Hey, I'm a brit and I've also been involved in making no budget short films. The claim that this film was made for £45 is crap and it is ridiculous that people belive it! Even if you've met him, I don't care, it's not possible - but I'll get on to this in a sec.
I had to reply to this particular post though because a couple of UK posters are defending the camaraderie of "us Brits" who will work for free because we're so nice and all.
Well, I bet the posters don't spend their weekends volunteering to help charities or the homeless (you know, people you REALLY need your help).
But you'll work for free for some stranger's project because it's more exciting. It's all about ego (me, on a film, really?). We're no nicer than the Americans, or anyone else.
Fact is, you wouldn't work free for any other industry. Working for free is exploitation, it's nothing to be proud of.
At least Hollywood pays people. Sure, they churn out crap, but so do the independents. Colin has as many bad reviews as good and an average rating. Chances are half the positive reviews are from people who worked on the film and the other half are from well-meaning individuals who are just 'so proud of this guy for going out and doing it'.
I wish I'd got to this post in time so that destinysmile could tell his new best friend how it's not just Americans that don't believe this BS marketing tool.
Now, as for the £45 budget. Let's remember this is production budget first of all and that it's likely the post production budget ran in to the thousands, maybe tens of thousands.
I've read very little about the making of Colin but I believe it took place over 18 months and I'm sure there was a bit of travelling from London to somewhere else in the south?
Anyway, even if the travel was London-based only, the director's travel expenses alone would have blown this budget.
What about exec producer Justin Hayles? Was he a production or post-production exec? Execs are supposed to be the guys with the money. Was he brought on board because he coughed up the £45 budget?
Look at the number of cast & crew. Assuming they did pay their own travel costs, buy their own food, use their own supplies (clothes, make up etc) over the entire 18 month period there is one thing the director has admitted to paying for - drinks!!
The electricity used just for boiling the kettle would have blown the budget (for the 2nd time so far). What about the tea, coffee, milk, sugar, cups??? What about shooting on location? All those flasks cost money - or did they get take-away drinks (which costs even more)?
Look, the list can go on & on. There's a few posters on this board getting really uptight & defensive about this £45 budget as if they'd made the film themselves. All I'm saying is wake up, this guy is lying to you. It can't be done.
reply
share
allseeing
14 years ago
hear, hear.
reply
share
jagheterjack00
14 years ago
I don't get how the OP thinks this this cost 10 to 15K!
To me it looks like it cost what it did. The camera's they used were just comsumer models, nothing exactly flashy! And tapes don't cost much at all.
All the equipment was stuff they already owned!
The money went on an iron bar and tea, coffee, biscuits etc!
The rest went on tapes and maybe paying peoples travel expenses.
The movie doesn't look that impressive anyway! £45 or otherwise.
So I have no reason to believe that movie the director submited cost any more that the £45 stated.
Plus, it's not in any director/producers interest to say their film was so cheap. Most producers claim their film cost ten times the original budget.
Colin is what it is!.. It's a well made home movie.
reply
share
allseeing
14 years ago
Even if the kit and consumer model cameras were previously owned the true cost of them would have to be included in the budget. Whether you had to purchase anything especially, it's worth has to be factored in. Many sound recordists have their own kit, but, even if offered, it could not be considered free for budgetary calculation as you would have to calculate it's worth against if you did not get it for free.
He may have thought he spent £45, but the cost is something else.
reply
share
jagheterjack00
14 years ago
Someone mentioned the electric used to boil the kettle! I'm sorry, but I think that's being pretty pedantic! It's not the same as paying for you're own power supply in a rented film studio.
The camera he's had for years, is not really part of the production budget! If he was planning the shoot and noted down what he needed, the camera thats in his bedroom is not part of the shopping list of kit to purchess.
If that's the case, then the fcking computer he edited on may as well be thrown in to the budget fcking budget; and the electric used to power that may as well be included!
And all this talk of "Buying lunches!". That's the problem with the US! They think wasting money on items that don't go on screen make better movies. Making a few sandwiches or a pot of pasta doesn't cost much money at all!
I'd say £45 is about right! People seem to think this guy has made Ben-Hur. It's just a home movie! GET OVER IT!!!
reply
share
allseeing
14 years ago
Everything has to be taken into account to gauge the real "cost" and not what the maker feels he has only physically spent. That would include the software and computer that it was edited on, although I don't recognise the make you mention.
reply
share
shes_dead
14 years ago
When budgeting a film everything has to be included, including overheads (e.g. gas, electric). If you know anything about budgets then you will know everything should be included from overheads to even the pen & paper you first wrote your idea on. Therefore this is not pedantic, this is how budgets are put together.
Mr Price may well have doubled his electricity bill for the month whilst shooting this film. Who knows? If the director spends £45 on a prop and calls this his budget while choosing to ignore the cost of stationary, overheads, food, drink, equipment and/or any other cost he may choose to leave out for marketing's sake then this is not the budget, it is a figure plucked out of this air and is just marketing spin.
I just like to have the correct information and I think it's good to advise people to take this so called £45 budget with a very large pinch of salt. Also let’s not forget as I previously mentioned there would have been thousands spent on post production. You may be able to shoot a film for very little, but you can’t distribute it as cheaply.
Of course then there's the other kind of budget that allseeing is talking about, which incorporates costs not incurred (e.g. Make Up may have cost £500, but the make up artist got billed for that in this instance). That's a whole other can of worms!!!
reply
share