Paranormal Activity - New Horror Movie is the Next Blair Witch

I have a copy of the original film on DVD. Won't say how I got it, but it was RECENTLY acquired. The original is cut differently, runs a little longer, and the ending is by far more realistic. BY FAR!

And hella more creepy.
 
ChipG said:
DJ, are you the guy who was trying to decifer the code from a hvx?
Click to expand...
Most likely not. I read the journal of the guy you speak of, and was astonished at the fact that the cam runs a bash shell script during startup and vtr modes.

Unless you're talking about something else :-).

I'm the guy developing some "digital film" recovery software on OS-X at the moment.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
If this is true then they should have gone with the original ending.
(Or at least the first possible original ending with everyone calling and leaving messages)

http://daveguzman.blogspot.com/2009/08/endings-of-paranormal-activity.html

That would have been so much better.
Click to expand...

From what I understand there is actually 3 endings for PA, the hollywoodized Speilberg ending is the one you see in the theaters, I think they will put all 3 endings on the dvd though. Everyone who has seen the original ending likes it better. It'll also give people another reason to buy the dvd.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
If this is true then they should have gone with the original ending.
(Or at least the first possible original ending with everyone calling and leaving messages)

http://daveguzman.blogspot.com/2009/08/endings-of-paranormal-activity.html

That would have been so much better.
Click to expand...

That is the ending I've seen, the one described in this article, to a tee. I'm guessing this is what happens when you shop your film around for so long and doubt starts settling in.
 
How'd they go about the effects?

Did the director figure them out/edit them in as well?

Pretty realistic, her getting pulled away like that. And the Oujia board?

Robbie
 
Now, is paramount making all of that money?

What did the director and actors make in the beginning after the film was done? Probably close to nothing right?

Now there making all this money, what's going on with that?

Robbie
 
Paramount has spent $15M on marketing as of today so they have made, $85M total gross - $15M marketing - the $300k they paid for it so around $69.7M. Those numbers are as of today, the movie should reach $100M B.O. no prob then dvd sales, future tv rights etc. Paramount does not own overseas rights, just domestic. The actors were paid $500 each.

Paramount deserves the money for risking $15M on a $300k movie, it's all in the marketing, it's not a good movie BTW, all smoke and mirrors.
 
RodThompson said:
I have a copy of the original film on DVD. Won't say how I got it, but it was RECENTLY acquired. The original is cut differently, runs a little longer, and the ending is by far more realistic. BY FAR!

And hella more creepy.
Click to expand...

It has been out for a while on the internet (original version), Paramount has been fightng off the piracy bootleg copies for a while now.

I'd suspect people involved with the movie who made very little (and are bitter) are to blame for the leaks.

A big campaig on Twitter has been going on to get people to download the original version for free, the sites that pop up last about 5 hours then Paramount has them shut down.
 
Robbie Comeau said:
So in the end, the cast and crew made 300k to split?

Robbie
Click to expand...

Cast and crew splitting the money? Cast was paid $500 each for the entire movie, I'm guessing the crew made about the same. Entre movie was made for $11k or $15k (I'm hearing two numbers) Excluding the money spent for the Speilberg ending which is several hundred thousand that the studio paid for.

Who in their right mind splits their profit with the cast and crew? You pay them a flat fee for them to do ther job.

Schnieder made the money to split with himself as he should.
 
* drawn-out expletive * I guess if you spend 15k and you get 300K for the feature, it's not all that bad of a deal. But, damn. You have to be a little disheartened that the studio system is wreaking monetary havoc on your product and you aren't seeing a DIME of that extra ass-load of profit.

I hope he does it again with something else and gets more the next time.
 
ChipG said:
Who in their right mind splits their profit with the cast and crew? You pay them a flat fee for them to do ther job.
Click to expand...

Um....all of Hollywood? That's what SAG/AFTRA agreements guarantee their actors, that they take part in the profits.
 
Kholi said:
* drawn-out expletive * I guess if you spend 15k and you get 300K for the feature, it's not all that bad of a deal. But, damn. You have to be a little disheartened that the studio system is wreaking monetary havoc on your product and you aren't seeing a DIME of that extra ass-load of profit.

I hope he does it again with something else and gets more the next time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ordinarily I would agree, but in all fairness, this film without a massive marketing campaign, would be a dead duck. It's really not that good.

Oh well, I hold out hope for Lake Mungo, mainly because it seems like they put a lot of effort and detail into it.
 
Mark Harris said:
Yeah, ordinarily I would agree, but in all fairness, this film without a massive marketing campaign, would be a dead duck. It's really not that good.

Oh well, I hold out hope for Lake Mungo, mainly because it seems like they put a lot of effort and detail into it.
Click to expand...

Most everyone in the industry is calling PA a fluke that comes along every so often, today in Viacom / Paramounts 3Q earnings press release even Viacoms CEO Philippe Dauman is calling PA a miracle that you get every once in a while.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/viacoms-...fset-decline-in-advertising-dvd-sales-216290/

Doubt any major studio will do this again for another 5+ years.
 
Robbie Comeau said:
So the actors only made 500 dollars, and now the movie is making all this money?
Click to expand...
The filmmaker sold his film. He's done with it. Any future earnings belong to the person or entity who bought it. (unless he negotiated a back-end deal).

It could be argued that the movie isn't "making all this money", the MARKETING of the movie is making all that money.

Point is -- if you sell your car to someone else, do you care that they paint it, upgrade it, take out a killer ad for it, and sell it for more than you got? You're out of the deal at that point, and it's the buyer's right to do whatever he wants with it.

When you go on Deal or No Deal, and you make your "deal", you get that cash. It doesn't matter to you anymore what was in your case, does it? You sold that case to the banker. If there's a million bucks in there, the banker wins. That's what he gets for TAKING THE RISK. You took the cash, he took the risk. If he wins big, that's what he deserves, for taking the risk. If he loses big, that's what he gets for doing something so risky. But you took the guaranteed cash deal.

I don't know that the filmmaker has publicized what his deal was; I've heard that it was bought for $300,000 cash. If that's the case, the filmmaker probably was jumping for joy at selling a $11,000 effort for $300,000. And if the filmmaker chose to share any of that $300k with his cast and crew, that's his business, not ours.

The guys who made the Blair Witch Project got a back-end deal which ended up netting them $12m. Whether the PA producer got something similar or not, is not something that's really any of our business, is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top