YouTube video leads to Hollywood contract

SlyReaper · 17 Dec 2009 at 14:56

Well it was fun, but the only outstanding thing about it is the $300 budget. I'm guessing he didn't pay the actors.

[TW]Fox · 17 Dec 2009 at 14:58

Psycho Sonny said:
otherwise im pretty sure builders would be building their own homes for 5K then selling them on for 200K

Err they do - trouble is the land which would getting planning permission costs a heck of a lot.

Take a look at the insured rebuild value of your house. Bet its a lot less than you paid for it. Building a house isn't expensive - its land and labour that is.

Psycho Sonny · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:04

[TW]Fox;15545155 said:
Err they do - trouble is the land which would getting planning permission costs a heck of a lot.

Take a look at the insured rebuild value of your house. Bet its a lot less than you paid for it. Building a house isn't expensive - its land and labour that is.

he stated you could build a house for 5K if everyone worked for free, i was merely stating it isnt possible, due to costs such as you have mentioned, land, planning permission, hiring of cranes, jcb, etc

it costs a lot more than 5k to build a house excluding labour costs

an architect charges more than that for drawings if your house is quite large

Cosimo · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:05

It was a good video, he struck the jackpot and good luck to him.

Blackbadger · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:24

Silly inaccurate news

The cost of this wasn't $300 it was produced by his existing fully commercial production house. They give the impression it's done on a shoe string budget when the publicity and and production costs have been many 1000's.

It looks bad, There is no full script so that's not what it's about. It stinks of a viral publicity stunt to me.

Red and White · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:25

Blackbadger said:
Silly inaccurate news

The cost of this wasn't $300 it was produced by his existing fully commercial production house. They give the impression it's done on a shoe string budget when the publicity and and production costs have been many 1000's.

It looks bad, There is no full script so that's not what it's about. It stinks of a viral publicity stunt to me.

source?

Blackbadger · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:28

Firstly if you watch the video you will see the commercial company used in the credits. 29 Staff members are used for the production (may have miscounted but around that). Different people for sound/ animation/modeling/vfx etc... Looks like it was sponsored by big players such as IBM etc... marketing companies are in the credits too.

The production company used is murdoc films - noted at the start of the video.

Anyway - I'm happy for the chap he clearly works hard. However, about how youtube and $300 did it all is complete nonsense.

Red and White · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:31

Russinating · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:31

Psycho Sonny said:
he stated you could build a house for 5K if everyone worked for free, i was merely stating it isnt possible, due to costs such as you have mentioned, land, planning permission, hiring of cranes, jcb, etc

it costs a lot more than 5k to build a house excluding labour costs

an architect charges more than that for drawings if your house is quite large

Point proved again

. What are an architects costs other than time and a software package? And what if he already owns said package? And what if the builders already own all the equipment needed?

Clearly you're acting dumb and want me to come up with some specific cost of building a specific house. It was an example. Get over it.

arknor · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:34

Russinating said:
Point proved again . What are an architects costs other than time and a software package? And what if he already owns said package? And what if the builders already own all the equipment needed?

Clearly you're acting dumb and want me to come up with some specific cost of building a specific house. It was an example. Get over it.

what if he had to pay for camera + actors + transport + food + man hours + software.

er oh wait yea it only cost 300$

i can make bean on toast for free because i already own the beans , bread , toaster and a hot hob + pan.

samir_ansari · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:42

SlyReaper said:
Well it was fun, but the only outstanding thing about it is the $300 budget. I'm guessing he didn't pay the actors.

thats what I thought - he may have just swung by some drama college

Psycho Sonny · 17 Dec 2009 at 15:43

arknor said:
what if he had to pay for camera + actors + transport + food + man hours + software.

er oh wait yea it only cost 300$

i can make bean on toast for free because i already own the beans , bread , toaster and a hot hob + pan.

lol exactly,

hes saying you could build a house for 5k if he was an architect and a builder all in one, he already bought the land and got planning permission on it and all he had to do was buy raw materials.

its not possible, do you know how much double glazed windows costs? or would this house not have any? do you know how much boiler's costs? plumbing? radiators? etc, etc. all of these would add up to a lot more than 5 grand unless the house you were building was the size of a garden shed

in a general rule of house building, if a house costs 150K to build (including all costs) its worth 300K on the market from a builders perspective.

you cant just say it costs 5K for the raw materials because it would cost a lot more than 5K in raw materials to build a house worth 300K

(im using 300K as an example)