Colin Shot Montage

[souq]

WILHELM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[humonculus7]

I'd like to see this film.

[ninjazoner]

what kind of cam did this guy use?

[abdigon]

some sort of home video cam, from the look of it.

[VioletClub]

Here's the thing: You CAN throw 90 minutes of shit together and call it a feature film, BUT to make it usable on a commercially released DVD or as a projectable film in theaters, the audio has to be formatted a certain way, the picture has to fall within "legal" specs, errors & omissions insurance has to be purchased, clearances need to be addressed, AND deferred payments to cast & crew need to be made.

I doubt VERY MUCH that all involved will never get paid.

How then, is it $70?

[timpedersen]

They shot it for $70, the distributor can cover everything you mentioned.

[VioletClub]

$70., $20., $90., $1.27. That's irrelevant.

The distributor, yeah, can pay the costs that the filmmaker didn't pay out. But then it makes the film very much NOT a film that was made for $70. if it enters the distribution realm.

Robert Rodriguez supposedly shot El Mariachi for $7K, but then the distributor had to spend $200,000-$300,000. to fix all the audio and other shit.

And, I doubt the filmmaker's rep is claiming the film only cost $70. to make.

[CTM1978]

Exactly, this is a bullshit PR move. This movie did NOT cost $70.

[worldofbong]

Well you're quite the bureaucrat aren't you

[k2qqq]

The $70 was spent on condoms.

[VioletClub]

Sorry, but how can you claim your feature length film cost $70???

I realize people were working for free, but shouldn't you factor in man-hours for the crew and the cast? What did they eat? Brains? Nothing was spent on anything else besides a crowbar, coffee, and tea?

Was anyone being paid on a deferred basis? What about post-production? That's a LOT of hours.

Seventy bucks is a marketing device, but hey, I'm all for ultra low if it doesn't suck.

[sionedms]

You do realize your question about "factoring in man hours" is rather inane?? I mean, if the cast and crew did it for FREE then you do not factor in man hours. "What did they eat?" Perhaps they what a lot of people do when they work... it's a crazy idea so hold onto your hat... they brought their own lunch *gasp!!*

Before you ask nescient questions... perhaps you should sit down a while and... think. It might help.. or hurt, as the case may be.

[VioletClub]

"Rather inane?!?!?" Really?

Claiming a film cost 70 dollars is like saying it was made for nothing.

Which is really just a marketing gimmick.

When the film is bought for X Million dollars do you really think ALL those people who worked for zero dollars are not going to get paid?

Feel free to consider my prior assertion that people were probably working for deferred pay. I know "deferred" is a big word but you can look it up in the same place you found "nescient".

[huhouse5]

I dont think for 1 minute he did this entire movie for $70 freakin dollars. Its pretty much impossible.

Maybe he got the actors for free. But..come on. I think its BS, but looks like a good movie.

[supermansamuel]

This was in the newspaper and it is BRITISH... they spent £45 on a crowbar, tapes and tea for the crew.

Everyone brought their own stuff like make-up and stuff like that.

Looks amazing though

[timpedersen]

And if the movie sucks, no one gets paid. Still $70.

[dragonflyboy4321]

for retards only

[machst3m]

Movie cost 70$: the 70$ was spent on tea, coffee, a crowbar...I think that's it.

Everything else was considered a "no budget" movie.

[mario586]

this was uploaded 3 years ago and its making news now?!? confused..

[huhouse5]

i think cause it just made it to Cannes? i dunno

[hiroprotagonist50]

What was the $70 spent on?

[redmartian]

When everyone works free and the equipment is free then it costs $70 to make.

[polska2934]

if i didn't know any better I'd say this cost about $70 to make

[ukza17]

it looks like it only took $70 to make but I am interested in watching it

[Salgier87]

Thats because it did only take about 70$ to make o_o

[NonPhixion1987]

Yeah how is that possible, I guess most of the actor's did it for free. Automaton Transfusion looked like it was shot on a shoe string budget but that one cost 20,000 which is still chump change for a film.

[rhps2000]

More!  More! More!!!

[adgta]

Where's Whalley?