Paramount Micro-financing Budget: Variety article

[Meryem Ersoz]

The race to the bottom continues a-pace...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118012597.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

 

[Tom Lowe]

The limit should be $200K.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

This is fantastic news.

 

[Nick Gardner]

This is fantastic news.

You can barely pay people living wages and make a movie anyone would be proud of for less than $250k. How is this fantastic news?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

You can barely pay people living wages and make a movie anyone would be proud of for less than $250k. How is this fantastic news?

Its clear by your comment that your concern comes a traditional professional production point of view. But, individuals are already making films, even features for less than $20K. These films are being made anyway. Now the major studios are recognizing that audiences will accept less than A-List talent at the multi-plex and at least on DVD. The larger players in the market are now going to be seeking out unknown filmmakers with unique projects appropriate to this budget level. If you are a crew member looking for a production job to count for Union days, these movies aren't for you. But, if you have a film or a project you can make yourself with little to no money, you just got handed a big fat welcome mat at a studio. This is the best news anyone in line to buy a fixed lens Scarlet has heard in a long time.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

The race to the bottom continues a-pace...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118012597.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

They will still screw this up, because that's what happens when you "develop" something inside the studio system. Independents will never stop making films at micor-budgets, and occasionally one will break-through and see box office success. But these films aren't developed under the studio system. These guys are going to develop ... Paranormal Activity 2 and the like.

What they should do instead ... is put together a super aggressive, young, smart acquisition team (forward thinking movie lovers - not failed wanna-be producers) and take greater risks on acquiring micro-budget films.

Indies will make these films better than any studio can ... develop them.

 

[Elsie N]

The limit should be $200K.

I tend to agree with this number. One COULD make the same movie for $100k, but to do so means much of the thought process is devoted to cost savings where the $200k allows more time to be spent on the creation aspect. Even multi-taskers do better when concentrating on one thing at a time.

 

[Nick Wolf]

Very Bad News.

This is a diabolical scheme cooked up by someone with the exploitative reasoning of a heartless pimp ... aka $tudioHead.

Anyone talented enough to come up with IP that would sell should be smart enough to never do such a deal without a big fat piece of back end written into their contracts.

Word of mouth cuts both ways ... Don`t sell your soul for a Tee-Shirt or a pouch of glittering beads.


/Dogday.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me is glad that the studios recognize that some exciting work is being done in the micro-budget realm and it gives beginning directors a greater shot at getting distributed... but the other part of me says that when a division of a rich, major multinational corporation basically says that they want to openly buy products that they know darn well cannot have been made by people earning basic wages, it's basically a sweatshop mentality and that they consider independent filmmaking as some sort of third-world country that they can invade and exploit. If these movies are only made by one guy and a couple of friends willing to be exploited to get a shot at distribution, fine, but odds are high that some of these movies will be made with regular crews, though small, working for peanuts or nothing, and with majority of the profits going to the studio first, and then the filmmaker (assuming scrupulous accounting), and nothing to the crew members.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Hi David,

I agree with what you are saying. What worries me more, is that 600 is going to try and make some sort of deal on these. There was a job here in Baltimore last summer that 600 cut a deal with the producers so camera ops were making about $16 an hour. You have worked for HBO and you know how shitty the HBO contract is. God help you working on the HBO Pilot deal. I think you have to pay them. If you give the studios an inch they will take a nautical mile.

Nick

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Paranormal budget

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I also have very mixed filling about this, almost exactly as David has described, but off course and only if, the Studio were to genuinely give Independents a honest shot, then all could change my attitude, however some will argue that will always be better to be making a movie and gan little to nothing, still making experience while the Studio will pay for you to make a movie and possibly get famous in the process.


However, I have a very different mentality and approach to this, which almost follows to the lines of what Mark wrote, in fact if all goes well i 2010 I will be re-opening KETCHFRAME which in the process of going public, will also include the Collaboration, Development, Acquisition, and Distribution of Independent Films, creating an unprecedented partnership with independent filmmakers worldwide, were the Filmmaker's compensation, will be far more sure to come to them, since we all know that the studios always manage to have such creative accounting, that no matter what they always loose money, and give nothing or extremely little to those that actually made the movie.

 

[Tom Lowe]

haha, I think you guys might be reading too much into this with the sweatshop analogies and all that. the way I see it is that the beancounters at the studio are simply willing to roll the dice with this money and see what happens. hell, they waste 60 million dollar budgets on flops like "Pluto Nash" or whatever, so I actually see this as a smart move.

the way they should look at this is: set aside 5 million or whatever the amount is, then kiss it goodbye. if one of your $200K films happens to strike gold, great. but otherwise, just write the money off as portfolio diversification.

as someone else mentioned, the filmmakers should be chosen off of some kind of perceived talent, and then left alone to complete the film. the reason I mentioned $200K is because it's the SAG Ultra-Low cap (at least last time I checked). Also, 100K is extremely low for narrative features. it basically causes you not to be able to really pay the people involved, which can lead to disasters like crew and cast bailing out.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Part of me is glad that the studios recognize that some exciting work is being done in the micro-budget realm and it gives beginning directors a greater shot at getting distributed... but the other part of me says that when a division of a rich, major multinational corporation basically says that they want to openly buy products that they know darn well cannot have been made by people earning basic wages

As usual, David sums it up quite nicely.

This will be a sword that cuts both ways.

I wonder if they will put restrictions on the ability to raise other funds -- on one hand, getting a film backed by the Paramount imprimatur certainly raises visibility and makes finding additional private investment easier. On the other hand, if they're trying to capitalize on the perception of micro-budget financing, they won't want the filmmaker to leverage their name to be able to find additional funding sources - it appears to somewhat defeat the marketing strategy.

In other words, I'll go to see a Paranormal Activity, shot for $15,000 simply because promoting that backstory, a group of hungry mavericks and their handycam, is a marketing strategy that gets my butt in a seat. But I'd probably skip a Paranormal Activity at $10 million, because it lacks that unique selling point. It almost seems to go against the grain of the marketing strategy to exceed $100K.

That is a mighty thin shoestring, though, for a feature.

 

[James T Mather]

I think David is absolutely correct - in my limited dealings with studios I realise they don't spend a nickel unless they think I'll lead to a dollar.

Unfortunately It will eventually make someone famous (as that will be the marketing strategy "we found a raw talent check out his film" etc ) and, like actresses who move to LA to become famous, the dream success rate (although possibly similar to winning a lottery) works enough times (viz: Charlese Theron etc) that will pull naive dreamers in like matter to a black hole to work like salt miners before being dropped like hot coals.

A hundred grand is a weekend away on a corporate junket in the studio. No risk.

Sweat shop.

 

[Matt W.]

This is totally disgusting.

 

[Adrian Correia]

sweat shop, no crew member will ever see a working wage on these and guaranteed they will be pushed to the breaking point with 18 hour days and pushed turnarounds and the whole bag that comes with this level of production.

 

[Rob Gardner]

It reminds me of the enthusiasm that the networks showed at the arrival of reality television. No pesky guilds to deal with, no big talent bills, no annoying unions, everything formatted and produced for the ease and economy of the networks. But it has had a teeny weeny impact on the rest of the business.

One of the truly grim things about our business is that there is no shortage of eager volunteers to pull the oars on the production slave-ships. There is always a line going around the block to sign up.

 

[rod bradley]

Yes, David is right -- need I say as usual. Although I think it is actually more insidious from several points of view -- depending on the details of the contracts, of course. Especially with the "remake" proviso. This can easily just turn into a cheap way of controlling-owning properties. And I doubt they will be able to keep their hands off -- and truly just let things happen. It could easily be the worst of both worlds.

But as someone mentioned, if it "opens" micro-budgets to real distribution, this could be a positive. How they are going to "sort out" the projects will be interesting. If the right person got to head up the department, the scheme might actually produce something of merit, either box office and/or substance wise.

But frankly this is nothing new. Years ago, back in the 1970s Columbia briefly tried to do the same thing -- and quickly cancelled the program.

More recently a truly independent micro-budget oriented company made a couple of really remarkable little films -- remember INdigent -- their budgets were $150K -- as far as I know, they had to pack it in, although I hope I'm wrong about this.

I also agree that $150-250K depending on script makes a lot more sense at giving the project a shot.

The freak super-grossing film from no money will always be just that -- and 1 out of 10 is a very lucky horse indeed -- even 1 out of 50 would be lucky. Because that's what they'll be after at heart. The big gross. It is the best-seller mentality and it pervades the culture -- and leaves very little room for good and interesting work with depth from outside the system - or for people to grow and mature as filmmakers. The same is true of the publishing world -- the big difference is, writing is cheap and alone and can be done in the proverbial cold-water flat. Not many films can be done that way.

 

[Adrian Correia]

no Rod you're right, INdigent did close shop....too bad, the rates were not great but they treated people right and we actually got back end when productions like Pieces of April did well. They were a great model and I never understood how they didn't survive. They made some really good pictures....