Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

$300 Sci-Fi YouTube Video Lands $30m Movie Deal

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-a-lotta-cash dept.

Movies 315

krou writes "A producer from Uruguay who made a short science fiction film and uploaded it to YouTube has landed a film deal with Sam Raimi's Ghost House worth $300 million. The film, which shows spaceships and giant robots attacking Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay, was made by Fede Alvarez for around $30. 'I uploaded (Panic Attack!) on a Thursday and on Monday my inbox was totally full of e-mails from Hollywood studios,' he said. Alvarez is to develop and direct a film based on one of his ideas, but there is no word yet on the writer."

cancel ×

315 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About time (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475480)

Further proof that Hollywood is running out of good ideas, and must turn to new sources.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475512)

Further proof that Hollywood is running out of good ideas, and must turn to new sources.

Welcome to 1999 friend!

Fuck you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30476082)

I hope that everyone who reads this fucks off.

Re:About time (2, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475516)

First hint that Hollywood is turning to new sources.

I hate it when robots attack Montevideo. Especially during soccer season.

Re:About time (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475558)

I call shenanigans

I uploaded several adult vids and I have yet to hear from the pr0n industry

Re:About time (4, Funny)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476046)

No offense, but maybe you should not have cast yourself in the lead role?

Re:About time (2, Insightful)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475608)

turning to other sources weren't things Hollywood did before?

and why complain where they get their ideas if it is a good film?

For me, this is just an example of it becoming easier for smaller artists/designers/producers etc to be able to show themselves on the world stage, nothing more.

Re:About time (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475700)

I didn't say it was a bad thing. Personally, I think it's about time Hollywood recognized that following the same formulas results in the same bad movies.

Not a new idea (5, Funny)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475612)

Further proof that Hollywood is running out of good ideas, and must turn to new sources.

It's not even new - it's "War of the Worlds" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" mixed together.

The guy did a great job with the special effects, but story wise - meh.

Golloywierd will throw in some hot chick in short shorts and lots of cleavage and it'll make a few hundred million.

Re:Not a new idea (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475636)

The guy did a great job with the special effects, but story wise - meh.

So... what's your point?

Re:Not a new idea (4, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475714)

The guy did a great job with the special effects, but story wise - meh.

So... what's your point?

It has no story. Aliens or robots kill humans is not a story and it's been done to death.

It's a very pretty video of a special effects demo.

I'm impressed by the special effects and not impressed by his story telling ability.

I can't think of any other way to put it.

Re:Not a new idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475784)

So what? It was to show off his effects skills, not writing. What, unless you're a writer, you can't make a video to show your skills? So, a dancer or martial artist needs a story to make a video showing their talent? How about a video to show what a jealous, loser you are?

Re:Not a new idea (2, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475844)

but, but, he got a movie deal out of it and only spent $300 bucks? what have you done lately?

Re:Not a new idea (2, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476144)

I want to know how much money _net_ he'll get out of the deal after the Hollywood Accounting is done.

Stan Lee, Peter Jackson and many others had trouble getting their alleged fair share of the $$$ from Hollywood.

Re:Not a new idea (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476166)

Well, I recently got back from the other end of the galaxy after being flung through a wormhole.

Re:Not a new idea (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475872)

What development do you want him to do in a 5 minute piece?

I guess if his goal was to impress you with his storytelling ability he failed, but if it was to advertise his vision to Hollywood, he succeeded.

Re:Not a new idea (4, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475910)

I've seen people tell a story with a still photo.

Otherwise, point taken.

Re:Not a new idea (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475956)

It's a very pretty video of a special effects demo.

Exactly. The special effects rocked. So... what's you're point?

Re:Not a new idea (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476024)

I'm impressed by the special effects and not impressed by his story telling ability.

Which may be why he was offered a deal to direct while they find another writer.

Putting the "Fiction" back in Science Fiction (0)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475744)

No offense intended to the great nation of Uruguay, but why would giant robotic aliens give a rat's ass about Montevideo of all places?

Re:Putting the "Fiction" back in Science Fiction (5, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475830)

South Africa was already occupied.

Re:Putting the "Fiction" back in Science Fiction (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475836)

What makes you think they'd give a rat's ass about New York or Tokyo?

But to answer your question more effectively, when you make a movie you target an audience. A hobbyist would probably aim his audience towards the locality upon which the film is made. (Meaning, if he's in Uruguay, he's going to make a film for Uruguayians).

Re:Putting the "Fiction" back in Science Fiction (5, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476012)

No offense intended to the great nation of Uruguay, but why would giant robotic aliens give a rat's ass about Montevideo of all places?

They've been intercepting our interwebs for some time now and as such they've been watching porn from 8thstreetlatinas.net. Like most gigantic robotic overlords they require fresh, nimble, "barely legal" workers for their Energon mines in order to continue to function properly and thus continue to watch even more porn as well as do all those other things that overlords do. Pass pointless laws, monitor the pleebs, protect the children, make deals with other alien overlords, etc.

I know this because I too am a slave of the robotic overlords however, I work in accounting...

Re:Not a new idea (2, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476004)

Further proof that Hollywood is running out of good ideas, and must turn to new sources.

It's not even new - it's "War of the Worlds" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" mixed together.

The guy did a great job with the special effects, but story wise - meh.

Golloywierd will throw in some hot chick in short shorts and lots of cleavage and it'll make a few hundred million.

Mod parent up and GP down. It's very nicely done, but the only "good idea" here is having the robots attack South America instead of North America this time. Clearly he was doing a tech demo tribute to several large (and mediocre) recent Hollywood movies.

Re:About time (3, Insightful)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475618)

Further proof that Hollywood is running out of good ideas, and must turn to new sources.

Proof that Hollywood has a lot more more to fear from this trend on the internet than than just copyright infringement... the more amateur file makers gain recognition and rewards - the better quality their films will become. Diluting eyeballs and eroding profit margins for Hollywood. Yay!

Re:About time (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475732)

What? Other than FX, which hollywood is pretty good at, what exactly does this film show?

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475628)

I don't think it's fair to say that Sam Raimi was ever part of the "Hollywood problem". He will do just about anything, as long as he thinks it will be entertaining. He has done:

The Evil Dead and its sequels
Dark Man
Timecop
Hercules, the Legendary Journeys
Xena
MANTIS
The Hudsucker Proxy
Legend of the Seeker
American Gothic

Sam Raimi's work might not be on Bergman's level, but he has definitely introduced a style of his own into film and television. He has been asked to work for the modern comic book movies, because he basically invented the format of a modern comic book movie with the Evil Dead and Dark Man.

To his credit... (3, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475804)

To his credit, the plot of the YouTube video was a lot more interesting than around 80% of the movies that Hollywood does churn out these days.

Re:About time (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475822)

if means less remakes of second rate movies i'm all for it.

Re:About time (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476086)

Eh.. there's really no new ideas in the YouTube clip. If anything, it's a remake of every other urban destruction movie, but the quality is at least on par with big-budget TV effects. Of course, I'm not sure what Hollywood is expecting from him... there's a big difference between producing your own digital video, and herding a bunch of catty actors while trying to supervise the CGI artists, camera men, editors, etc. and still effectively conveying the story. Someone else's story no less, according to TFA.

Re:About time (2, Informative)

alexhard (778254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476110)

A cgi bonanza with an annoying shakeycam and no acting. Truly original, and exactly what Hollywood needs to renew itself!

Re:About time (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476136)

I don't see how this sort of thing isn't a positive development. The filmmaker who made this short is obviously talented. It's not just that the special effects are impressive for such a small budget, but the whole thing is shot pretty well.

I mean, this is kind of what should be happening, right? The movie industry finds talented filmmakers and gives them a chance to work on bigger projects?

$30 million (5, Informative)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475520)

Both articles mention $30 million, not $300 million.

Re:$30 million (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475668)

Thanks,

I read that and the first thing I thought was $300M doesn't sound like Raimi at all.

I mean, isn't that about what he did the original Spider-Man for? It came across as way out of character to drop $300M for a movie.

Re:$30 million (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475716)

I was going to say. Avatar, most expensive film, was just over 300 million. And that led by James Cameron, someone well known and respected. And 10+ years ago, they had waterworld, most expensive at $180 million by Kevin Costner, and they were crapping their pants.

No way they'd give an unknown 300 million for something that vaguely resembles transformers/independence day. It's a decent film and all, but.

I also get tired of films "costing" $300, or there was a story of a decent zombie flick costing $70. Maybe it started with Blair Witch costing around $10,000 for this race to the bottom - but a house built with donated labor and materials by Habitat for Humanity isn't just a $500 project just because $500 was stuck into it by the end producers - it took more than $500 of resources even if said economic resources were given away that one time and that's obvious with this film as well. Just the computer work alone, unless time costs $0.

Re:$30 million (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476022)

They probably just confused the currency with the dollar from 10 years ago..

Mocking aside, $300m is really improbable and probably wrongly quoted by someone that had a stressed day and therefore hit one unimportant zero too much.

As for resemblance, it's more like a hybrid of "Sky captain and the world of tomorrow" and the game "Supreme commander".

Your third paragraph is a gem though. Yea, he probably spent months if not years on the CG as hobby project. Also contributions and the basic ability to create such things are not really that easily put on a tab. If you'd try to create that short clip (exactly as it is) in a western society, than you'd be at several thousand (if not tens of thousands).

Guess that's the 'small' margin between inspiration and profit.

p.s. @ Hollywood: I know you screwed over all your writers and they are mad at you, but please try to find someone that creates a decent story for the next SciFi thing.. I get the feeling it's already decades ago..

Re:$30 million (1)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475754)

Oops, my bad. Sorry about that. I think I need better eyes.

$30 million, not $300 million (0, Redundant)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475522)

Still impressive to say the least, but the summary is wrong. It's a $30 million movie deal.

Re:$30 million, not $300 million (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475694)

Yeah $30M goes a long way in Uruguay!

This site rocks (-1, Redundant)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475524)

Nice editing. It's 30M, not 300M. Not that it's not a pretty penny, but at some point you guess should have a little bit of pride in your site and at least put an effort into making it worth reading.

His original post (3, Informative)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475528)

He posted his video in Taringa! and from there he became famous. Original post at taringa.net [taringa.net]

Re:His original post (5, Informative)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475808)

I forgot to say, the guy the most well known TV publicity director in Uruguay; this is not just a "youtube video". His official website is http://www.aparato.tv/ [aparato.tv]

Reading fail (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475536)

30 million != 300 million

Wrong title (0, Redundant)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475560)

Thats 30 million, not 300 million.

My BS alarm was going off at 300 mil, so I had to go RTFA.

Congratulations! (0, Offtopic)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475576)

Just remember to Bit Torrent the final version for us someday.

_> >_

Nice vid and all, but I've seen that movie before. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475588)

It's called Independence Day

Re:Nice vid and all, but I've seen that movie befo (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475686)

To be honest, this one looked a lot more realistic, just the fact that none of the airplanes/spaceships seemed to be connected to giant invisible rubber bands that made them bounce around in ways that they simply couldn't without falling apart (or out of the sky). If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just watch a few of scenes with F-18 Hornets in Independence Day and notice how they time and time again "bounce" mid-air, it's the kind of thing anyone with a few weeks of experience with 3D animation would try to avoid (which makes me think it was a directorial/managerial decision to make them behave that way).

/Mikael

Re:Nice vid and all, but I've seen that movie befo (2, Insightful)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476036)

You haven't flown much in real air, have you? You should try it in a small airplane. Check at your nearest airport for short flights and see if you can find one with a plane which holds less than 50 people. After a summer flight in a 10-passenger plane you'll change your opinion of how a wing through air might behave. Take a dose of motion sickness medicine before your first flight, as you don't know how you'll react to it.

Well worth watching (1)

cruff (171569) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475598)

If he did this for about $300, its really amazing. The CGI is really nicely done.

Re:Well worth watching (3, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475840)

I think it's a big studio viral hoax.

Re:Well worth watching (3, Informative)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475966)

Im sorry to tell you but argentine [lanacion.com.ar] and [clarin.com] uruguayan [alt1040.com] press [diarioelpueblo.com.uy] think it is real.

Re:Well worth watching (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475984)

Yes, I'm curious how he pulled it off. Is it with pirated software and paying his crew 100 pesos a day?

Re:Well worth watching (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476118)

Yes, I'm curious how he pulled it off. Is it with pirated software and paying his crew 100 pesos a day?

He's in South American so using "pirated" software as you call it is perfectly acceptable.

What I wonder about is why Hollywood just didn't steal his idea they they normally do.

They could have saved a lot of money (0, Troll)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475624)

By simply doing what this guy obviously did. Rented Independence Day. While entertaining, it was far from original. And I call BS on the $300 budget. He surely isn't factoring in all of the crap he's been accumulating over the last few years in order to put this all together. The $300 maybe would have covered what it cost to pay that lady off to let her kid roll away in the stroller.

Re:They could have saved a lot of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475654)

Yup, didn't take long for some loser on Slashdot to put this guy down for doing something YOU can't.

Re:They could have saved a lot of money (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475852)

It takes a special kind of person such as yourself to fill an essential role in any religious or quasi-religious movement. This is the sort of man who, when confronted with an extraordinary claim, does not ask for extraordinary evidence, but manages to both absorb the claim without question and put down those who dare to question it.

Yes, the special effects are quite cool, if unpolished. Yes, not everyone with a random workstation would have the talent or experience to produce them. This doesn't mean that some guy in his basement with $300 managed to amass the hardware, software, (self-)training and on site budget to achieve this film. Nor is this man show a unique production talent which would make him stand out from the crowd of professional CGI artists who have already produced similar scenes.

On the other hand, $300 + [0]00,000 = $30[0],000,000! I want to believe!

But you know what? it makes for a great way to start buzz about a movie, and Hollywood's all about the dream of what could be.

Re:They could have saved a lot of money (1)

gonzonista (790137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475990)

Have you ever made one of these? You pull in all the favors you can. $300 in Uruguay will go a lot further than in the USA. Borrow equipment, get talent to work for free in exchange for film credit, get your friends and family to work as extras, use idle editing suites... you get the idea.

If you add up all the effort, the total cost would be way more than $300. The point is that it cost him $300 to put it together. It speaks volumes about his ability to get good results at low cost. That is pretty impressive.

Re:They could have saved a lot of money (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476038)

He surely isn't factoring in all of the crap he's been accumulating over the last few years in order to put this all together.

Using crap you have lying around is a classic method of saving money when making a movie, even one with a serious budget. Of course you don't factor in the cost of things you aren't paying for.

The $300 maybe would have covered what it cost to pay that lady off to let her kid roll away in the stroller.

Unless he said "Hey want to be in a movie with your kid? There's no money in it." and she said "Sure." Cost: $0.

Sam Raimi (5, Funny)

ExE122 (954104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475644)

Who knew that the man behind Spiderman, The Grudge, Evil Dead, and Drag Me to Hell is a fan of cheesy low budget special effects.

Re:Sam Raimi (1)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475724)

Did you watch the video? The CGI is rather impressive.

Here's the video (5, Funny)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475652)

Here's the link to the original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvmIxu-LSA [youtube.com]

(NFSW language. If you work in a lame place. My co-workers laughed their asses off.)

Yey! (1)

g0dsp33d (849253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475658)

I can't wait for the upcoming "Leave Britney Alone [2011]" and "Cat and Box [2012]".

Re:Yey! (1)

SpeZek (970136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475914)

You say this like it's a joke, and not reality. [mashable.com]

Real costs (4, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475710)

As awesome as that video is - and it is pretty damn awesome, let there be no mistake about that - I suspect that it only cost $300 if he's considering the time of himself and his friends to be worth zero. (I'm assuming the group scenes were the result of getting a bunch of buddies together.)

I'd be interested to know how many hours of his own time were spent on that.

However, it is pretty awesome and the mere fact that he can do stuff like that with his limited resources is a sign that he may well deserve that money.

Re:Real costs (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475886)

U$S 300 was the cost of logistics, electricity for the cameras, etc.

Re:Real costs (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476234)

He was also probably not considering the costs of cameras, computers, software -- as it is all stuff he had already.

A.W.E.S.O.M-O (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475720)

Um... How about this: Adam Sandler fights against spaceships and giant robots attacking Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay, or something.

Nice effects - and good first scene (2, Insightful)

us7892 (655683) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475750)

The fog shrouded giant robots hooked me. Well done effects.

How many hundreds of hours does it take to create something like this?

$300 is not the real price (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475752)

Nobody would make that piece for $300. That price clearly does not include the value of his time or any number of other things (like the computer used for CG and editing for example). Just call it a hobby project or something, but don't claim it only cost $300.

Re:$300 is not the real price (1)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475786)

Not to mention the labor cost (I saw 30+ extras), where they not paid?

Re:$300 is not the real price (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475928)

That price clearly does not include the value of his time or any number of other things

The value of your time is whatever someone is paying you for it. If nobody is paying you for it, then that time is worth $0. It almost certainly has a non-monetary worth, but you don't add that to your budget tally.

For a direct comparison, when the contractor working on my house bills me for 20 hours at $30, and tells me that he donated 3 hours to fix a mistake he made or because he was being anal retentive about getting something perfect, my bill is $600. Those extra three hours, hypothetically worth $30 each, actually cost $0.

Just call it a hobby project or something, but don't claim it only cost $300.

It certainly was a hobby project, yet I don't see why that means it couldn't have been made for $300. My contractor isn't doing it as a hobby, it's his livelihood, yet the same rules apply.

Re:$300 is not the real price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475962)

Exactly. That film was not made for anywhere near $300. There are obviously thousands of hours behind this. Actually, Alvarez will probably do very well in Hollywood, as he apparently already grasps the nuances of Hollywood accounting.

Re:$300 is not the real price (1)

Xamusk (702162) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476094)

If he made it with his home computer, why would it be counted as if it were purchased for the movie? He'll still use it after the movie is done since probably he hasn't bought it just for the movie.

New ideas? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475766)

Hollywood couldn't come up with "Giant Robots Attacking A Modern City" ?? I'm not a movie aficionado, but dudes, that's been done before.

That video for $300? I dont think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475778)

The video is completely not done for $300, just the camera work alone looks like about $30k worth of editing. I would bet anything that this video was done by the big studios and they staged that it came from this guy.

V & Battlestar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475810)

Looks like a mix of V & Battlestar Gallactica to me. Ho hum.

Re:V & Battlestar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475954)

Also an advanced civilization would have advanced weapons which likely wouldn't require putting giant robots on the ground to attack at random. One nuke flattens the whole area.

And the $300 cost is misleading. There had to be tons of man-hours involved. Add them into it and it changes the picture.

"It's been 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" - no fucking shit! You're saying I should wait another 3 hours until the story isn't relevant anymore? You stupid fucks - this "Slow Down Cowboy!" is bullshit. Behind a firewall, clicked back, assume it's a mistake, blah blah. What a bunch of shit. This is a technically-oriented site - assume your readers are more than ass-monkeys, aren't making a mistake and know what the fuck they're doing.

More interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475828)

More interesting would be to know the total time and money spent on all YouTube dramatizations, vs. the return from major movie studios.

Impressive for the budget it was done on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475854)

...but it's not something I'd go and see. Alien invaders. Ho hum. Lots of stuff blowing up. Yawn. It feels like I've already seen it about a thousand times already.

Flaming lips on fire off the shoulder of Orion (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475894)

I was going to say that I was waiting for Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, the movie, but according to Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshimi_Battles_the_Pink_Robots) there is a Broadway musical in development. So the movie will not be far behind.

And the plot outline looks pretty interesting.

Ohhh! *That* Montevideo! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475906)

'Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay'
Thanks for clarifying that.

Does the article submitter work in movie post-production by any chance?

This post brought to you from London, England.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (1)

dirkdodgers (1642627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475930)

Anyone? Same scene done better in a novel story that was a huge risk in Hollywood.

Yes, it's impressive that the linked video was done on an amateur budget, and congratulations to this guy; I hope he makes millions, but let's not pretend this is original stuff.

Actual Video Here (0, Redundant)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475934)

Since there's no link in the summary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk [youtube.com]

Nice camera work and pretty impressive effects.

Space Invaders (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475940)

The Movie

Sky captain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30475946)

So rip off the start of sky captain - add in better fx ( it was made 5 years ago) and gain a$30 mill contract.

Sky captain still wins though...it had airships!

PR/Viral marketing? (5, Interesting)

djwavelength (398555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475970)

Am I the only one who thinks that the whole situation was setup as a viral marketing/PR stunt? Maybe I'm just naturally distrustful of Hollywood.

It is easier to sell tickets to another run of the mill Sci-Fi movie if it has a story like this behind it.

Alvarez Doesn't Get 30M (5, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475982)

The project is budgeted at 30M.

This is Alvarez's first project, probably no agent, definitely no actors attached to it, so they will probably give him an 'advance' and then lots of interdependent if-then conditionals. He won't get any on-screen credits. (That sets off a bunch of payouts the producer normally keeps) Then one of two things happen to a first-time writer/creator.

1. The conditionals are never met. Alvarez keeps his pittance of an advance and makes a little beer money. This is normally how it works for a project off the street.
2. The producer reinterprets the contract or has some sort of magical contractual difficulty with Alvarez if the project is successful. Alvarez then might see his five figures after a few rounds in court and 6-figure legal bills.

Check out the legal wrangling on 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' as an example. According to the producer, that was an 'unprofitable' film. Welcome to business deals in Hollywood.

Re:Alvarez Doesn't Get 30M (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476138)

AFAICT, generally more common with movies from relatively unknown writers or based on relatively unknown books.

Probably because not even Hollywood would have been stupid enough to, eg, screw JK Rowling over the first Harry Potter film.

What did Raimi see in this guy? (3, Insightful)

prakslash (681585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475986)

I am sorry but I would take this story with pinch of salt.
Could be someone is pulling a fast one on this guy?

There is nothing in the film that shows any originality or creativity in ideas. It seems like a amateur copy of scenes from "War of the Worlds" and "Independence Day".

So, what did Hollywood Studios see in this guy?

That he can make a hacky special effects film for $300? Even there, anyone can see that if you used the proper accounting methods, the budget was probaly way more than $300. All those crowds running was previously shot and reused dfootage. If he had to perform original shooting of those scenes, the budget would go way over $300. Same goes for the explosions and other special effects. He probably spent a long time on creating those but did not include the dollar value of that time which typically would add thousands of dollars to the film's budget. So, I am not seeing what he brought to the table.
Those fan-created Star Trek episodes have more going for them than this.

Re:What did Raimi see in this guy? (4, Funny)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476178)

Even there, anyone can see that if you used the proper accounting methods, the budget was probaly way more than $300.

That's your answer right there. You can't swing a dead cat* in Hollywood without hitting a dozen writers. Mr. Raimi doesn't need any more writers, but creative accountants are gold.


*No actual cats were harmed during this post.

Re:What did Raimi see in this guy? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476220)

Even there, anyone can see that if you used the proper accounting methods, the budget was probaly way more than $300.

Since when did anything involving movies ever use proper accounting methods?

Re:What did Raimi see in this guy? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476246)

There is nothing in the film that shows any originality or creativity in ideas.
So, what did Hollywood Studios see in this guy?

I think you just answered that yourself :)

The day is coming where we don't need holywood (4, Insightful)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 4 years ago | (#30475998)

Being able to make movies much cheaper is a good thing. Means making a movie is much less financially risky, so people are more likely to back something new and unknown. Consumer grade equipment is getting better all the time, perhaps holywood won't be needed. This plus file sharing must have holywood filling their pants, not sure drawing such attention with such large sums of money was wise for them.....

Nice try Slashdot... (2, Funny)

potscott (539666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476010)

...I'm not going to get Rick rolled...

That sucks on so many levels (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30476054)

Sucky list
1. Music is stolen (28 days/weeks/months/years later)
2. Uruguay doesn't have fighter jets like that.
3. Even if they did, the pilots wouldn't fly like that.
4. Robot attack formation is VERY poor
5. Structure of those robots isn't physically possible. (and AGAIN they look WAY TOO human-like)
6. Shaky cams suck, PERIOD.
7. Explosions are unrealistic

Why on Earth would you pour money to something like that?

Re:That sucks on so many levels (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476240)

I would hazard a guess they are paying for the potential story behind this but mainly the ability of this guy to produce this on such a budget. $300 for something that looks that good and realistic is VERY good. The explosions are not bad and are generally well done. The shaky camera work gives a good impression of what the scene is apparently about - an attack with people fleeing in panic.

Give the guy a break. If I a produced something like that for 186 quid I would be absolutely ecstatic.

Seen it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30476078)

Pretty damned good for $300. I got black out drunk and watched cloverfield and independance day consecutively, so I've already seen it via spotty memory.

Hope he gets his original money out (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476104)

With all the hollywood accounting, I hope he at least makes his original 100USD. But most likely he won't get anything and with a bit of bad luck, he ends up loosing money.

300 bucks cant have licensed that OST (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30476124)

Shouldn't youtube silence the vid? Plenty other vids get silenced for using copyrighted music, and this one obviously i've heard before. PRobably in 28 weeks later. not sure.

and in three years (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30476132)

they remake the movie once more.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?