Why do b-movie clones get made?

[Nukie 2]

It makes me wonder why B-clones of other movies get made. For example Demon Wind, a Clone of Evil Dead, and Troll 2-- a non-sequel to Troll, and ofcourse Asylum films.

Is it truly the money factor?

Why would companies allow distribution or playing of movies, when they know such are knock-offs?

[Menard]

I would presume clones get made because people liked the original and will pay to see a clone.

I like zombie movies, in the Romero/Fulci vein and don't care how much of a copy or an original film one is so long as I like it.

Vampire fans like to see vampire movies. How many of those are completely original?

Women in prison movies feature lesbians, showers, masochism, and lots of nudity; if they didn't we wouldn't watch them.

I guess to some degree, there is a fear of the unknown. Hershey's is the number one candy bar, vanilla is the number one ice cream flavor, and AC/DC will always be AC/DC and we will like them because of that. We find something we like and don't necessarily want to try other things, which are that different, simply because we might not like it.

[RCMerchant]

It's called Expliotation,baby! 

[peter johnson]

I'll speak to the last question:  Why do companies allow this?

The correct answer is:  They sometimes don't.  While lawsuits & copyright infringement suits are costly things, sometimes studios will react with some swift "cease and desist" action & drag the offending party into court if that fails.  Do I sound bitter? . . . look at the history of Robo-you-know-what . . .

But most companies can't or won't manage legal proceedings because of the fees involved.  I mean, they've made thier nut;  why p**s it away in court?

peter bitter/denny snarling

[Rev. Powell]

The answer to the first part of your question can be summed up in one character: $.

Peter Johnson gave a good answer to the second part of the question.  I would add that it's very difficult to actually win a copyright infringement suit of that sort.  Ideas can't be copyrighted, basic plots can't be copyrighted, commonly used genre elements ("mise-en-scene") can't be copyrighted, and even if you copy another movie you may have a parody defense. 

Basically, to win the copyright infringement suit the other movie has to be deceptively similar, by copying not only the movie but the poster, title, taglines, and boxcover art, so that people would rent the second movie believing that they were actually renting the first.

[WingedSerpent]

1.  Lack of ideas-but this isn't really restricted to B-movies.  There are plenty of A-movies that you could say are really clones of other movies.

2.  As someone said earlier-if your a fan of these types, you might buy it just to check it out just because its the type of movie you like.

[Nukie 2]

I think I asked the wrong question.

Point I was trying to get at, is that alot of these so-bad-they're-good b-movies are clones or rip-offs.

I love these movies, but I have to wonder why these movies come into being.

Are everyone involved in these movies just inept, or do they not have the money and time to develop the movies, or do they just want to get something produced fast to make quick bucks?

Where does it end-- do all B-movie directors have the Ed Woodian goal to make a few fast money makers, then hopefully make their Citizens Kanes?

And, no, I'm not refferencing Lloyd Kauffman; he understands he makes schlocky movies so he makes them into comedys, and he understands that's what he's good at.

[Menard]

"Any good idea is an idea worth copying"

I don't who or even if someone said that, but it seems pertinent.

Seems like you are asking for a lot of creativity. Unfortunately, creativity does not grow in leaps and bounds, but inches along building upon what has come before.

If a formula is successful, it can be successful again. That's much better odds than trying something relatively new that may well flop.

Any movie made, whether it is a multi-million dollar blockbuster, an independent art flick, or a knock off b-movie, uses elements that were successful before.

Lack of a budget, writers, or even ideas, only means that more of those successful elements need to be used; even to the point of outright cloning a film.

Copying a successful formula has been used in marketing for a long time. A successful sci-fi film is going to breed a flurry of sci-fi films to follow that will appease the audience sparked by the first one. Look at the slasher movie cycle from the early 80s that came about trying to ride the craze created by Halloween and Friday the 13th.

Just as much cloning goes on in other industries as well.

How many colas do you think developed independently of Coke?

Look at one of the worst examples of independent creativity: the role playing game. Every role playing game which has come along has in some way taken from Dungeons and Dragons. Some have even been blatant copies, while their fat-assed, basement-dwelling creators (a stretch for sure) were busy making excuses of what was wrong with everyone else's game and how their's was completely original (Kevin 'I'll sue your ass' Siembeda comes to mind).

Copying a successful formula ideally reduces the chance of failure and rides someone else's market getting what share of it one can.

We can complain about the lack of creativity and everybody copying a successful idea. It seems, though, that the internet is certainly the wrong place for that.

[Rev. Powell]

I think I asked the wrong question.

Point I was trying to get at, is that alot of these so-bad-they're-good b-movies are clones or rip-offs.

I love these movies, but I have to wonder why these movies come into being.

Are everyone involved in these movies just inept, or do they not have the money and time to develop the movies, or do they just want to get something produced fast to make quick bucks?

Where does it end-- do all B-movie directors have the Ed Woodian goal to make a few fast money makers, then hopefully make their Citizens Kanes?

And, no, I'm not refferencing Lloyd Kauffman; he understands he makes schlocky movies so he makes them into comedys, and he understands that's what he's good at.

I think we answered your question.  The answer is: $. 

Menard is right (as usual, he would say).  There's a reason they call them "exploitation" movies.  B-movies exploit not only sex and violence, but also anything that is trendy in the movie world.  Remember, when the lambada was a fashionable dance, B-movie filmmakers actually put out movies themed around "the forbidden dance." 

Producers like clones because they come with a built-in audience.  They seldom have lots of money for advertising and promotion, so if (say) shark movies are currently hot, they'll rush a cheap shark movie into production to try to ride the wave of popularity and get some of their investment back.

One of the reasons these movies are bad is because they are so rushed.  Scripts are produced virtually overnight.

I imagine that almost all directors/actors/etc. working on these movies do plan to use them to get ahead and move up to A-movie work.  It's only natural to want to advance your career.  Jack Nicholson, Francis Ford Coppola and many others all began working for Roger Corman.  There are also a few who just love schlock, and would be making schlock with bigger budgets if they could.  Then there are a few that are just off in their own world--Ed Wood and Uwe Boll.  This last group of guys tends to be the most interesting.

To sum up, the answer is: $.  Or, as you said, "they not have the money and time to develop the movies... they just want to get something produced fast to make quick bucks?

[Justy]

Well when you have the B-Level actors, production crews, writers and directors fliming then you get a B-Movie. They don't necessarily suck, but they aren't given the money to make a good money. They simply don't have the resources.