Paramount to start micro-budget film division

by: James Wallace
December 10th, 2009

Lower than low budget films like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and BLAIR WITCH have largely been considered to be lightning. Meaning of course that they are made for next to nothing and go on to gross a lot more than something, largely in part due to unique circumstances - whatever those may be. The marketing, the urban legend-like mystique, etc. Attribute their draw to what you will, but what the studios see in films such as this are dollar signs and a design, so that they may, in the future, produce more films for a penny and squeeze out a dollar...or millions. But, as I said, lighting. And what does lighting do? Well, what it doesn't do is strike twice in the same place. But don't tell that to Paramount.

No formal announcement has been made on this, but it is being reported by The L.A. Times that the major studio is developing a sub-division for what are being referred to as "micro-budget films." This division will look to solely produce films with a budget of less than $100,000, adding up to no more than $2 million annually for the 20 or so films they are looking to produce starting this next year. Films like Paramount's PARANORMAL, which was made for only $15,000 yet has made $107 million theatrically and domestically. And this is not considering that the DVD has yet to even be released!

It is said that the studio will not look to completed films, plucked from festivals and other outlets, but will aim to start from the ground up, similar to their normal development process, using both established names and up-and-coming directors. I.E. A screenplay is written, purchased, possibly rewritten then possibly tuned into a film, with the possibility of either a theatrical distribution, straight-to-DVD or a big budget remake - which was to be the one-time fate of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. I can see it now...the first film to be remade before it's predecessor is even released.

As for distribution, the current state of digital technology will allow theaters to accommodate newer types of media, thus eliminating the need for film prints which can cost up to $1,000 a piece. And then of course there is the viral, grassroots, and word-of-mouth marketing campaigns which have seemed to go hand-in-hand with these smaller budgeted films. These taking the place of costly advertising campaigns, which often account for a large percent of a film's budget.

So what does this really mean? Well, clearly form the studio standpoint it is the attempt to catch lighting in a bottle. King Kong if you will. But we all know there will only be one King Kong a few King Kongs. However, from the filmmaker's standpoint, this just may be an opportunity to get funding and distribution up front for their little films from a major studio. Which raises the point-of-interest, how different would said film be if it was independently produced versus produced under a big studio's micro-division?

What do you think? The next stage in the evolution of "independent" filmmaking or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

As a side note, I've got an idea for a production company logo should Paramount get this micro-division off the ground. They could just use a hill instead of a mountain!

News |

Commenting Rules: Comments are intended to open up the discussion to our readers about the topics at hand, and as such should be offered with a positive and constructive attitude. If your comment is not relative to the above post or is disrespectful to the authors and readers, we reserve the right to delete it. Continued abuse of our good nature will result in banishment of the offender. Additionally, if you have any burning issues to point out to the GATW crew - typos, corrections, suggestions, or straight-up criticism - please email us instead of commenting here.

Huerhodes

For that kind of money, the deal should really be “go out, get what you're going to get and come back with a finished product.” To burden a tiny film with development, re-writes, packaging, etc. seems absurd. Especially because the filmmakers will have to call in favors, donations and miracles to keep costs that low. PARANORMAL may have cost $15,000 but I guarantee that is far below the value of goods and services donated, borrowed or stolen by the filmmakers.

I have no doubt that if the studio offers money, someone will take it. But I am not optimistic about the process as described above.

Hue Rhodes
http://www.huerhodes.com
Pingback: gordonandthewhale.com » Blog Archive » Paramount to start micro … | I Film Channel
Pingback: gordonandthewhale.com » Blog Archive » Paramount to start micro … Budget by about
Pingback: Micro Junction Box For Solar Panels/cells | myefficientplanet.com
http://www.allancartersaga.com John W. B osley

LOL “hill instead of mountain” for logo.

Truth is that many indies would be willing at this point to get funding in any form from almost anyone as long and the majority of their story didn't change. Paramount obviously has realized that the old school ways of doing things may not be working as well as they thought, or maybe they are looking for some new blood in the mix to change things up and draw more people back to the theaters. Either way, I'm game for this. I have a few things I could throw around.
https://gordonandthewhale.com JamesWallace

I'd agree with Hue in that it seems like a lot of pressure for both a new and/or independent filmmaker to have the weight of a big studio on their shoulders making their first feature. Sure the budget may be small but that doesn't change the fact that it is one of the big studios behind it.

My main concern would be this…how much would making a film under this micro-divison change the integrity of the final product versus making the film by way of independent financiers or smaller production houses? If you are making it for under this amount, it is likely that this is how you would obtain funding without the micro-division.

Take PARANORMAL for instance. The major thing the studio changed after they picked up the rights to the film was the ending. The ending happened to be one of the only conventional, “Hollywood” qualities about the film.

Or take SAINT JOHN OF LAS VEGAS. Take any of your favorite indie films for that matter. How different would they be if they were produce under different circumstances? I mean sure we have “independent” houses like Focus, Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage that produce quality film after quality film…but those are still arms of the larger studio body of Universal, Fox and Paramount.

Bottom line is it does raise some concerns. Sure it seems like a great deal on the surface. A possibility for more original content coming out of Hollywood, while giving unknown, independent filmmakers the chance to have their films made by a division of a major studio. But then again this could just be a chance for a studio to cash in on a trend, while corrupting what could have otherwise been a film made without the suits' hands in the cookie jar.

In other words, what often happens when a great indie band makes their own records and then gets picked up by the big record label.
https://gordonandthewhale.com JamesWallace

The interesting question here John is, can you make a film that is still essentially made under a major studio without the majority of the story changing? Independent means a lot of things but one of them is independent of major studio intervention. When people start handing you money, they starting handing you ideas on the way they think it should be.

Bottom line is it does raise some concerns. Sure it seems like a great deal on the surface. A possibility for more original content coming out of Hollywood, while giving unknown, independent filmmakers the chance to have their films made by a division of a major studio. But then again this could just be a chance for a studio to cash in on a trend, while corrupting what could have otherwise been a film made without the suits' hands in the cookie jar.

In other words, what often happens when a great indie band makes their own records and then gets picked up by the big record label.
https://gordonandthewhale.com JamesWallace

I'd agree with Hue in that it seems like a lot of pressure for both a new and/or independent filmmaker to have the weight of a big studio on their shoulders making their first feature. Sure the budget may be small but that doesn't change the fact that it is one of the big studios behind it.

My main concern would be this…how much would making a film under this micro-divison change the integrity of the final product versus making the film by way of independent financiers or smaller production houses? If you are making it for under this amount, it is likely that this is how you would obtain funding without the micro-division.

Take PARANORMAL for instance. The major thing the studio changed after they picked up the rights to the film was the ending. The ending happened to be one of the only conventional, “Hollywood” qualities about the film.

Or take SAINT JOHN OF LAS VEGAS. Take any of your favorite indie films for that matter. How different would they be if they were produce under different circumstances? I mean sure we have “independent” houses like Focus, Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage that produce quality film after quality film…but those are still arms of the larger studio body of Universal, Fox and Paramount.

Bottom line is it does raise some concerns. Sure it seems like a great deal on the surface. A possibility for more original content coming out of Hollywood, while giving unknown, independent filmmakers the chance to have their films made by a division of a major studio. But then again this could just be a chance for a studio to cash in on a trend, while corrupting what could have otherwise been a film made without the suits' hands in the cookie jar.

In other words, what often happens when a great indie band makes their own records and then gets picked up by the big record label.
https://gordonandthewhale.com JamesWallace

The interesting question here John is, can you make a film that is still essentially made under a major studio without the majority of the story changing? Independent means a lot of things but one of them is independent of major studio intervention. When people start handing you money, they starting handing you ideas on the way they think it should be.

Bottom line is it does raise some concerns. Sure it seems like a great deal on the surface. A possibility for more original content coming out of Hollywood, while giving unknown, independent filmmakers the chance to have their films made by a division of a major studio. But then again this could just be a chance for a studio to cash in on a trend, while corrupting what could have otherwise been a film made without the suits' hands in the cookie jar.

In other words, what often happens when a great indie band makes their own records and then gets picked up by the big record label.

MailChimp Widget

Paramount to start micro-budget film division

by: James Wallace
December 10th, 2009

News |

Recent Post

Facebook

MailChimp Widget

Paramount to start micro-budget film division

by: James Wallace December 10th, 2009

News |

Recent Post

Facebook

by: James Wallace
December 10th, 2009