And I keep telling you all Apples and Oranges.
Yeah, it just appears you're the only one talking about apples, while everyone else is talking about oranges.
Let's take John as an example. John has monthly living costs of about 3'000 $, includes rent, food, cloth, household, a bit of luxury and so on and so forth. So in the way this world works so far, he needs to make 3'000 $ a month to live.
Now he decides to make a movie. Fortunately, he has a camera because he bought himself one a while ago, he got a computer for christmas and he is a nice guy and has loads of friends who serve as actors. His film asks for guns, which he doesn't have, so he buys them for 100 $ and some tape for 50 $, goes and shoots his film. Then it takes him 6 months to finish the film and after six months, voila, he has his movie done.
NOW come the two perspectives. If that filmmaking is a hobby of John, he'll think like a hobbyist and say his film cost 150 $ and he made it in his SPARE time on his free will - but that also means John has to do another job, because he still needs those 3'000 $ a month. We're all good. John has the first step in his dream to potentially maybe become a professional, or keep it as a hobby. If his film makes 200 $, John will can be very happy because he actually made 50 $ with his hobby.
If John is a professional filmmaker though, meaning he does filmmaking as his profession, he spent those 150 $ alright, but also 6 months worth 3'000 $ each - 18'000 $ worth of his time. That was what it took John to make his product. It was the films budget, even though he has never laid hands on 18'000 $. That doesn't mean that this money doesn't exist. On paper - he actually DID pay himself! And his film will need to make 18'000 $ or John has the quite serious problem of not being able to buy food for much longer.
So the budget needed for Johns film wasn't 150 $, it was 18'000 $ (actually, more, because there's much more to take into consideration than Johns own time).
Obviously, everyone is free to go and say "Nah, I'll work for free" and we both know that no one will say "no" to that offer. But if you do work for free, you're basically only cheating yourself - from a business point of view, I'm currently ignoring the whole "but I like it and I like doing what I like" thing. And that's everyone's own choice, naturally.
So even though Bryan fights really hard against how every business in the world handles their productions for a reason I honestly don't quite grasp, it is important that aspiring filmmakers who want to make a profession out of their filmmaking know how to properly do a budget. The money you directly spend on stuff you buy for your film is PART of the budget, but it ISN'T the COMPLETE budget.
I think the problem here is simply the reality that very few people on fxhome do filmmaking as their sole profession. Most of us are hobbyists with aspirations and we deal with the reality that we have to pay ourselves for a long time. We think like hobbyists that way, even IF our profession might actually have something to do with film.
I just want to make the two perspectives clear. I'm not saying Bryan M Blocks perspective is wrong, I'm merely defending myself because what pete2, pdrg and myself are saying simply isn't wrong either.