Okay, the thread title is a bit misleading, but as we know, Christopher Nolan's first feature film, Following, was made with a budget of only $6000. Nolan himself joked about it and stated that the film had a serious claim to be one of the cheapest feature films ever made.

Now, I highly doubt that Following IS the cheapest, but I was wondering if anyone knew what the cheapest feature film ever made is. That is, the film with the lowest budget. I've searched the internet but there seems to be no definitive answer.

I think their was a British guy who made a film for £50.

How true that was or if it was just for a bit of publicity, who knows.

apw wrote:I think their was a British guy who made a film for £50.

What does that translate into dollars?

Eternalist wrote:

apw wrote:I think their was a British guy who made a film for £50.

What does that translate into dollars?

$100 maybe.

Yeah it was a bloke in Wales who claimed to have made it for 45 pound. He said it was spent on food, drink and travel expences. But it dosent include converting a digital file to film for example.
Nolan had to transfer 8mm to 32mm which would cost about 5000 pound for a 9min film, so Nolan made his for less probs, if you want to think of it that way. The filmmakers felt it would be a good way to promote their film, which clearly worked.

here it is and the film is called "Colin"


http://www.gitnews.com/?p=3771

rbevanx wrote:here it is and the film is called "Colin"


http://www.gitnews.com/?p=3771

Really interesting. No-budget filmmaking.

Yeah they managed to get a premire in Leicester Square, London like some of the big Blockbusters, ones like The Dark Knight and The Prestige. But not the same theatre lol.

crazy man.

rbevanx wrote:here it is and the film is called "Colin"


http://www.gitnews.com/?p=3771

How the hell do you make a movie so cheap? My 5-minute short I made last year at least cost me a couple $100's (thanks to the pricey locations/costumes). That's damn impressive!