Home

This article was peer reviewed. 

Introduction

On the periphery of the loud and attention-hoarding “streaming wars” playing out between the likes of Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Disney, WarnerMedia and NBCUniversal, there operates a substantial collection of independent subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services that quietly and (for the most part) successfully avoid direct competition with the major players. One such example is veteran B-movie director/producer Charles Band’s Full Moon Features. This marginal but commercially resilient platform specializes in what Jeffrey Sconce called “paracinema”1: its library is dominated by low-brow, low-budget horror, sci-fi, fantasy and soft-core pornography films. This content lacks traditional high-brow symbolic value, or ‘cultural capital’2  but is rich in subcultural capital for cult cinema fans. Full Moon Features is the latest endeavour for Band, in what has been a long and storied career directing and producing films since the early 1970s. In this article, we examine Band’s status as an auteur figure via Full Moon Features, and how streaming is complicating the concept of auteurism in new and academically significant ways.

Mainstream, or what we have previously3 classified “first tier” SVODs, are spending and charging significant amounts of money to adopt a generalist “conglomerated niche”4 approach that tries to cater to every viewer and ensure that “your Netflix is not my Netflix”. Catherine Johnson has shown that while the “online TV industry is inherently ‘messy’”, there is value in mapping it according to both its “business origins’ and ‘core businesses”.5 As such, we argue that grouping SVODs in tiers according to their ownership status provides a useful and illuminative framework for analysis. Below the first tier there exists “second tier” SVODs like Hayu (NBCUniversal), Acorn TV, Shudder and Sundance Now (AMC), Crunchyroll (WarnerMedia), and BritBox (BBC) that are subsidiaries of larger corporations, as well as independent or marginal “third tier” SVODS like like MUBI, Nobudge, iwonder, ConTV, Dove Channel, Fandor, Screambox and Full Moon Features, which operate separately from major media conglomerates. Both second and third tier SVODs tend to be genre specific, playing the role of a “one-stop-shop” for distinct interest groups by either aggregating non-exclusive content or exploiting dust-gathering back catalogues. For example, Full Moon Features is itself a subsidiary of Band’s Full Moon Studios. Unlike first tier SVODs, niche second and third tier services employ a range of specialist strategies and approaches to SVOD that undermine the assumption that the contemporary streaming landscape is wholly defined by a few monolithic but homogenous media providers. 

Whereas large, mainstream SVOD services have no clear author beyond their corporate ownership, independent platforms like Full Moon Features can more easily be promoted and understood as the creative work of a single owner-auteur like Charles Band. As a director, Band’s work is stylistically and generically varied enough as to make a conventional claim of auteurship difficult. He has directed sci-fi action films such as Parasite (1982) and Trancers (1984), the superhero film Doctor Mordrid (1992), children’s films including Prehisteria! (1993) and since the early 2000s has focused on stoner horror comedies such as Evil Bong (2006) and Gingerdead Man (2005). However, as the owner and public face of Empire International Pictures (EIP) in the 1980s, and various iterations of Full Moon since the 1990s, Band’s stamp of authorship is hard to deny. In this capacity, Band is the madcap, inventive B-movie mogul, skilfully navigating the changing US and European film markets, moving first from feature film to VHS, then to DVD and finally to SVOD. Band’s Full Moon Features exemplifies the often-overlooked diversity of the online ecology today, particularly the role and agency of the subscriber as artistic patron.

Charles Band: Cult auteur

Trancers

Doctor Mordrid

Prehysteria!

Evil Bong

Distinct from his own proclivities towards cultural snobbishness and high-class taste, Andrew Sarris would still have been unlikely to designate Charles Band an auteur in the traditional sense, as a director in whose work we can identify an abundance of “technique… personal style… and interior meaning”.6 Nevertheless, we argue that Band’s prolific and extensive filmmaking career, which spans theatrical release, video, DVD and now streaming, can be usefully examined through the lens of auteurism. Band is, if nothing else, a very recognisable name and personality in the B-film industry. Authors Dave Jay, William S. Wilson and Torsten Dewi have already published two books chronicling Band’s career: Empire of the ‘B’s: The Mad Movie World of Charles Band (2014) and It Came From the Video Aisle!: Inside Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment (2017)7, while a third book on Band’s career co-written by Adam Felber with Band himself is due out in 2021.8 As film journalist Keith Phipps notes, Band’s unconventional career has included ”directing dozens of films and producing hundreds more, sometimes operating out of L.A., other times out of Italy, and still others in Romania, where he became the first American producer to open a production facility in the country after the fall of the Iron Curtain.” 9 Though his name is associated with the horror genre, Band’s work as a director has been marked by generic variety, demonstrated by the illustrative examples we examine in detail here: Trancers (sci-fi), Doctor Mordrid (superhero), Prehysteria (children’s fantasy), and Evil Bong (horror comedy). As an avowed B-movie maker, any formal or artistic consistencies in Band’s work are best understood as the result of creativity, opportunity, and expedience. For example, a number of the films he directed or produced, including the aptly named Castle Freak (Stuart Gordon, 1995), are set in an around a medieval Italian castle, simply because Band himself owned and lived in the castle at the time of production.10 Likewise, Band frequently collaborated with his father, director Albert Band on his early films, and often tasks his brother Richard Band with scoring the films he directs and produces. This kind of collaborative consistency lends some formal uniformity to the films released by EIP and Full Moon, whether or not Band himself directed them.

We argue that Band can be understood as a “cult auteur” 11, which Matjias and Sexton describe as “a variation on more “classical” auteurism” which prioritises “the idea of a lone, heroic figure battling against the odds to create works that are taken to heart by outsider audiences.”12 However, Band’s career and creative output are not quite the same as other directors who have also been labelled cult auteurs. Band’s inherent (and at times very successful) commerciality differentiates him from someone like Ed Wood, whose commercial and creative failure is key to his ironic appeal among fans.13 At the same time, Band’s work lacks the counter-cultural stance of his B-movie contemporary and “neo-independent exploitation filmmaker”14 Lloyd Kauffman, co-founder of the proudly anti-mainstream Troma Entertainment, whose 2021 tagline reads “45 years of disrupting media”. As a director, Band’s films are marked by a self-deprecating, irreverent comedic tone, and (with the exception of his films aimed explicitly at children) a tendency to inject body horror, sex or both into genres where those elements are not common. In this way Band’s auteurist stamp is to reimagine more conventional mainstream genre films through a B-movie lens. 

Despite Band’s name being closely associated with horror, almost all of his films demonstrate some degree of generic hybridity. For example, one of Band’s earliest films, Trancers — which would later become one of Full Moon’s longest-running and most successful franchises — is a bizarre mashup of a sci-fi time-travel premise and a zombie horror film. In Trancers, Tim Thomerson portrays Jack Deth, a time-travelling police officer on the hunt for psychic villain Martin Whistler who can create a kind of sleeper-agent zombie called trancers. Its premise resembles The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984), but incorporates a greater degree of humour, irony and violence, as well as a largely camp tone in its execution. 

 

Trancers

Trancers

Band’s penchant for B-movie humour and sex is carried across into his early-90s superhero film Doctor Mordrid (co-directed with his father Albert). This film was originally planned as a licenced adaptation of Marvel Comics’ Doctor Strange character, but when this arrangement fell through Band proceeded with the film anyway, altering the narrative to distinguish it from the comic. In Doctor Mordrid, frequent EIP and Full Moon film star Geoffrey Combs plays a fourth-dimensional wizard assigned to protect Earth from his evil nemesis Kabal. The film largely conforms to expectations of the superhero genre, but also diverges from it in strange ways, attributable to Band’s influence. 

As superheroes have dominated the comic book medium, Burke argues the characters and the generic expectations that accompany them have come to define most movies adapted from or associated with comics as well.15 Burke’s observations can extend to include expectations for superheroes and comic books on the TV screen. Viewers expect a heightened reality within a diegetic world which allows for superheroes to exist. Doctor Mordrid’s world certainly includes heightened elements — it concludes with Mordrid and Kabal duelling via two magically animated dinosaur skeletons — but given the budgetary restrictions placed on it, Band reimagines the magical, super heroic world as one largely hidden from view. Further, Band inserts situational domestic comedy into the superhero genre template by depicting Mordrid as the secretive landlord of an apartment building. As such, a significant portion of the movie involves his new neighbour and love interest Samantha Hunt attempting to uncover his secrets, while becoming embroiled in other neighbours’ petty squabbles over noise and animals being allowed in the building. Band further diverges from expectations of a superhero film by injecting nudity into the otherwise chaste genre. In particular, Doctor Mordrid features an extended sequence where the villain Kabal seduces a fully-nude female acolyte, only to drain her blood for an alchemical ritual. The presence of this scene in a film which could otherwise plausibly be targeted at a family home video audience is striking and recalls Band’s involvement in exploitation cinema and soft-core pornography more generally. Likewise, Band also employs a striking degree of body horror when depicting a victim of Kabal’s evil magic, whose eyes have been burned from their sockets. The grisly wounds are rendered using tactile, fleshy practical effects which recall the more explicit gore associated with frequent Band collaborator, director Stuart Gordon in H.P. Lovecraft adaptations Re-animator (1985) and From Beyond (1986).

Doctor Mordrid

Doctor Mordrid

Doctor Mordrid

Band’s first foray into children’s entertainment, Prehysteria!, was the result of a lucrative deal between Full Moon and Paramount pictures which saw Band’s films reach a wide audience via home video release. In Prehysteria!, a recently widowed father and his two children come into possession of several magical, miniature dinosaur eggs which hatch into stop-motion mini-dinosaurs. Over the course of the film, the family fends off the villainous businessman Rico Sarno who wants to capture the dinosaurs for scientific purposes. While Prehysteria! lacks the sex and violence prevalent in the majority of Band’s films, it shares a focus on stop motion and miniature effects with Doctor Mordrid and other successful Full Moon films such as Puppetmaster, Dollman (Albert Pyun, 1991) and Demonic Toys (Peter Manoogian, 1992).

Prehysteria!

While the previous three Band films examined here represent the popular and commercial height of Full Moon (both theatrical and home video), Band continued to direct as Full Moon moved into the DVD business, and its budgets decreased as a result. Since 2000, the company has focused on ultra-low-budget exploitations in the comedy horror genre. Full Moon’s two dominant franchises during this period have been the Ginger Dead Man series, and the Evil Bong films. While Evil Bong suffers from less formal invention than earlier examples of Band’s work, his humour, camp tone and injection of sex and violence into a variety of genres is still present. In the case of Evil Bong, Band revives the 1980s sex comedy genre, and combines it with a focus on marijuana-based humour and gory horror. The first Evil Bong film introduces the titular haunted piece of smoking paraphernalia (its name is abbreviated to “EeBee” for later films in the series), which can transport anyone who smokes from it into a hellish alternate dimension called “Bong world” where they are devoured by a variety of monsters 

Evil Bong

Evil Bong

Putting aside subjective value judgements about the quality of Band’s directorial output, his consistency of tone, content, and a tendency to blend conventional genres with an exploitation films approach makes an auteurist framework a productive way to analyse the Full Moon owner’s work. This is especially so when we expand the focus of our analysis to take in not just the films he has directed, but his larger contribution to film through his ownership of EIP, Full Moon and his prolific producorial efforts. This “Charles Band stamp” also extends to his SVOD Full Moon Features, but this is complicated by the realities of the contemporary global SVOD ecology and its affordances. 

Third tier SVODs: Auteurism and patronage

It is generally assumed that the contemporary streaming landscape is wholly controlled by a few monolithic media or technology conglomerates, and that the modus operandi of these is to both collate their catalogues into brand hubs or genre categories, and present subscribers with titles that are personalised and unique to them within these. Netflix’s recommendation system, for example, is often celebrated because it “embod[ies] the “wisdom of crowds” – the notion that many ordinary decision makers can produce collective judgments superior to those of experts. The popular concept offers an appealing corrective to self-serving institutions and self-appointed authorities telling people what’s best.’16 This approach has obviously proved quite successful for first tier SVODs for some time, but there also appears to be evident value in supplementing algorithms with human curation. Hulu has long provided editor-curated collections in compiled and updated Hulu Picks lists. In 2019, Netflix tested human-driven curation with the launch of thematic “collections” selected by members of its creative teams. At launch, HBO Max supplemented machine-made recommendations with dedicated collections of titles curated by WarnerMedia editors and celebrities. This shifting dual strategy of personalisation and socialisation can arguably be seen as a response to frustrations with the paradoxically impersonal nature of algorithmic recommendations. It’s also an approach that often defines the third tier.

A common feature of third tier SVOD services is that they are regularly centered around a primary authorial figure. In terms of reach, MUBI is likely the most commercially successful third tier SVOD and appropriately enough, (given it was called The Auteurs until 2010) the most auteur-centric. Founded by Efe Çakarel (who remains chief curator) in 2007, MUBI had amassed 9 million subscribers across 195 countries by 201917; this base purportedly doubled during the pandemic18. It has been described as the ”anti-Netflix”19 because it initially featured a rotating library of only thirty art-house and classic films at a time, available for AU$9.99 per month, but has since expanded into a more traditional growing SVOD library, with one new film added every day. MUBI justifies its curatorial selections through an online magazine Notebook as well as detailed editorial copy and biographical details for each film. It remains firmly connected to and branded around Cakarel. Describing several second and third tier SVODS including MUBI, Smits and Nikdel note that these services “differentiate themselves from the likes of Netflix and Amazon by establishing a distinctive identity where refinement of choice, the expertise of taste judgements and… the appeal to a discerning and highbrow clientele take precedence”20. While not all third tier SVODs address their audiences as “highbrow”, there is a presumption of discernment. 

Like MUBI, Full Moon Features is centred around a primary authorial figure: in this case the company’s founder Charles Band. Band is named in promotional materials for the portal and appears in person on several behind-the-scenes featurettes and introductions available in its catalogue. In contrast to the global variety of MUBI’s catalogue, as its name suggests, Full Moon Features’ streaming library is mostly comprised of feature films produced by Full Moon and its various subsidiaries over the last three decades (such as Puppet Master (Schmoeller, 1989) and Castle Freak (Gordon, 1995)), as well as acquisitions from the libraries of other cult film companies such as Blue Underground, which specializes in European horror and exploitation cinema. The service also houses a limited range of TV series produced by Full Moon, but which originally aired elsewhere including William Shatner’s Halloween Fright Nights (SyFy, 2002) and Elvira’s 10 Nights of Halloween (Hulu, 2014).

Full Moon Features’ SVOD web interface

If Band himself can be considered a “cult auteur”, we consider Full Moon Features to be a “cult” SVOD service. Cult can be defined as a mode of enthusiastic and attentive reception given to culturally marginalized media genres including sci-fi, horror and fantasy. Defining and exploring cult media has been of particular interest to cinema studies21 and TV studies22, as well as fan studies23. Describing the horror genre’s close relationship to cult, Steffen Hantke notes that 

“cult” may be defined by practices of production or reception, by authorial self- representation or marketplace presence. It may be contested among specific demographic audiences vying for (sub-) cultural capital. But in the final instance, there is an insistence that cult horror takes place outside the mainstream – that it distinguishes itself from the smooth, slick products of commercial filmmaking.24 

In summary, the term “cult” works as a classifier for media which has gained a loyal subcultural following, because of either textual attributes or industrial and cultural circumstances. These fans actively and enthusiastically participate in identity construction using cult media. Matt Hills problematizes the “authentic” relationship between cult media and its fans by arguing ”cult fans have become one niche market amongst others to be surveyed, understood, and catered for.”25

 Mainstream media may have co-opted the potential of cult fandom, but in terms of its small scale and hyper-niche appeal, Full Moon Features might be as far from mainstream and as authentically subcultural a platform as the contemporary US commercial media landscape allows. Full Moon Feature’ status as a cult SVOD is reflected in the ways in which it addresses and engages its small but loyal user base.

Full Moon Features’ library

Full Moon Features’ library

At first glance, Full Moon Features seems to effectively exploit the cultish image of Band as a kind of “curator-as-auteur”,26 suggesting Band’s varied tastes and commercial endeavours would result in a treasure trove of paracinematic content. Promotional material for the service describes it as a “virtual ticket to a mind blowing three-ring circus of horror, sci-fi, fantasy & cult movie entertainment, retro favorites and lost classics!”27  However, and perhaps ironically, Band’s own financial ups and downs throughout the years mean that many of the films for which he, EIP and Full Moon are best known, including much of director Stuart Gordon’s work, are not available to stream through Full Moon Features. They have been licensed elsewhere. However, Full Moon Features’ catalogue also includes an eclectic range of content from the libraries of other cult film companies as well as Full Moon’s now-defunct children’s entertainment arm, Moonbeam. For several years, it also included films from Band’s softcore pornography imprint Surrender Cinema which focused “on erotica made for singles and couples”.28 As of late 2021, the more explicitly pornographic films in Band’s catalogue have been spun off into new dedicated SVOD named Exotic Movie House.

Despite its auteur-led approach, it may seem like Full Moon Features is employing something of a “kitchen-sink” approach to cult media catalogues, rather than purposeful and careful curation. However, the service exists as a supplementary option for movie and TV viewers who are already interested in the larger Full Moon brand and perhaps not being catered to by the generalist first tier SVODs. It also drives further engagement with other aspects of the larger company and helps fund Band’s various creative experiments and productions. Full Moon’s Deadly Ten project is a particularly useful example of this more experimental tendency. Marketing copy for the project promises “ten original new Full Moon features will be filmed back-to-back all over the world and fans will have an exclusive, all-access virtual pass to watch them being produced here, LIVE in real time”.29 Of the ten features, most are either remakes of films produced by Band under previous iterations of Full Moon such as Necropolis: Legion (2020) or sequels such as Puppet Master spinoff Blade: The Iron Cross (2020) and Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama 2 (2020). Full Moon planned to live-stream the production and post-production of these films, all the while engaging with fans via its message boards. Several of these films were indeed produced as planned, along with some limited behind-the-scenes content, but others have yet to materialise, likely as a result of shooting restrictions caused by the COVID-19 lockdowns. Nonetheless, as a self-described “survivor” and “unapologetic purveyor and student of exploitation cinema”30, the pandemic prompted Band to release Corona Zombies (2021), a mashup of Italian zombie films with new, timely dialogue added to capitalise on the global pandemic.

Promotional imagery for Corona Zombies

Creatively, the limitations of Full Moon Features, both in terms of new original production and back catalogues are invoked by Band to entice new subscribers to the platform with the promise of bigger and better things to come, should the company’s financial position improve. In this sense, Band uses his auteur-status as a B-movie icon to encourage nostalgic audiences to become patrons of the larger Full Moon company, via their subscriptions to its SVOD platform. While not as explicit as a formalised crowdfunding platform like Patreon, we argue this kind of address to subscribers loosely conforms to what Jon Swords describes as “crowd-patronage”31. Interviewed for film website Joblo.com, Band recalls his response when fans ask why Full Moon is unable to release films with the production value it did in the 1980s and 1990s: “we’re doing the best we can, but in the ‘80s our average budget… was about $8-900,000 and in the ‘90s it was $5-600,000 and now it’s $100,000.” 32 Here he reframes Full Moon’s financial difficulties to entice nostalgic potential subscribers with the promise of better things to come and a return to greatness for the studio. To this end, Band says his “dream is to get enough subscribers, so we have enough money to make… the kind of movies I want to make.”33 Unlike the first and second tier of SVOD, the independent and mostly marginal status of the third tier allows for a kind of closeness and intimacy with the people behind these services. Like other third tier services – for example, the one-man short-film library Nobudge34 and Full Moon’s B-movie contemporaries Troma Now! – Full Moon Features’ subscribers are not just buying access to a service but are contributing symbolically and financially to support the longevity of their niche interests.

The Deadly Ten website featuring all ten planned films

Conclusion

In summary, as a third tier SVOD, Full Moon Features has a clear, identifiable authorial force curating its library, and invokes ideas of community when addressing its audience. Lacking the budgets of first and second tier SVODs, third tier portals like this must instead rely on a sense of audience participation through discourse with and a meaningful affinity for the platforms’ authors. Whereas first and second tier SVOD viewers understand their monthly contribution is a drop in the proverbial bucket, third tier SVODs and their audiences have a mutual understanding that every subscription counts.

Charles Band promoting The Deadly Ten on its website

Endnotes

  1. Jeffrey Sconce, “‘Trashing’ the Academy: Taste, Excess and an Emerging Politics of Cinematic Style,” Screen Issue 36(4) (1995): 371– 393.
  2. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984).
  3. Andrew Lynch and Alexa Scarlata, “Opting out of the streaming wars: second and third tier SVODs” in SVOD Platforms and the Future of Television, Christina Adamou and Sotiris Petridis, eds. (McFarland, forthcoming).
  4. Amanda D. Lotz, Portals (Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press, 2017).
  5. Catherine Johnson, Online TV (London; New York: Routledge, 2019), p. 54.
  6. Andrew Sarris, “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962” in Film Culture Reader, P. Adams Sitney, ed. (New York: Cooper Square Press, 2000), p.123.
  7. Dave Jay, Torseten Dewi. William S. Wilson, Empire of the ‘B’s: The Mad Movie World of Charles Band (Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2014); Dave Jay, Torseten Dewi. William S. Wilson, It Came From the Video Aisle!: Inside Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment (Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 2017)
  8. Charles Band and Adam Felber, Confessions of a Puppetmaster: A Hollywood Memoir of Ghouls, Guts, and Gonzo Filmmaking (New York: William Morrow, 2021).
  9. Keith Phipps, “The Little Horror Movie Studio That Refuses to Die,” The Ringer, 29 October 2018, https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/10/29/18036298/full-moon-horror-charles-band-puppet-master
  10. Craig Modderno, “A Man’s Home…,” Los Angeles Times, 20 July 1986, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-20-ca-16875-story.html.
  11. Becky Bartlett, “Madman, genius, hack, auteur?: intertextuality, extratextuality, and intention in ‘Ed Wood films’ after Plan 9 From Outer Space,” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Issue 33(6) (December 2019): p. 653.
  12. Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton, Cult Cinema: An Introduction (Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2011), p. 68.
  13. Bartlett, Ibid, p. 654.
  14. Ian Conrich, “Communitarianism, film entrepreneurism, and the crusade of Troma Entertainment” in Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream, Christine Holmlund, and Justin Wyatt, eds. (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 109.
  15. Liam Burke, The Comic Book Film Adaptation: Exploring Modern Hollywood’s Leading Genre (Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi, 2015), p. 99.
  16. James G. Webster, The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014), p. 90.
  17. Manish Singh, “MUBI launches streaming service in India,” Tech Crunch, 19 November 2019, https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/18/mubi-india-launch/.
  18. Matt Mueller, “Perspectives on 2020: Efe Cakarel on MUBI’s boom and shattered windows,” Screen Daily, 28 December 2020, https://www.screendaily.com/features/perspectives-on-2020-efe-cakarel-on-mubis-boom-and-shattered-windows/5155855.article.
  19. Nathan McAlone, “The ‘anti-Netflix’ is worth $125 million — and it’s already moving into China to capitalise on the booming movie market,” Business Insider Australia, 3 March 2016, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/mubi-indie-movie-streaming-startup-worth-125-million-as-it-moves-into-china-2016-3.
  20. Roderik Smits and E.W. Nikdel, “Beyond Netflix and Amazon: MUBI and the curation of on-demand,” Studies in European Cinema, Issue 16(1) (2019): p. 24.
  21. Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton, eds., The Routledge Companion to Cult Cinema (Milton: Routledge, 2020).
  22. See for example: Stacey Abbott, ed., The Cult TV Book: From Star Trek to Dexter, New Approaches to TV Outside the Box (Berkley: Soft Skull Press, 2010); David Lavery, ed., The Essential Cult TV Reader (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2010).
  23. Matt Hills, Fan Cultures (London; New York: Routledge, 2002).
  24. Steffen Hantke, “Cult horror cinema,” in The Routledge Companion to Cult Cinema, Ernest Mathijs and Jamie Sexton, eds. (Milton: Routledge, 2020), p. 50.
  25. Matt Hills, “Mainstream Cult,” in The Cult TV Book: From Star Trek to Dexter, New Approaches to TV Outside the Box, Stacey Abbott, ed. (Berkley: Soft Skull Press, 2010), p. 69.
  26. Steven Lubar, “Comments on Rabinowitz, ‘‘Eavesdropping at the Well’’: Curator as Auteur,” The Public Historian, Issue 36(1) (February 2014): pp. 71-76.
  27. John Squires, “Full Moon Launches Brand New Streaming App ‘Full Moon Features’,” Bloody Disgusting, 8 August 2019, https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3577518/full-moon-launches-brand-new-streaming-app-full-moon-features/.
  28. Karina Michael Field, “Charles Band of ‘Full Moon Features’: The Power of Flexibility; How I Was Able To Pivot To A New Exciting Opportunity Because Of The Pandemic,” Authority Magazine, 25 January 2021, https://medium.com/authority-magazine/charles-band-of-full-moon-features-the-power-of-flexibility-how-i-was-able-to-pivot-to-a-new-d80d952423c6.
  29. https://deadlyten.com
  30. Ibid.
  31. Jon Swords, “Crowd-patronage – intermediaries, geographies and relationships in patronage networks,” Poetics Issue 64 (2017): pp. 63-73.
  32. Lance, Vlcek, “Puppet Master, Subspecies! We Talk Full Moon Horror Movies with Charles Band,” Joblo, 23 October 2020, https://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/we-talk-full-moon-features-with-charles-band-interview.
  33. Ibid.
  34. See for example: Glenn Kenny, “NoBudge, a One-Man Independent Film Factory,” The New York Times, 2 March 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/movies/nobudge-a-one-man-independent-film-factory.html; Guy Lodge, “NoBudge: a one-man passion project,” The Guardian, 3 June 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/03/kentucker-audley-nobudge-film-streaming-micro-budget.