Youtube leads to dream job..

[alfienoakes]

You may have already seen this, but its worth looking at again..

 

I am so jealous of this type of talent..

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8417789.stm

[ctk111]

It looks very good. I can see why Hollywood is interested. Article says it was completed for $300. Sounds far-fetched to me. I was a little disappointed he used the music from 28 Days Later. His short isn't that good and the music in 28 Days works perfectly.

[Devin Johnston]

I hope the film has more story to it than this short does, the visuals are great but the story needs work.

[CJI]

Its a fantastic short. Its actually longer than that, its been cropped on your link. It actually starts with a little boy at a harbour and the robots walk in through the mist from the ocean behind some bridges. Its incredibly dramatic lending it a very human scale. And i disagree about the music from 28 days, It really helps sell the emotion of the short and really adds to the drama of it. Watch it with your sound off and you will see how much it adds. I love that music, its fantastic when used in the right situation. You can't help but feel helpless, it inspires all sorts of emotion.

 

If i remember right it was done by a team of 4 - 6 in their own time. If you already own all the equipment and software necessary between you it could be done for that i think. Jealous! oh yes......

[CJI]

Heres the link to the full short

[Tommy L]

'made for $300' is very mis-leading......That is "made for $300 if you own all the equipment, software licenses, a decent digital video camera, dont count your own or other peoples time"

so more like made for about $15k....I wonder what they spent the $300 on? Wrap party?

....and a bag of sour grapes

[CJI]

haha yeah i think if you add all the stuff together it would cost a fair amount. Time being the big spender too. I think they spent the money on beer and maybe a cheese board if they were feeling adventurous after drinking it! they could have gave the afro extra in the car a hair cut...some people are so cheap! haha

[mattclinch]

this post was made for only 12p.

[DanGrover]

'made for $300' is very mis-leading......That is "made for $300 if you own all the equipment, software licenses, a decent digital video camera, dont count your own or other peoples time"

so more like made for about $15k....I wonder what they spent the $300 on? Wrap party?

....and a bag of sour grapes

 

I don't know about this guy's particular circumstances, but a friend and myself made a short film for £0 - all the licenses were educational ones from our university. It meant we couldn't make any profit from it, but it's still not misleading to say we made it for £0!

[LuckyST]

no pessimism please.

 

the video is awesome for any home production/volunteer work.

for all we know he might have used blender at a local library

 

 

nice to see one us get credit.

[Nic H]

er what do you mean no pessimism? its open for criticism.

 

anyway its pretty crap i reckon, not a mark on Alive in Joburg short that district 9 was based on.

 

this has zero story

adds nothing to the 50's monster robot invades theme'

average cg everything (see better on cgtalk everyday)

boring editing

heavyhanded grading

 

?

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

but bloody good on him for getting the go ahead to hopefully develop this into something as good as district 9.

[Michael J. Brown]

no pessimism please.

 

the video is awesome for any home production/volunteer work...

 

 

I second that.

 

And I know the reference has become grossly overused ever since Mary J. Blige's "Family Affair" dance club hit of 2001 , but won't some of you please stop drinking the 'Haterade'?

 

This is a darn good piece of short film to have been produced non-commission - visually and CG speaking.

 

Besides, when did having a coherant storyline EVER stop Hollywood from either making or turning profit on a film? Yeah...Point made.

[Tommy L]

Oh I wasnt taking a stab at the quality of the movie (hence the sour grapes comment), I think its been fantastically made. However, to say the budget was $300 is just silly and I have a problem with that. It undermines our industry...the cost of a project is not always reflected in a project's balance sheet. The software/hardware/hours/ground rent are all to be factored in. Not to do so makes the budget arbitrary and mis-leading to the casual observer.(read: client)

So unless the movie was made on a stolen computer with a borrowed camera with pirate software and made in 3 hours, this was not a $300 project.

I mean, an actual project costs me nothing in real terms. I own several computers, software and Im self-employed. I deliver a digital product. But that doesnt mean that a project budget is $0. All those things carry an intrinsic cost.

 

But kudos to the guys(s?) that made it. Great animation. Lovely fire/smoke effects. Bad story/art direction? who cares, I was too busy looking at the effects!

[Michael J. Brown]

Okay, (Tom) I can respect that take. I'm not the one to come to for art direction critique. I thought it worked reasonably well - art direction wise.

 

Regarding the $300 budget point, the guy (or group of guys) is either a marketing genius or a bit negligent with regard to 'cost of goods (services) sold' accounting practices. What I mean is, all anyone needs to get the jump on the competition these days in Hollywood is to be able to say, "Hey, look what I can do for a fraction of what a 'Lucas Films' would have spent!".

 

It all started with The Blair Witch Project. And even at the $30mil they're throwing at this group, it's a bargain considering the average blockbuster nowadays runs in excess of $150mil to shoot.

 

Beyond being an entertainment machine, Hollywood does know what it means to turn a profit. And any movie whose budget can be reduced to increase that profit margin is a winner with them. That's why it doesn't much matter that this trailer had no real plot - hence, whatever film is produced by this group may not have much more of a plot. The profit margin will be huge for Hollywood.

[Tommy L]

Yes, but another way of looking at it is:

5mins for $300? Excellent! Here's $5400, go make me a 90min feature!

[Noise]

You must remember that the article was written by a journalist - they talk bollocks.

 

Don't get hung up on chat and figures, its the creativity and the balls to do something - anything - that is the real winner here.

 

District 9 is a bench mark, how would you feel if you busted your nads on Transformers 2 only to realise that the end product was a load of crap. I most certainly would be gutted but, its all about money and how much the producers can make.

 

We are unfortunately financed by wankers and their need for money.

 

The CGI film industry is not all beautiful and gorgeous - its hard graft and no end of 14 hour days - so this guy has stepped into a mine field of wankers.

 

The true situation of success is if he can deal with the arena he has been absorbed by, if not - god love him.

[hockley91]

Yes, but another way of looking at it is:

5mins for $300? Excellent! Here's $5400, go make me a 90min feature!

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

[Matt Sugden]

i think it's fair enough to say the film was made for $300, I recently made a short 6min film which cost me £100. Fine this doesn't include the cost of my camera and the computer i did the editing on, or the car I shot it in, but that isn't the point with low budget films is it, get over yourself!

 

Short film makers often have little to no budget, and if 5 guys have 5 computers and a video cam and a good idea, then I can see how it could easily cost only $300. I take my hat off to the film maker, as what he has produced is excellent even if it cost 20k, and i can see why hollywood is interested.

[mattclinch]

don't think anyone is saying its not doable for $300, just that the figure is a little misleading given the cost of equipment etc required.

[Matt Sugden]

Why does the cost of the equipment have anything to do with it? Maybe they borrowed or had access to someone elses kit or used university equipment? Maybe they already owned the gear and thought how can we use this to make a film.

 

If it's unrealistic or misleading how much should it have cost in your opinion then?

 

Either way, it's a great peice of work for a small crew of people, and until you've tried doing something like this yourself you can't fully appreciate that. People who do 3D on here for their living are not the best informed people to comment on the 'cost' of something which has been done purely for the love of it.

 

I spent all weekend renovating my old sash windows, to get a professional would have cost me over £600, it cost me about £80 in materials, but it took me a lot of time. if you asked a professional he would have said, you can't renovate sash windows for £80, what about the cost of a van, and indemnity insurance, and marketing, and accountants fees etc.

 

I think the negative comments on here are born from either jealousy or sour grapes.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Bewdy

[datax]

I spent all weekend renovating my old sash windows, to get a professional would have cost me over £600, it cost me about £80 in materials, but it took me a lot of time. if you asked a professional he would have said, you can't renovate sash windows for £80, what about the cost of a van, and indemnity insurance, and marketing, and accountants fees etc.

 

If you had had all the materials in your garage before you started, you could have done it for £0.

[Michael J. Brown]

You know, when you think about it - and I'm no Hollywood insider, so please don't bust my nuts if my assumption is wrong here - are native equipment costs ever factored in to a film's budget?

 

For instance, is the cost of ILM's 7,700 unit renderfarm tallied and billed every time they work on a project? Or is it just the specialized equipment that was purchased just for that particular project that gets included in the production cost? I say it's the latter. And it only makes sense.

 

Now if these guys went out and bought new hardware or software for the express purpose of putting this piece together, then yes, that $300 number was deceptive. But if they already had the hardware and software it's no different than when you use an old collection of moving people in a newly commissioned animation. The cost of that moving people collection is not factored into the current job no matter what they cost initially.

[YOHKOH]

When running a business all the cost would be factored in, at the end of year accounts. Overall the cost of a job is factored out in the price per hour.

 

If I get to the end of the year and I've spend 5 grand of computers then I might have to up the hourly rate a little and claw back that money over a year or two. But it should all get factored in. We're all a pie cahrt or a productivity graph at the end of the day.

 

I think if these guys worked out their hourly rates and did a proper business model exercise on the film then it would be more than $300 for sure. Still good though.

 

It a bit like when my boss says, "Hey you did that last great visual in a couple of hours, can you sort this next one out by the morning" His shut off time is 6 o'clock and the other 8 hours I spend on it overtime aren't relevant. (Don't get paid overtime.)

[mattclinch]

woa woa. i don't mean to be overly critical, and i'm certainly not putting the boot in. i'm hugely impressed with what they have pulled off - but saying it cost $300 gives the impression to anyone who doesn't deal with film making, 3d or associated media that with $300 and the right skills you could make this. especially when its on the BBC. and we all know there is far more time, hardware and software costs associated with this.

 

this is going to be looked up to by aspiring film-makers - why give them a rose tinted view of what it takes to make this? as Bewdy said - it's not bloody easy.

 

this kind of pricing being listed in mainstream media doesn't help in industry where overheads are factored into costs. you end up with replies from clients saying "why is this going to cost me £X, i saw a film on the bbc website done for $300".

 

as an example, i'd sooner it said :

 

"It is 4 mins 48 seconds long and was made by the film-maker in his/her spare time over a period of 9 months using specialist equipment that was loaned or borrowed by friends and completed on a budget of $300 (£186) from his/her own pocket."

[Matt Sugden]

Come on you lot are taking this too seriously! Everyone knows that clients aren't going to start saying I want X done for $300, as the big thing which is never costed on projects such as this is people's time and hard work. We all know this, and if you dont your way too cynical.

 

Most reasonable people realise that amateur film makers are hobbyists, they pour hours and hours of their spare time into making projects for the shear enjoyment of it. Hollywood understands this and they also realise the potential of these film makers, which is why they didn't say, here's 4 grand make us a feature length movie, but instead said here's 30million. They understand the inherent 'cost' or value of their time and skills which has been put into this short film.

 

It's just foolish to compare a piece of work produced without time constraints by enthusiasts, with a business with overheads churning out day to day projects. I mean really, does this ever happen? Do you actually have clients who say, I saw an animation on the BBC website, it was $300 why does yours cost X amount? It's never happened or even been hinted at by clients.