Hello all,
I'd like to know if anyone is jumping on the Christian film bandwagon? Not that it's a bad thing at all, but I'm just wondering if anyone is trying to get into the new found attention given to faith based films? I think Fireproof really put the spotlight on the faith based genre. So, is anyone trying to capitalize on this rekindled industry? There have always been Christian films, but I think we see a lot of attention on these small independent films, any theories as to why they are so successful? One theory I have is that they overhype the movies. Fireproof was a good movie, but my wife and I both didn't think it was as good as all the hype made it out to be. So, I really don't want this Thread to discuss the movie Fireproof, but more about the whole christian film making industry. I'm just curious as to the opinions of others.

I'm a Christian, you know so I think if I put al my time and effort into building something would help people reach God then I'd be blessed dont you think? I dont know if its God or just good business or maybe it's both?

I always stay away from discussions of personal tastes in movies.
The financial success of a movie has nothing to do with how "good"
it is. I'm sure there are dozens of very successful movie you think
are bad.

Touching on the personal religious aspects of making a movie can
go bad fast. So I'll stay away from that, too.

Regardless of the "why", faith based films are making money. So
I'm jumping on the bandwagon. Even as a Christian I see the movie
business as a business - it's how I earn my living. If distributors want
horror, I make horror. If they want faith based, I make faith based.

As you point out, EvsFX, Christian movies have been around for a long
time. My dad starred in the very first production from "Unusual Films".
A company that has been making Christian films for over 50 years. It
was after the success of Gibson's film that more prodCo's and distributors
took notice. While the theatrical market isn't huge, the direct-to-DVD
market is growing. I can only guess why - people like faith based films
and will rent them. Kinda like horror, it doesn't matter how good the
movie is as long as it delivers the expected elements.

The good news for filmmakers is not every 16 to 26 years old with a
camera is jumping on the faith based band wagon. Distributors are finding
it difficult to get product.

One of the reasons why faith-based films do so well is because churches and religious groups bus their people in and rent out theaters.

A former friend of mine went to Baylor University, one of the largest Christian colleges in the world, and she mentioned to me when Passion came out how the school bused in the entire student body and rented out a couple of movie theaters so everyone could see the movie.

In any case, even as a Christian, I have no desire to get into the Jesus flicks market.

Me neighter. Christian and all just not interested in that genre

I agree Directorik, I do not wish to discuss personal tastes in movies or religion. I am not a Christian , but it doesn't mean that I won't go to see Christian movies. I'm not a vampire either, but I'll watch movies with a vampire theme, so I agree completely that these movies should be viewed as a business like any other movie. Personally, I like a good story. Just because I don't share the same views doesn't prevent me from saying, "hey that was a decent movie". I hope no one thinks I'm knocking Faith based movies or even Fireproof because I'm not, I thought it was a good movie, but maybe because my wife and I have a strong marriage, it didn't have the same impact on me as the reviews I've read. Neverthless, that's off topic, there is no right or wrong answer to my Thread, I'm simply curious to see other people's opinions on why you all think there is a renewed interest in Faith based films. For me, I'm more fascinated that this Church group was able to sell such a great film. Sure, Mel Gibson will sell out any movie, but for a small group in a small town in Georgia, that's impressive to me, and that's the direction I was trying to go with this Thread. There's another company here in Alabama that makes faith based films that are really good and have won several awards, The Erin Brothers company makes outstanding films, regardless of whether I agree with the message or not. Maybe it does simply boil down to business is business and the way these small companies market their products is better than others. I hope more people respond because I really find this topic of faith based movies interesting.

As for the bus load statement, umm, maybe, I'm not sure that's the reason Fireproof swept the country. Here's my other theory- I simply think that faith based movies are controversial by nature in their underlying messages. I mean we all know that a certain side of the political party system tries to knock religion whenever possible. What better way to promote a movie or get attention than to market it as a faith based product and cause a stir? Gibson's movie sparked a lot of controversy over its content, but movies like SAW don't? So, I'm not trying to discredit these films at all, on the contrary, I have a lot of respect and admiration for these small companies who have found a way to bring their movies to the mainstream public and make money, it's brilliant, even if they use the controversial tactic as a tool. Why not? For those of you in Hollywood is there any validity to my theory or am I way off?

Distributors have a hard time finding a product? So, evidently there is a demand for the product, I'm just wondering why all of a sudden there is a demand in these films? Again, no right or wrong reason, just wanting to see other people's views.

Distributors have a hard time finding a product? So, evidently there is a demand for the product, I'm just wondering why all of a sudden there is a demand in these films? Again, no right or wrong reason, just wanting to see other people's views.
I don't think this is "all of a sudden". There has been a demand for
faith based films for decades. Ever since the surprise box office of
Gibson's movie, the media outlets are mentioning these films more
- so the general awareness has gone up.

I was a writer on an anthology TV series in 1986 through 1989. It
was a "Twilight Zone" type of series with each story having a Christian
message. And I've been asked to write or direct Christian based
movies ever since. That's 20 years the demand has been there. And
as I mentioned, "Unusual Films" out of Bob Jones University has been
making faith based films constantly since 1954.

There has always been a market for them. What is all of a sudden, is
the media attention. Churches have always needed good faith based
films but in the last five or six years distributors have found families
will rent them, too. And as more are made, more people rent them
and want new titles.

I'm Christian and my grandmother has been after me for years to make a faith based movie. I think the worst thing I could do is jump into such a project without the proper research and story. Kind of like any genre, except something this specialized could come off looking bad, if not done right.

My viewing preference is horror, sci-fi, thriller, etc. But, I'm open to most subjects. The thing is, I have to like what I'm going to produce, otherwise, why do it just be a sell out? If I make a religious/spiritual movie, my heart will have to be into it. I have never made a feature for the sole purpose of making money, maybe that's why I"m poor. :D

Vampire films! There you go - put some crosses up against some demons. Horror and religion actually have a long history. Let's see, THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, etc. I know, these aren't the subjects you guys are talking about. :lol: However, I think the right approach is to have the Gibson attitude and make something with the kind of visuals that turns heads.

Any group of people who don't have much product that targets them, craves it. It's also true of the GLBTA community and minority communities. They will even accept slightly subpar product so long as it represents their group the way they feel they should be represented.

Other more easily marketable genre include feature length documentaries (with good production value and/or phenomenal topics to compensate - both is ideal) and horror (I'm guilty here, I've paid for badly made horror in the past).

There are just markets that the audience is starved for content, those who feed that hunger can thrive relatively easily.

ok cool, interesting points. So, I guess it really just boils down to the timing of the demand for a certain market.

all business comes down to timing :) I ran the first web design firm in MN in 1990-1991... I ran out of money because the market didn't have faith that the web would be a visible medium (I wish being right would have paid off for me). The year after I had to quit and get a "real" job, 3 more firms popped up and absolutely made a killing. We had primed the pump for them.

Timing is more important to business than location :)

I hear ya, Scoopicman. My grandparents were always asking
me why I didn't use my talents to make Christian films. This
was when horror was a sure sell. They were disappointed
that I was making horror films.


My viewing preference is horror, sci-fi, thriller, etc. But, I'm open to most subjects. The thing is, I have to like what I'm going to produce, otherwise, why do it just be a sell out? If I make a religious/spiritual movie, my heart will have to be into it. I have never made a feature for the sole purpose of making money, maybe that's why I"m poor. :D

Some people call it a sell out. Some call it earning a living.

To me the bottom line is I must do something to make money.
I can't afford to not make a movie because I don’t have passion
for a subject. If I don't make a movie I must do something other
than making a movie because I need income from something.

So I make a movie.

I know that’s often seen as selling out. And for those of you who
can do something else to make a living I understand. I don’t
have that choice. I either make the movie I don’t have a particular
interest in or passion for, or I go without income until I find one
I have interest in or passion for.

I suspect that's why I'm not poor.

My passion is filmmaking. Whatever I'm working on is a great project because I'm doing with I enjoy... I'd love to make a living at this... that takes money.

My passion is filmmaking. Whatever I'm working on is a great project because I'm doing with I enjoy... I'd love to make a living at this... that takes money.

Pretty much reflects my feelings. The money to do it? Read below.


Some people call it a sell out. Some call it earning a living.

To me the bottom line is I must do something to make money.
I can't afford to not make a movie because I don’t have passion
for a subject. If I don't make a movie I must do something other
than making a movie because I need income from something.

So I make a movie.

I know that’s often seen as selling out. And for those of you who
can do something else to make a living I understand. I don’t
have that choice. I either make the movie I don’t have a particular
interest in or passion for, or I go without income until I find one
I have interest in or passion for.

I suspect that's why I'm not poor.



Rik, I probably didn't spell myself out as much as I should. I agree with most of that, but I'm not talking about shooting for American Idol or "gigs for hire". (I used to be in I.A.T.S.E. and I've done plenty of soundman, camera, switcher, composer for hire, on stuff I wasn't into.) Those are jobs where you have no control over the material, so they are not what I'm referring to.

I'm talking about what you write and produce - putting your own money into movies, like DARK CRIMES. So, let me rephrase: My income is good, but If I didn't spend over $300,000 on equipment and indie films that I produced/directed, then I could have paid off the house, long ago. I make movies for the sheer love of it. As it is, my wife doesn't need to work. She watches over our 3 kids at home. On top of my being the sole income, we're producing movies our way.

If someone tells me to spice up my movie with certain exploitive elements, I tell them to forget it, because I would rather let my content speak and not drag. If I took shortcuts, I could have more sales, but I'm a purist with movies. Still, what does sell is rewarding. Four of my features either have had international distribution of are in negotiations. I may be taking a longer road, but I'm on the creative end of my projects, which is fulfilling.

Another thing I really enjoy is composing, but scoring commercials, industrials and some very boring films was just bumming me out and taking me out of the kind of music that I liked to do. I was constantly criticized for making it "too dark", but I like eerie and atmospheric. I quit! Best thing I ever did. Now, I score only my own movies and love it.

This is just me, but I would rather take a non-industry job and not really like it, rather than grow tired of what I love. One of my buddies said that he couldn't imagine editing/producing projects all year, then take his vacation and make a feature. When I take that vacation, I'm ready to film.

BTW, I'm not knocking your gigs, as it sounds like you are involved with some sweet stuff, in the heart of the business. It all depends on what your goal is.

I'd love to get to the point where I could do what you do Scoopic! Not there yet, so I'm working for a commercialized gig that can get me the recognition or the change to do what you've found :)

BTW, I'm not knocking your gigs, as it sounds like you are involved with some sweet stuff, in the heart of the business. It all depends on what your goal is.
I didn't think you were.

I agree; it all depends on your goal. My goal is make my living
making movies. If I am offered a writing job in a genre or subject
I have no interest in or passion for I take the job. Same with
producing or directing.

If I'm asked to spice up my movie with certain exploitive elements
(and I'm asked this often) I do it.

That seems to be the definition of "selling out". Something I do
all the time. And I do it because I can't take a non-industry job.
I've never had a non-industry job in my life.

In a way I envy you - being able to stand on your creative principles
and be a purist. I can't afford that. I tried it one time - with "dark
crimes" (and even then I added an exploitive element to help sales) .
But even though I've won several awards and people seem to like it,
I can't get that movie sold.

So now I'm being offered faith based projects. Since my goal is to earn
a living making movies I will take the offers.

As you said; tt depends on what your goal is.

Knightly, good luck with what you are doing!


Hi, Rik! Some interesting points and they still apply to the thread topic. The important thing is if someone asks you to alter or work on certain projects, that it doesn't bother you. I'm admittedly anal, so I will continue on my path. :lol:


In a way I envy you - being able to stand on your creative principles
and be a purist. I can't afford that. I tried it one time - with "dark
crimes" (and even then I added an exploitive element to help sales) .
But even though I've won several awards and people seem to like it,
I can't get that movie sold......As you said; tt depends on what your goal is.


DARK CRIMES looks very stylistic and well done. I enjoy a good noir flick. If there is a way I can buy it, let me know. Perhaps I can trade you a copy of EXILE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrZB1B8a3vU) for it? Selling a first feature is hard. Most people don't, which is the harsh reality.

It sounds like some of your jobs, like being hired to write, offer you some creative stretching. If they touch on what you enjoy, at least once in a while, that is also rewarding. My problem was the burn out was turning me away from making movies and I was just doing work.

I've read and enjoyed a number of your posts and I think you have a great attitude and obviously know your craft.

This is a subject that has been brought up here before, I wonder where that thread went?

Anyway, I don't think people are jumping on the Christian film bandwagon and I don't think that there is 'new found attention' given to faith based films. People will go see a GOOD MOVIE and they won't care where the motivation comes from. I loved "Kundun". I'm not a Tibetan monk :)

About "The Passion": maybe the entire student body went to see it, but then EVERYBODY was trying to see it, not just Christians.

I personally think that the stories are getting better. When I first read "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe", I was a kid and I had no idea that there was some agenda to be had. The story, to me, was a good one so I read it. I think that is what most people do. "The DaVinci Code" was a big deal because the book was a good read and ended up with a director who turned it into a good movie (I haven't seen it, but you get my point)

I don't believe that any particular political party system tries to knock religion, its just that the opposing side to which ever political system you adhere to, doesn't like the other sides approach.

A movie like Saw won't spark that kind of controversy because it is wrapped in a yummy horror coating. :D The point isn't lost, people just get to it differently.

When it comes to faith based subject matter, this is what you need:

1. A really good story (the ten commandments, the exorcist, the daVinci code, the stand-bet you forgot that one)
2. a director who can see the big picture (Lucas, Jackson, Spielberg, Raimi)
3. the money to push it (promotion, distribution, etc)

Without that the film will fall flat, and its not going to matter if the agenda is Christian or Aliens....:abduct:
(I always wanted to use that smilie!)

-- spinner :cool:

1. A really good story (the ten commandments, the exorcist, the daVinci code, the stand-bet you forgot that one)
2. a director who can see the big picture (Lucas, Jackson, Spielberg, Raimi)
3. the money to push it (promotion, distribution, etc)


I agree with #1 - if the content strikes a chord with a church or group, they will push it. The whole point about the Kirk Cameron movie is that it didn't need to be a big budget flick to make millions in returns.




Here you go.

"Fireproof" cost $500,000 to make but grossed $33.4 million. And those figures don't even include DVD sales.

Some in the movie industry are still trying to figure out how they did it.

Before you excuse it as a BLAIR WITCH type of fluke, the same guys' previous movie was made for 100K and made 10 million!

Many articles on it. HERE (http://www.baptistmessenger.com/story/BE8ADCACD2FD975DB317C7F045436429) is one. Basically, faith based indie is an under-tapped resource.

I won't excuse it as a Blair Witch fluke because it didn't do anywhere NEAR what Blair Witch did.

Until you said Kirk Cameron, I didn't even remember that I actually saw this film, which tells you how much of an impact it had on me and quite possibly the film going community at large. I suppose somone liked it if it made 10 million, but in the days of the big huge block-buster type film like LOTR or Harry Potter, you must think bigger. Someone would have to talk pretty fast to convince me that this film stands up next to the big boys. And the sad part is that the story is there.

Someone has to go to Sony Imageworks or Industrial Light & Magic and bring that story alive or else it won't really go any further than the Christian community. And it won't be because people are opposed to Christian based films, it will be because it doesn't stand up next to Spiderman even though it has the potential to do so...if you follow the book.

As much as I would like to just look at things from the 'artiste' viewpoint, people vote with their dollars. 10 million is great for an independent film. But much did The Blair Witch Project make? Get my point?

-- spinner :cool:

10 million is great for an independent film. But much did The Blair Witch Project make? Get my point?

Do you direct blockbusters or something? I don't know about you, but my budgets usually run 5K - 50K. I would be happy to make one million dollars, let alone balk at 10. Get my point?

Just for the record, I have not seen any Kirk Cameron movies. They don't interest me.

Okay, let me clarify....

I am looking at this from a general audience standpoint and not from a 'if I had a million dollars' standpoint.

I understood the first point to say that people were jumping on the Christian based film bandwagon, I disagree. The conversation turned to...

"I agree with #1 - if the content strikes a chord with a church or group, they will push it."

I agree, but I don't necessarily think they are in high demand. If they make alot of money like the "Fireproof" film you are talking about, that is great, but that doesn't necessarily indicate high demand. High demand, to me, means that the distribution that the film gets would be comparable to films with A-list actors.

No production I was involved with ever had a budget of more than $4,000 and that was my unfinished project :rolleyes:

One day we'll all have budgets we can work with....

-- spinner :cool:

"High demand" means other things, too.

Right now distributors are actively looking for faith based movies.
Like the horror genre, a faith based movies doesn't need A-list
actors to sell. It needs to hit the main elements. People who are
interested in the genre will rent and buy pretty much any movie
that fall into the category. Again, just like the DVT market for
horror films.

To you "high demand" means wide distribution with A-list actors.
In the niche distribution world "high demand" means distributors
need titles to fill their library.

Okay, let me clarify....

I am looking at this from a general audience standpoint and not from a 'if I had a million dollars' standpoint.:

Okay, I understand that point of view. You and I probably like the same movies, because I love big budget FX flicks. But, aren't you trying to be a filmmaker? What about that standpoint of what budget you can really get versus what you can really make?


One day we'll all have budgets we can work with....:

After 30 years of making films, I can tell you that is not the slightest bit realistic. I think Rik is one of the few on the forum who has a shot at getting a multi-million dollar budget, since he works in the industry. The rest of us are outside, looking in. To you, a budget seems to be the amount to make your examples of SPIDERMAN or LORD OF THE RINGS. The odds of anybody getting a 150 - 200 million dollar budget is not much better than winning the lottery.


The main way someone gets into a prominent Hollywood position is by:

A. Knowing somebody very high up.
B. Working your way up from being a Production Assistant or tech.
C. Making a hit indie.


Examples of C include Robert Rodriguez - EL MARIACHI, Kevin Smith - CLERKS, Ed Burns - BROTHERS MCMULLEN, etc. These budgets ranged from approximately 7K - 25K.

There is another category, that is the 99.99% of people who will not write, direct, produce or star in a Hollywood movie:

D. The rest of us.


Setting up a light stand or being an extra on OVER THE TOP doesn't count, otherwise, I can say I made it. So, "the rest of us" have the option to take things into our own hands and hope to achieve C - "making a hit movie". My heroes include John Carpenter - DARK STAR, Sam Raimi - EVIL DEAD and Peter Jackson - BAD TASTE. I listed their first features, as they were indie breakthroughs.

It's easy to name the 1 percent who have made it. There are other indie filmmakers who haven't had worldwide breakthroughs, but they make money, nonetheless. I imagine you've walked into Blockbuster or some other video store. Half of those movies - the ones that take one or two slots, not the single hit that takes up a whole wall, but more than half are 5 or 6 figure budgets. It's a whole subgenre:

http://www.midnightsunent.com/Indiemovies.jpg

I know a lot of those people. Some of them got a little 5K deal from York, while others did okay. One of the guys who makes money at this, Matt, is on this board, so I hope he chimes in. He made:

DEEP HOLLOW (www.deephollow-themovie.com)

My friend Christian does the best out of the people I know. He makes the RECON 2020 (http://www.recon2023.com/media.php) series. His first RECON was made for 30K and sold to 20 countries for 200K. Each movie makes more than the last. I have no doubt that he will have a hit, in the future.

In this day of age, you can get one source world-wide distribution, which can be a mistake. Or, you can sell to individual countries. Prices vary on whether you have name talent and many other factors. No name indies may fetch 5K to 50K for a U.S. deal. The money isn't great, so it's best to rack up as many countries as you can. I know one guy who got a 70K U.S. deal, but it's not that common if you make a 4K movie. Here are a couple of my foreign covers:

Japan (http://www.midnightsunent.com/lostvoyager.jpg)
Thailand (http://www.midnightsunent.com/AWAKENINGfront.jpg)

So, these are the numerical results possible for most of us who won't make the 7 figure breakthrough.

A 100K budget (one of which grossed 10 mil) can be an equity loan or 4 credit cards, between a couple of producer buddies. None of us are going to come up with the budget to make a 200 million dollar TERMINATOR SALVATION, but 100K is realistic.

If you or anyone on this board can show me a movie where you made significant money, I would like to hear about it. It's easy to site the very few blockbuster/famous examples, because they are so few, including. HALLOWEEN and THE EVIL DEAD had budgets (300K and 384K) that in today's dollars would exceed a million dollars. So, name me some much cheaper budgets, closer to 100K or less. That leaves EL MARIACHI, BLAIR WITCH and little else. OPEN WATER cost around 150K. NAPOLEON DYNAMITE - 400K.

To my knowledge, BLAIR WITCH is the only 5 figure indie to make returns in the 100 million plus range. It stole the title of highest grossing indie from HALLOWEEN.

Scoopicman- I think what you're getting at is that there are only a handful of Indie films that have ever made record profits off of a microbudget, but isn't this small percentage what keeps Indie film makers going? It's like golf, unless you're a small percentage of pro golfers, the entire game is not really enjoyable, it's the very few great shots or the occasional hole-in-one makes the average person keep them coming back. I have to agree with you that waiting for a large budget to make a profitable movie is unrealistic. I have to respectuflly disagree with Spinner's comment (although I'm not saying she's wrong, I just don't agree with it) " High demand, to me, means that the distribution that the film gets would be comparable to films with A-list actors." This is like saying I don't consider it prime real estate unless I bought it from Donald Trump. They are two categories that are measured differently, in my mind anyway. Fireproof did actually get wide distribution in theaters and on DVD, matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it did better than "Snakes on a Plane" which had a couple of A-list actors in it. So, I think using not having a budget is a not really a good excuse for not getting distributed, sure of course it costs money, but I think Scoopiman offered a couple of alternatives to make profits off of low budget movies. I'm sure Japan is an awesome market for US based movies. Always have been.

The next one on the radar to watch is 'The Secrets of Johnathan Sperry' The producer director Rich Christiano has made Christian films for 20yrs. $750 to $800K budget shot on Super 16. A period piece-it takes place in 1970 stars Gavin Macleod (from Love Boat), Jason Panettiere and Robert Guillaume and quality support cast.

He's using Churches to sponsor prints at theaters. He's up to 100 looking to make 500 by release date Sept. 18. I saw it at a festival and it's a good family faith based film that I think is stronger that Fireproof in acting, story and technical. The trailer is at: http://www.sperrymovie.com/
Just my 2 cents

... the very few great shots or the occasional hole-in-one makes the average person keep them coming back.

I keep coming back because I like the creative endeavor. The results are completely secondary to me. My grandfather golfed because he liked the walk and the environment on the course. The results of the game were secondary for him too.

There are many reasons we do what we do. I would say if you love it and the christian market is a viable market, go for it, it'll keep you making more films. I've seen so many indies that have guns and profanity as the main focus of the film (plot and character are secondary devices in these scripts), that I'm all for pushing for cleaner family friendly content.

As far as "Making it in the industry", Living in MN, Getting a PA job would be making it for me ;) I can't leave the area to work (House, Kids in school, Wife has a tenured sped teaching position). I would love to fetch coffee for someone on set, it's a start :)

Great thread.

The whole reason that I joined this site to learn from you experts is to do faith based stuff. I don't want to get into what I'm doing personally, but according to my research there is little competition and much demand. I will not be doing "films" per say, but more like narrative documentaries (or at least that is how I understand it).

I have thought about making a Christian-themed film, be it fiction, non-fiction, documentary, whatever.

Directorik, your first post was quite a good one, I think you hit on several very valid points.

There are some very interesting points being made here. I would certainly have to agree that a new young film maker probably isn't going to get that mega million deal right off the bat. The problem with making movies is being able to fund them. Everyone who funds motion pictures has an agenda or motivation for doing so. With the success rate of independent films as a measure, small independent films are not always the best financial selection compared to other investment opportunities. While a film maker is more concerned with the content of a film the investor is usually more interested in films that are going to make money. This is true for most investors. But there ARE other types of investors out there. People also invest in film projects because they believe in a certain message of the film. The environment. Politics. Religion. The economy. Something. Now here's another fact. The message isn't heard, and investors don't get their money IF nobody ever sees the film. Therefore, more investors in films are becoming involved in post production and marketing than ever before. It is basically the same band wagon that other investors are on. It is just that this band wagon seems to be growing at a faster rate than others. Christians are the biggest non corporate spenders on agenda in the world. They represent a vast untapped market for the independent film maker and they have discovered that films are a fantastic way to get a message out to people. I mean, look, The bible in the drawer at the motel was a great idea in its time but who actually reads them now days when they can watch TV in the room or go swimming? IF they can get you into the theater, they have you as a captive audience to the Christian message for up to two full hours. In order to do that, they have to have a good script, a good presentation, and good actors that people want to see go through plot sequences. Christianity as entertainment isn't a new concept. we have always had religious music and the investors discovered that Christian Rock and Christian Country were extremely big markets. Now they have discovered US! I think its wonderful.
I mean ALL of us shoot within parameters of one kind or another. We shoot this location because we couldn't get the location we wanted or we couldn't afford it. We work with people that aren't our first choices because we couldn't get the ones we would have liked to have worked with. Instead of blowing out the top floor of an exploding skyscraper and parachuting to the ground(because the stunt was in the over a million range), our hero repels down the building because a stunt guy(the ex military friend of your brother's) snuck into the building after hours and we were able to get the shot and run away before anyone noticed we were filming!
Now imagine that some of those financial parameters are GONE! As long as we shoot within our genre,(so its another parameter) we get to shoot a film with a real budget. Look. I have NO problems with that! Can the story I wanted to tell on film be modified to fit within the new parameters? Sure, why not? I see no reason why the crack whore on the corner can't beat her drug problem because of faith elements instead of AA and still tell the detective the information that will lead him to the killer or having a man of faith be the detective. Give me the marker pen and lets do the rewrite! Otherwise the detective's character may never be seen in theaters or on DVD. Or maybe my investor just wants the film to have "FAMILY VALUES" and those are my only parameters. Invite the kids, my detective movie just became a silly comedy starring a dog named detective Weebles! I am sure that I'll be making a Christian or family values film at some point in my career because I am adaptable, I am a good writer, a good film maker and I can work within parameters.

Yeah, I was talking to someone the other day that was all excited about this genre. He's not a religious person, but figured it was a good market to tap into... I don't know...

Yeah, I was talking to someone the other day that was all excited about this genre. He's not a religious person, but figured it was a good market to tap into... I don't know...

Those few words speak volumes both about this person and about that business.

Here is my very favorite faith-based movie clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRqMlqsWmHY
complete with an amazingly Mordor-like closing musical number.

(yeah, I used to work at Gospel Films Inc. really.)

Those few words speak volumes both about this person and about that business.

What does it say to you about the person and that business?

That knaves and fools remain the building blocks of comedy.

I still don't understand.

Are you saying that a filmmaker who is not a Christian but
is excited about the commercial possibilities of the faith
based genre is a fool? Or a dishonest person?

I'm really interested in your opinion on this. Is it something
you can elaborate on?

I am amazed that this thread is still here!

And I go back and see that there are alot of disagreements with something I NEVER said.

I made the comment:
"...one day we'll all have budgets we can work with..."

For crying out loud! Someone thought I was SERIOUS??? Who would think that in reality, I'd believe that every filmmaker who wants a big budget will get one??? Geez, talk about being literal. :bang:

The planets must align in order to get a budget of ANY kind. It is INSANE to think that a budget has to be large or that everyone who wants a million dollar budget will get one. Personally, I am a proud guerilla filmmaker. And ANYONE who has known me on this site, knows that I am a big believer in low to no-budget filmmaking until you can manage a budget of some kind. A big budget doesn't indicate the importance or relevance of a film.

The ONLY real discussion I was having was regarding faith based films not what kind of budget we need for a film as an independent filmmaker. ALOT of assumptions were made toward a off-hand comment. (sigh) its as if no one really read what I wrote. :rolleyes:

...that's what I get for staying away so long....


Now, in terms of the original thread:

It seems that Tyler Perry seems to have the right idea in making faith based films. The agenda is there, but he seems to cast a wide net in that he appeals to everyone. You don't have to be Christian to enjoy his films and there is obviously a market for it, so you can draw your own conclusions.

By the way, I am going to be working on a film for the next two weekends. The pre-production meeting is tomorrow. Our budget: very low, the director is paying for alot out of his own pocket and he has been lucky enough to find people who are VOLUNTEERING their time, equipment and effort. THAT is how an independent film gets made.

...and its faith-based.

-- spinner :cool:

Rik, I've been lucky enough to muddle-through doing work I enjoyed (even when they all go kablooey) and refusing work whose propagandistic nature I objected to. I fully recognize that this is a fortunate luxury, for which I am grateful. I don't mean any personally-directed disrespect. Truly.

You know that in comedy there are never pure innocents or villains. The rogue exploits the sucker only for both to be exposed by the interaction.

As for the comment I originally quoted, consider a business based on faith yet executed by calculating odds-makers without that faith driving their allegedly-moralizing enterprise. Fill-in-the-numbers inspiration. Personally, I just could not get myself out of bed in the morning to do that.

---------------------

The Kendricks will make money, they are a brand name and with solid, existing connections to their church distribution network. New investors will be disappointed if they believe that there are consistent multipliers here, or that the market is generally open to all comers. Picture like Gibson's, or Prince of Egypt, turned out the faithful in droves and the potential TAM from that is well-saturated.

---------------------

At their heart all faith-based entertainments are not entertainment per se, but instruction. Nay, not instruction: propaganda. As with all propaganda dramas, they very much cross the fourth wall, by injecting, into their fictional construct, a (supposedly) non-fictional character: God.

Now, God as fictional character has a long history ranging from biblical epics to Rosemary & her baby. I'm sure we're all eager to see Legion, or as I like to call it, God versus CGI (my money is on CGI). There have been far more film representations of nuns over the years than just about any other female profession. All well and good. Even the most firm atheist might not go for a belief in God, but they still believe, naturally, in the existence of Christians -- fascinating, fleshy, people.

But in propagandistic pictures, the people get shut down, except as mechanisms to channel all adulation towards the center of attention, the Dear Leader whose required presence validates all outcomes. In the end, it's about Power. It's about using the mechanisms of the screen and the loudspeakers for control, control over the joyful proletariat, control over the kids bussed to the theatre by their parents at the pastor's orders, control over every part of their public and private lives.

"And until you listen to the Word of God, you will make the wrong choices, go down the wrong road, lose your family, lose your home, lose your security, lose your investments" says a character in Fireproof's predecessor Flywheel, and they're dead earnest about making the viewer believe it. I could not go home to my kids after shooting something like that. The guilt of contributing to a deeply distorted world would be too much.

YMMV.

kb

I made the comment:
"...one day we'll all have budgets we can work with..."

For crying out loud! Someone thought I was SERIOUS??? Who would think that in reality, I'd believe that every filmmaker who wants a big budget will get one??? Geez, talk about being literal. :bang:

You "literally" wrote it. Yeah, I thought you were being serious (and delusional). You could've been a 15 year old with rich parents, for all I know. I had no idea where you were coming from. I find it ironic when someone makes a statement, doesn't put "LOL" or something to indicate sarcasm, and then is surprised when someone makes a response to it.

Joker, I’m sorry you feel I thought you had personally
disrespected me. Not the case at all. I’m sorry my question was
read that way. You made a comment I found interesting and wanted
to know more about what you meant. There was nothing else in my
question. Nothing at all. Just interest.

I apologize for putting you on the defensive. That was not my
intent. I will be more careful in asking you questions in the
future.

:) Glad I didn't offend.

(and no need to pull punches around me either)

Wow, that rant was like V for Vendetta, with a lot less V words. I agree with the general sentiment though - I'd rather not make movies in a genre that I don't find an interest in, but in turn I accept the fact that during the day for a living I work with 11 people in a call center that is crammed into a kitchen by the freight elevator while a film production company produces 4 feature films just beyond the paper thin walls in what used to be our office (and will be again when they're gone). It sucks sitting there inches away from the dream, but I'd rather be a janitor for a jail than make a movie I couldn't throw my whole heart into. I'd only make a film about religion if it were akin to Life of Brian, Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter or the Jedi.

Anyway, just wanted to say this discussion is interesting. I'm making a horror-comedy right now, and this whole discussion made me think "Genre filmmaking is all about hitting the marks to please the crowd"... how you go about hitting those marks is the creative stuff, but you MUST hit them!

Now what would really interest me would be a Christian-Horror-Comedy... I can picture it now... Jesus comes back (in 2012) and befriends this nun, but when they visit this church the dead rise up and Jesus and the nun have to fend off zombies with the help of the church-goers. Jesus would shoot lasers out of his eyes that would turn the zombies into puppy dogs and rainbows, and then he and the nun would have to travel to hell to convince the devil to stop making zombies, which they would do by challenging him to a watermelon-eating contest at Patrick Stewart's house. The film would end with the nun falling in love with Jesus and as she starts f***ing his brains out she chokes on a watermelon seed and wakes up in hell for breaking her vows. The last shot would be her getting torn apart by demons and zombies. I think it would send a good message to the children about not breaking promises.

But this is why I avoid that genre, LOL.

I agree with the general sentiment though - I'd rather not make movies in a genre that I don't find an interest in,
For those of us who make our living making movies we often
don't have the option to pick and choose. If I had any other
skills at all I could choose the movies I make. But I don't. I
consider myself a work for hire filmmaker. Both as a writer
and director. I take the jobs I'm offered.

No matter what genre I'm hired for I can write a script or
direct a movie. I'd rather be making a movie than being a
janitor in a jail - or anything else.

Represents a bold foray into Christian themed Horror Filmmaking. It should be out within the next 6 to 12 months...and yes I'm biased...since I"m in it. But the segments I've seen are gripping. With Erica Leerhsen...from
the remake of "Texas Chainsaw" and "Wrong Turn II" and "Blair Witch 2" etc

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006718/

Of course, the high point in faith-based media is FOX. publicpolicypolling.com says a third of the "conservative" respondents in New Jersey feel that Obama is probably the anti-Christ. Maybe, uglysex, your shining moment in the cultural zeitgeist has arrived!