Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Paramount Micro-financing Budget: Variety article

Sounds interesting, but i have my doubts about them opting not to purchase completed movies at film festivals.

Doesn't that kinda take the "indie" out of mico-budget films? And you don't even get a legitimate production budget on it.

Almost seems like the worst of both worlds....

"If we like (re-write) your script, we'll only give you this much money (which you could have raised on your own) so you can make this movie (the same way you would have made it on your own...only now you have to answer to us) and if we like it (we probably won't) then we *might* screen it once at 12 screens at midnight (once again, you coulda done that on your own). And if it's successful, well then we might even give you a wide distribution! (with limited advertising, you're on facebook aren't you?!)

or am i misunderstanding that part?
 
No one is holding a gun to your head to accept this deal. I agree that it is a bit of a sweatshop mentality. Hell, the studios will pay their people more than the film's budget, just to monitor and audit it!

But I also think $100k is pretty easy to raise privately if you have a decent idea. Make it yourself and sell it for $10mil if it comes out well.
 
Like others, I have mixed reactions to this. Seems like there could be too many strings attached, people being taken advantage of, etc. Obviously, if there was a moral intent to truly offer up and coming filmmakers an outlet for distributing films I'd welcome it. I'm just wondering how that will work in a huge corporation like Paramount.

I for one hope we do not see a deterioration of unions and wages. I'm not saying that is what's going to happen as a result of this move by Paramount, but I do fear that as technology gets cheaper and budgets get cut more drastically, that perhaps wages will start to get affected. Being able to earn an honest wage and support yourself and your family shouldn't be underestimated. I love the artistic side of filmmaking and have small projects that I try to do to get better, to learn new things, experiment. They don't need to make money at the box office. But on those projects I try to work with like-minded individuals who are also on the same page about what type of project it is. But on feature films, especially ones that require a lot of expertise and craftsmanship to create something that can be successful critically and financially, I believe the crew and talent should be paid. Unions have flaws, but so do filmmakers and production companies who work outside of the unions and don't make good on their promises or pay people the terms they agreed on.

I'm with David Mullen on this one. If it's a project that starts out as grass roots by some filmmakers with limited resources and they manage to put together a great film that can then reach more viewers through a distribution deal with a major studio, then great. If this turns into a way for studios to exploit filmmakers, ripping them off and leaving them out in the cold then I don't think it's such a good thing. I'd rather see some smaller, well organized and smart distribution companies come along and work with these filmmakers to help them find audiences through distribution deals that make sense for both parties.
 
I think you guys are reading way too much into this. These Hollywood execs are the same breed that you find on Wall Street. They count beans. They don't care about going out and actively "exploiting" a bunch of kids with EX1s. This is simply a way for them to diversify their risk and their "portfolio" of films. In fact, it's very, very smart.

Say they gamble 2 million dollars on this project every year for 3 years, and all 60 of the films totally bomb. On the 4th year, they score major pay dirt with a Blair Witch style film and rake in 100 million. That's a huge gain on very little capital risk. It's very smart. If I was running a studio, I would have done this ten years ago. MGM should also look at this idea, IMO.

The only thing I would suggest is upping the cash to $200K and letting the filmmakers do their thing with essentially no meddling.
 
The major studios have been doing exactly what you describe Tom and producing $2milion turds for years. This studio in particular, see "Hit and Run" for an example. Every time there is a freak success like like this, the studios try to move money around and figure out how to capture lightning in a bottle. The thing I don't get is how a union signatory studio is going to produce ultra low budget movies without the unions making some concessions which is always a bad thing.

Nick
 
I honestly don't know much about the unions. To me, they seem to be out of control in LA. We have "union" passenger van drivers making $800 a day in LA, $1500 a day with overtime. For driving a van! That is just fucking silly IMO. There are tens of thousands of decent, hard-working people in LA who would take that job for $150 a day.

No wonder so many productions are fleeing for New Zealand, Canada, Australia, etc.
 
Most of those studio movies that go to Canada, etc. are still union movies -- IATSE crews, SAG actors, WGA screenwriters, DGA directors, etc. They might not get quite the same wages as in Hollywood, and some of the residual deals to those unions are more palatable to the producers, but the primary reason that the studios make movies in those countries are tax breaks and other financial incentives, not the cost of labor. Besides, above-the-line accounts for much of the budget and a Hollywood star is going to demand the same money even if you ship him off to New Zealand to make the movie.

It really comes down to whether you believe that film production work should involved skilled labor that can earn a middle class living with basic benefits (healthcare and pension) assuming that they work regularly. Sure, some of the jobs seem to overpay compared to others (some unions are stronger than others -- those van drivers you are referring to are Teamsters, for example.)

The truth is that independent moviemaking cannot survive on its own, it's more or less subsidized by studio production because well-paid labor can occasionally work for peanuts on a small movie that still wants a decent level of production quality. These skilled laborers could not support themselves on what a typical indie film pays. Even the filmmaker themselves can't support themselves making movies. Which is fine for a one-time personal dream project, a labor of love, or a calling card to get industry work. But you can't repeat that model of calling in favors to get something made for near nothing, on a regular basis, year after year. At some point, you have a family to feed, bills to pay, and retirement to start saving for. Not to mention that you need health insurance.

When the studios opened indie divisions making low-budget union films in the 5-mil to 15-mil range, that seemed like a great idea, but audiences haven't supported a lot of those movies, not enough to earn their costs back once you include prints and advertising.

So it makes sense to some degree to make the films even more cheaply, but while the profit margins may be better, the overall profits will probably be disappointing because "Blair Witch Project" and "Paranormal Activities" are more or less flukes. So when these movies start making only a few million at the box office, even though they only cost $100,000 to make, Paramount is going to start wondering if it's even worth the bother. They have even bigger mouths to feed than most of us here do!

I think the reason they limited it to $100,000 is because it definitely falls under the category of something self-financed more or less with a tiny non-union crew and cast behind it. Once you start raising the limit to $200,000 or $500,000 even, you start to encourage regular producers to try and make their typical 5-mil projects for $200,000 or less, by just offering really, really low wages. I think Paramount probably figured that under $100,000 movies were not worth IATSE, SAG, WGA, etc. trying to get involved. You raise the limit to something that isn't rock-bottom DYI filmmaking levels and the usual suspects want to get involved.
 
The only thing I would suggest is upping the cash to $200K and letting the filmmakers do their thing with essentially no meddling.
Click to expand...

Having written a script for the studios, I can say with absolute certainty that will not be the case. People in studios don't see themselves as "bean counters" but creative individuals who will have no qualms about telling you how to 'improve' your script.
 
We all remember how well those 3 Project Greenlight movies went with $1 Million dollar budgets. Now just try to imagine each of those being made for $100,000 each... ouch! LOL Good time television for us if they have a camera crew follow these new micro-budget productions from start to finish. Now if they gave the money to filmmakers to go off and do a project then maybe they could end up with a gem or two but if it is a hands on, strings attached I think the magic will be neutered from the start. Just imagine some studio executive standing in the home watching the director of Paranormal Activity give the camera to the lead actor and tell him your shooting the movie too! Oh the notes the director would get each day...
 
For the most accurate example of dealing with the studios read Bambi vs. Godzilla by David Mamet - the chapter on screenwriting is IMVHO absolutely accurate to my own experience.

as reviewed/quoted at: http://homepage.smc.edu/meeks_christopher/Maplewoods Mirror Number 10.htm

He speaks of the neophyte who comes to Hollywood to write and turns in an impassioned work. He catches the attention of a producer who gives him what’s called in the industry as “notes”—ideas how to make it more sellable. The neophyte is told to turn his script about a cod in the ocean into one about a mackerel. He makes the changes. He’s then asked to make the story not take place in the ocean, but in a fish tank in a restaurant. “Why not?” says Mamet. “What a great idea, thank you for the suggestion.”

The producer comes back after the next draft and says, “Instead of a restaurant, could it be Mars, and instead of a mackerel, could it be Woodrow Wilson?” What happens, says Mamet, is that the producer feels this writer, like everyone else, has stooped to being degraded and that this writer brings him nothing special, so abandons him. “The now-mangled script has become the fruit of the poison tree and must be discarded as unclean.”

The writer becomes sadder-but-wiser and starts thinking that, with this new wisdom, he could write something really good now, and “perhaps one harbors the residual belief that learning to write a screenplay ‘better’ might improve one’s chances of selling it. I don’t think so. I, however, harbor the same delusion.”
Click to expand...

Also a lot of script calls go (literally) like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sifESist1KY
 
What do they have to lose? I figure they just want to increase their chances of getting the next Blair Witch / Paranormal Activity / etc. Being listed as the executive who brought that to the studio looks good on the resume for one thing.

So the idea is to get a whole bunch of films made for $100,000 (with a certain amount of meddling), hope that they turn out well... do small releases and clever marketing for the good ones and if word builds up and things are going well, eventually spend TENS OF MILLIONS on going wide and marketing and distributing them in the hope of an even bigger return? Alternately, pick the good ones and remake them.

Sounds like a good idea for the suits who marketing and distribution and want to justify their salaries!

So for the filmmaker the question is:
1. Am I prepared to accept studio meddling in exchange for a measly amount of money being spent on my film?
2. Am I going to be well compensated if my movie is a success? Probably yes. Even if I don't get a lot of money from the first one, I know I could get a lot from the next deal.
3. Is traditional theatrical distribution really important to me? EG vs new media-style distribution, which is the future - and where studios have nowhere near as big an advantage.
4. Can the studio market the film better than I can (in both stages - initial / viral, and then later for wider release)? In most cases yes. Since I do movie trailers & TV adverts for a living, I'd say maybe "no" in my case - I could hire my friends and produce a whole campaign for 1/10th what it would cost a studio.

Still, kinda tempting. BUT there's no way in hell I'm signing over all control of one of my favorite 3-4 scripts or even ideas to a studio for $100,000. Sorry. There are certain things that I want to do once I have creative control and I'd rather raise $100,000 with my own cash and do them independently than in a studio environment.

But if I can bash out something in Final Draft in a month or two and convince Paramount to make it... sure!

Anyway, as an indie filmmaker whose day job is movie marketing, it sounds like they'll at least keep me employed doing all the adverts for their new $100,000 movies. Simultaneously they'll do their best to get audiences used to paying $10 a pop to see $100,000 budget movies. If they can make "good ides, low budget" cool again, then we all win. Sweet.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
To anyone making films outside of Los Angeles this is fantastic news. We tend to look at things on an individual basis. Take a look at the global perspective.

If you live in LA and you're union, this could be perceived as awful. The problem with labor unions is that they are not an effective market force in a global economy. There is no level of expertise that someone can bring to a film set that cannot, over time, be sourced cheaper. This is a simple fact. Either the wage moves down or the job moves away. Its literally that simple.

In order for labor unions to be a market force, there must be a robust global membership in every country whose capacity is equal to the amount of opportunity in the global market. Or... Unions must aggressively affect the legislative process at the federal level in order halt the export of productions to other countries. IMO, Unions are doing all the right things to ensure their demise.

The first battle they need to be fighting is for single-payer universal healthcare. You can't compete globally if your company has to provide healthcare costs to your employees when companies in other countries don't have that overhead burden.

Even though the same unions are represented in Canada, the financial incentives for labor are very different from here in the US from the producer's perspective. There are also restrictions against using US citizens, even "same union" members, on many Canadian productions.

Anyway... The bottomline is this: if you rely on a paycheck signed by someone else to feed your family, regardless of how much that check is, you are working class and your wages will decline over time. I call this Moore's Labor Law. As technology advances, the need for specialized labor decreases-- which undermines the core reason for the existence of unions: artificial wage protection. Unions are approaching a tipping point in terms of economic relevance. I can see this and I'm pro-union.
 
There is no level of expertise that someone can bring to a film set that cannot, over time, be sourced cheaper.
Click to expand...

A top notch professional is worth every dollar you spend on him. Hire a cheaper guy, see how much longer it takes you to get done. Lets see the good guy was $450 a day, we saved $150 by hiring the $300 guy. Now we spent an extra hour rigging those 20xs at $10k an hour for total production. Good call......

Nick
 
which undermines the core reason for the existence of unions: artificial wage protection
Click to expand...

The core reason for the creation and existence of unions is to protect the workers from unfair practices, and unsafe working conditions. You have unions to thank for overtime, the 40 hour work week, and weekends, among other things.

Nick
 
I'm glad we all agree.:beer: Let's keep hope alive, well... for at least one more day!
 
Nick Gardner said:
A top notch professional is worth every dollar you spend on him. Hire a cheaper guy, see how much longer it takes you to get done. Lets see the good guy was $450 a day, we saved $150 by hiring the $300 guy. Now we spent an extra hour rigging those 20xs at $10k an hour for total production. Good call......

Nick
Click to expand...

Right, but at $10K an hour for the production and a $100K maximum budget, your entire feature would have to be shot in under ten hours in the first place. Talk about a restrictive shooting schedule!

To make a "real" feature for $100K you can't afford to pay your cast and crew minimum wage let alone union scale. This isn't necessarily the case for much "smaller" movies like some character-driven comedies, mumblecore dramas, and Blair Witch-style pseudo-documentary "movies," but it sounds like Paramount is farming out cheap genre films for the occasional theatrical release, as a cheaper alternative to optioning interesting script ideas, and perhaps a low-budget dvd market (which is an incredibly lucrative market, and one that's in flux). It's equivalent to sweat shop labor and it's an insult to indie filmmakers (whose craft, which is what the extra money buys, is being dismissed as worthless) and "no-budget" filmmakers (who aren't even given enough money to pay their crews) alike. Business smart? Maybe. But disgusting and reprehensible nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top