# Why are horror movies cheap to make?



## Kejero (Nov 19, 2016)

It's commonly known in the industry that horror movies are a good investment: they're cheap to make and almost always have favorable to extremely high ROI's.

But why? Why are horror movies cheaper to make than other movies? I can't wrap my head around it. The process of making a horror movie isn't significantly different from making any other movie, is it? And there are high and low budget movies in every genre. So what makes horror movies so special?

The only explanation I can come up with is that it's not so much about the fact that they're cheap to make -- other indie movies are made on tight budgets all the time too, yet they're largely considered a gamble -- but that the horror movie audience is the only audience willing to accept low production values. The majority of horror movies are pretty bad movies, but somehow the audience willing to pay for them is easily large enough to ensure profits. That seems like such a simple explanation though that I'm not sure if it's the whole answer.

Just a question I somehow woke up with this morning...


----------



## Mike Fox (Nov 19, 2016)

If horror movies are cheap to make, Im assuming its because they hire no name actors, makeup fx can be really inexpensive, and overall quality is poor. Btw, Ive known directors that have maxed out credit cards and have taken out large loans to make their horror movies, so they may not be as cheap as one might think.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 19, 2016)

It's not that they're cheaper than dramas. It's that the cost is similar to a drama, yet the genre can put butts in seats. Yes, you can put butts in seats for a drama, but only if you pay Meryl Streep levels of money for household-name stars.


----------



## procreative (Nov 23, 2016)

Depends what you call horror movies, if you mean the "found footage" type no wonder as they get away with using cheap cameras as its supposed to look "found"... plus the scripts are usually dull and the acting mahogany.

I mean why has there been more than one Paranormal Activity, theres only 5 mins in each one worth watching.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 23, 2016)

The cheap camera thing isn't an issue anymore. For the longest time one needed film to get a Super35 capture area. (Film processing costs a bomb.) Digital became viable just over a decade ago. In 2008, Canon released the 5D Mark II, which delivered full frame shooting for ~$2,500. Today there are many sub-$5,000 cams that are quite good and sub-$15k cams that are truly great. As far as feature film budgets go, this is a drop in the bucket.

Also, the current cameras are so sensitive, that they don't need large lighting setups. Technically, it's cheaper than ever to shoot a feature. It's the people and time that are costly. And legal/marketing/distribution...


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 24, 2016)

I think they have a great ROI for a combination of reasons: 

1. You don't need big name actors, or you get one name actor that has international value and surround them with cheaper actors. The concept and villain are generally the stars of horror films. 

2. It's a genre that can be sold internationally. Horror films are very visual and it doesn't matter where in the world you are you're going to know what's happening when the masked killer guts the family dog. They sell a lot better than some talky mumblecore dramedy where the protagonist melodramatically submerges themselves at the bottom of a pool to drown out their white people problems.

3. It's a genre that typically requires few locations. The nature of horror films lend themselves to a contained story setting.

4. They are often purposely written to be as cheap as possible by writers trying to break in. You have a much higher chance of selling a script if it can be pulled off for under 5mil because there are many more potential buyers in that range. If you write a 100mil action spec you better hope Warner Bros. or their equivalent are digging your idea.


----------

