MovieChat Forums > Colin (2011) Discussion > Yes of course this probably wasn't made ...

Yes of course this probably wasn't made for exactly £45


There are so many different factors that could affect what people percieve as being included in the budget.

For example, the camera he used was acient and he has probably been used many times before. But would you include that in the budget? If so, then yeh, the budget would have been over £45

ALL of the actors travelling costs. If the actors did not ask for reimbursment for their travellig costs, can it really be included in the budget?

Tea, coffee, biscuits. The man bought Tescos value stuff. Once. Anyone not familiar with Tescos value should know that the stuff is dirt cheap.

Yes there are other things that could affect the budget, depending on what you consider to be 'the budget'

Maybe he took the question to mean how much HE spent on the film, personally.

I would still be beyond impressed if he said it was done for £200, but everyone claiming that he must have spent money in the thousands, in my opinion, is wrong.




World's Gayest Ninja

reply

Agreed. It seems that the people who are coming on here and claiming £1000's were spent are not only failing to grasp the concept of DIY film-making, but also seem totally unable to comprehend that a hundred or so people could possibly get involved with making a movie (including paying their own tube fair to the shoot, feeding themselves on the day, etc) just for the fun of it. Presumably they believe there are no other motivations for any human endeavour besides money.

reply

Then those expenses, whether they ask for re-imbursement or not, should really be included in the costing.

reply

No, we're discussing the "cost" of making the movie, not the "value" of what they got for their money.

reply

No, you're limiting the definition of the film's budget to what *one* person spent on it. If somebody spent money on food for the day, that's part of the film's budget.

reply

No. Budget meant money paid out by the creative team. Any other money spent doesn't count.

reply

Having just watched the film (and being quite impressed)

I dont belive it cost £45 pounds to make as you said it may be what he paid out of his own pocket

I remember a local news article on the film where it was said that a lot of people work on the film for free in various roles infront and behind camera

If they worked for free obviously what it would have cost cannot be counted

reply

Even if everyone worked for free, they're time is not value-less. If make-up people brought their own kit, that cost some-one something. If crew bought their own lunch, that is part of the "cost" of making the movie.

Maybe when the producer added his own receipts it only came to £45.00, but the true cost and worth is higher.

reply

I'd believe it. It'd take a lot of luck and favors, but it's doable. If he had his own camera and editing gear already, used pretty much only natural or available lighting (i.e. lamps and bright things in the room already), and absolutely everyone worked for free and brought their own gear and materials (esp. makeup effects) and food, and transported themselves, and he spent nothing on professional post work (sound mixing, color correcting, graphics and visual effects, ADR, etc.), then it's certainly possible to make a film - and not necessarily even a bad-looking film - for practically nothing. My understanding from articles I've read is that the money spent went towards a few supplies, like duct tape (if you've ever made a movie of any size, you know that you can never have enough duct or gaff tape) and maybe some light bulbs or something, and probably coffee.

Another big thing to remember about this film is that it took 18 months to complete. It was most likely shot on weekends, whenever the director and his pals could find the time to get together, thereby avoiding the costs of retaining actors and crew day in and day out for weeks, and also being able to hold down a regular job. It took Peter Jackson four years of weekends to make BAD TASTE (granted, he eventually received some funding from the New Zealand Film Commission or whatever its called, but one look at the film, especially the cataclysmic ending, proves that Jackson's eyes were bigger than his stomach from day one). And look how that career turned out.

If nothing else, COLIN should be an inspiration to anyone who just wants to get out there and make a damn movie. I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to its merits as a film, but we live in an age when literally anyone with enough energy can be a filmmaker. Note that I didn't say "talent". You don't need talent. Just guts and drive and a camera. Your movie may suck harder than a a Dyson vacuum cleaner, but hey, at least it got made. Michael Bay figured this out a long time ago.

(N.B. Notoriously crap German hack Uwe Boll has smirkingly revealed how he somehow manages to keep making movies despite his universally terrible reviews and consistent death at the box office: in Germany, if you pay attention, you can apply for government funding that will cover like half the budget of your film - they actually want films, ANY FILMS, to be made for economic purposes. It doesn't actually HAVE to make money at the box office. So Boll simply uses the system, raises the rest from his deep-pocketed pals, hires some C-listers who want exposure and B and A-listers who need a paycheck, and he's off and running.

reply

I think it actually cost 45p from the look of it. Even Uwe Boll's films are better than this tripe!
All this proves is that you CAN'T make a decent film for £45. Or with a video camera.


lovedawn - vitriolic ranting at its laziest

reply

You CAN make a decent film for 45p, or with a video camera. This is not the case.
I think that the movie is too booooooooring. A long long long short. 30 minutes are enough to tell this story.
The concept is interesting, but it's lost after 15 minutes. I had a hard hard time to finish watching it, and zombie movies are some of my favourites.
I can see that there's people loving it, but I've seen better ultra-low budget movies... The case is that this went to the "showroom".

reply

I heartily disagree.

reply