Good Luck, Paramount!

My email box was ablaze this past Friday with news that Paramount was forming their own micro-budget film division.  The goal is to make twenty $100k no-budget features a year.  After their success with “Paranormal Activity,” (a film they DID NOT PRODUCE, by the way), this sounds like a case of ‘give the guy a rope and now he thinks he’s a cowboy.’  All I can say is, “good luck!”

As someone who has devoted most of the last 15 years to no-budget filmmaking and spent the last six years specifically working on this kind of a multi-film model, not to mention the last five years teaching no-budget filmmaking and making my own no-budget features, I have this cautionary note for Paramount:  it’s harder than it looks.

The set of a typical Paramount film

I’m used to not getting paid for my work. And I don’t mind doing most of the work myself. I often break laws and take undo risks when I produce. And I’m not afraid to reinvent the way to make a movie for each new project.  This doesn’t sound like a studio’s modus operandi to me. I could think of any number of elements that alone would cost a studio more than the $100k:

- Acting talent fees (or did they not know that their own system has required movies to be made with stars these days)
- All other ATL talent fees (the directors and producers on my movies NEVER make an upfront fee—that’s one important, basic way you keep the budget down)
- Rewriting those scripts (they mention obtaining scripts and then re-writing them. Last time I checked, optioning scripts and hiring writers, especially for a studio, costs money. Or are they just going to hire unknown writers and give them a shot. The film festival world is filled with those results already).
- A union crew (this is a studio after all—how are they getting around unions??)
- A good editor (this is the camel that often breaks a no-budget film’s back.  Most successful no-budget films were edited by the writer/director or had some team member who was absolutely dedicated to the project who edited it. Once you go outside of that and hire a real editor, who is talented, you’re going to have to pay them for their three or more months of work. Even if you can get their agent down to say, $2k or $1k per week, you’re talking about 10% to 20% of your budget right there).
- Insurance (studios, with something to lose, like insurance, which is expensive)
- Lawyer fees (studios REALLY like lawyers. If I had to pay a lawyer to help me make my movies, all the money would go to them, most likely. I suppose they could charge their in-house legal fees to other divisions?)
- Permitting locations and paying to rent them (if you’ve taken my class or read any of my production entries on my site, you know I’m not a fan of either paying to rent locations or permitting them. Locations in LA are expensive and permitting is too.)
- And so many other things…

The set of my last film

This smells to me of people who have no idea of what they’re doing.  Who have never studied a $100k budget.  Who have never asked people to work for free.  Who have never begged, borrowed, or stolen.  Who really don’t know how hard it is, how nearly impossible it is, to make a good movie on no money.  As someone who has worked with some of the most talented people in the business at doing this, (Chris Nolan on his $12k feature “Following,” for instance) and seen literally 1,000s of attempts that didn’t work out, I can tell them that a studio is probably the least-equipped place I can think of to make this work.  Even InDigEnt, which was formed by talented filmmakers, an independently minded film company, and one of the smartest people in the independent film world, ultimately couldn’t make this model work, certainly not for $100k and over the long haul.  They had many wonderful successes, but 20! Per year!!

I make these films out of necessity. I pay very little a month for my rent-controlled apartment and I still struggle to make ends meet, just to have the opportunity to make films the way I want to make them—with creative control and no studio interference. People with mortgages and kids and nice things that they enjoy can not make movies this way. And Paramount doesn’t have the legal stomach to pull off the things that we do every day as independent filmmakers.

So to you, Paramount, I’ll say it again, “Good Luck!” (and if you’re hiring for this, I’m easy to reach!)

18 Comments:

1. Mark, you are amazing. Thanks for standing up for the little guy. As an actor/writer/producer who often works her ass off for absolutely zip, zilch and zero, it is just shocking and ridiculous to imagine anyone wanting to work that hard on a film for NOTHING when Paramount is footing the bill.

   Stay Golden, Ponyboy!
   Jessica

   Posted by Jessica C. on 12/12 at 09:39 PM

2. You’re right. The entire film industry takes advantage of the work of thousands of writers, directors and actors who spend their time, their life and money to do what they like. However, the short film has no recognition of that industry, or support, nor that of the distributors.
   The great giants of cinema, they have the money, the structures, but every day face the problem of missing talent.
   Independent film and the shorts are talented but have no money to survive in the world that they like.
   Those who have excellent scripts (in my case, extraordinary) in the offices of their analysts only see that film is, in many cases, a financial institution with nothing to do with creativity.
   Paco Benitez-Aguilar
   Writer, Andalucia, Spain.

   Posted by Paco Benitez-Aguilar on 12/13 at 12:01 AM

3. Mark - you’re so right. This is ridiculous. Let’s not forget one of the MAIN reasons that filmmakers make films for under 100k - so that they can OWN it themselves, and do things the way we want WITHOUT a studio being involed, and then hopefully sell it for a bigger payday. What’s a filmmaker’s incentive to work for peanuts when they’re not going to own their baby? This makes no sense at all. What schmucks are going to go for it? I know the economy has been harsh, but really???

   Posted by Rebekah Sindoris on 12/13 at 10:18 AM

4. “A current Paramount executive will run the business…”  That was the giant red flag waving at me while I read the article.

   Great thoughts, Mark!

   Posted by Chris B. on 12/13 at 11:29 AM

5. It’s a given constant that those who control the market will do their best to continue to do so…especially when there is a buck to be made.
   My opinion is we are in something akin to the Renaissance and industrial revolution. This is a time when artists and those who create are being given the opportunity to literally level the playing field. Think about it…..The digital age has allowed access to the necessities to produce a finished product within the layman’s reach. Editing software, 3D animation/effects, Sound editing, etc and Digital cameras that can film in just about any lighting. Not to mention a mass of untapped talented performers who need opportunity to show their wares. Now it’s the level of creative talent that will surge ahead. It is a bonus if these studios wander into this realm and really make a go of it. Maybe they will find a way to do it even more cost effective (I doubt it)......All those in the private trenches will learn and follow suit   Win Win.

   Posted by David Alexander Parent on 12/13 at 01:54 PM

6. why not just hold tight for details and then draw a conclusion?  i know i am naive to the inside info on studio practices but it is just my general approach to things.  find out what the model is, see if it has value, then critique it.  just me.  and i respect mark tremendously.

   Posted by greg on 12/15 at 06:40 AM

7. Terrific essay, Mark.  A friend of mine had their web series bought by the WB.com.  They mandated E&O insurance.  The cost of the insurance was MORE than Warners was willing to pay for the entire series.  When they start ratcheting in the lawyers and insurance costs, keeping the budgets below $100K is going to be impossible.

   Posted by Peter Davidson on 12/15 at 09:38 AM

8. Greg, WAIT?!? This is the Internet. It’s all about knee-jerk reaction! Yes, you’re right. I’m very interested to see the details.

   Posted by NoBudgetFilmSchool on 12/15 at 02:03 PM

9. Ha, this is a laugher.  Should be very intriguing to watch.  Or, maybe seeing all these no/lo budgeters filmmakers running around actually making these films, they’re a little concerned?  Afraid they’re missing out on something?  And want to pre-empt us?  Because they’re old outdated studio paradigm is crashing down around them?  Hhhmmm…guess we get to see what’s up.

   Posted by Jerry Alden Deal on 12/15 at 03:14 PM

10. Amen.

    Posted by Susan Benfatto on 12/15 at 08:19 PM

11. Mark,

    When this news was released, my initial reaction was a positive one as I believed there will be opportunities opened for aspiring directors and producers.  With everything I have going on, I didn’t really go in-depth and analyze it the way you have here.  And I have to say that I completely agree with you.  As one who has immersed myself in this world for the last several years, I know how hard I have worked to pull off what I have done.  It is no easy task to make effective and entertaining low budget films.  You are certainly right that a lot of corners have to be cut to pull it off.  I pray that Paramount can pull this off, but it will be no easy task. 

    David Branin
    http://www.NightBeforeTheWedding.com
    http://www.FilmCourage.com

    Posted by David Branin on 12/16 at 01:01 AM

12. Mark,

    When this news was released, my initial reaction was a positive one as I believed there will be opportunities opened for aspiring directors and producers.  With everything I have going on, I didn’t really go in-depth and analyze it the way you have here.  And I have to say that I completely agree with you.  As one who has immersed myself in this world for the last several years, I know how hard I have worked to pull off what I have done.  It is no easy task to make effective and entertaining low budget films.  You are certainly right that a lot of corners have to be cut to pull it off.  I pray that Paramount can pull this off, but it will be no easy task.

    Posted by David Branin on 12/16 at 01:02 AM

13. This sounds great on the surface, but the reality is that even if they made a film for $0, it would still have a $20M ad campaign to go along with it.  Never mind the prints to actually get it into theaters.  I realize they’re stipulating that it’s a $100k “production” budget, but that’s irrelevant when you factor in that Paramount has essentially guaranteed distribution.  As for producing films at this budget level… forget it.  They’d be better off buying already produced films, as they did with Paranormal Activity.  If that’s the case, you have to wonder if what they mean is that they’re “buying” $100k films, or “making” $100k films.  If they’re buying them… are they spending $100k to pick them up (in which case, what was the REAL production budget)... or are they spending $1M to buy a $100k film that’s already done?  Either way… interesting to watch this bizarre move.

    Posted by Will on 12/16 at 07:11 AM

14. Great blog post Mark.

    Will be interesting to see if they follow through with it or shelve the idea before it really gets traction. Will’s post (above mine) makes a good point. Paramount should just buy 20 already made movies for $100K each. They’ll have better luck, IMO.

    Paramount is NOT going fund anything without insurance, so like you suggest re: lawyers’ fees & perhaps charging these to other productions, they’d have to do this with insurance as well. Despite a budget of $100k, no major insurance provider is going to give Paramount a blanket policy (production + E&O) for peanuts. It could cost the studio 1/5th of the movie’s budget.

    Posted by Jerome Courshon on 12/16 at 07:31 PM

15. We the free spirts of film making, are being viewed by the industry, as a market entity which has no real distribution direction.  The feable attempt to place us as a square peg to a round hole is laughable, and proven with few exceptions as financial failures. The art form itself requires guidelines such as the pioneers of No Budget Film School, even they cross over the line to be accepted by the barrons of the industry.  Fortunately this art form does have a place in our exhibitors theatres.  It will not be the distribution as it is known today.  It will not be underwritten by the barons until it is in full discovery, then they will want the control.  We as the Free Spirit Film Makers must have on going open forms with the exhibitors for real insight to set better guidelines for the creation of exhibition of our product.

    Are we forgetting the “past”, the intro to the features, which were cartoons, possibly the past could be replaced by the present.
    I am not suggesting cartoons but the shorts films need guide lines as well.  Which could result to revenues on both sides of the isle.  The feature length films should be realized as fresh new markets like the vast amount of cable stations throughout the International exhibitors.  “If” simple communication were
    to unite . . . the power barons . . . wouldn’t be so anxious to demonstrate this format is less than what the public demands.
    We are more than film festivals.  The cenergy could even spark
    the established as well as the foreign press to help the infant
    become stronger. 

    Posted by Dale Benson 12/16/09

    d. Benson

    Posted by Dale Benson on 12/17 at 12:43 AM

16. I thought the same thing when I read about this. Great post!

    Posted by Erin Donovan on 12/22 at 12:54 PM

17. Fresh off the success of “Paranormal Activity” — a $15,000 thriller that has grossed more than $107 million in domestic release despite little paid advertising — Paramount Pictures is set to launch an even newer production business for movies budgeted at zero.
    The new as-yet-unnamed division’s initial plan is to finance as many as 6.96 billion “zero-budget” movies annually starting in 2010, Adam Goodman, president of Paramount’s film group, said Thursday.  These films, essentially, will be unique to each individual viewer as they will all be distributed through a worldwide organic method described by Goodman as the consumer’s “imagination.”
    Goodman explained, “Unlike the majority of studio executives working today without the capability to think for themselves, our market research discovered that there are literally billions of people who actually create images along with story lines in their own minds.  We’re working with what little staff I haven’t fired to bring a newer division to replace a division I have yet to terminate in order to expand on what I have termed, ‘zero-budget’ entertainment.
    “I feel very strongly we need to be contrary in our thinking,” Goodman said. “Everybody has the ability to create content right now.  I need to stop that.”

    Posted by Rookman on 12/28 at 10:13 AM

18. When this news was released, my initial reaction was a positive one as I believe that if people read between the lines they will clearly see what the bias news writer was trying to achieve and the truth is clear that Paramount has always been their for it’s customers. I have confidence that Paramount will always succeed, but it will be no easy task, never has been.

    Steve Slepcevic
    Paramount Disaster Recovery

    Posted by Steve Slepcevic on 12/31 at 07:23 PM