I've worked on a lot of no-budget movies (no-budget in Hollywood terms is anything under $100k). I have dont feature films that cost as little as $30k. The trick of making a short cheap movie is to know what you're doing well enough to shoot the whole thing in a short period, like 1-2 weeks.
The $70/45 pound is bullshit. Even if you don't pay people (you can get away with this because everyone wants to be in movies), the rule is that you at least feed them and pay for their transport costs (bus tickets or gasoline). Unless you are exceptionally good at scheduling, you'll have them there for a full day which means feeding them twice.
I guarantee this thing cost at least $10,000 in food and expenses. What it probably means is the filmmaker spent $70 and scrounged up the rest from his parents and friends' parents. Even if you do home cooking, feeding and stumping up bus fares for an average of 20 people a day ain't cheap. I hate these kind of stories because when you're trying to raise money for a low-budget movie people say 'well X was made for $150', while many of your suppliers (particularly suppliers of locations, which you can't afford to build) hear 'movie' and think you're going to drop thousands per day.
It also doesn't account for the makers labor. It's like saying "I made a web app in my spare time over 3 months while working at McSoftware Firm. So it cost $0 to make!"
Well, working for free or deferred pay (if the film gets sold) is common at the bottom end of the business. So I'm prepared to accept that the labor outlay was $0, since in such cases there's an agreement that nobody is owed any money unless paydirt is hit. And equipment may be owned or borrowed - after all, I have 2 cameras that can shoot video, and a fast computer, so if I began shooting something lo-fi tomorrow I'm already equipped. But still.
The $70/45 pound is bullshit. Even if you don't pay people (you can get away with this because everyone wants to be in movies), the rule is that you at least feed them and pay for their transport costs (bus tickets or gasoline). Unless you are exceptionally good at scheduling, you'll have them there for a full day which means feeding them twice.
I guarantee this thing cost at least $10,000 in food and expenses. What it probably means is the filmmaker spent $70 and scrounged up the rest from his parents and friends' parents. Even if you do home cooking, feeding and stumping up bus fares for an average of 20 people a day ain't cheap. I hate these kind of stories because when you're trying to raise money for a low-budget movie people say 'well X was made for $150', while many of your suppliers (particularly suppliers of locations, which you can't afford to build) hear 'movie' and think you're going to drop thousands per day.