Unsubscribe: The $0-Budget Movie That 'Topped the US Box Office' (bbc.com) 44
An anonymous reader shares a report: In normal times, blockbuster movies usually dominate the box office charts. The big-budget productions, directed by the likes of James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott, regularly draw the biggest crowds at cinemas across the US and beyond. But on 10 June, one box office-topping movie was watched by just two people, in one cinema. Unsubscribe, a 29-minute horror movie shot entirely on video-conferencing app Zoom, generated $25,488 in ticket sales on that day. Nationwide, the movie hit the top of the charts, according to reputable revenue tacker Box Office Mojo. The budget of the movie: a flat $0. How was that possible?
The movie was the brainchild of Eric Tabach, an actor and YouTuber from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and filmmaker Christian Nilsson, from New York City. When the coronavirus pandemic shuttered movie theatres in March, the pair saw an opportunity in the crisis. Given no big films were being released in cinemas, they wondered if they could hit the top of the charts if they made their own movie, DIY style. "I noticed that the box office figures were absurd; $9,000, $15,000 for each movie. Nothing big was coming out. Blockbuster films were on hold. I wanted to find a way to get the biggest number," Mr Tabach told the BBC.
The movie was the brainchild of Eric Tabach, an actor and YouTuber from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and filmmaker Christian Nilsson, from New York City. When the coronavirus pandemic shuttered movie theatres in March, the pair saw an opportunity in the crisis. Given no big films were being released in cinemas, they wondered if they could hit the top of the charts if they made their own movie, DIY style. "I noticed that the box office figures were absurd; $9,000, $15,000 for each movie. Nothing big was coming out. Blockbuster films were on hold. I wanted to find a way to get the biggest number," Mr Tabach told the BBC.
Never cared about box office sales $ (Score:3)
I always thought that box office dollar take was a terrible way of figuring out how big a movie release is. Just based on ticket prices, darn near any POS made these days (well, assume back to "normal" w/ people actually going out to movies etc) can bring in millions at the box office, 'cause tickets are expensive these days. In the time of classics (Gone w/ the Wind) tickets were less than a dollar each, often less than fifty cents. Even for "modern classics" (Jaws, ET, Star Wars originals, Indiana Jones, etc) ticket prices MIGHT have hit $5 in expensive cities (NYC, etc)
Better measure would be percentage of total available seats allocated to showings (ie, what the theaters think will have most sales) and percentage of those seats filled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Gone With The Wind had its theatrical release in 1939 and re-releases in 1942, 1947 and 1954.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll find a lot of those tickets were sold in summer, when the movie theater was the only place in town with air conditioning.
Re: (Score:2)
That is my point. Now consider how many theater seats there were in any of its release years, how many showings they'd realistically put on, etc. Then crunch those numbers with number of tickets sold, population, etc. and then the comparisons become interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Even for "modern classics" (Jaws, ET, Star Wars originals, Indiana Jones, etc) ticket prices MIGHT have hit $5 in expensive cities (NYC, etc)
Indeed, Hardware Wars [imdb.com], a Star Wars spoof "trailer" film from 1978, had the line "You'll laugh! You'll Cry! You'll kiss 3 bucks goodbye!"
For a long time, afternoon movies were $4.50, which I specifically remember because the cinema I frequented assumed most people paid with $5 bills, and gave out 50 cent coins as change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap $1 in 1939? Cinemas were expensive back then. Inflation is a thing and you are more than happy to adjust for it when you compare movies.
As for the box office itself, it's used mostly to compare current movies to each other and the value of the investment and cost of production. Bringing in millions is a sure fire indication that a large movie has failed.
Better measure would be percentage of total available seats allocated to showings (ie, what the theaters think will have most sales) and percentage of those seats filled.
That's like saying we should judge amazon by how many cartons of milk were sold and how many were advertised rather than say how much revenue or p
Next episode (Score:2)
One step, come on
Two steps, come on
Three steps, come on
That's three grand
What, you think I'm playing baby girl?
Hollywood accounting (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know the difference between assets and a budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's be generous and say they're living somewhere that electricity is 15 cents per kWH. Is it even going to be a cost of $1.00? Only if it was a higher electrical usage than they would have had doing some other hobby or activity. Watching TV probably uses more because of screen sizes - they could have had a net savings on electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm impressed Zoom runs on a $0 computer or smart phone. And without electricity.
It's like the people stealing movies and music. It doesn't cost the studios anything because they already have the cameras, computers, actors, and costumes, not to mention all the places to film. For musicians, they already have their instruments, sound boards, sound studios, mics, etc. Thus, there's no reason to pay these people for their works because it doesn't them anything to produce their works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the one they topped.
Re: (Score:1)
Worse than that...
They paid it to see THEIR OWN movie.
What this really sounds like is some fools made a movie, paid a theater $25,488 to show it, and nobody else showed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you'll never find a job as an accountant in hollywood.
Every dollar you claim to have spent elsewhere is one less dollar that can be claimed as 'profit', and the less profit you make the less you have to share with some stakeholders that got suckered into a profit-sharing arrangement.
So in Hollywood accounting, absolutely they would have counted every cent whether it is rational or not.
Re: (Score:1)
And those rose bottles foaming
So what? I made a movie on a -728$ budget once. (Score:2)
Ok, technically I just filmed prostituting myself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not prostitution if it was on camera and there's an intent to sell the video. That's porn or an art-house flick.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you take tips?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you take tips?
Worst pick-up line ever.
Hollywood accounting (Score:1)
Even with a total budget of $0, it will still show a multi-million dollar loss once the Hollywood accountants are done with their magic.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking they screwed up their accounting badly. Now they are going to have to pay the actors they were trying to screw over with $0 up front and net points on the back end.
films cost nothing (Score:2)
Clerks cost under $30,000
Now we no longer need to pay for film. If you have a $10,000 mac pro, a decent camera, $50 a month to pay Adobe, and real talent and skill, there are few other costs. Just borrow locations from your friends
Re: (Score:2)
brilliant - if someone works 800 hours for free then the editing costs nothing!
Re: (Score:2)
This is how many indie games are developed, not to mention student films. If no one is getting paid, then you don't need to pay taxes or health insurance, as it's a hobby. And if everyone involved has a day job, then it's all above board. No need to be a company until you expect actual revenue, which, let's face it, is quite unlikely for a hobby project.
Truly horrifying (Score:2)
"Unsubscribe, a 29-minute horror movie shot entirely on video-conferencing app Zoom"
That is truly horrifying. I neither know nor care what the plot of the movie is, because it sounds like it was made for a ridiculous purpose.
The crazy thing is, I can see these guys ending up making actual big budget horror movies one day because of this. In the words of Colonel Kurtz, "the horror, the horror..."
Guerilla film-making using others' resources (Score:2)
The budget is not $0.00.
Sure, maybe THEY paid nothing.
But the computer(s) they did this on cost SOMEONE.
The connection(s)
The software costs.
Aren't those normal revenues for movies in the US? (Score:2)
I mean the US is not particularly known for its movie industry. Even well known movies like "Manos: The Hands of Fate" or "United Passions" make less than $200k in the US. That's why movies from the US typically are made fairly cheaply (unless they were made for a foreign audience and therefore rake in more money). For example even the effects heavy "The Amazing Bulk" only cost about $14k.
Re: (Score:1)
> even well known movies like "Manos: The Hands of Fate" or "United Passions"
Well known? Never heard of either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well "Manos: The Hands of Fate" is fairly well known. It even has its own Wikipedia page. It never aimed for an International release so outside of the US it's fairly unknown. It's available on Youtube these days and it came out on Bluray some years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
That's way more than you can say about the average US movie, those get made and then promptly forgotten.
Re: (Score:1)
> It even has its own Wikipedia page
Every movie and TV show, no matter how "well-known", has a Wikipedia page. Nothing notable about that to justify calling something "well-known".