Where does the funding for movies generally featured on the SCi Fi Channel come from. Today they are showing Aberration
Basillisk
Snake King
Lake Placid 2
Ice Spiders
Arachnid
Spiders
That is a one day supply. Someone cranks them out but I suspect very little money comes from theatrical release. The actors are generally unknowns or has beens but they still get paid. There will be 6 or 7 different movies tomorrow. The Sci Fi channel can’t be paying for all of it.
I’m betting most of those are direct-to-video releases. Their market is cable TV – first as late night filler for the premium channels and then non-premium.
They know how much they can sell broadcast rights for a crappy scary movie – so they make a budget for somewhat less than that. There’s no shortage of people willing to invest in a movie production – even if it is a crappy TV movie.
A lot of them are also produced by the SciFi channel itself, in whole or in partnership with the DTV production companies.
I don’t think any of those have been released theatrically.
As to the cost – well, they use no-name actors and barely adequate SFX.
None of those are scarry movies.
This is a scarry movie.
You hear about big Hollywood spectaculars costing umpteen million dollars, but a movie like “Ice Spiders” can be made for a million bucks or less. The actors aren’t paid that much, you can reuse sets and props from other movies, and a creative production crew can come up with cheap ways of getting things done.
It doesn’t take too long for a movie to make back its million bucks. Stuff like “Ice Spiders” will get rented, believe it or not, and make some money off cable viewings.
However, the real economic incentive to making low budget films is the possibility of hitting the jackpot. While you can reliably count on making back at least enough to recoup your invesment, assuming you kept your costs low, the thing is that every now and then a cheap ass movie like that will suddenly take off and REALLY rake in the bread. “The Blair Witch Project,” which is basically a student film, made a bazillion dollars. “Hostel,” which is pornographic garbage, made another bazillion. Both films earned megabucks sequel deals. Neither movie’s any better than “Ice Spiders” but they’re rolling in money. “Evil Dead,” which was made on credit cards and money borrowed from relatives, became a cult classic, made millions, and launched careers. If your movie will probably break even, and has a small chance of making you rich, it’s a hell of a smart investment.
Sometimes they have legs. jeepers Creepers, ! and @2were actually good and I see them replayed on other channels frequently. There is a huge amount of these films. Sci Fi can show them weeks them for weeks and not repeat.
“Can” and “should” are two different things.
I’d watch the SciFi Channel a lot more if, for filler, it used old SF TV shows (other than The Twilight Zone) and rarely-seen classic SF movies. How about Lost in Space? Star Trek TOS? Colossus: The Forbin Project? Heck, I’d even watch Starlost in preference to this monster shit!
Well, in this case someone watches Jaws and then rips off all the wort, dumbest aspects of it which have been ripped off by every other such movie for 30 years…
As I have mentioned in past threads, I used to work for a major film studio.
There are all kinds of platforms for films. Traditionally, for big budget films, it goes in the following order:
Theatrical release: Opening box office and hopefully long run.
The next two vary in order, depending upon popularity.
Video/DVD: Shortly afterwards, hoping to catch up with the expensive ad campaign.
Pay-per-view: Get those people who don’t rent DVD’s or go to theaters.
Then:
Premium cable channels: HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.
Then, depending on the deal, it could go to a major network (ABC, NBC, etc.) or it could go to a niche cable channel (Bravo, IFC, Sundance etc.)
And after it has gone through those platforms, it then becomes a part of a “package” to be bought by the highest bidder.
Often, television stations have to buy the “package”…one or two big blockbusters, along with many box office “duds” to seal the deal.
Some low(er) budget films:
Straight to video/DVD.
Shortly afterwards, to a premium channel.
Shortly after that, to niche cable networks.
My best guess is that all of the films you mentioned are straight to video productions. Surprisingly, many of those turn a profit with the sales and rentals of DVD’s and can sometimes even make a few extra bucks on niche cable channels.
Then there is the concept of wide sales for DVD (cheaper price for blockbusters that will sell millions at WalMart) or keeping the sales somewhat exclusive (more expensive) with special packaging extended versions (ie LOTR).
The marketing departments at many major studios spend long hours determining the best platforms for each film - and many people are fired, or get bonuses, depending upon the success of those marketing skills.
That is the short version of Film Marketing 101.
When we were working on our (aborted) film the director said he knew (or had a friend who knew) an old Russian guy in Arizona (?) who churned out a cheap straight-to-video horror film every month. The director said that this guy made abot $45,000 on each film. He showed me one of these videos, which he had rented from SchockCluster or someplace. (That is, he showed me the box. I never did watch the video.) The cover art was really bad and the premise, which I no longer remember, was also bad.
Is this true? I don’t know. Seems fishy to me. OTOH, these really bad straight-to-video schlock films come from somewhere.
Actually, I think they are straight-to-niche-cable-network productions – i.e., “made for TV movies” that might never be released on DVD at all. (Have they been?)
The horror, the horror!!!
I had to chew my own eyes out after seeing that! 
“The Care Bears: The First Movie” nuff said.
Actually, SciFI network does commission a lot fo these films. Here’s an interesting article from Wired about the process. According to the article (written in 2004), SciFI network will pay indie companies $750k for a decent monster movie idea (like Mansquito) or occasionally go to the indies with their own ideas. The movies usually cost around $1.6M to make and the film makers make up the difference by selling the films overseas. Anyway, the article’s a fascinating read…
Thanks for the responses. wondered how they were kept alive. I am a fan of bad movies. I like almost any Sci Fi. and will gladly accept the premise. Oddly very few stars emerge from these movies.
I remember asking the same question when I first started working for the studio - there were lots of films that had no chance of a major theatrical release. I was told that many of them were simply contractual deals (artsy films by actors who wanted to be directors, films using scripts that had been bought on spec, films by new directors studios wanted to court, etc.) And yes, most of them actually did turn a (small) profit over the long run with foreign sales added to the mix. It also helped add to the studio film library that would be sold off in chunks to other countries or local television stations. A big market was horror films, zombie films, war films and some art films…they are not generally big money makers in wide theatrical releases, but have enough fans who will buy/rent the films based on subject alone - with or without name actors, although that generally helps. That the director you are talking about got $45,000 per film? That sounds low to me…I would have guessed at least twice that amount, if not more.
FYI…when Thelma and Louise came out, MGM screwed up the marketing on that film big-time! They opened wide without any real advertising push (low expectations but needed to recoup so they opened big), and by the time it grew to be a cult hit, most theaters nationwide had already pulled the film. It was too late to do another wide release. The film was suddenly on the cover of TIME magazine, and being shown almost nowhere. Lots of heads were lopped off in the Marketing Department after that fiasco. (The film only wound up making money on the video market and cable sales.)
On the flip side, some films start off with limited theatrical release (low expectations by the studio) and suddenly become huge hits - then they can ramp up the marketing and do a wide release and pretend that was their plan from the get-go.
How do bad movies get made? This is how. It’s long, but it’s a fascinating look at how low-budget bad filmmaking happens.