This movie was really good low-budget, thoughful sci-fi. This blogger also thinks it will revolutionize the film industry. A great article.

atencio:

What can be said about District 9 that hasn’t already been repeated ad nauseum? It’s clearly a revolutionary piece of filmmaking, and I believe the effects of the film will be felt in the film industry for some time. But I wanted to take a moment to examine those effects, and explain where I think District 9, and the success it will enjoy, will take us.

Rethinking the definition of a “Blockbuster”

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but it’s a dark time for the big summer tentpole movie. Oh, sure, they’re making money, in same cases lots of it, but in the studio’s efforts to mitigate risk, what’s being made are films based on proven properties. While this guarantees a certain number of built-in audience for the movie, thus limiting the exposure of the studio releasing it, it’s also led to something of a homogenization of large-profile releases. This is why we are seeing such a glut of re-imaginings of older franchises, big-screen adaptations of television shows and children’s cartoons, and movies based on already popular toys, all of this happening in roughly 25 year cycles. If you don’t think there’s eventually going to be another “reboot” of the Batman franchise, or a Beanie Baby / Lego Bionicles movie, you’re nuts. But, there’s only so much risk protection you can have when you spend $150-200 million to develop and produce a movie, then another $100 million to market it. At that budget level, you have to be sure that it’ll be a worldwide success, and that kind of thinking shies away from much in the way of originality or experimentation, something District 9 has in spades. It’s also not much of a strategy. Despite the effort to analyze and protect themselves from risk, studios still routinely lose money on their big releases. In fact, pretty much the only sure-fire moneymakers these days are sub-$30 million wedding comedies and $15 million horror movies.

So, years of trying to figure out what audiences want has inevitably led studios to produce that which clearly, most people don’t actually want. Beyond a clever embracing of the so-called “geek culture” in the last 10 years, Hollywood, though I am loathe to use that term, has done little to adapt to the changing market conditions. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away, and the fact is, changing technology is increasing the power of niche demand. What things like the internet and on-demand cable have brought into the minds of consumers is a democratic slant on choice. The power is slipping out of the grasp of content distributors, and merely wishing for the days when 5 studios controlled theatrical distribution and 3 networks ruled television broadcasting isn’t going to change the fact that those days are over. People now want to choose exactly what they want to see, not what you tell them they can watch. What does this mean for studios? It means they have to stop making movies intended for everyone to want.

Niche movies

Because you can’t predict with any degree of certainty what will crossover in the marketplace, it would seem foolish to roll the dice on huge budget properties. The rewards no longer justify the risk, and it’s only a matter of time until studio corporate shareholders catch on to this. I recognize that a more-than-fair amount of ego is tied in to the decision to make and release huge-budget movies, but I’m confident that the ego associated with huge profit margins will displace this trend, and profit margins are what all of this boils down to.

District 9, incredibly, cost only $30 million to make. Certainly not a small amount of money, but in today’s lexicon of summer budgets, it’s a piddling amount. How it accomplished that feat is not hard to comprehend. There are no stars, it was shot mostly-digitally, and helmed by a director who knew how to maximize the usage of special effects to their utmost emotional and awe-inspiring impact. It’s an extremely elegant film in this way, something that its doc-style shooting and gritty visuals goes a long way to disguise. There’s also the matter of Peter Jackson, without whom none of this would have happened. It’s interesting to see that one of the people most responsible for the decade long trend of openly courting geeks is also the person who best figured out how to use that model to generate word-of-mouth for a film nobody knew anything about. I’m hoping he’s getting a huge slice of the profit from D9, as he certainly deserves it.

All of this goes back to the concept of niche filmmaking. With so many choices in the marketplace, the only option is produce smaller scale products. Effective managing of budgets, coupled with the steadily decreasing costs of production expenses and impressive visual effects, means movies that feel big can be had for less and less money. This doesn’t have to be belt-tightening either. People who make a lot of money in most any industry tend to be the ones who deserve it, and that goes for film as well. However, the good old days most usually weren’t, and those expecting easy paychecks are going to have to learn to earn their money through hard work and dedication, just like everyone else. Of course, I’m talking about stars (more on that in a moment).

By focusing on niche movies, using lesser known or smaller-scale name talent (who can still ensure their own fan base!) producers can more effectivey minimize risk. Spending even a third less on the average film would leave more money for the ever more important marketing and promotion of a movie. The days of focusing solely on an opening weekend, trying to make as much money as possible in the first three days of release, have to come to an end. It’s not as though this is a new model, in many ways it’s a return to the style of the film industry in the pre-blockbuster years, where films were released slowly and allowed to build into larger success. What exists now that didn’t then is the huge array of distribution platforms, all with access to millions upon millions of people eager for new content. If something interests a person, they will be willing to pay to see it, and pay to see it in a format which best presents it (notice that in no way am I arguing that there is an impending death to theatrical distribution; in fact quite the opposite, I think there will always be a place for theatrical distribution). Using that model, when a movie comes along such as District 9, one that crosses over into the mainstream, it will be all that much more profitable, because it costs less to produce up front. Will there still be flops? Of course, bad or unsuccessful movies will always exist. But with consistently lower budgets, they will eat less of the bottom line. This would also have the side-benefit of minimizing the culture’s growing dependency on nostalgia. Anticipation for “reboots” and “reimaginings” only puts more focus on the past, rather than developing new and interesting (and profitable!) properties.

Managing Money & Stars

District 9 is also notable for the complete and total lack of name-recognition associated with it. Other than Peter Jackson, none of the above-the-line talent has what studios would term a bankable name, and again, I credit Jackson with convincing them getting names in the movie would be a bad idea. Because that move can cut so much overhead out of a budget, it’s one that has to look attractive to producers, especially with a project like this that doesn’t depend on the cast to make it marketable. Aliens and robots put butts in seats every bit as much. I could write a much longer treatise on the impending death of celebrity and how when everyone is famous no one really is, but that’s more tied in with the advent of social technology and the realities of our exponential population growth, so I won’t go into much detail. Suffice to say, while there will always be big celebrities, they no longer matter like they once did to the success of a movie. That’s not to say they don’t matter at all, but it’s getting harder and harder to justify $20 million paydays when no one can really predict how much that name means to the success of a movie. So, just like everyone else, actors, and big actors especially, are realizing that it’s much smarter, and potentially much more profitable, to agree to a higher share of backend profit participating in leu of large up front paychecks. This would have the secondary benefit (hopefully) of inspiring them to work harder, turn in better performances, and participate more willingly in promotional efforts. I hope the cast of District 9 will be sharing in the financial success of the movie, as it is their stunning performances that helped to ensure it.

All of this benefits the creative side of the industry as well. With more freedom to try new things, there will be that much more exciting, original, and thought-provoking film to entice people to come out and see movies. People making the movies (yours truly) will have more incentive to work hard, because their reward lies in the success of the movie itself, rather than being tied solely to what they have accomplished in the past. I can’t speak for every director, but I would trade more creative freedom for one less Maserati in the garage (to clarify, I have zero maseratis. Also, no garage).

There are no assurances that District 9 will change anything, or that what I’ve proposed will be in any way adopted. It certainly would not be the first time studios have ignored the writing on the wall or failed to learn from a seemingly unlikely success. However, things are changing, and the nature of the industry is that someone will figure it out, and quite frankly, that person stands to make an incredible amount of money. The world is waiting.