Christian Genre follows Direction of Horror Films

Christian Genre follows Direction of Horror Films The Christian film genre is on the same trajectory as the horror film industry was three decades ago. Horror films started with weekend production companies filming blood and guts stories that had a sole purpose of scaring people. Most film companies bought lunch for their cast and crew, but few handed out paychecks.

Halloween (1978) was the first in the genre to go mainstream and break out of the basement production mode, gaining full distribution. The Blair Witch Project (1999) stepped it up a notch with, at the time, the biggest grassroots marketing campaign in film history – putting horror films universally on the map. Numerous production companies followed suit, which increased production values and rocketed the genre into the main stay of Hollywood.

The Christian genre followed with the sole purpose of preaching a message to its audience. A surge of films emerged created by basement production companies shooting weekend films, while feeding their non-pay cast and crew. Its first mainstream release was The Passion of the Christ (2004) and its first successful grassroots marketing campaign driven by the MPAA’s bizarre rating decision was Facing the Giants (2006). This year, the genre went more universal with the latest three films (Son of God, God’s Not Dead, and Heaven is for Real) all breaking the $40MM revenue barrier.

Just as the horror film industry saw a division in filmmakers, the Christian genre has seen a significant separation between storytellers making small productions and those stepping up to compete with Hollywood. The smaller productions tainted the audience’s view of the genre with preachy stories, thin plotlines, low production values, and inexperienced talent. The few in the genre who see film as an art form have produced multi-layered stories with high production values and box office worthy talent.

The increased competition in the Christian genre is forcing inexperienced films to a four-walling release, followed by a smattering of DVD sales and a limited Netflix release. Several Christian publishers and churches have gotten behind these low budget message films, which have delivered a subculture genre that will seldom do more than breakeven. The publishers are wise in supporting this low budget market, as it has plenty of books available to translate to the screen.

The filmmakers who first see film as an art form and second as a medium to deliver a subtler message are driving budgets higher in order to deliver competitive stories for the box office. These higher quality productions require more than a weekend team to produce and the budgets have escalated to match the $6-$12MM (not including P&A) typically spent on independent films.

I’ve had the opportunity to talk to both types of filmmakers and have seen trends in their conversations. When interviewing a low-budget faith-based film director or producer, I find that they commonly pride themselves with pulling off their films on the cheap and preaching multiple messages in each product. There are a few who will also chat about how the film is God’s story and they tried to capture it just as God wanted it for His use. In most cases, the script goes through only one or two drafts because it is the message God gave the filmmaker and he doesn’t want it altered beyond what God provided.

The artistic Christian filmmaker speaks about the story and the moral it provides their audience to consider. They also speak to the production values and the artistry behind it. A few will share how God was instrumental in the project, but most allow the film to speak for itself based on its own merits. In most cases, the script goes through two dozen drafts to perfect every aspect and nuance of how the story will be portrayed on screen.

What is not said can also be revealing. The low-budget filmmaker seldom talks about techniques and artistic values, as their message will always take center stage and they rarely study the work and techniques of industry leaders. Marketing is also a taboo subject since they pride themselves on making a message film, as they are not out to exploit the market, but rather help those watching their film. In other words, they may not understand how marketing can get their message to millions of more people.

The higher budget filmmaker in the Christian genre seldom talks about the picture’s theme, as they’d prefer the audience is impacted by it as the story unfolds on the screen. Nor do they brag about how great God made the film, but instead leave that determination to the audience. They don’t talk about how they had to make financial concessions or alter things based on their lack of resources. In other words, they don’t brag about their humble situation.

I believe the two groups will separate further within the next three years. The low-budget producers will find ways to create new products for Christian television and the Internet, while the artistic producers will infiltrate the major networks and create large-scale productions for the silver screen. Eventually the lower budget market will become a feeder program for finding the next artistic talent for the higher budget market.

Just as the marketplace finally determined that faith-based films were a genre, the audiences will soon determine what films qualify for the big screen and the little screen. Production values and multi-layered stories will be the first two considerations separating the genre. The stories that are more universal and able to cross over to non-faith audiences will get priority consideration for theaters, while films that preach will be guided toward direct to video releases. These distinctions will most likely drive the marketplace within the next two years.

Copyright 2014 by CJ Powers

Network and Story Controlled

Michael Powell NCTACEO Michael Powell of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and I believe in network and story. Powell gave the keynote at the cable show in Los Angeles yesterday. His talk focused on the meddling’s of the FCC forcing regulation onto the Internet where it doesn’t belong.

“Because the Internet is not regulated as a public utility, it grows and thrives, watered by private capital and a light regulatory touch,” says Powell.

His later remarks included content providers. “In our vocation, we knit together these two very powerful human forces: network and story,” says Powell. “It’s a spectacular combination that too many take for granted.”

Today the people through private industry control the Internet. This model has allowed people of all ages, ethnicities and economic status share information and entertainment. This is unlike the government and media conglomerate controlled television and radio industries that give little access to individuals.

This blog would not be here if I had to work through a government restricted program that supports media conglomerates. Some of my word choices, style or information might be blocked or in the least restricted. The constraints would change what information would be readily available to the public.

Current access allows individuals to produce their own radio show (podcast), television show (videos), and magazines (blogs). The new FCC ruling allows media conglomerates to change the amount of data that flows between points and the speed at which it moves.

When the Internet launched, everyone enjoyed the same speed or data rate. Eventually the speed was increased based on certain criteria. Service provides soon offered wider pipes to allow for larger amounts of data and packaged pricing for a variety of speeds. The combination allowed for uninterrupted long form videos streaming and created an entirely new marketplace.

Unfortunately, the government stepped in and decided to control it all. This was done in the name of making sure everyone was able to receive content, but what it really did was give control to media conglomerates. In other words, if you come up with competitive content, they can throttle down the access to your site to make sure fewer people can connect with you.

With there being a direct correlation between government control and politics, it won’t be long before someone decides to regulate the content as well. After all, we’ve seen a long history of it in television.

The day might come when someone suggests the Internet is now owned by the government and recommends a separation between church and state. The age-old debate about religion being on television will raise its ugly head with a new twist about the Internet.

Today you are able to read this blog at normal high speeds. Due to the new regulations that will rise over the next few years, you may not be able to get to this site without exercising a lot of patience. After all, someone will decide what new cost structure is initiated to manage the volume and speed of data, something I might not be able to afford.

However, there are many ways to network with people and share my thoughts and stories. Print is still around and more affordable than ever and ingenuity suggests I will find a way to communicate stories to my audience should regulations get out of hand.

Hollywood’s ‘Noah’ Vs. Independent’s ‘God’s Not Dead’

NoahThe Hollywood and independent marketing machines are in full gear. With the recent picture Son of God and other Christian/Family films being released, two new titles pit the Hollywood system against the independents.

The Noah marketing team immediately went after controversy to create a large publicity swell by promoting that an atheist was directing the biblical account of Noah. Attracting the media to Russell Crowe’s meeting with the Pope to smooth things over followed.

Behind the scenes, Paramount gathered numerous pastors and ministers together to gain their buy-in to support the film. However, the genre of the film is not categorized as Christian, Religious, or Family, but is instead categorized as Controversial, Disaster, and IMAX – As they are not going after the evangelical market, but want them to show up.

Kevin SorboThe God’s Not Dead team is taking the opposite approach with a grassroots movement to evangelicals. The film opened with $8.6MM at the box office placing it in the top five for weekend revenue with only 780 theaters. A few publications took note of the high per screen success, but most secular media barely made mention of it.

About 300 more screens will be added to the film’s release and the team hopes that the controversial comments that Kevin Sorbo made about Bill Maher will help the grassroots movement grow. The opportunity is there, as The Hollywood Reporter stated that the film was “propaganda,” which Pure Flix can use to generate more publicity.

Freedom of Speech is one of the key elements that marketing teams use to drive more controversy, which equates to immediate box office ticket sales. Numerous articles on Noah covered the atheist’s right to make a biblical picture and God’s Not Dead will most likely strike out against key media sources that are filtering out their success.

The biggest difference between the two teams is that the Hollywood system has decades of experience generating headlines and the evangelicals have decades of practice avoiding headlines.

In one of Sorbo’s interviews he mentioned that Maher’s jokes about God were sad, which is a passive comment. To stir controversy that promotes movies, Sorbo would have to make proactive comments that attack Maher’s words or actions, not his character. It would be the verbal version of Jesus turning over the tables of the merchants at the temple because they didn’t belong there.

The next three weeks shall determine the outcome of both films and will give lead in to Randall Wallace’s (Braveheart, The Man in the Iron Mask) Heaven is for Real, which will be marketed to a mixed audience between the two pictures.

Copyright © 2014 by CJ Powers