Paramount launches micro-budget movie division

Super smart idea on their part. Probably a much smarter investment overall so long as they don't break the bank on marketing.

Also, it could help give additional credibility to indie movies shot on these kinds of budgets.

The key will be for them to really search long and hard for the right talent, but I doubt they'll land them with a budget this size.

Quite a few newbies will be getting a chance at stardom while getting their pockets assaulted as I'm sure this "micro budget" division will be providing horrible contracts to their artists, maybe even creating a team of in-house staff chucking out movies instead of television shows, ya know?

We'll see...
 
The article is interesting, but Paramount has always been willing to consider small budget movies. They are perhaps the best approachable studio for indie filmmakers. I wish them great success.
 
InDigEnt was a great little company out of NY that specialized in artist driven films at very low budgets shot on DV, then HD. Several films came out of that company over the years like Tadpole, November, Lonesome Jim, Sorry Haters, etc. Many of them had good name actors - either directing them or starring in them, or both. They released their last movie in 2007 and are no longer. I always considered them typical of this model - perhaps having Paramount distribution for theater and home video will make this venture more successful in the long run.

Michael
 
comment posted toward the bottom:
They don't plan to pick up any films from festivals and outside producers? But that's exactly how they just made a hundred million bucks.
Click to expand...
that's exactly what i was just thinking...
 
I think this is more to protect them from another 'one every 5 years' Paranormal Activity slipping into someone elses hands and not theirs. $2M a year can buy a lot, PA's money will pay for it for 50 years. Expect 95%+ of the projects to sit on a shelf or be thrown into the trash.
 
Zak, ask Adam what the real numbers are, I was just told it is $1M a year not $2M as reported in the above link.


ohh, and Paramount did end up pickung up Area 51.
 
That's a pretty scam- baggy move as every one who has made a feature film knows that you can't make anything for less then 200-300k/film and paying your cast & crew even slightly above the minimum wage. SO basically Paramount is trying to get into slave trade business.
 
This seems like another example of creative accounting.

Instead, the division will operate much like a studio's development slate, where screenplays are purchased, rewritten-
Click to expand...

Stop right there, you've gone over $100K. No wait, you went over $100K with the lawyer fees to purchase that screenplay and negotiate with the writers...

There's no secret to making movies cheap. Just don't pay anyone. But I really don't see a business like studio filmmaking doing this and honestly spending what they say they are spending. Way too much overhead and risk-averse behaviors in place. See "lawyers" above.

Seems more realistic for them to carpet bomb the indie film world and spend that money buying every last film they can find. Because one other thing to remember, they didn't produce PA...
 
It's a disaster in the works, getting lucky with a one in every 5 or 10 year film like Paranormal is not an excuse to think you can make it work, Vantage (previous low budget division) was shut down for a reason because it LOST ITS ASS and it had big names in it's low budget movies (oscar winners and still LOST ITS ASS). Even with Paranormal they ended up spending $15M+ in advertising (let me remind you this was a self marketing movie), why would anyone spend $15M-$30M+ to market a $100k movie when you can limit risk by getting bigger names, better sets, cameras, crew and do the movie for $5M.

They might pay out $1M a year for several $100k movies but it'll cost them $5M+ in staff/attorneys/administrative fees that they'll find out about later then the marketing money will follow with a big wake up call.
 
Hmm

Hmm

Well it's a nice thought, I guess.

Not that well written of an article, lacking some details, and unclear in parts.

Film prints cost "more than $1,000 a piece"? Well yeah, more like about $30,000 actually for a one-off, at least, if not more. When you're taking about micro-budget films, you're talking about ones that may only appear in a handful of theaters, so no, the cost wouldn't be anywhere near $1,000 per print. It would be far, far more than that. So the point is magnified that you could distribute films like that digitally much cheaper, whereas the average reader is going to say, "$1,000 for a film print? No biggie. It plays in 15 theaters, that's only $15,000. Nothing." Reality is that would cost a LOT more than that.
 
ChipG said:
I think this is more to protect them from another 'one every 5 years' Paranormal Activity slipping into someone elses hands and not theirs. $2M a year can buy a lot, PA's money will pay for it for 50 years. Expect 95%+ of the projects to sit on a shelf or be thrown into the trash.
Click to expand...

This is similar to smart investing. Invest $100mm into 50 or more smaller budgets or invest $100m into just one risky high budget picture? The choice is obvious.
 
Thanks for the post Jim.

It is a very interesting thought and does differ from Vantage, Rogue and Fox Atomic in that the principle and marketing budgets are significantly less, so the risk will be as well.

This means more creativity, less butchering.

$2m per year, total investment, is a bargain for them. Even if they only score a hit every 5 years it's still only $10m total investment. I bet the annual Starbucks budget for Paramount is more then that.

I just hope it doesn't spawn a slew of "Dean Alioto-style", docu-dramas. That is the last thing we need a flood of.

This could really help bring in some clever new talent and stories. Both which Hollywood is desperate for, in my opinion.

I am curious, if they are also going to be financing films, not just purchasing distribution rights, how will they manage to make a union friendly feature for $100k?
 
Ryan Paige said:
By the looks of the responses in this thread, everybody here has pre-emptively turned Paramount down.
Click to expand...

Keep it open as an option. It 'could' have a win-win ending for some film makers, dunno, no one has made a 'micro' deal yet, we are "just saying".

It 'could' have a "lose-lose" ending. It's just 2 cents right now in the thread.
 
Sorry about my above post (or previous posts) but I don't want to see anyone here get taken advantage of. Keep your doors open, listen, don't make a deal until you put a lot of thought into it with advice from others. (I'll step out)
 
I have a different take on the Paramount mini division. I would point to a film like "Tape" that had a tiny budget and was union friendly (at least sag wise), and had a couple of nominated actors in it. It was a small film/one location/ three actors (adapted from a play) shot in five or six days. I can see many quality filmakers/actors taking the plunge and working within the budget. Best of luck to all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top