Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
  1. Sorry if repost, but this video is pretty cool. So the story goes that a filmmaker from Uruguay supposedly only spent $300 making this movie and pretty much over night signed a 30 million dollar deal with Sam Raimi to develop it into a feature. Personally I doubt the $300 part but I have no doubt that someone would see this and sign this filmmaker. Pretty cool short film, check it out.

    Here's the story as reported on Yahoo

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-dadPWhEhVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf &hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 "><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-dadPWhEhVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf &hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>
  2. wow that was badass! I dig the music in the background as well. ty for posting!
  3. Eh, pretty hard rip-off of the music/atmosphere of 28 Days Later (granted, I'm not sure of the music was original that film, but I'm pretty sure it was). That said, it was still cool...congrats to the dude for getting noticed.

    I'll be back, going to look it up.

    EDIT - From Wiki: "The film's score was composed by John Murphy and was released in a score/song compilation in 2003. Yep, rip-off...see below.

    <OBJECT height=344 width=425><PARAM NAME="movie" VALUE="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW0RX02SeQw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><PARAM NAME="allowFullScreen" VALUE="true"><PARAM NAME="allowscriptaccess" VALUE="always"> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KW0RX02SeQw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT>
     1
  4. Def looks pretty sweet but I hugely doubt the $300 part as well.

    And it's not a rip-off of the 28 Days Later music, it IS the 28 Days Later music

    Edit: Bleh, posted before Bubba's edit. Makes sense that the music isn't licensed to that film specifically then I guess. And yeah, the way it's used is pretty blatantly ripping off the mood.
  5.  
    Originally Posted by IbizaCF3 View Post

    Def looks pretty sweet but I hugely doubt the $300 part as well.

    And it's not a rip-off of the 28 Days Later music, it IS the 28 Days Later music

    Well yea, that's what I mean. I was talking about the scene in general - mood, tone, and obviously, they're using the music.
     1
  6. looks pretty cool

    no way it was done for $300
  7.  
    Originally Posted by gamblingfun View Post

    looks pretty cool

    no way it was done for $300

    It's easy to do that. You just get people to "donate" their services to keep overhead low.
  8. Do any of you doubting the $300 have background in film production or something? Just asking, because while watching it my first though was not, "Wow, there's no way this only cost $300 to make." I believe it.
     1
  9. Where is tom cruise and dakota fanning at???
  10. Unless his visual effects guy did the work for free or he did it himself, it cost way more than $300. Unless, like someone else said, a bunch of people just did a bunch of stuff for free for him for credit.
  11.  
    Originally Posted by IbizaCF3 View Post

    Unless his visual effects guy did the work for free or he did it himself, it cost way more than $300. Unless, like someone else said, a bunch of people just did a bunch of stuff for free for him for credit.

    Well the effects are pretty patched together and they obviously don't look anywhere near seamless, so I'm assuming he A) did it himself, B) had a friend do it or C) paid very minimally for it for, like you said, future credit or something. The best things about the short are the mood, tone, pacing and style, and the filmmaker knows that. There would be no point in him spending money on effects, that's obviously not what's going to catch the studio's eye (since any studio would do it better).
     1
  12.  
    Originally Posted by whitealroker View Post


    Where is tom cruise and dakota fanning at???

    First WAR post that actually makes sense

    Exactly what I was thinking, pretty sure this story has been done before, big robot things from outer space that destroy everything.

    One question, if those 4 big bots just turn into a bomb, wtf was the point of destroying everything before hand when they were just gonna bomb anyways?
     
  13. id be willing to bet the $300 is without alot of things he borrowed or had, film classes lend cameras and such
     
  14. Wow, really proud to see a fellow human being hit the bigtime from small beginnings.

    And all for $300

  15.  
    Originally Posted by time4badbeat View Post

    First WAR post that actually makes sense

    Exactly what I was thinking, pretty sure this story has been done before, big robot things from outer space that destroy everything.

    One question, if those 4 big bots just turn into a bomb, wtf was the point of destroying everything before hand when they were just gonna bomb anyways?

    I took that as they all combined together like that to be protected from the detonation
  16. Yeah I have done a good deal of work in film and studying it as well. I do not doubt for one second that this was made for $300. He only really needed to probably pay that newsman actor. He probably doesn't count the cost of equipment which he either already owned or someone he knew did. Everything else is shot from him walking in the streets and just shooting background slates. He obv got the CGi done for free and already had software so that isn't included in the cost either. The only thing it really cost was time.
     

Similar Threads