Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Johnny Rez
7488 Followers
Peter Parker
1288 Followers
Financial Highway
1566 Followers
Jimmy Walker
2259 Followers
cosmicrAug 24, 2010
She reminds me of a young Amanda Tapping.
Oh and the film looks good too.
dougm68Aug 25, 2010
She reminds me of a young Amanda I used to tap. If you know what I mean. ;)
kevroAug 25, 2010
She was the hottest is season 4 of SG-1
panthusdireAug 25, 2010
I'd tap it.
calber1111Aug 24, 2010
Maybe $15,000,000
docholiday22Aug 25, 2010
The only logical explanation for this is that the teaser represents the 15k, the rest of the movie is done in pitch black, actors, producers, directors and crew went on a diet and are now suffering malnourishment.
We've set-up a charity, please donate what you can by going to the theatres and buying as many tickets as possible. We can save the cast and crew with your help.
This is marketing BS... Just tell the truth, we're not stupid... We'll watch the film anyway if it's good.
dougm68Aug 25, 2010
Thanks for the explanation Spock.
deddocAug 25, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_%282010_film%29#cite_note-0
made for $15k
djanakinAug 25, 2010
Says nothing of the price.
There is no way it was made for $15k.
Closed AccountAug 25, 2010
You're an idiot
wussAug 25, 2010
From an interview of the Director: http://theflickcast.com/2010/03/18/sxsw-interview-director-gareth-edwards-talks-monsters/
"TFC: Can I ask you about the budget of the film? I know it isn’t a lot.
GE: I don’t know and that’s the official answer. But really, I don’t know. But let me ask you, what do you think it is? We’re going to have a contest and the winner gets a free trip to Mexico and the infected zone."
Closed AccountAug 25, 2010
$15k wouldn't even cover the software needed for effects that good. I hate these bulls**t sensationalist headlines.
dopreAug 26, 2010
I read it on the internet man. It has to be true.
elwoodbluesAug 24, 2010
some zeros are missing, or this is going into profit the first night it is shown.
craftyshrewAug 24, 2010
The logo animation itself would account for %10 of the budget if $15,000 is the correct amount...I'm shocked if that figure is correct.
thedudediggsAug 24, 2010
District 9 wasn't very good so that isn't much of a comparison.
blackhole82Aug 24, 2010
You are going to get buried alive for that comment.
thedudediggsAug 24, 2010
don't care, District 9 was almost as stupid as the Blair Witch except someone actually wasted millions to make it.
sabin8Aug 24, 2010
I brought my shovel.
dromniAug 24, 2010
They will have to bury me to hell to, because as far as I am concerned District 9 was sucky.
The spoof poster here tells everything:
http://screencrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/District-9-Poster-Spoof-Close-Up-17-3-10-kc.jpg
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blackhole82Aug 24, 2010
it should read more like "like avatar except much better"
the0Aug 25, 2010
Yeah because god forbid our movies have a deeper meaning beyond the funny lookin' alien people an' them big ol' 'splosions.
illepicAug 24, 2010
………………………………..¸„-~~^**^~~–,„¸___¸„-~-‘,¨’,~-,„¸
……………………………¸„-“´ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ’, ‘, : :`"-„………………………………………
…………………………¸„” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ¸`› ‘, : : : `-„……………………………………
………………………..„” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,’ ,-‘`, `, : : : :”-„…………………………………
………………………„” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :¯: : ,’ ,’ : : : : :”„…………………………………
……………………..ƒ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ‘, ‘, : : : : : :`¸………………………………
……………………..| : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : `, ‘, : : : : : :'|………………………………
……………………..| : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : `”´ : : : : : :'|……………………………
……………………..”„:¸¸,„„„¸¸,-, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :ƒ……BURY HIM!
……………………...”„`-~^~-,„”- : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :_ : : „”………………………………
………………………..”„ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :‘,`,¸-“………………………………
………………………….”-„: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ‘„”……………………………………
…………………………….”-„ : :¸„~-„¸ : : : : : : : : : : : : ¸,„„¸ : : : „-“………………………………………
……………………__………| : | · · | |`-„ : : :¸ : :¸ : : ¸„-˜ | | · `„ „-“*~–„¸……¸„–-„¸…………………………
…………………„-˜·:·:`”-„¸„-~”„ :`¸ · ·| | · “-,¸ :¸’ : ‘¸ ¸„-´· · ‘| | · „” “„ ::::::: ¯`”¸” ·:·:·”„………………………
…………………| ·:·:·:„-“ ::::::`”~`„-„’„’¸_¸„-˜¨¯ „ „ :`¨`-„¸ · ·| |„-“¸„-“ :::::::::::: ‘„·:·:·: |`*°~~–-,„¸……………
…………………| ·:·:·’„ ::::::::::::: `”*-„ : : : : : : : : : : :¯`”’˜,„´ ::::::::::::::::::| ·:·:· | ::::::::::::¯¨`”~-„¸……
……………..¸„-“´„ ·:·:·| :::::::::::::::::::”¸ : „-“˜¯`”’”´¯`”’-„ : :„”/ ::::::::::::::::::: ', ·:·:,’ :::::::::::::::::::::: `”-„…
…………..¸-˜ :::: \ ·:·:”„ :::::::::::::::::::,”-„"**¯¯`**~–-“¸„-“,’ ::::::::::::::::::::: ,' ·:·,’ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |…
……….¸„-“ :::::::: ”„ ·:·’, :::::::::::::::::: ’, ¨'`-„¸_ :_¸„-*˜ ;; ƒ ::::::::::::::::::::::,’ ·:,’ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |…
........„-“ ::::::::::::: "¸ ·: \ ::::::::::::::::::: '\ ;;;;; ¯ ;;;;;;;; ,' :::::::::::::::::::::: / ·¸-‘ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,’…
…..„” ::::::::::::::::::::`-„ ·’, ::::::::::::::::::::`-„ ;;;;;;;;;;;; ,’ :::::::::::::::::::::::,’„„˜¸____ ::::::_¸„- :::::::::: ƒ…
…„” :::::::::::: `”~-„ :::::`-¸’\ ::::::::::::::::::::::`-„ ;;;;;; „-“ ::::::::::::::::::::::::/………..,´¯¯¯ :::::::::::::: ƒ…
.„” ::::::::::::::::::::::``-„¸¸-˜ `”-„:::::::::::::::::::::: `-,„-^˜ :::::::::::::::::::::::::: I………..,’ ::::::::::::::::::: ,’…
/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ¸„-~`^*¯¨`-„ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: „“……….,’ ::::::::::::::::::: ,’…
”„ :::::::::::::::::::::¸-” : : : : : :¸ :`-„ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: „”………¸„~`˜¯¯¨`”*~„¸ ::::: ,’……
–`”-„ ::::::::::::::: ƒ : : : : : : : `¸ ¸ `¸——————————————-˜—¸,„-^”˜ : : : : : : : : : “„ ::„” ——–
;·;·;·`”~–„¸_ ::::: ”¸ : : : : :`» : ¸-“¸„-“ ;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·¸„-*˜ ¸„-~~-„ : : : : : ¸,„-~”~” ·;·;·;·;·;
;·;·;·;·;··;·;· ¯¨`””˜´`”*~–-~´–-^'˜ ¯;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·¯¯¯ ;·¸„-*˜„-~^*”˜˜¯ ;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;
; ;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·; ¯¯·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;·;
zarenAug 24, 2010
Just to throw in my two cents...
I rented District 9. After the party scene and a bit of the way into the testing, I gave up on the movie and stuffed it back in the mailer, as there wasn't a single character that I cared about. The main character was a bastard, and I didn't care that he was being treated badly. I went into the movie with such high hopes over all the hype, but I was incredibly disappointed in what I saw.
District 9 and Office Space are the two movies that I have "walked out" on in my life. I managed to make it through Blade: Trinity and all the Star Wars prequels, and I couldn't take District 9.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ngmcs8203Aug 24, 2010
You couldn't sit through Office Space but you were OK with Blade: Trinity? They need to put you in some sort of museum.
norman619Aug 24, 2010
Then sadly you missed the whole point of the film.
arcookeAug 24, 2010
Office Space? Wow.
I suggest re-watching it some time before you die. That's a hard movie not to like.
jrowe3388Aug 25, 2010
> stops a movie halfway through, missing the best parts and the whole point
> tells people it sucks
HERP DERP
kinseyincanadaAug 25, 2010
F**K YOU GUYS THE BLADE MOVIES ARE AWESOME.
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
hallo457Aug 25, 2010
better than twilight I guess
ray42Aug 26, 2010
but is it better than twilight?
charlesdkraussAug 25, 2010
"After the party scene and a bit of the way into the testing, I gave up on the movie and stuffed it back in the mailer, as there wasn't a single character that I cared about. The main character was a bastard, and I didn't care that he was being treated badly."
LMAO - That's your reason for not watching the film?
zarenAug 25, 2010
@norman619: I'm sure I did, but after what I'd seen, I had better things to do with my time than wait for a point, any point, to be made by the movie.
@arcooke: I'll probably try watching it again, but the first 20 minutes are a re-hash of everything I hated about working at my previous jobs. "Two girls" was the first positive reaction the movie got out of me, and that was when I turned it off. Would you sit through a "classic" movie and not like anything about it for that long?
@CharlesDKrauss: No, my reason was that I saw nothing in the movie worth investing any further time in. No positive traits in any character, no coherent plot, very inconsistent shooting styles.
tanishhAug 25, 2010
You sound like Armond White.
I don't like Armond White.
charlesdkraussAug 25, 2010
I'm glad that you are not a movie critic.
kishkiaiAug 25, 2010
FOOKIN' PRAWNS!
mutantchicken14Aug 24, 2010
Honestly if I didn't know the film was made for so cheap I would have been completely unimpressed with that trailer...
Just sayin'
danielhunterAug 25, 2010
Agreed. Just looked like a mediocre sci fi movie from the trailer.
Closed AccountAug 24, 2010
$15,000 budget? I call utter BS, sounds like a new marketing technique. Tell people a movie is cheap, and they will go to it to see how amazing it looks on a perceived shoestring budget. This movie isn't like Paranormal Activity that was shot with a few people in a house.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
newlAug 24, 2010
A Getz is $13,990 drive away. Less is you trade in your $3k clunker. ;)
constitutionftwAug 24, 2010
Fantastic! can't wait to check it out
most movie budgets are a result of ridiculous unions regs and special interests
awboy666Aug 24, 2010
$15k my ass. Just their travel budget alone for 4 people would be higher than that for the destinations they went to. Not to mention they probably borrowed a lot of the equipment and never included it in the cost, but most people certainly don't have access to the type of equipment they had. It's all accounting and marketing bull.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ptoomeyAug 25, 2010
If they borrowed it then it was free in which case, why would they include it in the cost? Couldn't they have had the equipment themselves and used it? Why account for something if it's free?
juzz101Aug 24, 2010
He could have done it for $15,000. The actors would have to accept basically zero pay, and they'd have to pull in extras who wanted to work for free just to be in a movie. The director uses just one camera, does all the video editing and special effects himself. They filmed in mexico so think about the cheap accomodation and food there - no expensive catering. They just bought a cheap pickup to use etc.
pauldarrAug 24, 2010
Facts from the Director Q&A: -Filmed on a Sony EX3 with a Nikon 50 MM Lens -Used almost exclusively natural light except for a couple tiny LED lights for when it was pitch black -Effects were done in Adobe CS4, editing in Premiere.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/
Sounds possible.
danielbroadbentAug 25, 2010
Perhaps actually shot for 15K if virtually everything was free: crew, cast, etc.
But the cost of a 5.1 theatrical mix, re-recording, HD to 35mm transfer, color correction, etc: 100's of thousands of dollars.
Their audio-post was most likely 10 - 20x more than the shooting budget.
jsmithersAug 25, 2010
Ever heard of digital? And software? Reduces hundreds of thousands of dollars to very little.
magic6435Aug 25, 2010
he did it himself....
fuzzykiwiAug 24, 2010
I love movies that can incorporate such bizarre themes and make it look realistic.
djlethalAug 24, 2010
I just watched an ad to watch an ad.
juliusthecatAug 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
starterpackAug 24, 2010
hahah so true!
shawkabAug 25, 2010
In Soviet Russia, trailers have trailers!
bibowskiAug 25, 2010
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/99606153_755f3d5480_o.gif
cosworth99Aug 24, 2010
I would like to go see this movie NOW
dastly75Aug 24, 2010
$15,000 and a whole lot of ripe fruit and bamboo made this movie happen
hastyboomAug 24, 2010
"Utterly Unique and Original" Lols
slackdragonAug 25, 2010
Utterly unique and original... if you haven't seen District 9, The Mist or Cloverfield.
zarchonAug 25, 2010
Doesn't seem to be like any of those movies.
dougm68Aug 25, 2010
I loved all 3 of those so I'm in.
neonoodleAug 24, 2010
It's easy to make a movie for $15,000 when everyone works for free. The only watershed moment things like this will create is when Hollywood cashes in on slave labor by hiring indie people to make features for $15k and then spending 40 million promoting it.
pstrollAug 24, 2010
i couldn't quite make out the sources for the positive review quotes in the trailer. can anyone help me out?
ps3meAug 24, 2010
aint it cool news
thatashguyAug 25, 2010
protip: turn your screens brightness up.
bastfAug 25, 2010
"aunt tit c**krings"
gridbreadAug 24, 2010
Night vision scene, facepalm.
Closed AccountAug 24, 2010
ugh....looks like crap. They showed no special effects, and if the special effects are crappy, the movie will be crappy.
juliusthecatAug 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
spectecjrAug 25, 2010
You proved the opposite actually. While it's possible to overlook crappy FX on a good movie, it's hard.
Good FX on a crappy movie? Makes no difference. It's still a crappy movie.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maximmAug 25, 2010
whoosh. That is exactly what he said dude.
jrowe3388Aug 25, 2010
No special effects? I guess you missed the monster's tentacles and all the cars and s**t being dropped everywhere.
rentoAug 24, 2010
Never looked so good????? Where the hell did you see them??
frostekAug 24, 2010
I've seen some people criticising the special effects in this film... well screw you!
As long as they are good enough to get the ideas across; it's the story and the characters that are what makes a film. That's what I'm planning to see this for.
hoffeyAug 24, 2010
Still waiting for announcement of Neill Blomkamp's new film! Should be epic, set on another planet!
daedoneAug 25, 2010
Fookin Prawns
toxicwaffleAug 24, 2010
there is no way that was a budget of 15,000. even if they pirated all the software needed to make it
12340987Aug 24, 2010
Says it was "filmed" for that, I think they don't include post production costs in that figure.
mburke1124Aug 24, 2010
hmmm couldn't find a torrent for it... but while searching i did find Little Monsters... i haven't seen that movie in for ever...
dlan4327Aug 24, 2010
As has been said above they probably saved a lot of money by shooting a lot o it without proper film licences.
It worked for them but it's still a very risky proposition. Council's/Governments tend to get very snarky when they catch people using their land/property without the correct permits. They were in Mexico, if they tried that in the US I think it would be a different story.
xxnirvanaxxAug 25, 2010
They also shot in Texas...
lebeagleAug 24, 2010
Creating effects cheaply is one thing, having them rendered is another. We recently sent out 86 seconds created by a team of four over two months and the farm bill alone was 63k.
jsmithersAug 25, 2010
Farm bill? Didn't the animals mind?
magic6435Aug 25, 2010
You waste money.
juliusthecatAug 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
intenseboredomAug 24, 2010
Awesome, now I'm going to completely ignore any new trailers so I don't have this movie ruined for me.
I'm looking at you Hangover and a impossibly long list of other movies that my sick brain can't think of right now.
mogebierAug 24, 2010
District 9 was a piece of complete crap film with pretty good special effects.
sabin8Aug 25, 2010
I believe you meant Avatar.
masternAug 24, 2010
Well are we playing the "sunk cost" game? Cause watch the doc - the equipment they use for shooting to travel/food/hotel to editing together costs well over 15k. For an idea of just shooting video, an EX3 costs around 8500 (certainly with tax), the Letus35 MM adapter he has costs at least 1500 - probably 1900 if it's the Elite, multiple shoulder rigs cost over 500 easy, and then there are other attachments that I can't gauge the price of. And that's just the video camera stuff. http://www.reserveresult.com/2010/06/gareth-edwards-monsters-15000-budget.html
When all is said and done - no, starting at zero equipment, you could not have made this film on that budget. Unless they already had equipment or got some for free from these companies, it's impossible.
psychoaceAug 25, 2010
They could of rented most of that equipment for under $3000.
kestermatsumotoAug 25, 2010
could have
jrowe3388Aug 25, 2010
I wasn't aware you needed to buy brand new equipment every single time you wanted to start a new project.
masternAug 25, 2010
He never implies that he rents equipment and when he says at the end "now there's nothing stopping someone from going out and buying a camera and shooting their own movie" it seemed like he was talking about himself. Either way - he shot in 5 different nations. That's still a huge chunk of change for rentals if production lasted for 30 or more days of shooting, which, just given the geography, you have to suspect it probably did. But whatever, I'll wait for the making-of-documentary.
psychoaceAug 25, 2010
The site I listed shows that most of that equipment can be rented for 60 days for under $3000. He might be telling the truth or he might be lying I don't know but hey lets say he's telling the truth (which again it would cost $15,000 just for most of that equipment if he bought it all for this movie) now you can make a movie cheaper by just renting your equipment for the amount of time you need it for. Also there are sites like borrowlenses.com that do this as well encase you thought I might be an advertising whore.
panthusdireAug 25, 2010
could have been a present from someone.
nraphaelAug 24, 2010
So another film where we don't get to actually see the monster. Just like Cloverfield.
bongoAug 25, 2010
I thought of Cloverfield too... they better not use that 'shaking 1st person camera' crap again. That movie was so hard to even watch.
jrowe3388Aug 25, 2010
I loved Cloverfield. The ARG was entralling.
lornefsAug 25, 2010
Cloverfield? There were quite a few scenes in the version I saw where the monster was quite front and center.
What are you talking about?
frostekAug 25, 2010
How do you know? Perhaps they don't want to show the entire film in the trailer?!
vertigosfxAug 24, 2010
I could see this being made with 15k. I mean if you look at it, there are only 2 main characters and I saw an interview where he said he just walked up to people asking if they wanted to be in a movie so he didn't have to pay anyone. His crew was kept down to a sound guy, a boom operator, himself and an editor so that kept travel costs way down. He just drove around with a van.
He also shot it guerilla style. He said he just jumped out of his van where he wanted to film, setup the shot, got it and then they took off. My guess is he never had to pay for any permits.
It's hard to do but it's smart. I mean with equipment, you can buy a film-look camera, a mic, boom pole and a sound mixer for around 3500 bucks. I don't know if anyone has used the DSLR's but little has to be done to give that a 35mm look.
I've been using it on a recent film and it's amazing how great the video quality is. It's an 1800 camera and it looks comparable to a 10-15000 dollar camera. It's awesome :)
slyzxxAug 24, 2010
Was i the only one who thought District 9 was stupid and boring ?
shieldaxeAug 25, 2010
Only if you took it seriously, really it was supposed to be funny right, it was spoof
jrowe3388Aug 25, 2010
No.
tyrghastAug 25, 2010
The 15k number is bulls**t, but that doesn't mean the budget isn't extraordinarily low.
The real question is why must it be compared to District 9? Let it be its own flim.
District 9 wasn't even a monster movie, it was an action flick with heavy references to the racism and poverty issues of South Africa.
danielbroadbentAug 25, 2010
People constantly comparing things to other things is the product of many people being boring as s**t and full of useless trivia. (example "OMFG I've seen OnkBak - nobody else has, but I have, and this other film is totally a rip off of it - people are so unoriginal OMG!!!? " Even if the only similarity is both films is martial arts lol.
Perhaps though - it's because most people have experienced very little in life and everything in life has to refer back to those few things. People thinking this film looks like Cloverfield (comment above) or District 9 (comments above) are good examples of this. Despite probably having a completely different theme, plot and story structure - it doesn't matter 'cause: "OMFG IT HAS ALIENS & ACTION and HOLY s**t - IS THAT A "RESTRICTED AREA" SIGN - IT'S A TOTAL RIP OFF OF DISTRICT 9 WTF!!!111"
This kind of boring s**t makes up 90% of Youtube and IMDB comment sections.
rwiggumAug 25, 2010
Actually, the reason they're being compared is because District 9 was praised for being such an expansive, CGI-heavy (gorgeous CGI at that) film made for a paltry $30 million. It was a pretty incredible feat considering what a film that looked like that SHOULD have cost, which is a similar scenario to this film. So that's why they're being compared, not because... whatever the f**k Danielbroadbent just ranted about.
cmatthes1Aug 25, 2010
Hard to imagine all that travel and what not under 15k. But they guy obviously can do some video effects so if nobody gets paid and you can do your own graphics i guess it is possible.
shieldaxeAug 25, 2010
I hope the movie isn't as generic as its title.
oldmantimeAug 25, 2010
"Utterly unique and original"
Bollocks.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251075/
Closed AccountAug 25, 2010
Anything labeled "the next xxx" always fails because it does not succeed on it's own merits
teacher2beAug 25, 2010
I just watched a trailer to watch a trailer.
fungowskiAug 25, 2010
No wonder it was so cheap to make. They just took the Last Exorcism trailer and completely ripped it off. They didn't even change the title or anything.
desfahanianAug 25, 2010
eh.
drt23Aug 25, 2010
How were jets and tanks used in the movie and have the cost still be under $15,000?
texmexrexAug 25, 2010
CGI although not free is cheaper than jets and tanks. 15K seems way low though.
commonwealthAug 25, 2010
The CGI is "free" in this case because it was all done by the director. He did all of it himself, so it's only really free if you say his time isn't worth anything.
texmexrexAug 25, 2010
I will bet he used a computer. And software. Were they "Free"?
dougm68Aug 25, 2010
You want a Jet or a Tank? Let me make 3 phone calls. I'll get you a Jet or a tank. Not both though. Lets not get crazy.
magic6435Aug 25, 2010
Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These f**king amateurs...
nismos14270rAug 25, 2010
I didn't realize digg had so many film directors and producers!
dougm68Aug 25, 2010
It's really not that hard.
Watch 'and God spoke...'
wrath017Aug 25, 2010
Yeah, and no. CGI is expensive, and having more than 5 seconds of it will mean you're well past the 15K budget. Unless you do it all yourself, and all without paying anybody a cent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
donttreadonmikeAug 25, 2010
Really? Because I could make a tank rolling down the street that looks at LEAST as good as the one in the trailer, it would be on screen for more than five seconds and it would cost me $350. Unless I pirated Maya or used an open source program like Blender then it would be free. I'm forgetting the price of my computer you say? Fine, with the software and with my laptop it would cost $1,850.
It would only take a few days.
wrath017Aug 25, 2010
Can you model a tank using blender, texture it, and incorporate it into film? If you could do it professionally, you wouldn't charge $350.
donttreadonmikeAug 26, 2010
No of course I wouldn't CHARGE $350. I'm saying if I was making the film myself for a tiny budget it woudl cost me $350 for a copy of Maya (with a copy of my paystub that shows I'm an educator, otherwise it would be a few thousand dollars) and then $1,500 for my laptop to run it on. To cut the cost even more I could use a free program like blender. But if I was hired to do the job for someone else, of course I would charge more.
donttreadonmikeAug 25, 2010
Yep. At the school I went to we had a compositing class and I made an 3D armored car roll out of my garage.
smedrickAug 25, 2010
It would take a few days and be free?
You won't get very far in life if you don't put a value on your time.
donttreadonmikeAug 26, 2010
It was a school assignment
svensksvampAug 25, 2010
portfolio?
donttreadonmikeAug 26, 2010
I don't have a portfolio up. The only 3D stuff I have online is the unfinished Frank Frazetta challenge
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=896866
Heavily WIP...probably won't finish since the challenge ended. In my free time I do character modeling but I get paid to do boring old product design and to teach.
cloudberriesAug 25, 2010
Hollywood level visual effects, yes, but if you're aiming for something that's perhaps medium-to-high-end SciFi channel quality (or "SyFy" *spits*) then you could argue, with skill and time, that's something that can be achieved within budget.
donttreadonmikeAug 26, 2010
Yep. That shot of the jet engine in the back of the horse-drawn carriage didn't look very real. It was good enough but not hollywood quality. The modeling and texturing could have been done in Blender and I'm not sure but I think blender might even have match-motion and compositing tools. All of that is free. Now all they have to do is find and pay someone who knows how to use it...unless the film-makers themselves knew how to use blender and then problem solved. Not saying I know how they did their effects, I'm just saying it doesn't cost 15k for 5 seconds of CG anymore. All technologies get better and cheaper and 3D animation is no different.
Closed AccountAug 25, 2010
I never knew people on Digg were this gullible.
boottoAug 25, 2010
It's bulls**t publicity. They didn't make that crappy movie for $15K. It may probably only gross that much, but it cost more.
bahawkidAug 25, 2010
i'm at a dilemma. At work i can't login to the old digg site, some error on the login page, but i can on the new digg. So i did but the comment that i would like to digg up can't be found..... so heres +1 for lanfordr.
new digg nickelbacks!