were just that, the exception.

If you aren't offering a cast for a distributor to sell, you have to give him something...an incredible story (and I'm not saying you don't have one but)...exploitation be it nudity, gore, whatever...

Have you done your market research? What are no-name, low budget horror films selling for and how many are really selling? The ones that do sell...what are they about and what do they have to offer.

In the end, you're going to have to make the movie you feel comfortable making. Just be aware that the reality of making your money back is a long shot.

If you do all your research and still feel you have something to offer that will sell in the marketplace, by all means go ahead. But if you are doing this with the hope of making your money back, please take the time to do your due diligence.

Now, if you have recognizable actors, a decent story well presented, you stand a chance. I think it's worth looking at the Corrado thread (and here) and see where Adam is regarding distribution on a marketable story with marketable actors.
 
That's what people on this forum say. That's not what anyone I know in the business says. The DP I'd shoot with has done low budget horror in the $200K range, which is where I'd be, my 1st A.D. has done mainly horror in his life, and he says odds of making your money back are excellent. Every project he's worked on has gotten distribution. My UPM who has worked with both of them before said anything under $500,000 is fairly easy to make your money back on. These are all people many years older than me, late 30s to mid-40s, and with a lot of industry experience. They could care less about saying that just to make me hire them for a really low budget feature where nobody is going to make much, haha. Plus I'm frankly not sure I'd get them all aboard, but I'd hope.

I'm not sure why the pessimism here exactly, but people I know in the industry are not reciting these doom and gloom scenarios that I've seen presented here.

And who said no-name cast? Not me. I'll have a name, for sure, I wouldn't shoot without one. I'd definitely have a high B lister, for us it's just a matter of figuring out what our connections are, who will do it, who likes the script, etc. You can't just make an all no-name movie without a star and expect to sell it for anything, I realize that.

But I don't agree with the negative stories I've heard here. Every time I see them, I think ok well that must be true, but then after doing my research and talking to these people about the films they've been directly involved in, I know that's just not the reality. The reality is most of this stuff does make its money back if it's done well, but that's the key -- most of it isn't. I'm not really concerned by any stat saying that "90% of this or that doesn't work out." Have you SEEN indie films?! They are terrible for the most part! I mean look at the average film festival that takes let's say 25% of its entries, the mid-level festival, and yet you watch the films and STILL most of that 25% sucks. It's only festivals like Dances With Films, Palm Springs, etc. where the majority of work is actually good and entertaining.

The problem with statistics is they encompass everyone, and I am not represented by "everyone." There is no time in my life, ever, where I have been in less than the top 15% of anything, and even that would be awful. So that's great if you're the average person saying, ok, well this is tough, most people don't make it, guess I won't try. But I'm not there. I can make work in the top 5% of all work around. And I believe that I can make something that will sell.

Also the commentary here is just asinine because it never presents any sort of alternatives or anything but a gloom and doom reality. Ok, great, so let's take you premise at face value and say it's true. So what? Now what do you do? You wait for someone else to hire you to direct a feature? But you know the odds of that are terrible, too, they're worse than getting distribution by whatever odds you want to figure. So what are you saying to do? Pack up your stuff, go home, sell tomatoes and watch movies on your free time, wondering what could have been? That doesn't really seem like advice a filmmaker will listen to -- it sounds like great advice, LOL, for those of us who are sane enough to realize the long odds that we face in this industry ;) But if that concerned me, or anyone else in the film industry, none of us would be doing it. Do you realize how bad the odds are of ever playing a single minute in the NBA? I mean, they are shockingly bad! Take all of the people who play basketball and figure the number that play in the NBA per year and it's like winning the lottery. Yet lots of people pick up a basketball still. Same analogy, though, because it's very misleading. Most people who play basketball don't try to make the NBA, and aren't any good at it. Same with filmmakers. Most people who shoot short films or various video work are awful at it, and some don't care, they just do it for fun and that's plenty enough for them -- they don't ever care to be in "Hollywood" or be the next Spielberg, maybe they just make non-profit work for local organizations, or maybe they do it for their friends / family, etc.

I'm unmoved by the argument that you shouldn't make a film because it won't make its money back most likely. You shouldn't do anything by that logic, because every single worthwhile thing in the entire world, the odds are against you. Name one worthy pursuit where they aren't. Getting a great job? Of course the odds are against you, they are not 51% for any position that you'd consider a great job. Publishing an award-winning novel? Winning the World Series of Poker? There's by definition no pursuit where the odds aren't drastically far against.

The question, and the topic, wasn't about indie features, which nobody here seems to know much about besides what they read somewhere, no offense. No direct experience ever cited here except for Corrado, basically, which yes I've read that thread -- it's a fantastic read. The question was whether nudity was a potential "bonus tool" in sales to international markets specifically.
 
Last edited:
JonathanLB said:
That's what people on this forum say. That's not what anyone I know in the business says. The DP I'd shoot with has done low budget horror in the $200K range, which is where I'd be, my 1st A.D. has done mainly horror in his life, and he says odds of making your money back are excellent. Every project he's worked on has gotten distribution. My UPM who has worked with both of them before said anything under $500,000 is fairly easy to make your money back on.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you have your answer from your 1st A.D. and UPM. I don't know why you bother asking the question here unless you are just hoping for affirmation. If it was as easy as you suggest, everybody would be doing it. But PLEASE don't let your my opinion dissuade you.


JonathanLB said:
And who said no-name cast? Not me. I'll have a name, for sure, I wouldn't shoot without one. I'd definitely have a high B lister, for us it's just a matter of figuring out what our connections are, who will do it, who likes the script, etc. You can't just make an all no-name movie without a star and expect to sell it for anything, I realize that.
Click to expand...
That's good. Had you given more information to begin with, I'd have not mentioned it. But given the state of most indie productions originating on this board I had nothing else to go on. That goes for your budget, too. The more information you're willing to share in the original post, the less we're going to misunderstand while attempting to share an answer with you.

JonathanLB said:
But I don't agree with the negative stories I've heard here.
Click to expand...
Again, I have to ask if this is that case, why bother asking?


JonathanLB said:
but then after doing my research and talking to these people about the films they've been directly involved in, I know that's just not the reality. The reality is most of this stuff does make its money back if it's done well, but that's the key -- most of it isn't. I'm not really concerned by any stat saying that "90% of this or that doesn't work out." Have you SEEN indie films?! They are terrible for the most part! I mean look at the average film festival that takes let's say 25% of its entries, the mid-level festival, and yet you watch the films and STILL most of that 25% sucks. It's only festivals like Dances With Films, Palm Springs, etc. where the majority of work is actually good and entertaining.

The problem with statistics is they encompass everyone, and I am not represented by "everyone." There is no time in my life, ever, where I have been in less than the top 15% of anything, and even that would be awful. So that's great if you're the average person saying, ok, well this is tough, most people don't make it, guess I won't try. But I'm not there. I can make work in the top 5% of all work around. And I believe that I can make something that will sell.

The question, and the topic, wasn't about indie features, which nobody here seems to know much about besides what they read somewhere, no offense. No direct experience ever cited here except for Corrado, basically, which yes I've read that thread -- it's a fantastic read. The question was whether nudity was a potential "bonus tool" in sales to international markets specifically.
Click to expand...
My recommendation would be to spend a day or two at AFM (online registration begins June 15th) and talk to actual buyers and see what they are looking for. There's a cost involved but if it is important to get an answer that will be unfiltered through third parties, perhaps it would be worthwhile. I don't know if you've ever been to AFM or any other film market but it is an eye opening experience. And yes, it can feed into pessimism when you see what's out there trying to find a home both domestically and internationally. But you seem to have the indomitable spirit required to beat the odds.
 
I was at AFM last November with a friend of mine and general word from the buyers was that too much bad product in the horror genre has killed it. and they weren't seeking it out anymore. take that for what it's worth, considering a lot of self-aggrandizing folks at AFM are marketing themselves as an expert at one thing or another, but this sentiment was echoed later by neighboring companies in our hallway that were having a difficult time licensing horror content to even a single foreign territory. on the otherhand, sales (and attendance) were down across the board last year. way down.

as for the nudity question. yes, i think it's generally expected to help sales. but you seem to be slightly conflicted by a deeper question of moral responsibility for the content one puts out into the world. and i don't think the internet is the best place to seek advice on that. haha! apologies if i misinterpreted what you were saying. :)
 
Throwing boobs in a film for no purpose than to try to get more eyes is a bold admission that not enough time was invested on the script. The 3 industries that will always do fine are sex, drugs and salvation.
Some do well making movies though.
 
grinner said:
Throwing boobs in a film for no purpose than to try to get more eyes is a bold admission that not enough time was invested on the script. The 3 industries that will always do fine are sex, drugs and salvation.
Some do well making movies though.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Take the high road! Think of the number of successful low budget movies that haven't gone the nudity route.

I also agree with you, Jonathan, that the market is glutted with bad product, and that slants the viewpoints. Make excellent product, and you'll have no need for gimmicks to get a little extra sales.

Best of luck!
 
Low budget horror, with the exception of troma-esque stuff where you're intentionally going over the top, these days (or at least a couple years ago), is the realm of what you do what you really need money (at least it was, market has changed) and have no other creative project ideas. Slap a pseudonym on the credits and pocket the money. But exploit, exploit, exploit every cliche to get as many varying demographics in the seats as possible.

I never thought you'd be doing low budget horror from how you present yourself here, JonathanLB, I didn't realize they were encompassed in the "top 15%".
 
Horror is the cheapest and easiest to do. Wait till it's dark, shake the camera a bit, add 3 sound effects and submit. No writing or talent required. Throw in a boobie and you'll double your viewers to 4.
lol
 
On the other hand...

I'd like to add the point of view here that there is nothing wrong, cheap or dirty about nudity/sexuality etc., and it doesn't make you a bad or exploitative person to have it in your film. Ideally it's well justified by the story, but if it's in the B-horror genre, you're talking formula, and that formula generally includes gratuitous female nudity right along with gratuitous exploding skulls, hockey mask-wearing fiends, flimsy full-moon vacation cottage settings and all the rest. And as of the last time I checked, no adults have been harmed by viewing nude women.

My $02
 
When people throw needless nudity in an otherwise valid flick, it's almost as irritating as rude folks mixing a plot in my porn!
lol
These are two very different things. Go for smut or go for quality.
 
Agreed, if you're going to take the project as a serious piece of any sort, keep the gratuitous smut out of it. Rely on the quality of the content and production instead.

Now if you're going for smut or a cheeseball horror flic you don't take seriously (or is not meant to be taken seriously), the more the better.
 
These are some great thoughts by someone who has sold tons of horror films, Morris Ruskin of Shoreline Entertainment

MR: If you are an emerging filmmaker and you can pull off a fantastic horror film it will open up all sorts of doors for you at the studios. But I plead with you, don’t make another version of SAW. If I see one more "exploitation" film that has more dismembered body parts than intact breasts, I might just give up. You have to try and set your own trend by coming up with something we’ve never seen.

BD: When someone pitches a horror project to you, what are the key things you want to see before you sign on?

MR: The key thing for me is the director. I’m looking for unique voices, directors that can create something interesting and bizarre that will stand out. We developed and produced THE SIGNAL because we wanted to make a film that would be commercial yet unique.

There’s little point in making an indie horror film that blatantly copies a studio horror film. We can’t compete with their budgets and marketing machine. So why not make something original? That uniqueness is what got THE SIGNAL into Sundance.

---------------------------------------
My low budget horror recipe would look like this

1. unique and original concept - don't even start before your script is blowing people away... family and friends don't count. ( either this concept will call for nudity or not )

2. director - ( see morris comment above )

3. some kind of name, acting in the project - It might be someone not known to the general public but someone known to to that genre like Ari Lehman, who portrayed the young Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th.

---------------------

I would agree with Zack about marketplace being tough now for low budget horror. I heard the same thing at AFM because I was there seeking distribution for a recently completed horror film. Saturated. Most Sales agents I talked to said there was not a lot of buying going on at the Berlin Film Market either. Its not that nothing is selling but the bar is much higher these days.

So you have to pull off something amazing and do it cheap too.
 
JonathanLB said:
Do you realize how bad the odds are of ever playing a single minute in the NBA? I mean, they are shockingly bad! Take all of the people who play basketball and figure the number that play in the NBA per year and it's like winning the lottery. Yet lots of people pick up a basketball still. Same analogy, though, because it's very misleading. Most people who play basketball don't try to make the NBA, and aren't any good at it.

...

Name one worthy pursuit where they aren't. Getting a great job? Of course the odds are against you, they are not 51% for any position that you'd consider a great job. Publishing an award-winning novel? Winning the World Series of Poker? There's by definition no pursuit where the odds aren't drastically far against.
Click to expand...


I admire your determination, and I agree with your basic analysis (90% of anything is crap), but your analogy actually doesn't work for one simple reason: money.

It doesn't cost me anything to pick up a basketball. It doesn't cost me anything to write a novel. It doesn't cost me anything to go job hunting. Going to the WSOP costs me money, but even if I'm the first person knocked out I've spent a lot less than I'll spend making a feature film!

Most people are not in a financial position to throw away tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe you are, but you have to recognize that makes you an exception to the rule.

Making narrative films is tough work. Anyone (I mean ANYONE, including you) can easily make a bad one, and not even realize you're doing it until it's too late. So it's pretty important to go into things with a plan, not just a notion that "I am the best, and everything I do will work out".

If you want an alternative viewpoint to the "doom and gloom" that you see around here, I'd suggest you talk to some distributors and some producers, people who have actually done the hard work of trying to sell these movies. Trusting the word of your DP sounds no more reliable than trusting some yahoos on the internet.
 
JonathanLB said:
basically you should have nudity to help sell
Click to expand...
I think nudity is very important, the trick is to make it appear natural in the story line, I just switched my star actress to a much more beautiful actress (long story ... the original actress is unreliable). This "more beautiful actress", is just going to have to fall into the creek in Act II. --- it will be hokey --- everyone will know it's hokey --- but it's gotta be done!
 
Tarkovsky would have gone for the tit shot for sure. I'd say definitely do whatever makes the $$$$. Isn't that why we're all here?
 
so the big question... does the boob make or cost money. It at least makes it so my teens can't watch this scary flick. Add to that the rolling of the eyes from critics and/or would be investors and I'd say it can easily cost you. You should make a scary movie scary. You should show massive shaved honies for the wankin' movie. Nothing wrong with mixing flavors and emotions but thats not what is being discussed here. The question was not so much an artistic "hmmm what if I added realism by making her breast fal out while her shirt is slashed, creating an instant of anxiety." The question was more of a "will boobies help distract from my film being shot on video?"
no. They will acentuate the amaturism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top