My DTV guide.

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
Some may find this interesting, if you've ever wondered about some of the ins and outs of the business.

DTV- Guide.

How Do these movies make their money and how do the lead actors get paid so much?

My findings throughout this relate mainly to the low budget studio and mostly to the following guys: Seagal, Van Damme, Snipes, Lundgren, Norris. Why? Because the system in which these companies work, gain most revenue from these guys, and these are the most well paid of the DTV action heroes.

Firstly the producers gain the financing of their movie (plus a little profit for themselves) through pre-sales. Meaning they have sold the movie to a distributor before the movie is made, and essentially they have made their money back before he film has started. Producers making these movies are basically taking out a loan from the distributors and other financers if you like, but since a movie with say Seagal can guarantee you X amount of dollars worldwide, it’s not much risk and by the time the movie has been out a year, everyone concerned has come off well. The distributers, money men, all get their money back, plus substantial profits, and the producers also earn a profit percentage.

As for the stars? They sell the movie. When a company takes it’s mock up posters etc, around the B-movie film markets (for example the Cannes Film Market) they sell the idea of a film to the money men. As an example “Steven Seagal in a film about stealth fighters.” They MUST have the lead actor in order to get financing. How do the guarantee they can get a movie like this made and line their pockets? They pay Seagal a hell of a lot of money. He earns roughly 5 million dollars a film.

This earning system, whereby, the leading man earns himself roughly a third of the budget, was pioneered in the 80’s by Cannon, headed up by Golan and Globus. Who realised that you could make an action film for little money, and then as long as you had a big star, you had it made. There’s no point paying the Van Dammes and the like, pro-rata, because they’d probably go and earn that sort of money by doing more interesting kinds of projects outside of action.

Here’s a quick rundown of the top earners in the B-market:
Snipes- 5-6mill
Seagal- 5 mill
VD- 4-5mill
Norris- 2-3 mill
Lundgren- 1-2 mill

Some B-movie secrets, tricks of the trade.

The star: The star must be kept happy. If he wants a shot put in, it gets put in. If he wants a shot taken out, it’s taken out. Casting as well, the lead actor has final say. As an example, Anthony Hickox, in his commentary for the Dolph Lundgren movie, Jill The Ripper, stated how hard it was as a director when the star and producer has more power than you. Dolph wanted a shot put in at the beginning, and it was put in. The only re-shoots in the movie were at Dolph’s bequest as well. Producers want future relations with these stars. The want the star to be happy, come back and shoot some more films with them. An ideal situation is get a star in a multi picture deal. Nu Image now find themselves shunned by Steven Seagal, and that means they have lost a seriously good money-maker. Or you could say they ballsed up big time.

The Director: As I said, the director is pretty locked creatively. He must deliver the film, by a set time, within budget. It’s difficult to show creativity because you are heavily confined. The producers give you a script, and (most of the time) the director CANNOT change it. He has to shoot from the page. Inevitably the only time a script is changed is if the director himself wrote it, and the producers, change the plot. For example Sheldon Lettich, who has done some of Van Dammes most popular movies, like Lionheart, and Double Impact, directed Last Patrol, with Dolph Lundgren. Both he and Dolph were promised they could alter the script, but they weren’t allowed. The script was written by the producers, who has previously done mediocre TV stuff and they didn’t allow any Leigh way for changes, believing blindly they’d written something great. The movie turned out awful and the producers had also foolishly lost relations with Dolph. Directors often make shot choices against their better judgement in essence to save time. Tony Hickox for example in Stormcatcher, had a few hours to shoot 8 pages of (naturally poor) dialogue. Rather than annoying and lengthy set-ups, he shot it all handheld and kept the camera moving, all in the name of time saving. Hickox in his commentary for Stormcatcher calls the film “a piece of ****!” and also wished that Mystery Science Theatre could do a commentary on it.

Producers:
Usually businessmen, and usually with little understanding of film. Quality comes second to money for most of them. Again they try hard to brown nose the star. The hire a director to shoot it, quickly and easily. If they can’t find an experienced director to shoot the film, they turn to a member of a transferable department, so they might give it to one of their writers, DP’s or second Unit directors. As an example, Don E Fauntleroy, Mercenary For Justice. That way the movie gets shot quickly and they have someone they can control. DTV action films are a producers medium, not a directors. Sometimes a producer directs the film himself, most usually to disastrous effects with the film looking like it was shot from a beginners text book of filmmaking. There’s the odd occasion when a producer thinks beyond the money and for quality, or when a new upstart film producer wants to do good things, but on the most part, a director will tell you that a producer is a talent-less businessman.
Some tricks from the producers:
-Stock footage: Some movies use stock footage, to make the film look more expensive. Similarly it’s sometimes the case that a film is actually written around stock footage and again this saves time and money on acutally shooting a lot of film yourself. Often a producer will recycle his library footage from one film to the next. You may notice some B-movie companies seem to specialise in films about Submarines, Jet Fighters, Stealth Fighters, for example. An example of awful use of stock footage was in Agent Red, with Lundgren. They actually had the audacity to steal a whole action scene from, get this: Another Dolph Lundgren movie! Naturally from the same producer, they used footage from Stormcatcher.
- These films also must be delivered as in or around 90 minutes. Very rarely is a DTV movie much more than 90 minutes. One trick as well in filling out the time (cause in most cases the film needs filling, not trimming) is to have a lengthy opening credits sequence. This can be done by bulky credits listing, or by showing stock footage relating to theme and setting. Perhaps some aerial city shots of New York, or sweeping vista shots of countryside. Similarly end credits too. Also any shots that seem redundant, and pointlessly inserted are to fill out the runtime.

Writers:

Writers are hired to do spec scripts. These are based around an outline the studio expects. Scripts must be written around the following: Stock footage, budget, CGI, location (Dolph had to come up with a storyline to fit around Bulgarian and Russian locales, in The Mechanik), and must deliver the standard expectations such as a requisite amount of action. Also they must be of a certain type, such as revenge, the die hard movie, the commando movie etc.

A writer won’t be able to sell a script that doesn’t encompass the B-movie way of shooting a film. So it can’t be a big opus, it MUST have action, and it must be a realistic location, or re-write-able as a feasible location.

Some scripts come from the “vault” so to speak. Meaning they have been filed away. These can be films that failed to get off the ground ten years ago, or simply it can mean recycling an idea that the company has already done with another action star. There’s a substantial number of scripts that are dusted off to be filmed, as opposed to scripts freshly written.
Summery
The B action industry is now thriving again. These stars are no longer bankable on the big screen, and were also beginning to slip in the video market, until the DVD boom of about 4 years ago. DVD now means cheaper production, and these films can be released with minimal marketing and will sell many for little outlay because of strong and loyal fan base. This market and way of doing things is quite unique, and it’s always strange to see guys doing straight to video movies, who earn more than people doing big Hollywood movies.
 

Blue80

New Member
What a fantastic piece!!! I loved it!

We all knew how the quality of Steven's DTV's are nothing compared to his glory days, thanks for filling everyone on in as to WHY this is so.
 

marky96

Active Member
Excellent and very insightful supertom. Though I had suspected a lot of this before, it was good to get it confirmed. It is also helpful for people who know little about the industry or those who are unable to understand why the quality of our action heroes films have fallen. To me this just accentuates the need for Seagal to get his career back on track, away from DTV productions.

I would point out, however, that I believed that it was Nu-Image who severed the reationship with Seagal. This was because of his frankly unacceptable behaviour on the sets of both Today You Die (2005) and Mercenary for Justice (2006). This is why they filed a lawsuit, and it was only after this, that Seagal filed his. I doubt Nu-Image would have taken the decision lightly. After all, as you point out, Seagal is a valuable asset in the DTV production world. Though I don't know how sales of his films compare with the other DTV stars, I would suspect that, due to the high volume of films he makes, this must be beneficial to his overall sales. For this reason, Nu-Image cannot have taken the decision to sue him lightly. By its very nature a lawsuit would preclude any further working relationship. It also serves to underline that despite Seagal being an assaet, what he did could not have been tolerated. As you say, the director has little say in the storyline, but the star does. This suggests to me that what Seagal was demanding was outside the realms of possibility. Also his disappearing from sets would cause delays, which would mean more money being spent, which would harm the producers profilts. Again, as you say, the producers are first and foremost buisnessmen and though they may not understand filmmaking, a loss of profit would be something very real to them.

Personally I am sorry that Nu-Image have stopped working with Seagal. Though they were once renowned for their poor production quality, and to some extent this still is the case, they are none the less moving forward in a positive way. They have moved into higher budget and higher quality productions and also more mainstream cinema released films. Seagal has gone to work with Andrew Stevens, which I think represents a step backwards. You only have to look at Stevens filmography to see that.
 

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
True, I suppose if Seagal was turning up late, leaving early and altering scripts etc, then he'd be a nightmare to work with, and ultimately lead to films going over-budget, or having to suffer immensely to stay on budget as TYD clearly did with it's scrambled, poorly pieced together feel. I think that's perhaps the disadvatange of Seagal signing multi picture deals, only to find he's not given what he was promised.Many stars and directors are promised things like being able to alter a story, and then refused these once they are signed up. Hopefully Seagal's next three give him a bit more freedom and then in return I'm sure Seagal will do better for the company and his fans, like he did with ITS. It's no surprise that the MFJ making of didn't feature the big guy, and seemed like a really hackneyed pieced together PR excersise.

In any case I do think that POP promises to show Seagal put the effort in for sure.

I'm hoping to get some feedback on my guide from Joe, and also from Sheldon Lettich who posts on the Van Damme forums, and who has already been a great resource.
 

supertom

Disgruntled fan!
Our pal Joe was kind enough to read through my guide and here was his response.

"Great article, Tom.

I can't add anything that you didn't already cover. You pretty much nailed the system and the players involved. Very impressive! I think you should flesh out the article a little more and then get it published. You obviously have a flair for writing.

Let me know how it goes.

Cheers,
Joe "
 

latinojazz

Well-Known Member
Thanks a lot for your information, I´m very impressed.Now I understand almost everything.

Pretty interesting.Cool
 

bwana-beast

Active Member
Bottom Line

Good summary of the DTV business. I would not rule out Seagal ever working with Nu Image...the bottom line in the movie business is profit, and any breach between parties can be covercome if both sides feel it is in their best interest to get together again.
 

latinojazz

Well-Known Member
Maybe Seagal and Nu Image,Randall Emmet-George Furla will work again.

Sure never with Nasso, but with the others...Yeah,the problems weren´t big enough to never do business again

And business are business
 

marky96

Active Member
Would Nu Image be such a bad thing?

In many ways I think it would be good for Seagal to work with Nu-Image again. Since Seagal last worked with them, they have come along way. Sure, they still have a speciality in cheap DTV productions, but here are some of the more recent films they have produced or are in production. They all went or are scheduled to go into theaters.

16 Blocks (2006
starring Bruce Willis
directed by Richard Donner
Lonely Hearts (2006)
starring John Travolta, James Gandolfini and Salma Hayek
The Black Dahlia (2006)
starring Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johansson, Aaron Eckhart and Hilary Swank
directed by Brian de Palma
Budget: $50m
The Wicker Man (2006)
starring Nicholas Cage.
Budget: $40m
Cleaner (2007)
starring Samuel L. Jackson, Ed Harris and Even Mendes.
directed by Renny Harlin
Budget: $25m
88: 88 Minutes (2007)
starring Al Pacino, Alicia Witt and William Forsythe
Budget: $30m
The Code (2008)
starring Morgan Freeman, Antonio Banderas and Tom Hardy
Budget: $25m
Righteous Kill (2008)
starring Al Pacino and Robert De Niro
Budget: $60m
Conan the Barbarian (2009)
directed by Rob Zombie

I think that if Seagal was able to work with these kind of co-stars, these kind of budgets, and these kind of directors, he would have no problem getting back into theatres. To put this into perspective, since Seagal last worked with Nu Image, on 2006's Mercenary for Justice, none of his subsequent five films have been released in cinemas. The highest budget for one of these films was $12m. His biggest co-star has probably been Imelda Staunton and the biggest director he has worked with has been Don E. FauntLeRoy.
 

fakeshemp

Hard To Kill
A good overview of the DTV industry. Thanks for sharing it. I'd like to see a book about this industry appear one day. DTV movies are the new b-movies, and there's stacks of books written about those.

I would point out, however, that I believed that it was Nu-Image who severed the reationship with Seagal. This was because of his frankly unacceptable behaviour on the sets of both Today You Die (2005) and Mercenary for Justice (2006).

According to director Don Fauntleroy at this very forum, it was the executive producers of Today You Die who made the film so lousy by tearing out pages of the script and saying story didn't matter in a Seagal film. If the allegations of Seagal's poor behaviour on the set were true, it's entirely possible he was just fed up working with these guys.

This is a great thread and one of the best I've read in this forum for a while. It's good to see a serious examination of this part of the film industry.
 

Sue

c/o naughty corner
I agree with the comments above. Thanks for doing the research and writing this Tom.
 

marky96

Active Member
There is no taking away that this is a great article, supertom.

Of course I do take on board what Don E. FauntLeRoy has said about the producers causing trouble during the production of Today You Die (2005). However I think that Nu-Image would not have filed a lawsuit against Seagal if there was not good basis in fact for their claims.
I find it quite believable that the producers would mess around with the story line and believe that the story didn't matter in a Seagal film. After all many of the films Seagal has made recently have put a coherent plot to the side to make way for muddled and confusing sub-plots that often have no clear resolution. Perhaps the producers had only been going on what they had seen Seagal in recently?
Also, no matter how bad the producers were acting I still don't think that Seagal's walking off set and making his own script alterations was particularly professional at all. After all it further damaged the production of the film, and has undoubtedly damaged Seagal's all ready fragile reputation within the industry.
 

fakeshemp

Hard To Kill
Hopefully his most recent DTV efforts will undo that damage. Urban Justice and Pistol Whipped show no signs of the confused and careless storytelling of many of his post-Half Past Dead movies. It would be interesting to know whether the improved quality of his last two films was down to a conscious effort by Steven to make better films or whether they are a momentary blip of quality and we see an unfortunate return to the shoddiness of films like Out Of Reach, Submerged and Attack Force.
 

marky96

Active Member
I fear that this recent resurgence is just temporary and soon the quality of the films will fall again. Following Belly of the Beast (2003) we had Out of Reach (2004). After Into the Sun, we had Submerged (both 2005). I just hope the cycle can be broken.
 

marky96

Active Member
Wesley Snipes making more than Seagal doesn't really surprise if you think about it. Seagal has been making DTV films exclusively since 2003, and Snipes had his first DTV release in 2002, Liberty Stands Still. However Snipes has mixed his DTV releases with cinematic ones, such as ZigZag, Blade II, Undisputed (all 2002), Blade: Trinity (2004) and Chaos (2005). Now these films and in particular the Blade series has kept him in people's minds and kept him making big money. I think this is why he is able to, at this time, command higher wages than Seagal. I do however think that this might change if Snipes has no more cinematic outings. This is because Seagal is more established in the DTV industry and so is always going to be able to make money, as he has done for the past five years. Seagal also always gets a producer, and sometimes a writer credit. And finally, his output also tends to be far grater than any other DTV star, so although he may be earning less per film, he is probably earning more over all.
 
Top