WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
First Photo of Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy in "Victor Frankenstein"
Jul 4th, 2015
Two More Photos From "Deadpool" Comic Book Film
Jul 4th, 2015
"Hello Kitty" to Become $200 Million Movie
Jul 4th, 2015
New Photos From "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"
Jul 4th, 2015
Lots of New "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" Photos and Story Details
Jul 3rd, 2015
New Photo From Ryan Reynolds' "Deadpool" Comic Book Film
Jul 3rd, 2015
"Monopoly" Movie Hires "The Truman Show" Writer
Jul 3rd, 2015
New Photo From Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight"
Jul 3rd, 2015
"Terminator Genisys" - What Did You Think?
Jul 2nd, 2015
New Trailer for Michael Fassbender's "Steve Jobs" Biopic is Here!
Jul 2nd, 2015
New Trailer for "Transporter" Reboot
Jul 2nd, 2015
Trailer for "Rocky" Spin-Off "Creed"
Jul 1st, 2015
Trailer for Gerard Butler's "Olympus Has Fallen" Sequel, "London Has Fallen"
Jul 1st, 2015
Marlon Wayans Threatening to Make "White Chicks" Sequel
Jul 1st, 2015
Teaser Trailer for Oliver Stone's "Snowden" Film, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Jul 1st, 2015
Robert Zemeckis Says He'll Stop Any "Back to the Future" Reboot
Jun 30th, 2015
Titles for "Star Trek 3" and "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" Revealed
Jun 30th, 2015
First Look at Costumes From "Ghostbusters" Reboot
Jun 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Ten Thousand Saints," with Ethan Hawke and Asa Butterfield
Jun 30th, 2015
"Ted 2" Underperforms at Box Office, "Jurassic World" Continues to Dominate
Jun 29th, 2015
"Lucy" and "Colombiana" Sequels in the Works
Jun 27th, 2015
Steven Spielberg Acquires Michael Crichton's "Micro" Novel
Jun 27th, 2015
New "Heroes Reborn" Trailer Arrives Online
Jun 26th, 2015
Photos From New Episodes of "The X-Files"
Jun 26th, 2015
New Trailer for Tom Hardy's "Legend" Thriller
Jun 26th, 2015
Adrian Grenier Would Make "Aquaman" Cameo
Jun 26th, 2015
Shia LaBeouf Hospitalized After Sustaining a Head Injury on Set
Jun 25th, 2015
Dwayne Johnson to Star in "Rampage" Video Game Movie
Jun 25th, 2015
First Look at Gerard Butler in "London Has Fallen"
Jun 25th, 2015
Emma Watson Joins Tom Hanks in "The Circle" Thriller
Jun 25th, 2015
"Spider-Man" Reboot Announces Actor and Director
Jun 24th, 2015
First Trailer for "Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension"
Jun 24th, 2015
Channing Tatum Says He Hates "GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra"
Jun 24th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Paramount to Develop Films with $100,000 Budgets

Posted: December 11th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Paramount to Develop Films with $100,000 BudgetsSubmit Comment
After the success of "Paranormal Activity," Paramount Pictures immediately announced that it would develop the sequel and has now decided to take this a step further.

The studio is planning to spend $1 million annually to develop and produce micro-budget films, like "Paranormal," which was made for only $15,000 and grossed over $100 million domestically. By the end of next year, Paramount will begin work on 10 to 20 projects, each having a maximum budget of $100,000.

With hopes of finding new voices and ideas, the goal is to attract not only established filmmakers, but also unknown ones. Some of the movies will get a theatrical release and will be supported by a similar marketing strategy used for "Paranormal," which is an effective low-cost grassroots campaign to build a strong word of mouth.

Source: Variety


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 38 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Ari Gold writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 8:40:00 AM

This is pretty cool. Gives directors a chance to get creative while giving other hopeful film makers an opportunity to get a foot in the door. sh*t if Robert Rodriguez could make El Mariachi for $7000, I'm sure $100 000 would be heaps.

It would be amazing for Paramounts profit margins too. I can't see anything wrong with this really.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 9:18:59 AM

And it took them this long to realize this would be a good idea... morons! They're 10 years late. Anyway, better late than never.

This could mean so many good things, new actors, new directors, new stories, new producers...
Dealey writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 9:54:07 AM

Yeah, this sounds awesome
RobertHolik writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:10:56 AM

Best news I've heard in a while (: I love low budget films! (:
minkowski writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:28:20 AM

Yeah, nice idea for budding low budget directors, but it's not an altruistic move on Paramount's part. PA cost 15 grand and made 100 million. Paramount sees this as gold mine. They don't give two sh*ts about struggling writers and dorectors, they care about cashing in on super-low budget films that bank at the BO. Yeah, it's a good thing, but done for all the wrong reasons. Call me cynical, I don't give a sh*t, that's the truth. Paramount shoud've done this BEFORE making a killing on PA.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:34:43 AM

I agree with mink on this. It is a great idea for all of the wrong reasons. Nah let em make all the f*cking money they want that is what america is really about. Until the government gets involved that is.
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:58:36 AM

It may be about money, but thats exactly what big budget movies are about too. I think that if this was successful we could be seeing a lot of studios doing it. Digital is helping too. FOR INSTANCE; I am a senior studying film at college, and the project I'm working on would probably cost me more than $1000 in film buying and processing alone (and I get to use the cameras for free!). Instead I'm shooting it on a tapeless Sony EX-1 and shooting f*cking glorious 1080P @ 23.976... and all that footage is free, because the card can just be wiped when I'm done.

ALSO, thats a pretty good opportunity when theyre giving 10-20 directors small projects to prove themselves with, and you can really do a LOT with a little money these days.
UZZIEMAN writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 11:40:36 AM

Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 11:49:59 AM

Of course they do it for the wrong reasons, it's f*cking Hollywood. You just must use it to your own advantage. I like this idea and we might see some qualified people emerge from this.
CCBlev writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 1:59:31 PM

What would George Lucas and James "I'm gonna steal 500 mil for a movie" Cameron say to this?
rabid writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 2:02:21 PM

They'd say "Pass the caviar, Jeeves."
trickofthehand writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 2:18:21 PM

Film is a business, and Paramount is in it to make money just like every other studio. Art is a distant second. Yet without living thru the 20 Doom, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, SW Phantom Menace sh*tfests we wouldn't have the 10 or so good flicks that come out each year.
trickofthehand writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 2:24:36 PM

@ CCBlev

James Cameron is a f*cking hero. He took Fox to the cleaners with Avatar for 500 million dollars and that makes him a god in my book. This is payback for Glenn Beck, O'Reily, and the entire Fox News network.
minkowski writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:17:47 PM

Avatar didn't cost 500 million, even with marketing. Some of you people spread rumors like Pam Anderson spreads hepatitis.
Rich k writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:20:04 PM

Good some of the lowest budgeted movie are the best.
Ranger writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:25:34 PM

Obviously the success of cheap $35mil. 'District 9' has opened their eyes (and pocketbooks) as well. $100K is lunch money for they to find the next Paranormal, District 9 idea. This is (clearly) just a new idea for on the auditioning process.
Ranger writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:32:53 PM

Everyone here see Billy-Bob Thorton's Slingblade?

(some call it a Kaiser Blade, but I call it a Sling Blade... uh-humm!)

Pretty sweet movie. Dwight Yoakum and John Ritter gave their best performances as well on there, and the kid was brillant. Also a low(er) budget, indie flick.

triggax writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:35:43 PM

"Avatar didn't cost 500 million, even with marketing. Some of you people spread rumors like Pam Anderson spreads hepatitis."

Didn't James Cameron himself say that between fox and all of the other investors the price tag was pushing over 500 million? I could be wrong but I remember reading that...
Ranger writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:49:18 PM

@trig - yes... it's over $500mil. (so they brag... it could honestly be half of that... but a LOT more people would want to see a half Bil. $ movie over a $200mil one (don't ask me why). But more than half of that $500mil. has gone (again... so they say) to development of new technology that can be re-sold later to other Productions. But no, the movie alone was not even half of that $500mil.
vaodsi writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 3:58:55 PM

I LIKE!
warriors187 writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 4:04:26 PM

There are PLENTY of B movies that are being made for 100,000 dollars and less. They tried spilling out millions of dollars to make a decent movie, and when that didn't work, they decide to start making them for 100 grand.

I like them French fried potaters.
minkowski writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 4:09:14 PM

I can't find Cameron quote to back that up. All i can find is the NYT article speculating about a 500 million total price tag. Published reports have put the production budget at more than $230 million.
triggax writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 4:22:17 PM

Yeah I just looked it up and the popular estimate seems to be 230 mil... which when put up against PotC 3 is not even close to the biggest budget of all time.. pirates was what? 300 mil?
nope.com writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 4:34:41 PM

lol lionsgate tried to do this after Hostel came out... look what happened to that idea
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 5:07:59 PM

Actually Mink, you are telling the truth. With the profit that PA has made, I'm sure the movie bosses are willing to try anything to catch lighting in a bottle again. Plus, I'm sure they would like to stop paying 20 million for some of these actors and such. This might lead to the end of the lottery size paycheck in Hollywood.
minkowski writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 5:55:42 PM

I'm sure after all is said and done, the total is well over 300 million, but when you do that for Avatar, combining production budget with marketing and all the rest, you have to so the same for all the other films. So I think this whole half a billion thing is still an exaggeration. Even if it is, Avatar is going to have to make big, big money just to break even. Obviously...
Ranger writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 6:04:46 PM


I can't tell which one is dandy?
http://www.cupchicks.com/cupchicks.php
Not bad for his first $100K effort.

minkowski writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 6:11:11 PM

You're a sick, sick man, Ranger.
Kurskij writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 6:24:34 PM

@Ranger
The one under the table.
And, yeah, you're a sick man )))
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 7:10:47 PM

10 years Pete? You're being far too generous. I'll sign up for this deal, let me finish this script and I'll be right over Paramount.
vwkombi writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:13:51 PM

Something good, done for the wrong reasons is still something good. People now get a better chance of making a name for themselves in the movie industry.

So what if Paramount is only doing it for money? Good things are still going to happen.
vwkombi writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:15:13 PM

@ Ranger

E-Gards Man!
Peter Parker writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:27:14 PM

@ Ranger

You can sure find some good classics! And what a lovely song to go along with the impressive footage.
It's now in my bookmarks, and I got the cravings for some chocolate fudge after that.
As for which of them is Dandy, easy, it's the one whose ass can't hold sh*t in anymore.

-----------------------------------------------
@ TH3D4RKKN1GH7:

Yup, I was being generous, the Christmas season always has that effect on me.
But you're right, in deed. If they'd thought of this 15 or 20 years ago, disasters like "Cutthroat Island" and "Waterworld" would never had happened.

"I'll sign up for this deal, let me finish this script and I'll be right over Paramount"

- The day you do that, I can honestly say I'll be crossing my fingers for you.
CCBlev writes:
on December 11th, 2009 at 10:30:34 PM

@ranger
wow, wtf? Where did you find that one at? lol
Ranger writes:
on December 12th, 2009 at 5:54:28 AM

Lol... thx. folks.
goat1202 writes:
on December 12th, 2009 at 6:30:34 PM

not every low budget movies are going to be like PA or even The Blair Witch, but at least the low budgeted productions wont have to rely so much on special effects/CGI to make the movie, all components of the movie have to be bang on with the limited resources/money. Of course Paramount only cares about the bottom line, they're just like any other corporation its the directors/writers/actors that have to step it up and be original, personally I'm getting tired of the whole re-make/re-boot of older films nowadays, lets get some original ideas you lazy f*cks.
swoooop writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 6:24:48 PM

Main stream low budget movies?? WTF!!! Inn short, they will use less money, so they can earn more. What good can come from this?? I think films like Paranormal only works like once every 10 year. It would be called a cynical rip of had it arrived less than a year after Blair Witch. Not that the stories are alike, but the whole internettbuzz sh*tt.
Kal-El writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 11:10:32 PM

$100k isn't enough to use union workers, which is what professional DP's, Grips, Drivers, etc. are. Paramount won't be able to make these films in the states -- the unions will shut them down.

Hugh Jackman on Quitting Wolverine and Making "Deadpool" Cameo

Hugh Jackman Quit Wolverine Role Because of Jerry Seinfeld

It's Official: "Jurassic World" Beats "The Avengers" for Biggest Box Office Opening

Marvel and Sony Can't Agree on Which Actor Should Play Spider-Man

Spider-Man Contractually Cannot be Black or Gay

"Jurassic World" is a Massive Hit, Chris Pratt to Return for Sequel

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" Plot Synopsis Revealed

Stan Lee Comments on Spider-Man Contractually Being White and Straight

"Star Wars" Actor Arrested After Insane Car Chase

Targon Egerton Wants to Replace Hugh Jackman as Wolverine
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved