$500 YouTube Video Gets Director $30 Million To Play With From Hollywood
from the seems-a-bit-much dept
cram writes in to let us know of a filmmaker/post production guy in Uruguay who spent a grand total of $500 to make a 5 minute "robots attack the world" movie that he put on YouTube, and, in response, has now been given tens of millions of dollars by a Hollywood production company to do something more significant:In the meantime, congrats to this guy, who turned $500 into a chance to play around with a lot more (though, not $200 million). It's difficult to turn that sort of opportunity down, though it would have been even cooler to see what he could have done on a smaller budget as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amateur movies, special effects, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hoax?
OK, that douse sound like a visual effects owner's wet dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hoax?
1. make youtube video for $500.
2. ???
3. get $50m to make the movie with Sam Raimi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hoax?
It's possible that this all happened and it all happened that quick, but what are the odds?
This is still a damn good example of giving your work away for free to sell other works, even if it is some mass conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hoax?
This is a hoax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hoax?
$500 of purchases + several hundred man hours curiously costed at $0/hr. Assuming that all the hardware we see was CG, and all the extras volunteered or were taken from old archive footage or were also CG (unlikely) then we still have the time spent designing the robots, etc etc.
$500 is just the actual cash handed over to buy stuff, presumably ? Time, actors and and the electricity and heating in the home he used as production premises don't count etc etc.
Did he compose the music too ? Or was that donated royalty free ?
I hate the way people's time is never included in these stories. You might give your time for a labour of love but people who do this for a living need to be paid.
Hey, if you don't count the labour, do you know how cheap Office 2007 was to develop ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hoax?
I mean, gosh, I only work 2000 hours a year! Out of 8700! I'm making huge net losses annually! I must be flat broke!
God forbid people have free time, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hoax?
I'm glad Mike posted the video. I hadn't seen it before, and it's pretty impressive. $500 or not, I enjoyed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hoax?
I can see how this could be done with a 1080p camera and a laptop. So a hoax? it could have been done by ILM, but I tend to want the best of humanity.
So lets do the Will Smith movie independence day over with this guy as the director. His movies cost was 5 minutes for 500 dollars ... or ... 100 dollars a minute. The movie independence day had a budget of 70-75 million it was 145 minutes long at this directors price of 100 dollars a minute ... thats $14,500 USD. No wonder they want him for the next spiderman movie!!!! Talk about cost savings!!
Lets not talk about people finding out how cheap these movies can be made for ... lets just hire him so he doesnt tell anyone else ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hoax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've always been skeptical
Ever since I first worked of real time image generation - over 25 years ago I've failed to understand how the film industry managed to waste so much money doing things that I knew could be done for much less.
Have a look at the povray hall of fame for many examples of low budget effects.
http://hof.povray.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've always been skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've always been skeptical
But if you're not on a deadline....
and the youtube video isn't super high resolution
and the super high res only generates about a factor sixteen - still only takes you from $500 to $8000 not $200M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've always been skeptical
Shhhusch!! .... dude be quite ... if the techno illiterate studio exec's knew how much rendering actually cost they might insource it!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've always been skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The effects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These special effects are better than the ones used in the Wolverine movie ... and that cost $150 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera tracking is so cool :)
Anybody can do it these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJwOeuO0n8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=tF2UT3AAzYQ&NR=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Camera tracking is so cool :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money
Kudos, to this person for a well executed short. I hope that he does well in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money
That's a one-time fixed expense. It's not accurate to simply tack that cost entirely onto a single project, unless that's the only project you'll ever do. If you're a serious hobbyist, you'll have already purchased something like this anyway, so it's probably not accurate to figure that cost into the budget at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DIY
http://www.blendernation.com/camera-tracking-tutorial-with-blender-and-voodoo/
The difficult part is light. But if you have a chrome ball somewhere you can film that and duplicate the lights in the scene and see if the virtual chrome ball have the aproximate same shapes as the real one in the footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think I'll fall for that?
While they're at it they try to spin out the old "american dream" crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colin Levy
Great kid lots of very good tutorials to make some very cool effects working in the new short film from the blender foundation.
And the special effects to bad he don't have the one that he imitates the nightcrawler on x-men that one was cool.
http://www.colinlevy.com/vfx.php
C'mon is not that difficult to do it.
I did camera tracking to change car plates in some videos of some friends that didn't want to get in trouble so they could post those and I'm not a film maker.
The part that gets me is animation I just don't have the eye to see how things move, but if it is to put static things in film I can do it and it doesn't take much time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Film Riot
Great source also for special effects and other stuff on the cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$500 on what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500 on what?
"software being "loaned""
My cell phone is a BlackBerry and it does video of that quality. Mix the video it does with blender and or 3Ds Max and give it a couple of days and a jr hs kid could do that video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Renderfarm DIY on the cheap.
To get great results you don't need thousands of machines.
And with Graphics cards reaching processing speeds on the order of super-computers(CUDA) people don't need that much to get really cool effects.
It will cost you $10.000 today to have a very good farm that can render realistic scenes in a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost is a very relative thing.
Avatar is a great example. $300 million dollar movie, and a few years from now, the expensive software that was designed to do it will likely be available for a few thousand dollars. The cost of developing cutting edge stuff is much higher than any of us can imagine. Replicating it a few years later isn't anywhere near as expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm putting donuts up to say this movie shouldn't have cost so much.
In relation to Hollywood's charge for per-hour use vs. the normalized rest of the world, this "$500" would be turned into "$120,000". It's very conceivable to produce a movie for far, far less expense than what "Hollywood" does it for.
Mike's position on why Hollywood feels the need to spend so much is a little misleading, for it's generally the "unseen" costs that inflate a movie's production cost.
Hollywood is notoriously expensive. Try billing a top-name actor in a movie, as an example. Is any actor worth more than several hundred thousand dollars to "act"?
I'm betting what we'll see in the future from Avatar is students taking a new approach to movie visualizations, rather than story. Avatar, from what I've read so far, is more about the scenery than the story, retold again as to be typical.
While many believe 3D to be the "wave of the future" for movies, I can't agree. No matter how well a movie is made or its expense, if people don't like it, "3D" means nothing.
Ishtar, anyone? Or how about Howard the Duck? Even Speilberg himself has a stinker with A.I..
I enjoy Cameron's works, and this alone makes me want to see Avatar, but if this is nothing more than a glorified mecha anime plot, I will be disappointed regardless how expensive it was to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The next movie made with the same technology will be much cheaper.
Mr $500 movie made his cheaply because he is using technology who's development has already been paid out by others over time. Instead of hiring a team to create 3d modeling software, he uses a package he already bought for something else (so the cost doesn't appear in this movie) that didn't cost him more than a week's pay for a good developer) and thus, his costs are lower.
If you add up the development costs of the products he used (to make it comparable to Avatar in that regard) I suspect his movie would be in the tens of millions for cost, rather than $500.
Sort of like buying an old car for $500, and then expecting the dealer to sell you a brand new one for the same price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sort of like buying an old car for $500, and then expecting the dealer to sell you a brand new one for the same price.
The development costs aren't included when you buy even a new car - then it would cost $5 Billion.
However in Graphics most development of new rendering techniques has been done by academics - who then publish the results in ACM TOG, Computers & Graphics and/or present them at SIGGRAPH or other conferences so everyone can just use them for free. Now if the movie industry had had to pay for all that work....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Augmented reality was not developed for this movie, it has decades of development and I doubt the money came from the movie industry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4607449.stm
And there is the fact that there is open source tools to create augmented reality apps.
http://www.libspark.org/wiki/saqoosha/FLARToolKit/en
http://singularityhub.com/2009/11/12/ sixthsense-augmented-reality-device-goes-open-source/
http://www.hitl.washington.edu/artoolkit/
Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$500 Amount is Misleading
Even if it is true however the $500 amount is VERY misleading. You can not make a video like this for $500. Given the quality of the video I would expect that the camera(s) used cost more then $500. Plus you have the cost of the PC(s) used to created the CGI and do the editing. And unless he used only open source software there is A LOT more the $500 worth of software used.
Now doing a video like this for a real cost of only a few thousand dollars I can believe, but you don't make this using a $500 laptop and it's built-in webcam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500 Amount is Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the guy owns an effects shop and THIS is the best that he can turn out then why the fuck would they give him money in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Story Line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The iPhone has and ap for that!
Surely it cost millions to develop that app :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
(a) In a big budget movie, most of the money goes to the talent, not the effects people. Duh.
(b) yes, some movies like Avatar involve developing new technology, but most don't. Saying that this guy didn't budget for developing the fx tools he's using is bogus.
(c) if you can call in favors you can easily rent a good enough camera in Uraguay for the budget. Assuming the people were donating their time and he already had the software, this was probably the biggest expense.
(d) the cost of rendering is way overblown. Yes, it's far quicker to do YouTube resolution (I would guess he actually did 16x9 NTSC) than film -- it's 1/4 or less of the number of pixels. But bear in mind he had no particular deadline and rendering power is pretty cheap these days. What did he care if it took 6 months to render? Where you get in to big rendering bills is when you need a lot of hi-res frames in a very short space of time.
(e) After talent, leeches (sorry, producers) and unions, the biggest source of cost in a Hollywood production, is the clusterf*ck that is a typical hollywood schedule. Everything is always a rush and that costs more. Doing it on your own timeline is a much much cheaper proposition.
The guy clearly has talent. The budget is realistic for what he did as a passionate/skilled amateur (and I only say amateur because he's not an official Hollywood type).
Scaling that to a Hollywood-style production will be tough. I wish him luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point
Funny. I wrote that on a recent post, and one of our regular commenters, who works for the movie industry insisted it was the other way around. He pointed to the effects budget on Spiderman and said it was much more than the talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point
No, I did not insist it was "the other way around" as that would be just as stupid as the comment I was replying to. What I DID say was the largest costs of a movie depends on the movie. "paying for stars" is not automatically the highest expenditure despite your assertions to the contrary.
Avatar and Spiderman are far from the only examples where the visual effects budget exceeded the casting budget. (The Matrix, 2012, The Hulk, District 9, The Day After Tomorrow, Star Trek etc) When you actually have to pay people for their work, and you don't have half a decade to stretch out production, things get expensive fast.
What a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*yawn*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$500?
The extras in the scenes may have volunteered their time, but it isn't reasonable to not count what it would cost to pay for people when comparing production with a professional show.
It's a fun little piece, and a great way to demonstrate ones prowess as a producer, director and special effects artist.
And a strong argument about the quality of art not depending on ridiculous quantities of cash - but I don't think it helps drive the points home by using distracting figures that invite argument over their veracity rather than consideration of the film makers success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500?
Really people, why is that so hard to understand?
If I buy a $1.00 candy bar, it COST ME $1.00! Just because I had to walk 10 minutes to get to a convenience store does not increase the money coming out of my own pocket!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A more interesting question ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
didn't you read the original story?
For those of you that think VFX doesn't cost a lot of money, you seem to think that studios making big movies use stock footage, or pre-made 3D models. They don't. They make everything from scratch. Building a believable 3D model takes a boatload of time, no matter how good you are. Lighting a 3D scene, texturing and shading, adding kinematics, skinning, and animating movement that looks real all take a boatload of time. Sure, he spent several years doing this, so if he valued his time in dollars, he probably spent the equivalent of $150k making this movie. But he didn't spend that. He used his FREE time. It's called free time because it doesn't cost us anything. If you are any good at filmmaking, you too can make a movie for $500. If you want to get paid for your free time, then don't go into the movie making business. You have to give away a lot of your free time before you see a $30M paycheck.
Good for this guy. Even if he sucked (which I don't think he does) he still got the deal that every pissed off person on this board wishes they got, but didn't. Don't be jealous. Go out and make your own awesome video and spend the time promoting it until it goes viral and see if you can make your own name. But don't be a hater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]