Now everyone is trying to pull off another Paranormal Activity. Morons!

quote:

---

Originally posted by naviobb

Now everyone is trying to pull off another Paranormal Activity. Morons!

---

Most studios have had their "indie" divisions so this isn't really anything new except for the budgets they want to assign to these projects. Part of the problem is the overall financial situation. While "Hollywood" IS making record profits despite the economy, getting financing for movies is difficult. It's easier to get $100 million + than it is to get a "mid range" budget. The very large budgets come with established names (Producers, Directors, Actors) who are "safe bets" on that investment. Typically, smaller budgets don't attract the biggest names therefore nervous investors aren't jumping at the chance to risk $20 to $80 million.

But, risking $100,000 and less isn't so bad. The studio will still want to see some kind of experience from the "filmmakers" (previous shorts, commercial experience, etc), but the relatively tiny financial risk that could turn into a valuable property is worth it. It's like making a low-cost proto-type. They may not get a blockbuster out of it, but they may find new talent to develop.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

So clearly these will be non union shows. I've done budgets many times and I've
sat with several excellent, experienced UPM's as they put budgets together. No
way can an 18 day shoot be done using union crafts and talent on $100,000.
Even using the WGA and SAG low budget agreements.

I wonder if a major studio like Paramount is really willing to finance and release
movies in order to find new talent to develop. It would be great if that was their
goal - even in part. I also wonder if the $100,000 number really is a "magic"
number for a budget. Sure, "Paranormal Activity" cost around that (including all
post work) put the hugely successful "Precious" was made for $10,000,000.
Maybe that's the magic number for a successful movie.

I look forward to seeing the movies this new division makes.

Brian, as a union brother (Local 33 and 44) what are your thoughts on a major
studio financing non union shows?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

I don't think Paramount is that interested in getting new talent. I don't think this business strategy is going to work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Brian, as a union brother (Local 33 and 44) what are your thoughts on a major
studio financing non union shows?

---

Well, on a pure level, it is never "right" to exploit anyone in order to create a product that "could" reward the "manufacturer" with great profit.

That said, I'm not sure about the alternatives. When I was down in Rosarita on Titanic, the "buzz" among the crew was that the movie wouldn't be that successful as it was really the first $200 million dollar project. For that money, upwards of four moderately budgeted projects could be made that would potentially put more people to work. If Titanic succeeded, it would mean fewer projects overall as more investment dollars would be committed to fewer (but larger) projects. Larger doesn't necessarily means that more people get to work and make a living. It just means that a few people make more money for themselves, therefore the "wealth" isn't distributed very well among the industry professionals.

So, if the studio didn't do these micro budget projects, would they use that money for one or two large movies? Who knows? I'm not sure what their motivation really is for doing this and if it's actually "Legal" in terms of their existing agreements with IATSE, DGA, SAG, WGA, and Teamsters. I'm sure those groups are all over that as we speak.

Micro budgets/indies are a great way for new people to get experience, so anyone doing them is going to be beneficial for the industry. But if they expect established professionals to cut their rates and break the union contracts "just to work," I don't see it happening very successfully.

I think that an arrangement like this works better for the aspiring Writers and Directors than any of the crew who put the time in at ridiculously low rates. The studio still needs to adhere to state labor laws (minimum wage) so it's not like 100% slave labor, but it's always going to be a question of a manufacturer that DOES have the ability to pay the going rates and wondering why they choose not to? That's not too hard to figure out.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by naviobb

I don't think Paramount is that interested in getting new talent. I don't think this business strategy is going to work.

---

Why not? Paranormal Activity sure paid well, with (to my understanding) virtually no investment. It's not like they're redirecting their entire company, and like CI mentioned already there's been budget studios, which are subsidiaries of big name studios, around for years.

Besides, of course a studio is looking for new talent. They may not be actively scouring for it, but without new talent (the only way I could imagine that even ever happening was if there were no cameras outside of Hollywood...) the industry would grow stale, shrivel up and die.

Well, Corax, you do have a point but movies like Paranormal Activity are rare exceptions. Moreover, it was an independent film. Do you think studios that will give artistic control to the director or the writer?

In my opinion, studios are looking forward to make huge profits here. Paranormal Activity was made for $15,000 (excluding marketing costs and other stuff). It has earned almost $141 million at the boxoffice. Also, Paramount acquired the rights for only $300,00 which also include potential sequel. So, you can clearly see the amount of profit Paramount made from this movie. As humans, we have this tendency to follow whatever is working and that's what people at Paramount are trying to do. Invest small, earn big.

quote:

---

Originally posted by naviobb

Well, Corax, you do have a point but movies like Paranormal Activity are rare exceptions. Moreover, it was an independent film. Do you think studios that will give artistic control to the director or the writer?

In my opinion, studios are looking forward to make huge profits here. Paranormal Activity was made for $15,000 (excluding marketing costs and other stuff). It has earned almost $141 million at the boxoffice. Also, Paramount acquired the rights for only $300,00 which also include potential sequel. So, you can clearly see the amount of profit Paramount made from this movie. As humans, we have this tendency to follow whatever is working and that's what people at Paramount are trying to do. Invest small, earn big.

---

Well, you're just really not supplying any new information or insight navio. I'm not denying the fact (nor is anyone else) that studios are in it to make money, they are a business afterall. In fact, the point of my argument that it is profitable to seek new talent (especially passively).

Though, to what you asked in your post, I don't have enough experience though to determine what or what not a studio would do in this case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by naviobb
As humans, we have this tendency to follow whatever is working and that's what people at Paramount are trying to do. Invest small, earn big.

---

Has this been a workable, realistic, method in the
studio system?

Sure, we can all name the very rare exceptions an
under $100,000 movie made a huge profit. They
have all been independent movies that were picked
up my distributors. In the last 35 year (since 1975)
have there been many sub $100,000 films made
by the studios (even the low budget arms like
"Focus", "October", "Vantage", "Searchlight",
"Destination") that have earned big?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)