Paramount Pictures slumming it with micro-budget films - Page 2

I'm all for enthusiasm and believing in yourself, and I don't mean to be a party-pooper here, but the amount of people that are going to go for this is staggering and that's not including Paramount employees (of which the studio gets first refusal like most studios) and the feelers that Adam Goodman and his team are going to put out to established talent/reps and, being ridiculously optimistic and hypothetically, the big name film schools. I would love it to be someone on these boards. That would be awesome. But if you try, you're going into the pot of hundreds, I'd wager. So your idea better be good. Getting a deal out of that most likely depends on the movie actually performing, I would say. That in itself is tricky. How many of these experiments will happen before something sticks with audiences? How large a roll out will these micro-budget films get? PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is a huge outlier here.

Edited to also add - The Guilds. Will they play ball with such a program? If they do, waivers will most likely be issued, and I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of known actors took part in this.

I'm excited for Devin to report on it the goings on because it is exciting, interesting news from a major, but I don't believe anyone should disdain Policar's voice either, however wacky he may ultimately be.

So, it's not that much different then before except there will be more chances for young or new filmmakers? How are you turning that in to a negative? Or do you honestly believe everyone here is being pie-in-the-sky?

I guess what I'm getting at is that these are all things we're all familiar with and we're well aware of the difficulty getting a project up and running so how is repeating what we already know helping anyone?

It would depend on the guild and the person taking part. I would think most guilds would be happy to waive minimums in order for someone to gain much needed experience. I would assume a waiver would be issued on a case by case basis.

I assume you're talking about actors becoming filmmakers because I can't see too many actors taking pay cuts in order to act in a microbudget film. And in that case, I still think it's a great idea because who knows which actor or actress might be hiding a brilliant director ala Ben Affleck.

I see nothing in Policar's posts that is accurate though. Or at least accurate in the light that he's shedding on it. I've worked on plenty of lower than micro budget films and the experience has always been great often times moreso than the multi-million dollar movies I've worked on. Yeah, it's not glamourous at times but this whole industry is that way so if you signed on for glamour you're not gonna make it regardless of the size of the project you work on.

As for living expenses, there is no way the guilds and unions will allow their members to work for less than living wage. They won't ask you to sign that waiver and they'll try and stop Paramount from asking you to sign it.

Will they ask you to sign on as a lesser position and try to get you to work above payscale? Likely, but again welcome to the film business. You'll still get paid reasonably well to so what you love.

Is this something the studio could use to take advantage of young filmmakers? Depends on how you look at it. If you're goal is to see this as a stepping stone to be the next Kevin Smith or Robert Rodriguez then yeah, you'll likely feel a bit butt hurt when your movie gets DTVed or buried. But if you're looking at it like a great experience to hone your craft in a reasonably stress-free way then you'll never get screwed.

Yes, I know people who have had very good experiences on micro-budget films (where everyone even got paid!), but I've never seen one of those movies actually sell to a distributor, let alone a major--even though some were very competent, way more consistent and highbrow than a lot of the shit product I've worked on.

I see some promise if Paramount chooses to go high-concept (gore, suits, names, and constant location shifts add up fast, "psychological drama" doesn't), but the success of high concept micro-budget genre films (Blair Witch, Primer, Paranormal Activity) is crazy flukey. That said, there's a trend away from monster movies even in the DTV market right now and "demand it" style marketing and distribution has incredibly low initial overhead--so I see that distribution model as the only potentially interesting aspect of this announcement, but a very promising one, particularly as digital distribution displaces expensive prints. And since everyone is shooting red or hd now and recording digitally, there is the opportunity for Paramount to run the best product (obviously at additional cost) through a DI and additional sound editing and make tweaks like they did on Paranormal, which does a ton for production value--but that's just me dreaming of a best-case scenario. (The guys at Platinum Dunes--yes I've met all three--are all about about keeping it cheap on set and pouring money into the DI. They live and die by sky replacement.) As for union waivers, they'll get sent out for sure--people will want to work on these simply because of the hype surrounding them--but that's Paramount cashing in on people's dreams, which is my problem with this in the first place.

My first eight years in the business were pretty much microbudget movies. It's what you work on to get experience when you're so shiny new you squeak when you turn around. I still do microbudget movies when the chance comes around because it allows me to work with new people and give them a positive experience in the post sound world. Why waste what I've learned about post audio? Might as well pass it on to new people.

I still have no idea what distribution has to do with getting experience.

Again, what does that have to do with getting experience? The first four movies I worked never even saw a final mix let alone get distribution. What we're talking about here is something completely different then just seeing your name in lights or getting a movie seen in Buttfuck, Indiana. It's about getting new people to work on movies in a capacity that they may not have gotten previously.
Those crazy numbers, yeah, they are flukey. But making money on low budget horror is easy. Keep it under a million and you'll do fine in video.

On demand and straight to video will pretty much have the same cost at the end of the day.

Theatrical release will continue to cost money until digital becomes the standard then it will be all the same cost.

But again why are you so obsessed with distro?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

That's a lot of microbudget and low budget stuff nowadays.

So, getting people work experience at a living wage is cashing in on people's dreams? I'm at a loss how this is a bad thing.

I'm not questioning your experience or technical abilities and I'm totally sorry if my previous post seemed to; it's clear that you have tons and probably about twenty times what I could even pretend to have. I can guarantee the movies you've worked on are better than the ones I've worked on, too. I'm only citing my experience w/r/t the current micro-budget market; it's way worse than it seems and the kinds of films that get distribution are not the kind of films that are rewarding to work on. When you know the person who's financing the film, that person is going to be more generous or at least fairer with pay; when it's a studio choosing between living wage and a better set--which one will show up on screen? And Paramount will only be producing properties that seem immediately salable. And have you seen an Asylum picture? Many of those have higher budgets than Paramount is promising. Those movies are scary for the wrong reason.

Edit: By "demand it!" I don't mean on-demand video, but scalable theatrical releases based on internet hype. The cost of theatrical distribution and marketing for a small indie film with wide release is generally around $1.5 million; saturation booking and traditional marketing, even for a $20 million horror film, is insanely higher. Paramount (a company that couldn't even afford to release Shutter Island on time and I believe also a company that was considering outsourcing their DVD distribution to another major) spent very little money marketing Paranormal and only scaled up the release of the film (from an initial very limited release) once demand was clear. So their vaunted scalable "demand it!" distribution model is likely something they'll repeat. I think it will become an even better model once the cost of prints is negated by digital projection.

But, you know what, I respect your optimism. You've been in the industry longer and worked in markets I haven't worked in. I'd like to be proven wrong and see talented filmmakers rewarded by this program and their films treated with respect (which is why I mentioned the increased flexibility with DIs and digital effects now that virtually everything micro-budget is shot digitally; $100,000 is a much kinder budget if it doesn't necessarily cover all of post for the films that end up with theatrical releases--El Mariachi, Paranormal Activity, even Blair Witch and Foot Fist Way had big additional money spent, by the studio and beyond the films' respective initial production budgets, to spiff them up before release). But, personally, I'm still very, very wary and this still seems exploitative deep-down.

Then again, it's not like I got paid any better as a grip on that music video. I lost $40 on transpo and I think the director called me the "other f word," but I couldn't tell since he was high all the time and completely inarticulate.

What he said.

I'm exactly the type of person who could (allegedly) benefit from this program (as gaffer or DP, not director), since I've already worked on this scale and in this genre. But, because of the decreasing salaries grips, PAs, and non-union crews are now being paid and would be paid on a Paramount micro-budget set (and which this program will further encourage elsewhere), I couldn't afford to take a job on one of these shoots if I had the option of stocking shelves instead. Paramount is talking up how they're the savior of micro-budget, but they're ultimately just revealing how little they believe their product is honestly worth. To the extent that this kind of budget discourages union crews it's disrespectful to their level of craft--and if any union DP does work for micro-budget scales (maybe a $2000 paycheck for a feature, and that nowadays includes weeks of job hunting, pre-production, and then supervising post way down the line) they're devaluing their own abilities and the abilities of their peers. Half of SAG is already going fi-core, it seems; I don't want to see the guilds crumble completely--which would result in drastically lower wages for film crews and a potential drop in craftsmanship commensurate with that following the Sherman Antitrust settlements.

So I guess it's ironic to the extent that this is supposed to be a huge opportunity for aspiring filmmakers (and of course Paramount is pushing it as such) but, while it may help a scant few get their names out there, it does a pretty huge disservice in general to the unestablished film crews filled with the types of people it's alleged to help. I'm the person here who could (apparently) benefit from this kind of program most immediately--and also the only one who's talking shit about it.

At least with a company like the Asylum they only pay terribly because they're barely staying afloat in the first place. Paramount is a major and owes all its employees living wage and owes the industry its continued support of a business model that respects filmmaking as an art, a craft, and a livelihood.

And while I admittedly articulated myself pretty badly so I understand the question, I still feel personally insulted that you, as a director, would support the kind of filmmaking that undervalues craftsmanship so egregiously. You've seen how hard crews work and what it takes to create decent production values; $100,000 is a ridiculously small and insulting budget and you of all people know you can't make a quality product for that much while paying a living wage. It's a ridiculously self-centered and director-centric mindset that leads to anyone have any sympathy for Paramount's actions, and it's outright disgusting to support them when you're in a position to realize their potential repercussions within the industry.

This is a bait-and-switch scheme (with the lure of theatrical release) that will maintain its popularity, much like the lottery, by getting a scant few rich and famous at the expense of everyone else who signs up for it--especially crew-members. It's the wrong direction for the industry to go in. I'm sure the IATSE is pissed as hell over this shit, but in a market where Oscar-nominated DPs are lining up to do 20-million dollar pictures, they're in no position to deny anything to those who choose to buy into Paramount's sweatshop labor. Say what you will about Avatar or something, but a lot of talented people got paid very well to make that movie and a lot of audience members got an incredible product for their dollar. Paramount is ripping off audiences and filmmakers alike. It's disgusting and it reflects poorly on you that you'd support it.

If you're personally insulted then take off your frilly lace glove, slap him across the face and demand a duel.

Troy, as he has stated launched his career with a short film he financed himself. Greg Clark's made movies without studio funding as has Rath, Stormin, and myself. The type of people being targeted are the people who would be doing it for free anyway, not because we need a job to payback the $45,000 we owe our parents on a bogus degree, but becuase we love making movies. I've been tinkering away on my movie for the last 7, that's SEVEN years, $100,000 would have shaved that down to a year and given me much better equipment to play with. You want the money you're going to have to sacrifice a lot, You probably will have to tighten your belt and live off savings, maybe even put some of your own money into it, but if that's what you were doing anyway then $100,000 and a major studio conection is a huge boost.

I'm just a film student who isn't even halfway through school and has no idea what he'll do once he graduates, but this makes me hopeful for the future. I may or may not be rich and famous, but at least there are more and more ways to get my (and my peers') work filmed and seen.

Unless they do some sort of contest(which I really doubt), don't they still have to go through all the normal channels? Agents, producers, etc.

I would congratulate and encourage anyone who got one of these gigs at Paramount. I'm totally sympathetic to the indie filmmaker and that whole ethos. I'm just pissed off at the studio for pretending they're doing anyone any favors. There have always been opportunities for people who write great scripts or shoot great shorts--and there should be. One of my acquaintances from school just got hired to write and direct a 10-million dollar feature based on a great short he made and props to him for it. Paramount may be creating a scant few additional opportunities (and really not that many), but they're also introducing and promoting an exploitative sweatshop business model that will damage the industry as a whole and hurt young filmmakers who don't necessarily want to be directors or who want to learn on set. I support the directors and the crew members themselves; I don't support Paramount or anyone in a position of power who does. It's not like Paramount is giving anyone who's made a short or gone to film school a big break--they're offering a few new jobs, which are just about as hard to get as the old ones. But they're offering them on incredibly deceptive and exploitative terms. You'll still need something close to a Sundance-quality short or blacklist-quality script (okay, slight exaggeration).

Everything I have to say about this I've already said. If you want to discuss it further, send me a PM. I might actually know something about this since I've worked in the micro-budget industry for over three years.

And let's not bring school into this. I went because of family pressure.

For the five-thousandth time: it's not all about directors. Show some respect for the little guys. Paramount's model does not respect the crew and it paves the way for what's basically sweatshop labor and a huge decrease in craftsmanship.

Honestly, congratulations on your success and I do believe it's well-earned. I'm looking forward to and will definitely check out your feature when it's released. But it's disheartening that you'd be so positive about something that insults and undermines the very people who made your success possible.

Yeah, I know how unions work. I'm not part of one (and never said I was) because I don't have the money to pay dues and my level of craft and experience isn't up to union standards, which I actually respect. I have no plans to join because I'm not interested in such an unsustainable career right now and if I do want to shoot something I like being able to freely pick my projects, as you mention. This isn't about just me, though. I may not be union, but (believe it or not!) I actually care about people who are and I care about their livelihoods.

I guess it does boil down to the studio getting a leg up on the little guy. It's not like Paramount is introducing a whole bunch more films into the market; there has always been low-pay and unpaid work for grips and ACs to grow with--and often that work comes with the advantage of working for a studio or people you have a connection and shared history with. I've worked for the little guy and we've been screwed over by every distributor--typically in underhanded ways. But Paramount's move here is just brazen. The model is exploitative. Union DPs and gaffers (and everyone else) will take drastic pay cuts for the promise of theatrical release and to help their director friends. Directors will find their movies buried and remade (without their input) as by-comittee studio pictures. Paramount's move mixes the worst elements of bait-and-switch and lottery tactics. But what really worries me is the ripple effect. What if audiences grow accustomed to shoddy production values? Worse yet, what if the studios grow accustomed to hiring great talent for bargain-basement fees? I hate the precedent this sets. This seems so antithetical to the belief in a quality product that I honestly believe Horn and Shmuger (before he was ousted) took pride in. Paramount really is slumming it. Is this what it's come to? Obviously some of this resonates with you or you wouldn't get so worked up denying it. And "the studios always bully the little guys" isn't much of an excuse or justification for the studios bullying the little guys worse and more brazenly than ever. Is that the best you can do? "The big fish eat the little ones. The big fish eat the little ones. Not my problem, give me some."

I guess the flip side is that it's wonderful and democratizing to see micro-budget movies get wide releases, so I can see how you'd support that. We've desperately needed some shift away from blockbusters since the end of the Hollywood Renaissance (and particularly now with the declining indie market and over-reliance on franchise tent-poles). And digital theatrical distribution has the potential to greatly decrease overhead and thereby increase margins on small-scale releases. But this just feels so wrong and I think we both know it.

Policar- quit whining about being poor, and quit going on about all the people that you know. Didn't you ask to have your name changed due to people checking your posts for fuck's sake?

Here's my problem, Policar, you're making some pretty big assumptions about the intent of Paramount and their use of this as a guild/union busting tactic.

First, you're assuming that the guilds and unions are negotiating from a position of weakness. All the unions in Hollywood often work in conjunction with Teamsters and if you think that the Teamsters would allow erosion of work practices to the point that unions lose power you're sadly mistaken.

Second, you assume that a microbudget film will use the same size crew that a Hollywood Blockbuster would use. Unlikely. It will be a very small skeleton crew on production and post. As for pre it will be very, very small.

Third, you assume a slippery slope. I can't speak for the DGA but the DGC allows for senior members to take lesser position for lesser money if they so desire. The members sign a piece of paper saying that this reduction in status and pay is for one show and one show only and can not and will not affect the contract and money of other members. The producers of this movie are told that it is unlikely that they will get this rate and this talent again at this price so next time come back with more money.

Fourth, somehow you have it in your head that minimum pay for union people at the lowest rung is somehow lower than 10 bucks an hour. It's not. Will there be interns and non-members making less than that? Sure. But they would've been paid less than that regardless of the budget of the movie because they need to make their hours. They key is they need those hours to occur under a member in a contracted key position who is getting paid reasonably well to not just do their job but make sure these people don't fuck up.

Fifth, you assume that people don't want to work unless they're making huge sums of cash. That is your issue. I think you assume that since someone is getting rich off of movies then so should you. Most of us who work in the industry (that is to say below line people) just want to work because we love what we do. We understand that this isn't a field where we'll get filthy rich so we take gigs as they come open*. And this will lead to more gigs for a lot more people.

*That's not to say money and flexibility don't enter. Nor does it mean we don't take gigs for huge sums of money or for prestige. After all there's three reasons to take a gig in film: money, prestige or career advancement.

Finally, you assume people in this industry don't talk to each other. People are well aware very quickly how shit goes down on a set and behind the scenes. If this is one huge fuck up and it's a nightmare for everyone on set in terms of shooting, money and answering to Paramount, word'll get around as fast as shit through a goose.

Here's the biggest thing, though, you're also assuming that people are morons and don't understand how this will work and are doing this to gain entry into the field. And that because they are dumb they will be taken advantage of by the big meanies. It is unlikely that anyone hired on these films will be a no-experience newb but rather someone who has never held a key position who is getting a shot at getting a key position on their resume (see third reason for taking a job above). Yes, they'll take lower pay but the trade off is that they'll get to put Key Grip/Head Electrics/DoP/Editor/Sound Mixer/Director or whatever on their resume. And if you don't think that helps people get better positions in the future you don't get this business at all.

Thanks for the fair response. The thing is--I don't even outright hate this program, I'm just really worried by the precedent it sets and the direction it hints at. I think my position, which is basically just ambivalence, seems more extreme than it is because I have to keep reiterating the same points and hypotheticals to balance out everyone else's too-effusive praise. But you've read enough of both.

Anyhow, your counterarguments are sound and I'm probably overreacting. I do take offense at the idea you think I personally want to get rich from film jobs. That couldn't be further from the truth. The $2,000 figure I cited is realistic for micro-budget DPs and you know most DPs spend half their time hunting for projects and in pre-production and current contracts usually include a week or two of unpaid post (or if it's just someone who takes pride in his work that person wants to supervise grading). So that leaves a kind of indeterminate period of time where a cinematographer can't work after a shoot--and can mean that $2,000 pay effectively covers three months of work, even if only four weeks of them are on set. I think asking for a model that promises more than maybe $8,000 a year to talented people is a reasonable thing to do. "Living wage" isn't "getting rich." And I know people talk to each other...I've already heard a lot of mixed and predominantly negative responses to this announcement online and in person among working professionals.

Other than that, I just hope you're right and I'm sorry if I offended anyone; I realize everyone here who supports this program does so for the help it will give new directors and I have to be sympathetic to that. Still: "I have a bad feeling about this."

Edit:

As for name-dropping: I met Steve Jobs and Obama.

I hope to work in the film industry one day and I think this sounds awesome.

As an amateur filmmaker, I would much rather have a job working on a movie then be able to eat everyday. This system seems like it will allow insane people like myself to get the opportunity to make movies if they care more about that then getting paid. And that is a good thing that will give us many good movies.

It's not really the business to get into if you want the safety of living comfortably.

Edit: sorry.

I'm not going to pretend to have any inside information, because I don't. I've been on a few film sets but I am in no way an insider to how the business works.

That being said, this sounds like it will allow creative people to get movies made that otherwise wouldn't get made. That is the ultimate positive, and I don't really care if the real reason it's happening is so Paramount can screw people out of money. I expect corporations to screw people out of money. We'll at least get a few cool movies out of this specific plan to do so.

So by Policar's logic, we should dismantle the minor league farm system because none of those players get paid what major league players do.

Policar's a raging idiot. It's weird to see him need to keep reinforcing that by using big paragraphs of text.

Stop being a dick. I like you in general. When you post stuff here or on DVXuser I check it out etc. But in this thread you've been a bit much.

Now you're jumping on a kid because he's just expressing a word of enthusiasm.

I don't know what your deal is...if your cat died or something, but get over it. You've said the same thing over and over again. A bunch of people here (like myself and 30 other people in this thread) who work in this business have told you in varying shades of politeness that you don't seem to get what is going on here.

Policar's real reasons for his logic are much more self-serving and indicative to who he really is when it comes to his work ethic. I don't mean to drag PM'd info into the public, Policar, but you're really not being honest when you talk about your level of experience. You haven't lied, but you're lying by omission to try and hang onto whatever point you have, and that's dumb.

Okay, I actually am sorry. My last comment was totally out of line. I don't support Paramount's actions but to the extent that this has resulted in name-calling, my bad.

I have some specific reasons to be bitter about the micro-budget market (and I'm certain that's clouding my judgement here) but those I'll keep to myself. I didn't want to bring up my work experience because it's not something I feel good about or am terribly proud of, but--trust me--this really isn't as good a deal as it seems. I'll leave it at that.

I apologize to anyone I attacked personally. Although I don't get how "raging idiot" (your supporting evidence: I wrote a long paragraph; good one!) is an acceptable criticism and "uninformed" is being an asshole, but whatever.

Yeah, I know.

I think 'raging idiot' is a fact, not a criticism.

This from the guy who wrote "I'm not defensive" to defend himself from being called defensive--and who attacked me for confusing distribution and production because he himself confused distribution and production. All in one page of the same thread.

Anyhow, I'm ending this here. I'm sorry to everyone else.

Thanks for the apology Policar. I may not be an insider, but I feel that I know enough about the world to know that it's pretty damn easy to get bitter and cynical when things don't work out. It's usually never the right way to go though, and all it does is bring more bitterness and cynicism into a world that really doesn't need any more.

I'm sure there's plenty of people getting screwed over on microbudget movies. There's plenty of people getting screwed over on big budget movies, too. It's how these things work. That doesn't mean we won't get good movies out of this, and that careers won't be launched out of this. There's good and bad in any situation.

I should be sorry. It was totally asinine of me to take out my frustration with the studios on you, and I can't even say micro-budget has treated me that badly; I've just seen a lot of co-workers screwed over by studios (including the majors) and by financiers. I think Paramount's exploiting people's hopes and dreams and that pisses me off, but they're not hurting me specifically, at least not right now. I'll gladly stand up for anyone they are hurting, though, or anyone whose dreams they're preying on. For now, I'll wait this out; it could have a net positive effect after all, though I doubt it.

There are tons of good people supporting themselves in the industry and there's an awesome sense of camaraderie among crews on very small projects (sometimes--not always). I've met some extremely cool, talented, and egoless people who were working unpaid on the tiniest projects, so if you feel drawn to work in film check craigslist or mandy for grip work. There's not much on the east coast outside NYC, unfortunately. Just because I'm too cynical about it to enjoy it anymore doesn't mean you'll be.

This sounds like one of the best filmmaking ideas I've heard in years.

I just hope they cast a wide net and choose projects that are more than just PA clones

Looking forward to hearing more about this though. You hear about all the scripts on the black list, that are great but never saw production. Maybe a hidden gem will now finally get the money needed to get made. Couldn't ask for more than that, as a film fan.

Spike Lee came to my college a couple years ago and he told a really great story about how he wrote an action movie before "She's Gotta Have It" that he got financing for. He got a cast and crew together and was all set to shoot it over a summer. Last minute his financing fell through. Spike said he went home, cried, and started to make plans to become a film professor.

But then he sat down, wrote "She's Gotta Have It", got financing and became the Spike Lee we know today. I thought it was a pretty inspiring story. I then asked him if he would give me some money so I can make my own movie. He laughed at me and wished me luck.

Story isn't really on topic, but I just wanted to make the point that even guys who "make it" have failures along the way.

Okay, I take back what I originally said about Policar. To quote Clay Davis, "Sheeeeeiiiiiiiitttttt."