This guy made this you tube movie and now Hollywood wants to make a real movie out of it. He got paid £18.6 million to sell the rights. It not bad really.
click here
click here
Last edited:
Man nets £18 mill to sell his youtube movie rights
- Thread starter rapid64k
- Start date
Indeed.
The directors or people behind movies like Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus (or whatever it's called) should watch this clip a few times tbh.
$300? that's ******* insane.
$300 probably buys you a lot more in Uruguay than here, but it's still impressive work.
woop
I was going to ask how much it cost to make, but $300?! The CGI in it was nothing short of spectacular.... It's truly amazing what amateurs in any field can create nowadays, the film looking absolutely fantastic, and the CGI with the first rocket explosions made me go
...I'm glad they made some money out of it tbh, they obviously put enough effort in.
awesome cant believe a guy with his own studio that has done commercials in the past can really do that for 300$
i can make beans on toast for £0 though because i already own the beans and the toast, i have use of a toaster and a cooker i had already bought previously.
oh wait.
buying the rights is just stupid its war of the worlds , that old british tripod film etc with different looking robots
i can make beans on toast for £0 though because i already own the beans and the toast, i have use of a toaster and a cooker i had already bought previously.
oh wait.
buying the rights is just stupid its war of the worlds , that old british tripod film etc with different looking robots
Thats good money for cheap work.
Hollywood saw the potential of movie and I believe many of us have seen it too, there is a gritty presence to it as well.
The only thing i don't understand is why shoot up the city .....................then nuke it?
Hollywood saw the potential of movie and I believe many of us have seen it too, there is a gritty presence to it as well.
The only thing i don't understand is why shoot up the city .....................then nuke it?
. 
Okay, we've got to talk about the 300 bucks here. Because people are using 2 measuring sticks, there's the operational cost of a production (that never factors already acquired goods) and there's the total cost (often incorporating first time purchases of longer use equipment..cameras, mics, editing bays, etc)
It's very hard to believe that this had a total cost of just 300 bucks, but very easy to see it only having an operational cost of 300, especially if the production team has an association with either a larger production house or an institute of higher education.
Let's assume they're using Blender (open source) for the 3d animation, they could also be doing their editing in one of the weaker open source video editors, but its far more likely they're using FCP. It's obvious they stole the music, the rights would be 300 bucks alone easily. But the real killer is the post production special effects, that almost exclusively happens in Adobe After Effects, with a current flat retail price of $999.
This doesn't factor in the cost of their green screen, gas money, computer hardware, or lighting equipment. All of this had to be previously owned or acquired for free (by loans or other pirate filmmaking means).
However, if most of this is covered through previous purchases with other projects, or through other means, yeah... I could easily see this specific production for an established team costing only 300 bucks, and at that point you start to wonder if 300 bucks was to heavy a cost.
If the computer and production equipment costs have already been absorbed by another production 300 bucks is quite a bit to cover the costs of gas (those "steadycam" shots of the city were taken from a car) and talent, far more than necessary from a team that clearly demonstrated no scruples about keeping their costs down.
But yeah, that's how the indie filmmakers have to do it these days.
It's very hard to believe that this had a total cost of just 300 bucks, but very easy to see it only having an operational cost of 300, especially if the production team has an association with either a larger production house or an institute of higher education.
Let's assume they're using Blender (open source) for the 3d animation, they could also be doing their editing in one of the weaker open source video editors, but its far more likely they're using FCP. It's obvious they stole the music, the rights would be 300 bucks alone easily. But the real killer is the post production special effects, that almost exclusively happens in Adobe After Effects, with a current flat retail price of $999.
This doesn't factor in the cost of their green screen, gas money, computer hardware, or lighting equipment. All of this had to be previously owned or acquired for free (by loans or other pirate filmmaking means).
However, if most of this is covered through previous purchases with other projects, or through other means, yeah... I could easily see this specific production for an established team costing only 300 bucks, and at that point you start to wonder if 300 bucks was to heavy a cost.
If the computer and production equipment costs have already been absorbed by another production 300 bucks is quite a bit to cover the costs of gas (those "steadycam" shots of the city were taken from a car) and talent, far more than necessary from a team that clearly demonstrated no scruples about keeping their costs down.
But yeah, that's how the indie filmmakers have to do it these days.
Yep, though that turned into the Halo film Jackson wanted to make apparently.