Paramount Pictures slumming it with micro-budget films

I completely agree.

I don't see Paramount sticking any of its execs or in-house producers (who probably make enough to fund one of these films a year themselves) on a project with a budget of less than $100k YET. They're definitely playing the numbers game right now. It's a new initiative and a million dollars is not that big of an investment for 10-20 films. I also don't think it's a very noble project; it's a case of someone at Paramount invoking the "Law of Averages". If they can get ONE of those 20 films doing Paranormal Activity-business, the experiment will be a success. If anything begins to smell like a hit, they'll pump a little more marketing money into it after the fact, but I doubt they'll spend many more resources on this project than the million bucks.

As for how they're going to find filmmakers... I guess they're going to stick to the festival circuits and online buzz. I really have no idea about this part of the process when it comes to studio films. Troy probably has a better idea of how it works.

Hell, the studio might be running around purchasing feature film rights to successful short films. Terminus was just picked up! It's not a new idea, but it's one that has worked recently. What do you say to a $100k feature length version of Latchkey's Lament, Troy? Paramount's got your back!

It's a good idea. I like it. I'm interested to see what comes out of it.

As long as they stick to genre films they'll make their money back.

A huge aspect of this (less immediately apparent than simply looking for the next Paranormal Activity) is mining for concepts that can be remade for a higher budget.

If Paramount produces a micro-budget movie that's based on a really great concept, they own that movie so they now have a cool original concept for $100,000 and they aren't even obligated to release the original--or they can release it on DVD after the remake and make even a little extra profit. So if a director comes to them with a great screenplay but insists on making the film "his way," they'll let him--and then remake it themselves once they own that property 100%.

Even the worst films will make their money back with DTV release, but those have always been available to distributors way cheaper than $100,000 and they do most of their business in the international market, anyway.

The thing is that at this budget level it's basically slave labor (way under minimum wage pay for the entire cast and crew) so Paramount is hoping directors will work for their "love of the art" and be self-starters getting a cast and crew together and then there's built-in marketing with the "underdog" filmmaker story (alongside an excuse for shoddy production values)--and then Paramount can reap all the profits, either via a Paranormal Activity scenario or simply by virtue of having first dibs and full ownership of cool original horror movie concepts.

This isn't about respecting independent filmmakers (although I'm certain there are some whom it will help) and it's definitely not about creating another Asylum-type genre studio; it's about making a quick buck at the expense of people desperate to get their horror film made. The execs are assholes, as usual.

Policar, you have no functioning understanding of how indie film distro works, do you?

An hour on a Paramount set costs $30,000 minimum. The union rate for a gaffer is $1,000 a day; even grips make a nice day rate if they're local 600.

They'll be farming these out, more-or-less; these movies will all be shot 99% on location with a non-union crew working for food.

I worked for a micro-budget studio and I know, quite specifically, a lot of the numbers that these "micro budget" DTV pictures are selling for and to whom...I also know what IFC paid for Antichrist!

I don't know much of anything about the non-genre "indie film" market, which is dead, as Paramount's actions illustrate.

I don't think you know what the word distribution means, for starters.

The only time I even wrote any form of the word "distribute" was when I claimed domestic rights on direct-to-dvd properties could be purchased for under six figures. Which is true. Did you read the article? Paramount is financing and producing these films; they aren't just buying up micro-buget pictures for distribution. Good try, though.

Not necessarily. You have to think beyond the normal bloat that studios put into major productions. Studios pile on crew and costs because they can and because honestly people tend to be lazy and set in their ways.

My frame of reference is generally safety...If I have enough people to keep someone from getting killed, overtired, or getting killed from being overtired...then I have enough people.

That being said, yes movie money spends fast.

My frame of reference is someone who was hired on a medium-budget studio horror picture to cut costs and then produced his own micro-budget films after that, someone else who worked at a high-level position on a $70 million studio comedy and (almost) accidentally delayed filming by a couple hours (and to whom the hourly price of production was thereafter quoted), and, lastly, a friend of Alan Horn's who explained to me why the Matrix sequels cost so much more than the originals...

Trust me. Running a set is not cheap, especially once union dues and the inevitable overtime pay is taken into account.

These won't be union pictures. They will be shot on location. It's possible some union talent will opt out of contracts or take micro-budget rates (sub $250,000 counts as micro-budget), but the grips and PAs will be getting paid in gas and food.

No one is saying it is cheap. You're missing the point. Who cares if it's shot on location? That isn't news. That's a necessity of micro-budget filmmaking.

No one is saying below the line folk are going to get rich from these. But honestly, I don't see the negative to a few projects and people making gaining some short term traction.

I think if they want to cast a wider net though they would need to update the high end to 200-250k.

Regarding Your Edit: You're thinking too large a crew for too long a shoot.

This is a GREAT program. It's a cool idea, it's an intriguing experiment, and I know that the people behind it have their hearts in the right place. We'll be covering this more in the weeks to come and there's going to be a lot of new info that's going to put interesting spins on what you think you know.

No, nobody's getting rich from this. They're getting their movies made and distributed. Microbudget is the way of the future, and it's cool that Paramount is putting their weight behind it.

Well I think it's a stupid and exploitative program, smart business aside. Glad you at least figured out the difference between "producing" and "buying domestic distribution rights," though, in the twenty minutes it apparently took you to become an expert on it.

Eh, not sure why I'm arguing with Policar. Keep having no clue what you're talking about, guy.

I think that I understand now that when I get Paramount to give me 80k to make "The Incredible Phasing Man" that I should throw my hands up and bitch about capitalism.

If I'm proven wrong and they give all these things legit theatrical distribution (the current cost of which is around $1-2 million for an independent-scale wide release, but digital may lower that) I'll be glad to be proven wrong. I know a lot about the current micro-budget DTV horror market, but obviously this is a novel strategy that's just been announced so I don't know anything about it for sure beyond what I've read. Releasing the few salable ones theatrically, the shitty ones on DVD, and remaking the good concepts is much better traditional business sense. Releasing all these movies theatrically (at least using current marketing and distribution tactics) makes no sense whatsoever. But maybe viral marketing and "demand it" scalable releases will change things.

Until then, try not to get so defensive. You can lighten up a bit with "winner comedy 2001" if you want; the link is provided in my sig.

I'm not defensive, I'm simply irritated that someone can be so negative about something they don't understand. It's what I hate about the internet: your ignorance is being broadcast to a lot of people who don't have a frame of reference to understand that you're a dipshit.

When I see the grips on these things making living wages I'll be happy.

Also, "I'm not defensive" is an inherently defensive statement.

But then again I can't wait to be proven wrong about a studio's business practices by an internet "journalist" (who accused me of confusing production and distribution because he confused production and distribution) regurgitating studio-fed information.

I'm with you. Didn't mean for my comment to come across as biting. Sorry if it did!

Whoops! Thanks for the clarification. Should pay a little more attention next time. I feel like they won't have a problem getting that one greenlit, though.

This is great news. I'm very interested in this program, and I'm still not entirely sure how it works. I would love to hear more info on it. My company's currently finishing up a feature that cost a little more than what Paramount is willing to spend, and we'll be heading out to some sales markets this summer. I highly doubt Paramount will be looking at our film, but if this means studios are going to start looking at little production houses like ours... hey, that gets me excited.

WTF, Policar, we're talking about giving potentially talented people, who may have otherwise never gotten a chance to get noticed, their shot at getting a movie made, with the backing of a major studio if they manage to pull off something special. So the grips might not get payed as much as if they were working on a blockbuster, The job wouldn't exist at all without the program. In fact it's probably another opportunity for someone wanting to break into the industry, but is having a hard time because he doesn't have anything on his resume, you know, someone a little like this guy

I'd like to be wrong about this program, but $100,000 sets off red flags. I've worked on movies with that kind of budget before and it doesn't go so far as you'd think (PM me for details re: why I'm so negative about this if you're curious).

I guess I'd just rather see a healthy indie market with respectable pay and craftsmanship than what appears to be a ploy to mine content from desperate hopefuls. You don't pay PAs on that kind of budget so the studio is relying on the newfound director or producer to get all his friends to chip in and help for free--a nice idea to the extent that they're helping new talent, but still exploitative deep-down.

Maybe Paramount is going somewhere more interesting, though. The traditional wisdom for cheapies is to do derivative horror or creature pics since those do big international business, but maybe Paramount is taking a risk on high-concept stuff, which is potentially cheaper. For now, I'm wary.

Oh god, this guy was a PA on a couple of sets and now he knows everything.

Never been a PA; I don't have the credentials for that job but I'm working toward it. I was a grip once on a no-budget music video but I didn't get paid for that.

To be honest, I did a bad job but mostly because the gaffer didn't like me so he made me sit on the porch all day.

I had dinner with the president of HBO once.

With a skeleton crew, a short shooting schedule, limited sets, tax incentives and a creative above-line team you can stretch $100,000 out quite nicely. Particularly if you decide to shoot outside of LA or Vancouver. As for unions and guilds, you can always find ways to deal with them to keep a show on budget. Plus, it's great for them as it's an incredibly good way of giving some of the lower rung members good experience in a key position. Which is something they normally wouldn't get.

I have no idea where Policar is getting 1000 a day for a gaffer. It's usually around the 300 a day in Vancouver and I suspect a little more in LA. I mean, DoPs might make close to a thousand a day but even then you probably should be using an entry level guy for $657 a day.

ETA: It's the post side that's going to get fucked on these though. I can't imagine post getting more than 25% of that budget. In fact, I'd be pretty sure that they get around 15%. Which means one PT assistant for the editor and likely the mixer will also be doing fx and bgs. Likley limited foley as well.

You're probably right. You certainly know more about this than I do, so I'll defer to your experience.

The $1000/day gaffer was for a short sequence on a $200 million picture shot by an A-list DP and the quote may have included overtime. I've heard local 600 in NYC is $600/day (not sure if that's gaffer or DP) but I don't know since I am incredibly unqualified for that particular union... Still, tons of money.

Yeah like I said hours ago, your frame of reference was completely off. You were equating the costs and number of positions for a $100,000 movie with that of a $200 million dollar movie? It doesn't work that way.

First off: Hot diggity damn, this is an exciting project. Please, for the love of Cthulhu, someone slip me the info on how this is going to be set up once that knowledge is known. I've got one feature film ready to go, one short film that can be rewritten into a feature, and I'm currently working on a new one.

Just the other day I was pondering what it'd be like if there was something akin to the old Corman studio days, where he'd give anyone with enough cajones a miniscule budget and 24 days to bring him back a film; most of them were terrible, but we got Scorsese, DePalma, Coppola, and countless others out of this method as well. Who knows who we'll get out of something like this, until we try? (And if I'm allowed a selfish moment, I wouldn't mind if I got a crack at a swing at this.)

Also, to Policar: yeah, no shit the PAs and grips will get paid in gas and food. If you're like me, and you give a shit and are serious that this is what you want to pursue in your life, then especially on the low-budget stuff, you will sleep on floors, wear the same clothes four days in a row, all to be the guy whose only job is to go get the coffee.

And, more likely, depending on where they shoot these, the PAs will most likely get something, even if it's just $200 for a week's worth of work. A lot of super small budget flicks like these will hire 2-4 PA and/or grips to stay with them the entire shoot, and fill in the gaps with a bunch of earnest young day players. Here's the other trick: everyone will probably be doing no fewer than three different jobs at any given moment. I worked on a low budget short last year where I was the PA, the grip, the AC, and dolly grip. How much did I make on this? Nothing. I knew I was getting three meals a day for a week. That was enough. And it did pay off, too: last November I produced the director's next film, and I got the job based purely on the fact that I spent 18 hours working the last day to make sure we finished. Small films require small favors, some of which repay you many times over.

As for the question of what you can do for $100,000, it depends on your imagination, your location, your crew, but most importantly, your talent. If you know what you want to say, how to say it, and make sure you're working with people who understand and share your vision, $100,000 can be all the money in the world. It also helps if you don't like sleeping, because on that dime you're going to be in a constant state of preparing for the next day.

I've directed four short films, none made for more than $1,500, and while I've had moments of lamenting not having enough money to do "x" shot the exact way I wanted, or not being able to reshoot a scene when the footage turns out bad, those moments are mostly fleeting. You have to have the attitude of not crutching on your tiny budget as an excuse for lazy storytelling, or accepting a poor line delivery, or as a reason not to put some extra effort to make your film's visual composition interesting, dynamic, and appealing. None of those things cost money, if you have it in you to pour your A-game into a Z-level project.

This project will more than likely yield mostly mediocre, genre-pandering films. Some may even make Asylum-funded projects look more desirable. But the bottom line is, someone isn't going to mind that it's "only" $100,000, and in fact will make sure they deliver the best damn $100,000 movie you're ever seen. That's the way I look at it, anyway.

This sounds like a really awesome program, I hope it gets some talented feet in the door.

I look at a program like this, with budgets like that, and think to myself "...that's 13 Primer's."

Greg, I've been talking to the folks behind this and they know there's a community of great people here at CHUD. We'll definitely be covering this more in the weeks and months to come.

You're making me fucking drool with the wildest of ideas over here. Can't wait to hear more from you on that.

Thanks for the head's up, Devin. I'm on cloud nine just daring to begin to think of the possibilities.

This is a great idea, and Renn is right, that's 13 Primers. No doubt we'd be lucky for any of the films to reach that standard, but they might. This will foster creativity, and the low budgets will hopefull lead to a focus on writing. Of course there's an element of 'throwing a load of tstuff to see what sticks', but I'd rather more people were getting opportunities than fewer. And of course it will only take one massive success for this idea to spread wider through the idustry and provide even more chances for budding film-makers.

Quoted for truthness.

I'm in much the same boat. All of my personal projects have been low to no budget. My effort won't diminish because I have an actual budget, chances are it will make me work harder.

Learning how to do without as a filmmaker makes you better at self policing yourself. I would say a lot of Roger Corman's hononary Oscar has a lot to do with him teaching principals of filmmaking economy to more than a few talented folks.

When I think about what I've been able to wring out of this area for $500-$1500 dollars...I get pretty excited about the idea of having 50k.

The people who know what they're talking about (Troy, Devin, Greg) have pretty much covered all the ground, but I did want to say Devin makes a great point about "nobody's getting rich off this." I'll also second the thoughts that you can do great work for a fraction if everyone's coming to play; the film I wrote-directed a few years back cost around 12,000 from a budget of 25,000. Our crew was the DP, the AD/sound (who also acted in the film), the producer (ditto), the AC, myself, and a couple of PAs, one of whom we had to fire. It was an ensemble flick with a pretty big cast, night shoots, shooting around water, multiple locations, and I'm still proud of the work we did. It looks great, and that's because everyone brought a level of professionalism to the work even though the DP was the only one getting paid (and I remain a big believer in if you're not comfortable getting behind the camera yourself, hire a DP you trust). It's an attitude thing, not a money thing.

Microbudgets are another step towards the idea that film will be to the 21st century what the novel was to the 20th (i.e., something everyone is working on).While it's harder to make a film than it is to write a novel, it's getting easier all the time, I think that young filmmakers need to adjust to the mentality that the end goal is getting your work seen, as opposed to getting rich/famous/becoming Kevin Smith. I'm talking out of my ass here, but it's not inconcievable that you could see a future where filmmakers are supplementing their income as professors, scholars, teachers, etc., like novelists do, especially if the microbudget/mumblecore/neo-neo-realism trends continue.

I've been trying to get a second film off the ground for a while now. This is exciting stuff.

This is seriously awesome.

Gee, thanks, Rath I've only been in the business for 18 years :-)

What Brendan says here needs to be repeated over and over and over again. These movies will never make you rich on their own but they will almost certainly be labours of love for the crew. If you don't believe in a project you'll never get it made for that budget because you won't be willing to put in the huge (I mean really fucking huge) hours to get it done.

I think the other thing these kind of projects will do is start building ensemble crews. People who work quickly and well together. They'll be able to jump from project to project with very little pre work needed. It'll be like Eastwood's crew.

BTW, I should add that Brendan directed the hell out of his film.

I think what will change is that microbudget will no longer mean strictly drama, horror or cheap gross out comedy. As technology advances microbudget films will mean, with a creative team, you'll be able to do really good looking sci-fi/fantasy.

I got thinking about the post process last night and I'm pretty sure this can all be done on the cheap if you build a variant on Coppola's Silverfish idea*. If the whole thing is being shot digital (most likely) if you run a tee off of the camera to a trailer equipped with Avid or Final Cut (or both) the editor will be able to create dailies almost instantly plus start cutting a rough cut on the first day.

If you equip it with an iso booth and a Pro Tools rig (dirt cheap to do) you'll be able to catch ADR during filming. So, if the editor catches a flub line, you get the actor in early to loop it and you don't worry about travel costs or the pain in the ass of dealing with outside studios and doing an ADSL session.

*The equipment would run you less than $25,000 including Pro Tools but it's the trailer that would cost you the money. Spread out over five or six shows or have it on a lease basis and it wouldn't be that costly per project.

ETA: I've started doing a cost estimation on this idea and it's looking like a really great alternative.

Thanks a lot for the kind words, Ryan, who has been in the buisness for 18 years ( ). And I completely agree that the way to go is to form crews/groups of people who work well together. I think that the microbudget world could take a page from the theater world and almost form "reperatory companies" of actors, writers, directors, all of whom can do a number of different things, working on each other's projects for a small amount of money. Personally, even though my DP's rate has gone up, she's become a mentor to me and one of the first people I talked to/sent the script to when I decided that the crime drama is going to be my next project to direct. If I do direct again, especially this, which is more ambitious than the last one on a couple of different levels, I want her behind the lens with me.

The other advantage this gives, especially if you move away from the "found footage" genre, is that more unknown actors will be given opportunities than I think they are right now. I'm sure some of these will have character actors and familiar faces in them, but I also think that you'll see a lot of new talent coming out of this, and that's exciting as hell.

Now, if only people would realize that this, not webseries, are the way to go.

As a guy about to emerge from film school in May with little more than a degree and a tiny (but awesome!) sci-fi film to my name, the buzz on all of this couldn't come at a better time.

I'm crossing my fingers that Paramount sees immediate success from this so that the other giants will pull the trigger on programs of their own, if they aren't going to already. This isn't a replacement for a healthy, growing independent market at all, but it's a damn sight better than the studios ignoring everything except for the mega-budget sequels.

...and if my limited experience tells me anything, it's that Rath is spot on about his "repertory company" idea. The best films in the microcosmic environment I've been working in for four years always come from the groups of filmmakers that have banded together around shared talents. They inspire and energize one another, rotate positions, and take turns providing the material. It's an incredible experience to be part of a creative collective, especially when it's based around a high-energy activity like filmmaking that requires technical precision and skill, organization, and immediate creativity. You take one of these groups and give them 100k... I can only imagine the amazing material that could be generated.

This whole thing feels like Paramount wants to create a farm team of filmmakers. You know get them warmed up playing in an inconsequential (but ultimately rewarding) league. That way they've already matured ala Nuke LaLoosh when you're ready to call them up to the multi-million dollar flick. Then there'll be the Crash Davis's who have a really solid minor league record and who are willing to help train the new guys.

A "farm team" of new filmmakers is a great way to put it, and something I've been wishing for for at least two years (since I graduated and came out into the wilderness known as Austin).

I know I keep coming back to this thread but the possibilities just make me giddy. I know, for example, if I had 100 gs I could start working on an animated feature tomorrow and get it done. It would mean huge amounts of labour and time but well worth it.

And from a studios perspective, if it bombs, they still won't lose money because likely pre-sales on an animated feature will cancel the cost.

From my perspective, if it fails I've put together a good team and can work in commercials for the rest of my life while producing the odd animated short or series.

I don't think any of you realize how hard this is going to be to break into.

Devin and Policar are both right, believe it or not. No one is quite hitting the nail on the head here.

Pretty sure no one said it was going to be easy to get any of the money. We're just suggesting ideas on how projects can be done for the price or dreaming about possibilities.

And if no one is hitting the nail on the head perhaps you'd like to give us your experienced, I assume, take on it?