Found this interesting little tidbit of info while reading a NYTimes article about the booming business of $1 DVDs. Here it is:
"Mr. Rosenberg said the novelty of dollar DVD's would soon fade. "There's a great danger of overdistribution," he said. "This is a business without much room for profit - either in the making or the selling. A year from now, most cheap DVD's will be gone from stores." One "Killer Shrew" alumnus hopes to cash in while the cheapness lasts. "This craze could build an audience for the sequel I'm writing," said Mr. Best, who played the stuttering Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane on "The Dukes of Hazzard."
He has nearly finished a first draft of "Killer Shrews II." The plot is fiendishly simple. "I return to Shrew Island to rescue a bunch of teenagers," he reported. "A new mad scientist has turned herself into a human shrew that not only chews, but swims."
So what's the projected budget?
"This one's a little more expensive," Mr. Best said. "I could make it for, say, 75 cents."
So. A Killer Shrews II? Don't know how good of an idea that actually is.
Well, as per the " 75 cents' comment, his sence of humor might make it a doable little cheese fest.
Plot wise, he may spend a lot of time watching the Sci-Fi channel...the perfect home for KILLER SHREWS 2 : RODENT RAMPAGE!
I read that article and found it funny how similar his sequel idea sounded to almost every Sci Fi original picture these days. Just as long as they bring back that "chachachacha" sound effect for when the shrews attack, I'd watch.
But in that article when it said the one company was branching out a releasing non-public domain material like that Carmen Electra movie, it made me wonder. Just how cheap is the movie, how cheaply did they acquire it, or how big of a tax loss write off is someone getting to make releasing a relatively new film (no matter how bad or cheap it is) that puttinig it out for $1can turn you a profit? I mean the article said what we already knew, the profit margin was slim for these things and they are impulse buys. Unless enough folks think they can seen Electra naked or nearly so for a buck (and lets be honest that why most people would buy), who would buy it?
I was thinkning it would be more like "closer"
I hope they make references to the MST3K treatment, like having cans of "Shrew Begone" and at least one character that is completely incomprehensible with dialouge...
I really don't get how Scifi can call them "original" movies... I guess it's like reality tv, the exact opposite...
Apparently "original" meant "we got it first because no one else wanted it", but since they kick in a flat fee (roughly $750,000) toward production and basically contract out the kind of film they want now, they actually have some hand in producing these things now. They get first broadcast rights and the companies that make the films are free to spend any extra that they want on the film with the understanding that they will have to make their profit for spending thjat on home video and, I guess, overseas.
A thread a few months ago linked to a great article where they spelled out to the companies they worked with exactly what they wanted as far as story, action elements, and even the pacing as far as characters getting killed in the story. It read like the filmmaking version of ordering a computer or custom ordering the features on a new car to be delivered to you direct from the factory. SciFi has said they have figured out what kind of escapist entertainment to air on a Saturday night that will get them around a million and a half viewers or more. which is apparently enough to turn a nice profit on "their" films. The NY Times had an article about this too about a month ago.
I read a newspaper article on this woman. She's not an SF fan, just a busness woman who thinks she knows how to make a buck.
Sadly, it seems true. So much for genre related stuff thats good....if it don't pay.
It COULD pay, with a bit more IMAGINATION!.....not that i'm bitter....
Imagination in the business world is like snow on the sun.
Just give it to Roger Corman --
I just saw scenes from "Deathrace 2000" again -- the guy is a friggin low low budget genius -- He could make a good Shrew 2 --
peter johnson/denny crane
Roger Corman- cheap? Yes.
Roger Corman- memorable films? Well, it's a matter of taste... they always left me scratching my head when I should've been in agreement, laughing when I should have been frightened, bored when I should have been tense.
Roger Corman- a following? Sure. If Coleman Francis or Hal P Warren can have a following, why not?
Best thing I can say about Roger Corman? X-The Man with the X ray eyes.
Worst thing: Hey, let's remake a film of my very own? Little Shop of Horrors anyone?
I'd give the credit for "Death Race 2000" to the writers Charles Griffith, Robert Thom and the director - the late Paul Bartel. Subversive mocking satire was his forte. Corman's talents were being able to do a lot with a little (and recycling it to save a buck), and spotting talent. We all know by now of all the people whom he gave a start to, I just wish the charm and wit of many of his earlier producing efforts had carried on to the stuff he makes now. He has made a ton of money producing lots of low budget flims, but they now tend to feel like interchangable "product" and "content" to be sold in bulk rather than little uneven but usually entertaining brain candy.