Will 'Paranormal Activity' Teach The Movie Industry A Lesson?
from the Blair-Witch-wannabes dept
I have to admit I don't usually like scary movies, and I didn't like the Blair Witch Project at all. But I can't help but be impressed that the Blair Witch movie cost just $60,000 and pulled in a cool $140 million back in 1999. That kind of return makes me wonder why more movies aren't filmed on really small budgets. So it's somewhat surprising to see that it took about a decade for another Blair Witch-like film to get promoted by a major studio... and that a perfect candidate was almost missed. The movie Paranormal Activity was apparently filmed for just $11,000 over 7 days, and it was bought by DreamWorks/Paramount -- which originally planned to shelve the low-budget flick and re-make it with bigger stars and a much higher budget.They wised up indeed, and they also started promoting this movie in an interesting way, too -- by getting potential fans to demand it be shown in their neighborhoods and nationwide. Paramount promised to distribute the movie nationwide if a million requests for the movie were logged via Eventful. And it looks like they've already reached that goal.Goodman also admitted that DreamWorks, formerly a leg of Paramount co-headed by Steven Spielberg, had swooped in and pocketed 'Paranormal Activity' with every intention of leaving it on the shelf and remaking it with a big budget and marquee stars. Then they wised up.
As I said, I didn't like Blair Witch very much, and I'm not exactly looking forward to this movie, either. But from a pure business angle, it seems a bit shocking that movie studios wouldn't be trying to find/create more low-budget films that would appeal to moviegoers. Promoting the distribution of films in a way that actually target fans is a smart move, too. So with this example, there are about a million customers (or at least thousands, if you don't believe the Eventful numbers) willing to pay to see this movie that was made for (much) less than a $1 per fan -- and the movie studio's first gut-instinct was to try to re-make the film and drive their own costs up? It's a strange industry where insiders are always asking "how can we make a $200 million movie?" rather than how can they make good, but profitable movies, no matter what the cost. The industry seems so focused on what movies cost, that it so rarely seems to consider spending money more intelligently. Creating quality works for less, and targeting your best customers is a plan that's foreign to Hollywood, but perhaps it's about time they start exploring that plotline.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cheap, movies, paranormal activity
Companies: dreamworks, paramount
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
District 9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Hollywood took out of that was stupid twists and PG-13 ratings for a progression of insipid ghost stories (until the "torture porn" subgenre became popular as a reaction), while independent producers spoofed Blair Witch to death.
They probably won't take the successes of an intelligent sci-fi (District 9) and a scary and innovative independent movie (Paranormal) on moderate and low budgets as a sign that these are popular and saleable genres. They won't see that at least "stars", $200 million and remakes are unnecessary. Instead, they'll probably say "oooh, aliens and ghosts are popular, let's make 50 dumb rip-offs to cash in! Oh, and which 80s movies can we remake to save marketing costs?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ego
Big budgets are basically a matter of ego. Directors, writers, actors...heck just about anyone...never wants to work for less than their last project. If everyone is looking for bigger and bigger projects you get the cost inflation we have seen over the last 2 decades.
Yes, lower budgets and higher earnings could benefit everyone, but the human ego is a powerful thing that often makes us do things not in our own best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2012 looks like it'll be another "Day After Tomorrow." A lot of nice special effects and famous landmarks being destroyed with a weak plot to hold everything together. There's just so many ways you can destroy the Eiffel Tower and keep it interesting, (ID4, Day after Tomorrow, GI Joe, etc.).
While the studios are flushing tons of revenue down the toilet, I'm seeing a lot of low budget indie and fan projects that equate or surpass much of what's been released by established companies. And all I have to do is look around on the intertubes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two words. "Team America". Awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Day After Tomorrow had a plot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs Paramount?
I watched it last night too, and thought it was a pretty good film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's how it's supposed to be done, not 'think of a good Special Effect and some excuse to use it.'
Fans picked up on that and demanded more of it, movie producers won't because it effectively puts them out of a job!
If any Dave with a Camera can make a film that sells for millions why the fudge would you share that revenue with someone who tells you to add a giant spider and polar bears?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
Because there are precious few concepts that can be filmed on a shoe string budget and then go on to attract a large audience.
Hollywood wants nothing more than cheap, easily marketable films that appeal to a broad demographic. Unfortunately those films and concepts are exceedingly, ridiculously, astronomically, rare.
But from a pure business angle, it seems a bit shocking that movie studios wouldn't be trying to find/create more low-budget films that would appeal to moviegoers.
They tried that. The moviegoers voted with their pocket books and went to Spiderman 7 and Shrek The Fifteenth instead. As a result, most of the sub-studios that specialized in lower budget "indie" fare are now gone. Paramount Vantage, Warner Independent, Picturehouse etc. Even Miramax, the one time poster child for these sorts of things, is balancing on the brink of disaster alongside it's blood brother, The Weinstein Company.
You are not suggesting to Hollywood anything it hasn't already tried.
The "independent revolution" that everyone was so sure was just around the corner with the advent of cheap digital video equipment and processing -- never arrived. Anyone that was holding their breath in anticipation is now dead.
Even if the equipment were free, the talent is still rare.
Hollywood is stuck in the idea bigger budget means that a movie will make greater returns.
Big budget "event films" DO have the best odds of making the biggest returns. You make it sound like they're on a snipe hunt, lol. Go look at the box office top 100. It's 99.9% big budget blockbuster and big budget Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks cartoons.
If any Dave with a Camera can make a film that sells for millions why the fudge would you share that revenue with someone who tells you to add a giant spider and polar bears?
"Any Dave" can't. Very, very few "Daves" can. Talent will never be democratized.
I do hope that one day a "Dave" will refuse the studio's offers and release his low budget blockbuster independently through the internet. More than likely it would put an end to a lot of the idealist nonsense you see around here or at least make it harder to say with a straight face...
But I would love to be proved wrong. Obviously it would be in "Dave's" best interest to cut the studios and middlemen out entirely and release it himself. Unfortunately, there's no proof of that being a realistic scenario anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and this is why hollywood is doomed.
a generalized product, with a large budget and targeted at a large audience, will get downloaded on a large scale because everyone knows about it and it's easy to find.
lower budget films targeted at smaller groups of people dedicated to the film's success will more easily turn a profit due to the lower budget, AND not be downloaded on as large a scale because it doesn't appeal to that large of an audience. if the audience is really excited about the film, they may also buy merchandise associated with the film.
there are a handful of blockbuster event films i go see every year, mostly big sci-fi/fantasy releases with my friends or cartoons with the kids, so there is no reason to stop making those films. but for every dark knight or watchmen, there are a hundred other movies that my friends and i don't want to gamble on. we'll either wait for it on netflix, or just download it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoestring budgets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shoestring budgets
And ultimately, if you assume the odds of success for a movie is relatively constant -- wouldn't you want to try to lower costs instead of betting "big" all the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shoestring budgets
Free today doesn't mean free tomorrow.
if you assume the odds of success for a movie is relatively constant
It isn't. Fairly crappy movies with no visual effects, no stars, and little beyond being a movie is still a crappy movie. A crappy hollywood blockbuster with special effects, name stars, and a high end musical score including hit song support will do much better. There is no indication anywhere that the odds of success are equal.
Making a basically incorrect assumption pretty much blows the rest of the deal out the window.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shoestring budgets
It depends on how you define success. Crappy movies with no budgets won't lose much money. Crappy movies with HUGE budgets are financial disasters for the producers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shoestring budgets
On what, exactly, are you basing this assumption? Any proof or just a blind assumption that everything has to be charged for directly? Even if they stop being free for professional applications, they're likely to be cheaper than traditional media.
"Suddenly, the 25 million dollar TV and radio budget becomes a 25 million TV, Radio, and social media budget."
Isn't what they should be doing now anyway? Spending the same money on 3 major advertising tactics rather than 2 seems like a no-brainer to me...
"Fairly crappy movies with no visual effects, no stars, and little beyond being a movie is still a crappy movie."
A fairly crappy movie with a big budget, lots of stars and little beyond being a movie is still a crappy movie. The difference is that if that movie costs $200 million, they have a lot more to lose than if they spent $20 million.
"A crappy hollywood blockbuster with special effects, name stars, and a high end musical score including hit song support will do much better."
...but the risk is higher. If you produce a movie on the cheap and it fails, it will probably recoup its losses eventually on the DVD and TV markets. Larger failures cause massive problems and can bring down entire studios - look at what happened with The Golden Compass, which killed New Line just a couple of years after making massive profits with the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. A lower budgeted movie would not have put the studio in any danger.
On the other hand, a non-crappy low budget movie with no stars and no visual effects can clean up at the box office if correctly targeted and made (e.g. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Blair Witch). It might be more difficult as it can't fall back on the eye candy and stars that the "blockbusters" do when they're crappy, but it's far from impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The idea that popularity isn't directly correlated with production cost isn't new either. Survivor ushered in a decade-long deluge of reality TV shows that is still going on today. I see these shows as sort of "TV junk food" compared to the fine dining that is the greatest show ever to air on a TV set, LOST. I hope there's still a market for precedent-setting big budget TV like that in the future, because I would give away every reality show on TV and sell Ryan Seacrest into slavery for another season of LOST.
The trick with all of this, of course, is to have your returns far exceed your production PLUS marketing budget. If I recall right, marketing budgets for The Blair Witch Project substantially exceeded the production cost of the film (but were still dwarfed by the monster box-office returns). Viral and word-of-mouth marketing are good, because they let the crowd do your marketing for you. The best is when your word-of-mouth marketing creates a train of hype with momentum enough to barrel through the actual mediocrity of your product, as with Blair Witch and Snakes on a Plane.
The real difficulty, I think, is that nobody's ever quite figured out the trick for predictably manufacturing the perfect storm of budget, product, and marketing. You think nobody in Hollywood ever thought "hey, let's make a really fantastic low-budget movie that we only have to spend $1M marketing to get a $300M box office?"
Right now, there are probably dozens of amazing independent and low-budget movies sitting on shelves or going direct-to-DVD that will never really "catch on." There are lots of marketing dollars being thrown at movies that will never recoup those dollars. There are marketing firms designing extensive "viral marketing" campaigns that will never reach anything like a critical mass. Even with hindsight, it may not be possible to answer the simplest of questions: "why?"
Just "make a great movie" doesn't really explain it, since you can make crappy movies that are nonetheless tremendously profitable (*cough*Titanic*cough*). There have also been many great movies (big and small budget) that seem to have had quite a bit of trouble even breaking even. It's unclear that Donnie Darko, despite being widely known, ever made a lot of money (according to Box Office Mojo, it didn't in theaters although it may have in DVDs). Primer one of my favorite movies and with a similarly confounding plot, was made for an unbelievable $7000 and many years of the life of its Writer/Director/Star/Producer/Composer/Editor. Yet it's unclear that it was ultimately very profitable either after you factor in marketing, the cost of prints, etc.
Luckily it looks like there is still some room for big and small budget films, and unluckily some good films will get overlooked and some terrible films will be huge successes.
But none of this is new to Hollywood. If you can come up with the magic formula that lets you reliably construct profitable movies, you'd be the first in a very long litany of people who have tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reality? For $1 or for $100 million, the important part of the game is the story and how it resonates with the people who will watch that movie. Waterworld was the most money for nothing, where as a movie like Clerks was not much money at all but it resonated with a fan base.
It's not about money, it's about stories, and there are so few good stories out there that Hollywood is down to remaking old movies because they have more confidence that a rehash movie with resonate with more people than some random film.
Dreamworks bought this movie not for the movie, but for the idea, the script, etc.
Movies and music both have reached a point where many feel that "everything had been done", and it gets harder and harder to come up with anything original.
It's easy as hell to pin the greedy tail on the Hollywood donkey, but that just isn't the case. Cost isn't the key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ummm, so wrong. There are tons and tons of really good stories out there.
"that Hollywood is down to remaking old movies because they have more confidence that a rehash movie with resonate with more people than some random film."
That's right on the money. It's about risk. There are a ton of great stories, but it's not always easy to tell which of the great stories will have mass-market appeal. The low-risk approach is to do what worked last year.
The problem is this: if you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, you must have great mass-market appeal to make a profit. The risk is enormous. So the intelligent thing to do is to remake already proven sellers.
What Mike is getting at here, I think, is a complete reframing of thought. If you put up a few tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of millions, the impact of a loser is lower, so the risk is lower. You'd be able to actually make movies that use the unproven, but great stories that are out there. You could even make great movies that -- although wonderful stories -- appeal to particular niches of interest rather than the broadest possible audience. You could even make many more movies per year and mitigate your risk over more titles -- a bit like book publishers do.
"Movies and music both have reached a point where many feel that "everything had been done""
If that's the case, then those people need to leave the industry because they have become far too myopic to do any more good. All they can see is what they've already seen. The music field alone is rife with more novelty and excellent innovation now than at any time I can remember except, maybe, the '50s. It's just not happening in the traditional "industry."
It's never true that "everything has been done" (except insofar as "there is nothing new under the sun" -- but there's always a new way to do the old things.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does Techdirt stand up for? A movie made with older blues music. Remix and mashup artists. Ignoring patent and copyright. By those standards, pretty much everything had been done, and all that is left to do is remix it, repaint it, rename it, or mash it up.
There are very, very few good stories out there. There are plenty of stories, but very few good ones, and certainly even fewer that coudl easily be converted to the big screen.
Even fewer of them could be done for a very low budget. Heck, even the "Paranormal Activity" movie would cost a ton if it was done just paying scale to everyone. The only way movies are made cheap is when everyone does it for nothing. Again, it's another one of the common threads around Techdirt, the concept that you can replaced paid professionals with unpaid amateurs and get the same product. It just isn't true, there are hundreds of crappy amateur movies made every year that nobody would want to see. A couple of good ones a year are perhaps best classified as exceptions that prove the rule.
Remember, technically, we can all build our own houses, we can all catch and cook our own food, we can build and maintain our own cars. Most of us are wise enough to let the professionals do it, and pay them for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ignoring patent and copyright? Not what Techdirt stands for. Unpaid amateurs producing content identical to professionals? Not what Techdirt asserts at all. Trying to get stuff without paying for it? Not Techdirt's position.
Although, we agree that "amateurs" (what do you mean by amateur, anyway?) produce hundreds of crappy movies a year, with only a few gems, I would also assert that "professionals" have a very similar track record. Most "professional" movies (and music) are complete crap. Some are very good, and a few are excellent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only way you can truly believe that is if you stick to the homogenised crap churned out by Hollywood as "blockbusters". There's plenty of great original stories being told, they just don't get to show at the multiplexes on the same scale as 80s remake #1265 and generic romantic comedy #84547.
I'd counter that there's actually very few stories that need over $100 million to tell, and that most can be told for less than $40 million. If Hollywood stops spending $200 million to tell a $50 million story, there will be less problems and hopefully more District 9s in our future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
... and should be. In my years as a (successful, thank you very much) enterpreneur, I've learned one or two things. One of which is that having too much money available is more harmful than having too little. It skews your view and leads to an inferior product.
Nearly all of the movies I consider excellent story-wise have been relatively low budget ones. Many of these have already been mentioned. Primer, Pi, District 9, Cube (the original, not so much the sequels,) and etc. Primer lacked terribly in terms of production values -- but the story was so fantastic that it didn't matter.
If any of these had been made with a large budget and big-name stars -- i.e., given the "Hollywood treatment", they would not have been nearly as good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movies
Not only that but I'd add that this must happen within approved distribution channels. Control the creatives at one end and control dissemination at the other end. Mostly, it's all about control.
It's easier to pump 200 million productions from a handful of players to 3000+ screens than it is to allow indies to showcase works to 300-500 screens. The last thing they want is for the creatives to think they don't need the majors in order to show their works. So, they buy and shelve until the creative has signed the 'right' deals with them. Otherwise, it stays shelved.
They haven't managed to outright kill the indies but they are getting there. More of them are falling into the investment banking big budget production model that a limited release requires.
Again, nothing gets into the multiplexes without first paying the piper err... major studios. Once, you understand this then the rest is what is called a barrier to entry.
Much better for all if a 200 million dollar production breaks even than to risk losing the marketplace to those commie creatives. Next, you'll expect them to retain rights and offer variable pricing.
Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movies
For example, Paranormal Activity is listed on boxofficemojo.com as already having made $9 million, from an initial budget of $11k. Even allowing $2 million for prints, advertising, etc., it's made back over 4x its costs already. Generally speaking, studios get back approximately 55% of the final gross, so the movie will have made a 2-300% profit even if it fails to take any more money, and that's virtually impossible now. Given the largely positive reaction from audiences, it's likely to have a good run on DVD after the theatrical run, meaning even more profit. I doubt it will be as successful as Blair Witch (which grossed $140 million domestically on a $60k budget), but there's no doubt that it'll make back many times its cost.
District 9 was a moderately budgeted sci-fi movie with a budget of $30 million. It's made back $115 domestically so far, so it's almost certainly in the black with 55% net revenue even before international sales are factored in. Positive fan reaction means DVD sales will probably be strong. Investors will probably make back several times their outlay.
On the other hand, let's look at one of this year's more "successful" blockbusters, Transformers 2. The movie had a production budget of $200 million and has made $405 million domestically. Given the 55% figure above, the movie would only just be breaking even domestically. But, the movie also had such a marketing blitz before its release that it'll probably only just breaking even with international revenue. The film also had a lukewarm audience reaction, so DVD sales may be disappointing. Remember, this is one of the *more successful* blockbusters. For every Dark Knight, there's several movies like Meet Dave ($11 million on a $60 million budget) or Land Of The Lost ($49 million on a $100 million budget).
It's a strange way of thinking. On the one hand, you have smaller movies that are capable of making back several times their outlay without a huge amount of effort (and gold to be had for a rare phenomenon). On the other hand, you have studios willing to bet $200 million + marketing + distribution in an industry where the biggest-selling product of all time (Titanic) only made $600 million domestically. Yeah, there's incredible profits to be had if you're lucky, but most aren't.
I understand the mentality of gambling for higher profits, but this is what's so frustrating as a non-American movie fan. I get restricted from seeing the movies when I want to (Up has only just been released over here, for example), despair at the obvious crap that's being released instead of movies I want (I have to wait till February for Ponyo, but a remake of Fame is out already? Joy...), then have to endure "waaah! piracy!" when they bet on the wrong horse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ITS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want some pie
And the problem with the whole indie film movement was that it got bought by Hollywood. All the good talent sold out to make big budget action and comic book movies, and the studios locked up all the distribution channels with their indie arms, which are now being shut down since they have such a firm grip on who gets to watch what movies and when. Making indie movies was just their way of getting into the business - it wasn't a business by itself. Napoleon Dynamite might have been an indie hit, but it was Fox and Paramount that distributed the movie, and they likely nabbed a lot of those profits. The money didn't go to making more indie films.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want some pie
True, and it's a tremendous shame. I think this fact alone goes a long way to explain the dismal state of the movie industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowded marketplace
Another thing to take note is how few of the big budget films are in the same genre as Paranormal. Budgets north of $30 million are rare for horror films these days.
Also someone mentioned that Hollywood tried and failed the small movie thing. I disagree. The small movie arms of the big companies were done for PR. They were all gambling on prestige films to win big with critics and academy awards. Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, Clerks, and Pulp Fiction appealed to viewers before they were told to like them by critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowded marketplace
Youtube serials will eat into the TV show market, and TV shows will eat into the movie market.. The technology and costs of production are getting cheaper, and so the market for visual content expands and grows.
I seriously think that animated films are going to be the next big thing as more story-tellers figure out how to use cheap animation to bring plotlines to audiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will it teach them a lesson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
No. Absolutely not. Not everything can be marketed virally. Moreover, Hollywood would fuck it up if they tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
down and dirty pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Box Office
I DO love horror movies, and I did like Blair Witch. This looks interesting, though I won't let the hype inflate my expectations. I intend to see it tomorrow night, as much for curiosity as anything.
It's amazing to see how far something like this can go on pure word of mouth. If the studios would focus on quality rather than dollars spent and connecting with fans rather than spending millions on TV-advertising campaigns, they could be a lot more profitable. And, for once, quality would float to the top. Everyone would be better off.
Let's hope Paranormal Activity has taught the studio a valuable lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paranormal Activity
However, I will admit that it had some good scary moments in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
45 pounds to make a horror movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweeeeeeeet
Am I the only one that feels sick in the stomach with Michael Bay-ish "blockbusters" like Suckformers 2 or the new Friday the 13th. They should call that brand "startlers" cause you never think about the story afterwards or shit your pants when your 35 year old house starts making noises and you can't sleep.
Crap! I'm taking extra sleeping pills tonight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.Paranormal The Movie
Paranormal, the latest supernatural thriller from Cross Shadow Productions, (the
creators of the Dove.org approved, best-selling BMG releases: Pray and Pray 2:
The Woods) will be available in stores nationwide January 26th 2010. The 2009 Mrs. America is starring in it.
See more information and trailers at:
www.ParanormalTheMovie.com
Following the success of family-friendly suspense/thriller The Exorcism of Emily
Rose (Sony Pictures), comes a riveting supernatural thriller in the vein of the hit
SyFy television series, Ghost Hunters and Frank Peretti's House (Roadside
Attractions / Lionsgate).
Paranormal follows best-selling, self-made novelist Greg Evans struggling through the worst case of writer's block in his award-winning career. In a desperate search for
inspiration, Greg quickly finds himself immersed in a world he is not prepared to face.
Turning to a group of paranormal investigators, Greg and the ghost hunting team search for proof and answers, yet are unaware they are about to have an experience of a
lifetime! None will leave the way they came. Paranormal will peel back the supernatural curtain to reveal how The TRUTH will EXPOSE the darkness!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UR GAY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UR GAY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I could have done it I would have asked for my money back.
I think people should be warned what type of film this is before hand,it was terrible!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I could have done it I would have asked for my money back.
I think people should be warned what type of film this is before hand,it was terrible!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]