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
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Paramount to Release Movies That are Cheap, Risky and Silly

Posted: March 11th, 2010 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Paramount to Release Movies That are Cheap, Risky and SillySubmit Comment
After the success of "Paranormal Activity," Paramount Pictures announced that it will create a new production company that will create ten low-budget theatrical releases per year, each with $100,000 budget.

Paramount announced: "We want to find and distribute crazy, unpredictable, and hopefully awesome movies - movies that make you want to line up to see at your local theater with all your friends (and us). Movies that a big studio would never release because they're too risky, too silly, and they don't star Sandra Bullock."

The name of the new company is Insurge Pictures. It already has a domain name (insurgepictures.com, but no website yet. Stay tuned as the studio begins to reveal the projects it will take on.

Source: Paramount Pictures


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 43 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
cjohnson162 writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:39:25 PM

i dont think its actually a bad idea, some of my favorite movies are really low budget indie ones that not alot of people have heard of.
rabid writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:39:30 PM

Sounds good. The more money they throw at a project, the more fomulaic the film gets to keep their money safe. Plenty of great films were made for under a million bucks.
Gates writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:41:49 PM

Bah, I can watch all of those same cheap, risky, and silly movies on the Sci-Fy channel.
trailertrash writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:49:15 PM

Wow doors just keep opening for lindsay at the minute.....
Ranger writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:52:05 PM

Those doors opened usually being her vagina and bung-hole.
Peter Parker writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:54:41 PM

They already had many risky and silly movies, sounds like now they just want to spend less money on them.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:54:47 PM

This is why I love paramount.
triggax writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 6:59:00 PM

spooky, agreed, this is a smart move... Paramounts got the idea
encoreyourface writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:01:51 PM

uh .... no comment ... don't really care.
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:09:42 PM

so does that mean we will see alot of movies staring Lohan, Coleman & Haim?
Ranger writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:19:13 PM

lol.
SofaKing writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:23:55 PM

Great idea, give a few new film makers an opportunity to prove they are worthy before moving on to bigger projects. I hope to see a few of these movies in the future.
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:25:57 PM

seriously tho, this is a good move.

@sofaking- sounds good
shayhiri writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:28:52 PM

Ha-ha. I'm not cheap myself, so I don't watch cheap movies.

And even if I did - why in cinema? No friggin sense. Just download them for free, won't lose anything.
Ranger writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:29:52 PM

Not even your virginity?
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:31:45 PM

Now if i could just finish my screenplay in time...
encoreyourface writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:32:17 PM

but @shay, considering how amazing your books are gonna be, won't you have plenty of money?

hell maybe you own a theater as well!
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:33:08 PM

Yeah, I like this idea. I'm surprised no company tried to do it sooner.
johnny_boy writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:33:09 PM

100,000 dollar budget per film? Wow, just hire Lindsey lohan for all of them. By now she's probaly worth just $50 a film, that way they save money and can hire a decent crew
Ranger writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:33:43 PM

This is already being done...

It's called 'straight to DVD'

People aren't going to pay full pop to see anything less than the blockbusters in theaters.
encoreyourface writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:39:47 PM

Ranger-agreed. it just seems me me that they want to pull what Saw is doing so surprisingly successfully ... they're getting cheap, that seems to be all there is to it.
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:43:24 PM

For 100k you could get Lohan to give head 100,000 times.

Just dont mention that she is a milkaholic.
Ranger writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:44:54 PM

A best Bud and I went to see Avatar in IMAX 3D. With a bucket of popcorn, 2 candy bars and a 2 pops, and a used meat thermometer it was just over $60.

Does Paramount think we're going to lay out that kind of cash for a Corey Haim re-release?!
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:47:59 PM

My idea...

Weekend at Bernies 3 starring Corey Haim.
KalVicious writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:52:42 PM

This sounds interesting. :) Lol. :)
Peter Parker writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:56:59 PM

"ten low-budget theatrical releases per year, each with $100,000 budget"

- Or, as I like to call it, good porn.
Peter Parker writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 7:57:57 PM

"The name of the new company is Insurge Pictures"

- I guess "Cheap Flicks" was taken.
johnny_boy writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 8:01:20 PM

@ ranger.... You had to throw in the meat thermometer. LOL. You're cold and I'm a d*ck for laughing so hard at that.

(hope I didn't sound insulting which wasn't my intention)
lost_addict writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 8:11:31 PM

"Cheap, Risky and Silly"

uwe boll just ejaculated
CCBlev writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 8:59:59 PM

wow uwe boll, lohan, coleman all got excited. Something they can finally do, too bad they can't get all 3 of them in one film and for 100,000 make one hell of a snuff film!
Ranger writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 10:14:07 PM

With everyone in the audience throwing meat thermometers at the screen!

@johnny - lol.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 11:32:15 PM

Love the idea. Every studio should have a division like this, it in theory would make it a lot easier to get in to the industry. With divisions like this, camera systems like Canon's 5D Mark II and 7D, and knowledge easily accessible to all via the internet, it's a great time to be an independent filmmaker with a dream.
ProfMovies writes:
on March 11th, 2010 at 11:47:06 PM

Paramount wouldn't know quality if it bit them on the butt!
That is one studio in need of a mass firing!!
JRprime writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 1:05:31 AM

indies ftw baby
otis writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 1:57:38 AM

The reason Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch and the Saw movies were successful cheap (Saw was a little more expensive I believe) is because the shooting capacity was on a handheld, low-grade stylistic camera. It is a specific type of film- the shaky, close-up cam will only work in non-professional storylines. Put that same budget in anything other than a small-casted, limited environment horror, we're straying into Student film territory.

And not to discount all student films, but that's not what we go to the big movies for. With 100k, you'll get minimal built sets, a bunch of nobody actors that are willing to take a paycut and above all- we might be looking at digital film. Digital is why things can get so cheap, but the catch is that it looks DIGITAL.
otis writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 1:58:57 AM

But on the defense of Paramount, I think these unformulaic, oddball films can be an air of refreshment...if done right with a simple story, and not another first-person camera ploy.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 2:09:50 AM

Otis: Canon Video SLRs say Hello. Visual quality is not a problem anymore, hasn't been for two years. This idea that digital is inferior to film is so ridiculous. A large portion of successful films are being shot on digital cameras anything from RED One, to Genesis, to SONY F35 F900. Sets, you've got a point, actors, you've got a point. Equipment? Dead wrong.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 2:17:05 AM

Edward Burns was tweeting about this he seemed pretty excited about the possibilities. So was Jeff Goldsmith who does podcasts with screenwriters. I jotted my ideas down myself on my blog, I think this is a step in the right direction.

A whole helluva lot can be made for 100K, directors just have to use their noggins. I mean 100K isn't going to get you AVATAR, but it will get you everything AVATAR was lacking.

RomanMFrance.com if interested in the blog post.
otis writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 2:46:53 AM

@TH3D4RKKN1GH7
I will give you that there are great achievements in the technology that make digitally-shot films look like they were made with filmstock, but there is a certain life that I'm not sure any digital film can capture- I'm not sure if it's the framerate, the focus lens, or what, but I can look at something and immediately tell it's digital. But for the vast majority of viewers, I don't see them complaining. I guess It's just a personal vendetta I have.

And I just checked out your blog- you've got some nice thoughts in there. I'll keep checkin in out, man. Good stuff
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 2:55:02 AM

Why thank you Otis.

You're right normal folks can't tell the difference, sh*t sometimes I can't tell the difference. It's getting incredibly difficult, though film is still what vast majority of films are shot on.

I think Digital sometimes gets a bad wrap though because most of the time its not digital's fault for something not looking cinematic, its the f*cking DP with his weak camera movement and sh*tty lighting set up. I mean Public Enemies, hell Miami Vice as well, is just bad camera work and really sh*tty audio mix job(on Enemies) too.

Things like Benjamin Button are good advocates for digital. It's going to look a little different yeah, but it can still be cinematic. Michael Mann and crew need to go find themselves though.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 2:57:30 AM

A real DP who's kicking ass with digital cams now, mainly Canon's new HDDSLRs... Shane Hurlbut. He was DP on Terminator Salvation, EASILY the best thing about that film was the cinematography. The man's a genius behind the camera, he's got a great blog too, really informative.
Bigcheese writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 4:37:24 AM

Can't complain, low budget movies are normally the best for a friday night.
Ranger writes:
on March 12th, 2010 at 9:07:03 PM

So is COC's dead mom.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
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