The straight-to-DVD market -- who's the target audience?

[Aragorn]

You've seen them in the new releases section of your local Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Some of the "higher end" titles are even displayed prominently among the Circuit City and Best Buy new releases when they come out.

Disney's made a killing franchising all their classic cartoons that weren't really meant to be franchised with the endless straight-to-DVD sequels, and everyone here already knows about Stargate, American Pie, National Lampoon, etc.

But when most people think straight-to-DVD, these are the kind of movies they tend to think of first:



Or...

The budgets do get bigger, but usually they're just cheap horror flicks where they cast women who can scream loudly and take their clothes off but can't act, or cheap action flicks where they cast martial arts experts or professional fighters who can kick ass but can't act:



There are also the cheap cash-ins on big studio movie titles with sequels that have absolutely nothing to do with the originals (though sometimes it's actually the original studio who greenlighted the "franchising"):



Though it's really sad when actors do reprise their roles for these sequels that had little to no demand for in the first place. Can you imagine a has-been Denzel Washington making straight-to-DVD sequels of Deja Vu or Virtuosity with budgets that are 80% smaller than the originals and instead of battling Russell Crowe and Jim Caviezel he takes on C. Thomas Howell and Brian Bosworth?

But probably most baffling are the straight-to-DVD action flicks with large enough budgets to make a couple legitimate Good Will Hunting-type movies. Not that they can even compete with studio films, since they tend to be shot in random European locations, use a lot of stock footage from other movies for their action scenes, and blow most of the casting budget on the "name" lead actor, thus almost everyone else in the cast seriously sucks at acting. These one-time box office draws actually make seven figures per movie!









Obviously someone must be watching/buying in order for them to keep pumping them out. I'm pretty sure I've seen Target selling every one of Wesley Snipes' straight-to-DVD titles.

Speaking of Snipes -- there was going to be two straight-to-DVD sequels for The Art of War that had nothing to do with the original, sort of like the two Kevin Sorbo Walking Tall movies that have nothing to do with Dwayne Johnson's movie. But Snipes, being at this low point in his career, decided he wanted to make a sequel. So the other Art of War "sequel" was simply given a name change. That should tell you all you need to know about a lot of these movies.

 

[Hermiod]

To be honest, I don't get it. Surely these cost the same to rent as theatrically released movies ? If so, why wouldn't someone rent something better for the same price ?

Wait a minute... Paul Verhoeven Presents Starship Troopers 3 ?

 

[John Picard]

The target audience is people with no clue and no taste. Steven Segal?

 

[benny]

If you'll notice, many of the DTV titles are sequels to other, already "established" films and franchises. The target audience is the people who enjoyed, say, Art of War with Wesley Snipes and wouldn't mind picking up Art of War 2 with Snipes for 90 minutes of escapism.

Others cash in on a trend. Note Snakes on a Train (Snakes on a Plane) and AVH (tie in to AVP, perhaps?). A movie goer who likes SoaP sees SoaT and goes KOOLZ! Another Snakes movie! Once they've purchased and opened it, they're stuck with the disc. Store and studio make money.

You're right: more often than not, these movies are kinda sorta...well, horrible. But they evidently bring in enough revenue to justify the cost in making them.

 

[mvkemp]

Those with disposable income (not too much though) who just happen to be near the $5 bin at whatever store would stock them.

You know, sign me up for a ride on the Pleasurecraft though.

 

[Ethros]

I don't know. Idiots probably. It's just sad. I imagine a lot of rich parents with tonnes of money to burn buying them for their kids just to shut them up for an hour or so.

I expect we'll be adding Donnie Darko 2 to this list in a year or so.


I really like The Butterfly Effect and got the DVD containing it and the Direct-to-DVD "sequel". God that was gash. On the extras there's a 20 min docu saying they only had 20 days to film it. Boy does it show.
They make out they're really proud they managed to finish it in 20 days. They shouldn't be

 

[cylkoth]

Obviously someone must be watching/buying in order for them to keep pumping them out. I'm pretty sure I've seen Target selling every one of Wesley Snipes' straight-to-DVD titles.

These movies are often co-financed by cable nets and pay tv channels-particularly, those operating outside the U.S., to guarantee a steady flow of 'product' thru their distribution channels. Most of those Segal pics secured deals with USA Network, which is why most of them wind up running there. It has become a pretty healthy business, with the early stigma that was attached to anything that didn't come thru one of the big major media factories, slowly (but not entirely) fading away .

 

[Holdfast]

But Snipes, being at this low point in his career, decided he wanted to make a sequel. So the other Art of War "sequel" was simply given a name change. That should tell you all you need to know about a lot of these movies.

I think the IRS probably bought a few copies, to help him pay his bills....

 

[Daedalus12]

Hmm cheesy action and monster movies plus a bit of softcore porn. I think that covers everything.

You forgot to list the three American Pie sequels after American Wedding. Those three were gold!

 

[Starbreaker]

The target audience is people with no clue and no taste.

Ding ding ding.

And also housewives and masochists.

 

[Aragorn]

Katee Sackhoff and Nathan Fillion in White Noise 2, Erica Durance in The Butterfly Effect 2, Laura Vandervoort in Into the Blue 2... apparently the market's gotten bigger when studios are whoring out unrelated straight-to-DVD sequels for their own property:

 

[TheSeeker]

I've seen them in the rental place but never picked one up. I'm almost tempted to pick one up now just to see how shitty they are.

 

[zakkrusz]

I'm going with cheap franchise cash ins. There's good ones and bad ones (mostly bad) and I've found a few at least that were highly worth it.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Ultimately, I think that direct to DVD movies are successful for the same reason that reality TV is. It's not going to get the kind of insanely widespread appeal that your typical Hollywood blockbuster is. Starship Troopers 3 is never going to be as big as Spider-Man or Star Wars or Pirates of the Caribbean. But those big blockbusters also have extremely large budgets that make them very big financial risks. (Superman Returns grossed $200 million domestic, yet it's still considered a "disappointment.") On the other hand, these smaller direct to DVD movies (like reality TV) are much cheaper to make. So even though the gross may not be as large, their profit margins are often even larger. And since it's a business, the profits are what ultimately matter.

 

[Mr Light]

I work at a video store; it IS idiots who rent these things. People who know nothing about what they're getting or about movies in general just looking at the purty image on the cover... or low-rent scum bags who actually enjoy that sort of thing. Usually teenagers. Every time I hear one of these folks exclaim in delight at finding one of these polished turds, I die a little inside

 

[Kegek]

I'd say the target audience is the impulse buyer/renter who makes his or her decisions entirely based on the cover (possibly also checking the text at the back first). Clearly, there are enough people who act like this to make these titles profitable.

This also explains why so many of them are sequels to films, or blow their budget on hiring a formerly famous star. Either one of these, or both, make for eye-catching material on your cover.

The Asylum's films, of course, aim for profit entirely on the premise that you confuse their film with a famous film it resembles, and only by relying chiefly on the cover could one make that mistake.

And yes, I know nothing about anything, so I'm just rambling on based on what I think is probably the case. There's my uninformed opinion, free of charge.

 

[Geck]

I've rented a few of them before, as a friend and I used to have a weekly 'Shitty Movie Night' for a few months earlier this year. Some of them are pretty amusing for the cheese factor, though I'd never actually buy any of them. They're mostly good for a laugh though.

 

[Brikar99]

I've rented a few of them before, as a friend and I used to have a weekly 'Shitty Movie Night' for a few months earlier this year. Some of them are pretty amusing for the cheese factor, though I'd never actually buy any of them. They're mostly good for a laugh though.

I used to do this, too. The last time we had one, I bought "Gangs of the Dead" at Newbury Comics for $3, and even for that price, the guy at the counter asked me if I was sure I wanted to buy it. When I told him I wanted to buy it BECAUSE it looked terrible, he smiled and rang it up.