FWF, STV? WTF.
October 29, 2012 2:08 PM Subscribe
Why did "Fire with Fire" go straight to video?
Haven't seen it, but even if it's terrible, a $20m budget and a cast like that one seems odd not to go through standard distribution channels and hit the big screen. What is the backstory or inside scoop with this thing going directly to DVD and BR?
Haven't seen it, but even if it's terrible, a $20m budget and a cast like that one seems odd not to go through standard distribution channels and hit the big screen. What is the backstory or inside scoop with this thing going directly to DVD and BR?
Also, Hard R and part of a 10 picture deal at Lionsgate, probably no one wanted to commit the money to promote it.
It was made cheap and it looks cheap and it will make plenty of money in the DVD/Live Streaming market.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 2:26 PM on October 29, 2012
It was made cheap and it looks cheap and it will make plenty of money in the DVD/Live Streaming market.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 2:26 PM on October 29, 2012
Promoting / marketing costs can be substantial. The studio must have decided it would not be worth the expense (perhaps no amount of marketing will make this a blockbuster), so cut their losses.
posted by booksandwine at 2:31 PM on October 29, 2012
posted by booksandwine at 2:31 PM on October 29, 2012
So how do I know this movie is going direct-to-DVD? For starters, the movie stars Bruce Willis and lately his small-budget thrillers are going to stores instead of theaters (Setup and Catch .44). Second, it co-stars 50 Cent whose last seven movies haven’t made it into theaters (as well they shouldn’t).posted by unliteral at 6:20 PM on October 29, 2012
Cinema is a Flintstone, Blu-ray and VOD are Jetsons. That seems to be the way Hollywood’s thinking of late, anyway. One filmmaker, whose movie is going to direct-to-DVD and Blu-ray this week in the states, told me yesterday that anything less than a budget of a $20 million will undoubtedly bypass cinemas now – especially in America.posted by unliteral at 6:24 PM on October 29, 2012
Short answer: People don't go to theaters for cheapy action flicks anymore. The days of kicking back on a Sunday afternoon in a shoebox theater watching a Steven Segal flick are over.
Long answer: The past decade or so has seen a sharp decline in the movie middle-class: These types of modestly-budgeted pictures with B-list stars and boilerplate plots are becoming more and more rare. Taking a look at the movies that have been released this year, you have:
Big-budget, high concept thrill-rides: Your comic-book movies and whatnot that cost at least $100 million to make and more to promote
Limited-release indies: Moves that are either made and released independently, or by specialty studio divisions
Oscar dramas: Adult-oriented movies released during last three months of the year in time for Oscar season
Horror movies: Cheap and will make money from teenagers until the heat death of the universe
Movies with stars in the lead that appeal to specialized audiences: Will Ferrell comedies and Liam Neeson's sophisticated action movies
Small-budgeted movies with no stars, but a marketable hook: Movies like Pitch Perfect or End of Watch that don't fit into any of the above categories but still fill a market need for original, interesting content. These often rely on word-of-mouth to pull in moviegoers over the course of several weeks, meaning that it's actually important that these films be good.
Your example does not meet any of these criteria. It would hope to make either of the last two categories, but there are so few slots in a given year for those movies that this one didn't cut it. If this were 1992 you could put out something like this and turn around a decent profit, but not today.
posted by Smallpox at 8:43 AM on October 30, 2012
Long answer: The past decade or so has seen a sharp decline in the movie middle-class: These types of modestly-budgeted pictures with B-list stars and boilerplate plots are becoming more and more rare. Taking a look at the movies that have been released this year, you have:
Big-budget, high concept thrill-rides: Your comic-book movies and whatnot that cost at least $100 million to make and more to promote
Limited-release indies: Moves that are either made and released independently, or by specialty studio divisions
Oscar dramas: Adult-oriented movies released during last three months of the year in time for Oscar season
Horror movies: Cheap and will make money from teenagers until the heat death of the universe
Movies with stars in the lead that appeal to specialized audiences: Will Ferrell comedies and Liam Neeson's sophisticated action movies
Small-budgeted movies with no stars, but a marketable hook: Movies like Pitch Perfect or End of Watch that don't fit into any of the above categories but still fill a market need for original, interesting content. These often rely on word-of-mouth to pull in moviegoers over the course of several weeks, meaning that it's actually important that these films be good.
Your example does not meet any of these criteria. It would hope to make either of the last two categories, but there are so few slots in a given year for those movies that this one didn't cut it. If this were 1992 you could put out something like this and turn around a decent profit, but not today.
posted by Smallpox at 8:43 AM on October 30, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by empath at 2:21 PM on October 29, 2012