http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...unt-to-launch-microbudget-movie-division.html
A telling passage: I think it establishes Paramount as a forward thinking force in the future of movie distribution, and it's a move that can bring credibility to no-budget filmmakers by cherry picking top talent. It can also be a Machiavellian move to crush already existing avenues of indie distribution. I want the glass to be half full here, but who knows how it will turn out?
What do you think?
It may be forward thinking, but at whose expense? In order to make a film for 100K, everyone who works on the picture usually makes very little during production, many deferring (risking) the lion's share of their compensation. The difference in compensation under the standard low budget agreements and the indie low budget agreements is huge.
Is Paramount planning on producing these films under the standard guild low budget agreements or are they going to go under the indie agreements which pay 20 to 25% of what the normal studio low budget agreements pay? (which is considerably less than the high budget minimums)
Many unions and guilds have ultra low budget contracts that enable very low budget independent features to be made with union and/or guild talent - because independently financed films can't afford to pay standard union/guild minimum wages.
But when a company with as deep pockets as Paramount has - is making films on a budget that pays out only a fraction of what a normal budgeted film would pay - that is exploiting the spirit of those union contracts - not to mention the people working on the project.
To give you an idea of the cut in pay we're looking at consider the following:
Actors:
Sag Low Budget (under 2.5 Million budget) Day Rate $504
Sag Modified Low Budget (Under 625k budget) Day Rate $268
Sag Ultra Low Budget (Under 200k budget) Day Rate $100
So actors working on these new Paramount produced projects will make in a week what they would make in a day on a standard low budget Paramount film (the day rates are higher for films budgeted at over 2.5 million - which probably encompasses somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% of other Paramount projects.)
Writers:
WGA Low Budget (budget under 5 million) 40K
WGA Indie Low Budget (budget under 2.5 million) Pay 10K upon commencement of principal photography - defer (risk) the rest to the back end.
I don't see how Paramount could produce films for 100K if they are paying out 40K of that for the script and paying actors $500 a day - which leads me to believe they will be functioning under these ultra low budget contracts - if they're even eligible to do so. Are studio projects covered under these agreements or are they specifically for independent signatories?
I am a big supporter of indie filmmaking, I've worked in development at a few independent production companies and I've been hired to write several indie scripts so I'm familiar with the challenges indies have in finding money and the limitations that small budgets put on among other things, wages.
But if a major studio were to set up a division that pays such low salaries, that would be exploitation of the talent involved in the project. Paramount could do the same thing but with movies budgeted high enough to cover the costs of paying the standard guild minimums and it would still be a drop in the bucket budget-wise, considering the average studio film costs around 100 million.
I applaud innovation and forward thinking but not at the expense of a living wage for those doing the work.
but if it meant the film would not only be made but distributed, would it be a good tradeoff? That's a hard question for me to answer. A pro with credits might disagree.