That Paranormal Activity movie looks like getting a sequal

Inevitable Talk of Paranormal Activity Sequel from Paramount

October 26, 2009
Source: LA Times
by Ethan Anderton

In its fifth weekend at the box office, surprise indie horror hit Paranormal Activity was able to knock down the reigning Halloween horror champion - the Saw franchise - off its throne to win the weekend before the holiday is officially upon us. Saw VI came in at #2, opening to an estimated $14.8 million while Paranormal Activity took in an estimated $22 million from only 1,945 theaters and pushed it's total gross up to $62.5 million. Not bad for a flick that only cost $11,000 to make. However, the risk of overkill is upon us as the LA Times says Paramount isn't past developing a sequel to the extremely low-budget smash hit.

Paramount Chairman Brad Grey said simply: "We have the rights on a worldwide basis to do Paranormal 2 and we're looking to see if that makes some sense." Looking at the numbers it wouldn't make sense if they weren't thinking about it. The studio acquired the film for just $300,000 and has spent less than $10 million on marketing. Most of the buzz for the film resulted from secret free screenings in major cities and college towns, and the Eventful.com campaign for viewers to demand the movie in their town. To say that Paranormal Activity has become a cultural phenomenon would be an understatement as the film is said to be on track to bring in over $100 million in its box office run, but with Halloween just around the corner and word-of-mouth continually spreading like wildfire, I'd say there's more bank headed Paramount's way.

And of course with success like this, any studio would be looking for more bang for their buck. But it's ridiculously difficult to capture multi-million-dollar-lightning in a bottle twice. The LA Times also points out the blunder that no one should forget when Book of Shadows, the 2000 follow-up to 1999's indie horror phenomenon The Blair Witch Project, was very poorly received and grossed just $26.4 million domestically, compared to $140.6 million for the original." And this is exactly what Paramount needs to avoid should they go into sequel territory with Paranormal Activity.

But despite all signs and numbers pointing to the greenlight for a sequel, I just wish that studios could let a successful motion picture stand on its own as a great piece of cinema and not try to turn it into a cash cow series. The magic that comes from an experience like this can't be duplicated to the fullest potential, and just because audiences were clamoring to see this film once, doesn't mean we want carbon copies of it crowding cinemas for years to come. So, Brad Grey, if you're listening, I implore you to think long and hard about what you've got here, humbly accept your success, and move on, just like they did with Cloverfield in 2008.

The Saw franchise is already on its sixth film, and I wanted to cut off my own foot to stop them back when the third one was greenlit. Don't make me or the audiences regret loving a flick for fear of a terrible sequel!

Discover More: Editorials, Movie News, Opinions

Email this • Share on Facebook  •

Related Articles

• »  Paranormal Activity Expanding Nationwide This Weekend
• »  Sound Off: Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity - Your Thoughts?
• »  Must Watch: Creepy Trailer for Paranormal Activity Debuts!
• »  Paranormal's Oren Peli Headed to Area 51 for His Next Film
• »  Paranormal Producers Sell Their Spec Script 'The Jealous One'
• »  The Weekly Moviegoer - Free to Be Scared at Midnight

Reader Feedback - 28 Comments »

1

Paranormal was the best scary movie I've ever seen… no contest. It proved that you don't need gore to be scary, and in fact, gore makes it less scary. If they make a second, they will most likely blow it because they'll put too many special effects in there.
On Saw, I don't know how those movies are still being made (I understand they make bank), but they're all terrible and discusting. The first one was OK, but the rest have been crap.

Antioch on Oct 26, 2009

2

I also heard they've purposely bought the rights so that they can sit on it.. and remake it with I'm guessing a bigger budget. The film works extremely well as it is so I've heard, so why?! I for one am pissed it never got a proper release - shame on the distributors lost money!!

dom on Oct 26, 2009

3

I really don't understand the hype surrounding this movie. I was incredibly let down by this film. It didn't help that the trailer showed all the decent scares.

On a side note, looks like someone got the attached screen above from the copy of the DVD floating around with the alternate ending to the film.

Necrothug on Oct 26, 2009

4

This movie was terrible! My fiancée hates scary movies, she doesn't even allow me to watch them when she's home. She sat through this movie calling every supposed scare. Me saying this movie was a let down is an extreme understatement.

atg2040 on Oct 26, 2009

5

….and here we go with the "Blair Witch 2", route…I sure hope Paramount leaves this sequel idea alone.

Blue Silver on Oct 26, 2009

6

The reality is you can't make a sequel off a movie like this. But you can bet your ass they're gonna try!

Script Shadow on Oct 26, 2009

7

I Wouldnt Call It The Best Scary……

ChinChillah on Oct 26, 2009

8

Movie sucked, 100 minutes of nothing but 2 people complaining. Not a single moment was scary, laaaame. This and Transformers 2 were the worst 2 movies this year.

L1A on Oct 26, 2009

9

Honestly, this movie sucked.

Stew on Oct 26, 2009

10

This movie was great. The scariest things are those which you don't see.

Rob on Oct 26, 2009

11

i agree with Rob

SC on Oct 26, 2009

12

I am so glad I have found a lot of other people who have as much distaste for this movie as I did. It was so terrible. I went in hearing "This is the scarriest movie in 10years" "Freaky and creeyp but fun" I came out with tears in my eyes from laughing so much. I couldn't help it, the terrible acting, the terrible plot and overall terrible feel behind the movie was just well……..terrible! I understand how this can be made because Horror is not only the shittiest genre but it also garners a lot of money. People will always go see these movies because they like to feel the adrenaline rush. I'm so glad I did not pay for this movie or else I would be way more pissed off then I am about the whole thing. I think this and Jennifer's Body were the worst films of the year. Both bad horror(don't defend Jen's Body, it stopped being funny and tried to be an actual horror film halfway through, which with Cody's dialogue was just god awful) both with bad acting, and overall terrible story elements. Luckily I saw them both for free and didn't end up losing 20bucks on shitty movies.

movieraider321 on Oct 26, 2009

13

The movie might have been scary… if it was condensed down to 10 minutes and thrown up on youtube.

Tyr on Oct 26, 2009

14

The horror genre loves franchising shit. The first Saw was great. So was the first Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street and Chucky.

DCompose on Oct 26, 2009

15

I love when people hate on great movies because everyone else likes them this is why critics and wannabee critics piss me off it was a great movie but please dont make a sequel please

nick on Oct 26, 2009

16

This was like Blair Witch, once you've seen it, you've seen it and after you do, you feel that it was way overhyped.

Nice little movie but when it comes to a sequel it'll be like Blair Wicth 2: "Been there, done that, moving on … "

Hattori Hanzo on Oct 26, 2009

17

The movie is scary, period. How can you lay there at night in bed and not be reminded about this experience. I guess some people don't get the fright- good for you.

Vic on Oct 26, 2009

18

First off, I want to comment on movieraider's (#12) comment on how horror is the "shittiest genre." I believe that the horror genre is the hardest genre in which to make a good movie. Comedy and action can be pretty easy considering all you do is have to do stupid stuff to make people laugh, and people laugh at really stupid crap, or blow stuff up. I'd say 98% of horror movies are crap, and I'm a huge fan of the genre.

I thought Paranormal Activity was awesome… definitely one of the best horror movies of all-time. I didn't find it scary per se, but it definitely gave me the chills and goosebumps. As for laughing at most of the movie, yes I could see that because the characters were placed in a situation most people will never experience–having a demon stalk you. So of course what they do is going to seem absurd and ridiculous. Oh and it was made for $11,000. That's superb filmmaking right there. It just goes to show that the bigger the budget, doesn't mean the better the movie. As the saying goes, "less is more."

bunny on Oct 26, 2009

19

Wasn't that scary. it was decent and obviously cheaply made. I hated Blair Witch as well so…still, Ethan has learned to write it seems although this is kind of obvious, Blair Witch was cheap and successful and the sequel stunk. It had nothing to do with the original and was filmed differently. Would they dot he same for this? Is their a sequel? No, just like Blair Witch so why bother? Because right now sequels, reboots, and remakes are the "in" thing and they need money. Better than Saw? Duh! It's fresh! Saw is being made for fans, not people just getting into it the franchise. Still…boring but expected news. I'm looking for the update that says they won't…please!!!

tra la la la la di da on Oct 26, 2009

20

@18: One of the best horror movies of all time….really?! REALLY? I have to agree with #12 here. This and Jennifer's body are the two worst movies of the year. I just don't understand how seeing a shadow move on the wall, the sheets rise, a door slamming shut (when you knew it was going to happen) can scare people. I guess watching a scene going wait for it, wait for it..there it is! Kinda takes out all the scare of the scene.

CSGabriel on Oct 26, 2009

21

The only reason why Blair Witch 2 failed was because the filmmakers behind the first weren't involved in the 2nd. Not only that, it was filmed as a hollywood style movie.

teyhtr on Oct 26, 2009

22

Whoever hates this film probably saw Saw 6 and liked it.

The Thing on Oct 26, 2009

23

worst movie of the year.

i still complain about wanting my money back daily.

DoomCanoe on Oct 26, 2009

24

Please god NO!

This movie was horrendously bad, shamefully bad. I fancy myself a fan of any and all scary movies and can see the value in pretty much any scary movie as long as it does indeed have something about that is genuinely scary. This movie? Not. a. one.

The audience constantly has to endure the loooong stretches of bad acting in between the "paranormal activity" and when that activity DOES occur its embarrassingly stupid. Wind? Really? OMG! Loud noises/footsteps?!? REALLY?

I suppose the best way to sum up this movies success and so called "quality" is with the old, "really?! REALLY? Thats what your going with?"

ugh. The American public never passes up an opportunity to consume pure garbage and call it steak.

PleaseGodNO on Oct 26, 2009

25

And this is why people you don't get caught up in the hype.

For me I enjoyed the movie, but i think its only worth watching once. I tried to watch it the second time and the scare sorta just disappeared.

Ryan on Oct 26, 2009

26

The only people that didn't like it were the ones that listened to their friends over hype it. Everyone said it was SO scary and went into thinking it had to be the scariest movie ever. A couple of my friends said, "Just go see it." So, I had little to no expectations, went at midnight, and it scared the shiznit outta me.

This was one of the smartest and creative ways to market a movie this century. Only 1 showing in the entire city of Houston, late at night, packed crowd that didn't know what was gonna happen. Once they opened the floodgates and everyone saw it whenever they wanted, all the naysayers, like the idiots that think they know everything about movies on thsi site, got to critique it.

branden on Oct 26, 2009

27

i think they could easily do a sequel with what they left out of this one

*spoiler warning*

they seemed like they were going to show more info of the girl they found online then they just changed the subject pretty much, i wish they went more into that honestly, wouldve given more story to the movie other than 45 minutes of silence 15 minutes of joking around (standby light!) and 20 minutes of scary bits.

krztov on Oct 26, 2009

28

Who didn't see this coming? Seriously now. There's no need for a sequel, Paramount let it be without downsizing it's rep with a stupid second installment, please…Thanks

Sean on Oct 26, 2009

Leave a Comment

via firstshowing.net