$70 worth movie in CANNES !!

Sort by date Sort by votes
It's not unheard of. :)

Four or 5 years ago at Cannes, there was a (self-made) documentary/portrait about a gay teen: $40 was production cost, if I recall.

Probably not so easy to pass off now, with the proliferation of YouTube-style videos & websites.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This has spread to other film boards...

No one believes it. The price of makeup and tapes alone would add up to $100. What about gas? What about food on set?

It's outrageous to say a feature cost less than $100--even if you owned all the equipment beforehand.

And Blair...of course it's going to look terrible...they 'claim' to have made it for under $100. I don't think you need to spend 100K on a movie for it to rock...but you have to put SOME kind of funding into it.

I just don't believe it--nor do a lot of the other filmmakers on Ourfilmspace. Frankly I'm surprised this clearly ludicrous claim made it as far as it did in film pop-culture.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
How do you guage a movies budget? I mean, it apparently includes out of pocket money if he claimed that his budget went into the purchase of a crowbar and tea...so I just can't believe that you can do anything without spending more than 70 dollars.

I have a difficult time making it through an ordinary day without spending more than that...let alone making a film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hi there, I'm new here but I just wanted to say...

The 'cost' of a film, specially a small film, can be easily twisted...

For example, I have an EX1. I could get out there and 'make a movie' with no money. OK. But I payed 8,000+ dollars for my camera. And to get 'out there' I need to put gas into my car. And if I have a preproduction meeting, I will probably feed the people that participate in it. That is money...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
well... none of my films have ever cost over $100 to make... true, none of them are in cannes ;) but still... and yes, that amount does include food... no, i don't include cameras and editing software and computers... etc.... because i used those on more than just that film... those were things i bought to make "films"... not necessarily "that film"....

all to say that it's definitely possible to make a film for very little money... a few tapes/memory cards... some food.... a few clothes from a thrift store.... and there you go....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lewis886 said:
well... none of my films have ever cost over $100 to make... true, none of them are in cannes ;) but still... and yes, that amount does include food... no, i don't include cameras and editing software and computers... etc.... because i used those on more than just that film... those were things i bought to make "films"... not necessarily "that film"....

all to say that it's definitely possible to make a film for very little money... a few tapes/memory cards... some food.... a few clothes from a thrift store.... and there you go....
Click to expand...

You've personally made feature-length films for under $100, including food, gas, and tapes?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, they technically made the film for under $70 - but that's because all the make up and tape stock and food and everything else you usually have to pay for was donnated to them. The total expendature for the film was much more than that, but they only paid $70 out of pocket.

They shouldn't be being praised for making a film on such a small budget because they really didn't, they should be praised on getting that many people to donate stuff to them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is it with British no budget Zombie movies filmed on a cheap camcorder! yeah 28 days later was pretty decent but now its getting stupid! why are zombies the hot topic all the time!? how about bionic mutants with miniguns attached to their arms! oh wait they only have a budget of £45;
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Motorstorm said:
What is it with British no budget Zombie movies filmed on a cheap camcorder! yeah 28 days later was pretty decent but now its getting stupid! why are zombies the hot topic all the time!? how about bionic mutants with miniguns attached to their arms! oh wait they only have a budget of £45;
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even mention 28 DAYS LATER in the same thread as COLIN. You make it sound like 28 is a low budget zombie flick just like the thousand others...28 was shot on HD, was directed by Boyle, had the badass Cillian Murphy in it (and a complete stellar cast) with a unique take on the zombies. The zombies (infected) were fast and brutal. It looked great, sounded great, had amazing acting, and a great story.

It is without a doubt my favorite take on zombies...'pretty decent' isn't really how I'd describe 28 DAYS.

Sure we have opinions...but comparing it to no budget zombie movies filmed on cheap camcorders is another thing....

28 is a masterpiece, and will go down in cult history forever.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh no I used to love 28 days later and mainly because of the lonely depressing atmosphere and relentless antagonists but It seems if one person makes a zombie movie than a thousand more will. Same with the matrix and lock stock and two smoking barrels. Filmmakers look at that and think well despite having no budget I can better that although the concept is usually more flawed than the financial side of things.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
28 Days Later was filmed on a (relatively) cheap SD
camcorder. At the time it was made the cast wasn't
"stellar" - most were totally unknown in the US. Even
the badass Murphy wasn't known having done mostly
independents and short films.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
28 was shot on DV, yes...it wasn't SD that's for sure. I said HD because I wasn't sure form of higher def it was...I just knew it was along the lines of a decent HD camera nowa'days. It was the lenses and lighting that made it what it was (in addition to some post work).

And I called the cast 'stellar' because they were. I know they were pretty much all no-names (other than the father and Army Captain), that doesn't mean they can't be stellar. In my eyes, they were stellar. Fantastically acted all the way through. Being a name actor doesn't necessarily make you stellar. :) I was referring to skill...not fame or Hollywood draw.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
As you said Michael, we all have opinions.

Your opinion is the cast was stellar, mine is that they weren’t.
That shouldn’t change your mind on the movie and stating my
opinion wasn’t meant to do that. Or to minimize your opinion on
the cast. When I think of the term “stellar” I don’t see it as an
opinion - the skill of the actor - but a term that means “stars”
in the sense of known.

Just a different opinion. Just as you and I have a different
opinion on what is “independent”. In your eyes they were stellar,
in mine they weren’t. You offer yours - I offer mine. And that’s
what this forum is all about.

Opinion aside; the Canon XL-1s was (and is) a SD (standard
definition) camera. DV means Digital Video. DV can be SD, HDV and
HD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Haha i thought you meant SD card for a minute there. Personally i think the cast of 28 days later were suited to the movie, i wouldn't call them outstanding actors in general even in the British realm as you've got way more famous english actors like christian bale and Orlando Bloom but as long as the actors are convincing in films star power is irrelevant to me. Like I hadn't heard of Wentworth Miller before Prison Break and now i think hes one of the best actors around
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top