I've worked on a lot of no-budget movies (no-budget in Hollywood terms is anything under $100k). I have dont feature films that cost as little as $30k. The trick of making a short cheap movie is to know what you're doing well enough to shoot the whole thing in a short period, like 1-2 weeks.
The $70/45 pound is bullshit. Even if you don't pay people (you can get away with this because everyone wants to be in movies), the rule is that you at least feed them and pay for their transport costs (bus tickets or gasoline). Unless you are exceptionally good at scheduling, you'll have them there for a full day which means feeding them twice.
I guarantee this thing cost at least $10,000 in food and expenses. What it probably means is the filmmaker spent $70 and scrounged up the rest from his parents and friends' parents. Even if you do home cooking, feeding and stumping up bus fares for an average of 20 people a day ain't cheap. I hate these kind of stories because when you're trying to raise money for a low-budget movie people say 'well X was made for $150', while many of your suppliers (particularly suppliers of locations, which you can't afford to build) hear 'movie' and think you're going to drop thousands per day.
It also doesn't account for the makers labor. It's like saying "I made a web app in my spare time over 3 months while working at McSoftware Firm. So it cost $0 to make!"
Well, working for free or deferred pay (if the film gets sold) is common at the bottom end of the business. So I'm prepared to accept that the labor outlay was $0, since in such cases there's an agreement that nobody is owed any money unless paydirt is hit. And equipment may be owned or borrowed - after all, I have 2 cameras that can shoot video, and a fast computer, so if I began shooting something lo-fi tomorrow I'm already equipped. But still.
It helps when you have friends just coming off the X-Men 3 production: "Most of the zombie make-up in the make-up artists' cases was inherited from other movies."
It's still impressive that he was able to borrow and recruit volunteers for the whole deal, but the $70 budget is a bit deceiving when he certainly used equipment worth far more money.
I prefer to think of it the same way as stuff out of the demoscene that goes on about producing an awesome demo in 4k... and then doesn't mention that it requires all sorts of stuff to be separately provided through DirectX or OpenGL.
I'm always curious how they tabulate costs for this kind of movie. Why exactly were the crow bar and drinks included in the $70, and everything else not? The video camera, or the editing software, or the computer he edited on, or the time of the creator and actors, or even the actors make up and costumes, all cost money, it's just that they were donated or already owned.
If he just recalculated some of the expenses I'd imagine it could also be $0 or several thousand.
It's out-of-pocket money, just like those "I built a web startup for $100" posts. If the web startups counted how much the OSS would have cost if it was not free, the total cost would skyrocket.
OSS may be free in terms of purchase dollars, but not free in terms of time needed to learn how to code. Just like getting X-Men production props is free in terms of purchase dollars, but not free in terms of time needed to build those connections.
Agreed, the $70 estimate is very misleading. It doesn't include opportunity cost of capital (time), cost of education, his existing equipment, his friends connections etc. etc.
Also, I'd like to add: his opportunity cost is actually HUGE - 5 years earlier and he was not qualified enough (guessing - tied down with education, learning the ropes etc.), while 5 years later and he's too old to be doing this (pushing 40) and probably tied down with wife and kids.
The zombie film flick "Colin" is succeeding on the strength of the filmmaking and the PR made-for-nothing-story.
I have two friends who have made documentaries and films. Startups and film-making are very alike. Making films for people to watch is very much a labor of sweat and passion. Even finishing the film is a feat. Making it into a film festival is a success. There is a whole circuit of local/regional/national/international festivals. Everyone has heard of Cannes - but the Big Sky (Montana) festival? Making a film that is accepted into Cannes? That is a major accomplishment. Making a film that gets picked up by a major distributor. Probably the equivalent of an IPO.
As Chris Holland of the Film Festival Secrets blogs writes:
"I think this [Doonesbury] strip pretty much sums up the indie film experience for many filmmakers"
Chris, an indie film insider, on the realities of getting your film distributed:
"So while you're on the ground at the film festival, do the following:
» Set discrete, measurable, attainable goals. Of course you should think about what your overall goals are for your film and your career, but for the purposes of any one event you need to write down the bite-sized goals that you can accomplish while you're there. "Find a distributor" is not a bite-sized goal. "Talk to ten distributors and establish contact with an acquisition rep at each" is more reasonable."
Hollywood has a long long history of fudging the numbers on the true costs of movies. They use it for everything from simple tax evasion to huge complex schemes in order to deprive rights holders of royalties.
Calling it $70 as a publicity stunt is pretty benign.
My friend Matt who works as a PA (production assistant - meaning you basically do stuff like go grab a very specific lunch for X movie starlet at times) says Hollywood operates under its own rules.
For example, apparently if you work for more than 14 days (or it might be 21) straight on a production you automatically become part of the union. So, what they do, is every 14 days they fire all the temp workers on the set. And usually rehire them the next day.
I don't know and this explanation seems to be good (e.g. talent is not interchangeable because of social connections and big-hitter players supporting the union)
I learned from a Media Studies course that distribution and promotion costs 100% of the cost of a movie. So a $30 mil movie costs another $30 mil to promote. Unless of course you get promotion by saying how much it cost!
[Additional] I loved the Hunt for Gollum and that was astonishing film making for the budget.
Certainly impressive, but I take issue with the statement that this film cost $70 -- is the creator's time worthless? If this film grosses $140, I doubt he'll be jumping in joy over a 100% profit.
Your startup is certainly impressive, but I take issue with the statement that you only need $20000/year to develop it -- is your time worthless? If your startup makes $120000 in its first year, I doubt you'll be jumping in joy over a 200%-500% profit.
How much of this is just buzz-creation? It is next to impossible to verify the $'s spent. However, 18 months of time + volunteers does have a high opportunity cost.
Is this sarcastic? According to Wikipedia, Blair Witch Project had gross revenues of nearly $250m as of 18 months ago.
The Blair Witch Project grossed $248,639,099 worldwide, against a $22,000 budget.[12] The film was featured in the Guinness Book of Records as having the highest profit-to-cost ratio of a motion picture ever, making back US$11,301.78 for every $1 spent.
The $70/45 pound is bullshit. Even if you don't pay people (you can get away with this because everyone wants to be in movies), the rule is that you at least feed them and pay for their transport costs (bus tickets or gasoline). Unless you are exceptionally good at scheduling, you'll have them there for a full day which means feeding them twice.
I guarantee this thing cost at least $10,000 in food and expenses. What it probably means is the filmmaker spent $70 and scrounged up the rest from his parents and friends' parents. Even if you do home cooking, feeding and stumping up bus fares for an average of 20 people a day ain't cheap. I hate these kind of stories because when you're trying to raise money for a low-budget movie people say 'well X was made for $150', while many of your suppliers (particularly suppliers of locations, which you can't afford to build) hear 'movie' and think you're going to drop thousands per day.