Why you should make a GOOD short...

[Chris_Keaton]

I have heard, but I do not know for certain, that the new 'District 9' movie deal was nabbed because of a 6 minute short the director made.

Can anyone verify that? Now wouldn't that be a reason to knock one out of the park.

Enjoy!

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I believe this is the short you are referring to.

ALIVE IN JOBURG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNReejO7Zu8)

Not a rickroll.

[jeremytuttle]

The new cgi movie 9 (Directed by Shane Acker and produced by Tim Burton and Peter Jackson) was also based off a short (Academy Award nominated no less).

[Shawn Philip Nelson]

I think District 9 was made because Neil is the protege of Peter Jackson

[Justin Kuhn]

And why is he a protege? Because Peter Jackson saw the short. He was going to direct the Halo movie but that fell through. Another lesson would be, "Be a VFX specialist," which is a large part of how he managed to make the short so cool.

[Brooksy]

It's not just one simple thing that got Neil the gig directing District 9, it was a slew of things. He is a good VFX artist, he knows how to tell a story well, he was able to tell an original story, he picked the right way to tell the story, he followed it through to completion, he was able to take what little equipment-budget-cast he had to make it so cool, etc. Ever here the phrase "The whole is greater then the sum of it's parts"? Gestalt. Well, his short had plenty of it. That is why he was chosen for this project. If it wouldn't have been District 9 it would have been some other movie.

But I do agree this is why it is so very important to do your short as well as possible. It only takes one short and one viewing to make things happen.

[lawriejaffa]

Good advice Chris,

its always important i think for a filmmaker to challenge himself, to strive, and even though this is an accessible and popular festival theme, its no excuse for laziness and filmic masturbation as id put it.

In other words self indulgent nonsense. Be it a comedy monster movie or a serious monster movie, then regardless of its production quality or any of the bullshi* too many folk consider important (the superficial) i want to be delighted and impressed with seeing filmmakers grow. Myself included.

MovieMaster is a good example of someone who is clearly a creative talent, equipment non withstanding that i think can provide a positive inspiration for many participating in the fest with limited means. Some filmmakers will perhaps produce films to simply 'have fun' with it... that is very much the most difficult kind of film to make entertaining for everyone else.

Yep what a fun guy i am - (actually im like Vincent Price from Mask of the Red Death but thats ok!)

As a writer Chris, and for most writers - they are only too aware of the importance of good ideas, thought out stories etc. Too many filmmakers - directors can forgo these elements for styles or superficiality.

[dadoboy]

It is a combination of things that allowed Neil to make District 9, I agree. It usually is. Lots of very talented people never get the opportunity to direct a feature film with that kind of support. But there's no single path to "making it". Neil may have had P. Jackson's support but he made his way as a VFX artist and Tech Director. P. Jackson made his way as a writer and indie director. Zhang Yimou started out as a cinematographer.

What all these people have in common is both a great amount of talent and persistence. Good luck with your shorts! I was thinking of making one myself this season - but I'm still very much in debt (despite my self-delusion).

[Nektonic]

Lately I've been pondering over this hypothetical filmmaker dilemma:

If you had ten or twenty big ones (aka thousands) to spend on a film; is it smarter to make a decent or bland DV/HDV/HVX200 35mm adapter feature film that will probably sink in the sea of mediocre features, or make a kick arse short that will stand out because you were able to spend the dollar to minute-of-running time wisely, as well as use better equipment like a Red One or 35mm film?

Let's face it, even $20,000 is not a lot for a feature, unless you're making something that is cheap to begin with like an easy to shoot contemporary drama or a one location horror film. And that doesn't even take into account the importance of having a 'name actor' so that you have a decent chance to sell it to a distributor and get the darn thing into the major festivals.

So in my case, even saving up $20,000 to spend all on a film is not realistic, so I would have to say that making a really great short film is the way to go. The good thing about it is that even if you want to move into doing low budget features, having an amazing short film should make it easier to approach investors.

I don't know how much Alive In Joburg cost to make. I would bet that if he were to have tried making it as a feature back then in 2006 or whenever he made the short, that it wouldn't have been too cheap to do, even if he kept the whole faux doco style. It is a great short film though. I hope they put a high quality version of it on the District 9 DVD/Blu-ray.

[dadoboy]

Statistically speaking (and not knowing your talent or ability to gather resources), the chances a feature made on $20K will get distribution is like the same chance you're going to the moon. At best it would be a showpiece for festivals or Amazon direct sales.

At only $20K, with no chance for further funding, I would personally just make a short or save it and hope to raise more money in the future for a feature. But if its set at 20 - make a good short.


Lately I've been pondering over this hypothetical filmmaker dilemma:

If you had ten or twenty big ones (aka thousands) to spend on a film; is it smarter to make a decent or bland DV/HDV/HVX200 35mm adapter feature film that will probably sink in the sea of mediocre features, or make a kick arse short that will stand out because you were able to spend the dollar to minute-of-running time wisely, as well as use better equipment like a Red One or 35mm film?

Let's face it, even $20,000 is not a lot for a feature, unless you're making something that is cheap to begin with like an easy to shoot contemporary drama or a one location horror film. And that doesn't even take into account the importance of having a 'name actor' so that you have a decent chance to sell it to a distributor and get the darn thing into the major festivals.

So in my case, even saving up $20,000 to spend all on a film is not realistic, so I would have to say that making a really great short film is the way to go. The good thing about it is that even if you want to move into doing low budget features, having an amazing short film should make it easier to approach investors.

I don't know how much Alive In Joburg cost to make. I would bet that if he were to have tried making it as a feature back then in 2006 or whenever he made the short, that it wouldn't have been too cheap to do, even if he kept the whole faux doco style. It is a great short film though. I hope they put a high quality version of it on the District 9 DVD/Blu-ray.

[Shawn Philip Nelson]

Option C - make 20 short films at $1,000 apiece

[Nektonic]

A perfect example of what I'm talking about are these two shorts, made by the same dude. One is a spec trailer. The other is an original short film.

THE TALISMAN Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LHFRF0mVho)

LOVEFIELD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4meeZifCVro&feature=channel)

Both of these look like the director spent a lot of time and a considerable amount of money on to make something completely professional looking. Not only that, they keep you in suspense, and the second one is very unique with a nice little twist. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy eventually got a feature made in the next few years.

Then again there was that $70 zombie feature that recently sold and is getting distribution. So there are no absolutes in filmmaking.


Option C - make 20 short films at $1,000 apiece

Not a bad thing to do to learn how to be a filmmaker. :thumbsup:

Or how about make 10 shorts at $1,000 a piece, then use the second half of the $20,000 to make a really amazing and high production value short film that will utilize all that you learned on those first 10?

[CallaghanFilms]

What with these lucrative little flicks of late and all...
It seems that the time has never been better to make a kick-ass short.


Of course if you can double down on that same 20K, Nektonic...
Link (http://www.everythingseventualthemovie.com/Everythings_Eventual/Everythings_Eventual.html)
A (good) feature can be done.
Just sayin'.


Edit: I guess I shoulda said that a (good) feature can be "in the can".

[Geoff_R]

Alive in Joburg seems to be a fairly cheap short film which was made in his spare time while working as a VFX artist. Beyond the costs of the alien props, it's Neill doing the majority of the VFX so I don't see how it could cost very much at all.

Apparently, when Jackson was looking for a director for Halo, he was specifically looking for a new, first time director with a unique style. Someone gave him a copy of Neill's work, Alive in Joburg and Tempbot. Jackson was impressed and wanted to meet him. They prepped on Halo for months and while it fell apart, they now still had a bunch of crew people committed to shooting something... so they brainstormed and decided to expand on Alive in Joburg.

I think good, even great short films can be made very cheaply. I feel bad for people spending 5k, 25k or even higher to make short films... most of the time that money is not seen on the screen the way they intended. OR they feel that money is directly related to the 'perception of production value' (not production value itself because the two are different things). This perception comes from the belief that money is the only way to get access to the gear, crew, locations and resources that will allow you "the 'opportunity" to make something that feels cinematic and resembles something you'd see on the big screen.

Another director saw one of my shorts a while ago and was very disheartened and upset when I told him how much mine had cost. He was from the UK and had spent about 50k on his last short film. His film had a nice, polished look to it, but it wasn't very interesting and definitely didn't do the 50k justice.

I think it boils down to justification of that expense. I think doing 10 shorts at $1000 apiece is better than doing one at 20k... With each 1k short, you'll get better and learn from all your little f-ups and there'll be plenty of them. By your 7th or 8th short, you should be feeling pretty good. I could even imagine putting 10 or 20k into your 10th and final short film or something... again, only if it were justifiable... if it's an amazing idea, with an excellent script that absolutely cannot be done if you don't have the right money behind it.

[Chris_Keaton]

What with these lucrative little flicks of late and all...It seems that the time has never been better to make a kick-ass short.

Of course if you can double down on that same 20K, Nektonic...
Link (http://www.everythingseventualthemovie.com/Everythings_Eventual/Everythings_Eventual.html)
A (good) feature can be done.
Just sayin'.
Edit: I guess I shoulda said that a (good) feature can be "in the can".


Is that a dollar baby or did you guys get the full rights?

[Chris_Keaton]

Good advice Chris, .....

As a writer Chris, and for most writers - they are only too aware of the importance of good ideas, thought out stories etc. Too many filmmakers - directors can forgo these elements for styles or superficiality.

Right on Lawrie, I agree with you again. I heard a quote once, not sure who said or that I'm getting it right, Lawrie correct me if I'm wrong --
"A director that has himself as a writer is like a defendant that has himself as a lawyer." You get the point.

[Nektonic]

You're right Geoff, a great short or even a feature can be made for little to nothing. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of which is it smarter to spend the money on. With shorts that money goes quite a bit farther in most cases. There are always exceptions.

It all depends on the film too. If I want to shoot a contemporary drama about a guy who falls in love with his best friend's girlfriend, then I might be able to get away with not spending more than a couple hundred bucks. If on the other hand, I want to make a film about conquistadors fending off a pack of chupacabras in the jungle, well then I best be prepared to spend some dough. That is unless I don't care if my conquistadors have plastic armor and my chupacabras are made of paper mache and spray paint. And I don't live near a jungle, so travel time and cost would be factor as well.

I would never spend the money just to say, "hey, guess what? My film cost $20,000." You're absolutely right. There needs to be some justification as to why and what large sums of money are spent on no matter if it is a $1,000 indie short or a 200 million Hollywood extravaganza.

[CallaghanFilms]

Is that a dollar baby or did you guys get the full rights?Yes, and Quite Possibly...
It is the first feature dollar baby ever. However, soon (very soon http://www.jdorama.com/images/smiles/fingers_crossed.gif) King is going to rule yay or nay on distribution.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=161645

[Mattykins]

It's not just one simple thing that got Neil the gig directing District 9, it was a slew of things. He is a good VFX artist, he knows how to tell a story well, he was able to tell an original story, he picked the right way to tell the story, he followed it through to completion, he was able to take what little equipment-budget-cast he had to make it so cool, etc.

Didn't hurt that he was repped by Ari Emanuel.

[dadoboy]

I'm not sure how one can make a short film for under 1K in Los Angeles county. I know some of you have done it though. Unless you shoot primarily interiors in locations where you have the permission from the owners to shoot without permit. Permits are expensive here, and sometimes you need to get 2 two for a location.

Guerilla filmmaking is a dicey gamble here. The times that I've shot or have been on crews without all the proper permits, it's been a 50-50 take on whether the they were shut down or not, and if you were shut down it was followed by threats.

To get away with it, you can't be shooting HMIs or lights through windows, because even if you have permission from the owner of the house, you still need a $500 city permit. Most of the short films I've worked on have been in controlled environments for the most part, and the cheapest one where everyone worked for free was around $3K, most of it going into permits, lights and food.

All the more power to you if you have the luck and balls to go guerilla here though!

Other areas of the country have an advantage doing it super cheap because you can get away with guerilla stuff way easier. Except maybe New York.

[Nektonic]

Great post dadoboy. I didn't know that they cracked down on filmmakers that harshly out in LA. I thought that it would be easier to make films out there. Go figure.

But your post really drives home that there are so many factors, one of which is where the filmmaker lives and where they plan on shooting their film. There are just so many things that go into it that affect budget that we really can't rule any absolutes.

[Chris_Keaton]

I'm not sure how one can make a short film for under 1K in Los Angeles county. I know some of you have done it though. Unless you shoot primarily interiors in locations where you have the permission from the owners to shoot without permit. Permits are expensive here, and sometimes you need to get 2 two for a location.

Guerilla filmmaking is a dicey gamble here. The times that I've shot or have been on crews without all the proper permits, it's been a 50-50 take on whether the they were shut down or not, and if you were shut down it was followed by threats.

To get away with it, you can't be shooting HMIs or lights through windows, because even if you have permission from the owner of the house, you still need a $500 city permit. Most of the short films I've worked on have been in controlled environments for the most part, and the cheapest one where everyone worked for free was around $3K, most of it going into permits, lights and food.

All the more power to you if you have the luck and balls to go guerilla here though!

Other areas of the country have an advantage doing it super cheap because you can get away with guerilla stuff way easier. Except maybe New York.

I don't know. It seems easy here in the wild west. But my friend told me the tale of trying to make a porno when he was in college, I believe in NJ, but the mob came calling and that was the end of that.

[chriscurl]

I don't know. It seems easy here in the wild west. But my friend told me the tale of trying to make a porno when he was in college, I believe in NJ, but the mob came calling and that was the end of that.


Now THAT sounds like a story worth hearing.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Right on Lawrie, I agree with you again. I heard a quote once, not sure who said or that I'm getting it right, Lawrie correct me if I'm wrong --
"A director that has himself as a writer is like a defendant that has himself as a lawyer." You get the point.
Good point. That's part of the reason why I hand over my scripts to some of the best writers on the forum and have them tear it apart for me.

A good writer must also remember that when he hands a script over to a good director that some changes might be needed, especially if the writer is the only one to have read the script. Otherwise they become the example in your quote, in a way.

:beer:

[Mark Harris]

Other areas of the country have an advantage doing it super cheap because you can get away with guerilla stuff way easier. Except maybe New York.

But NYC is good because permits are free and all in all, the Mayor's office makes the process pretty easy. I'm with you, I would never try to do what I've done over the past few years in LA...seems insanely hard.

M

[Richard J. Johnson]

But NYC is good because permits are free and all in all, the Mayor's office makes the process pretty easy. I'm with you, I would never try to do what I've done over the past few years in LA...seems insanely hard.

M

In Maryland no one really seems to care unless you are blocking off a street or something. I mean I have shot 7 person shoot outs in broad day light with blank firing weapons in neighborhoods with no trouble from the fuzz. Of course they showed up and we told them we were shooting a movie and all they said was we could not fire the guns after 11pm. We never get permission unless it's in a place of business.

...And I would shoot a feature for 20k as opposed to a short film. It would have to be a fairly simple feature, but simple can be great with the right script and crew.

[Chris_Keaton]

Good point. That's part of the reason why I hand over my scripts to some of the best writers on the forum and have them tear it apart for me.

A good writer must also remember that when he hands a script over to a good director that some changes might be needed, especially if the writer is the only one to have read the script. Otherwise they become the example in your quote, in a way.

:beer:


Yep, I don't think anything any one person does can be as good as a team of talented people can produce.

[Mark Harris]

In Maryland no one really seems to care unless you are blocking off a street or something. I mean I have shot 7 person shoot outs in broad day light with blank firing weapons in neighborhoods with no trouble from the fuzz. Of course they showed up and we told them we were shooting a movie and all they said was we could not fire the guns after 11pm. We never get permission unless it's in a place of business.

...And I would shoot a feature for 20k as opposed to a short film. It would have to be a fairly simple feature, but simple can be great with the right script and crew.

Well, in Maryland, they EXPECT guns to be shot all day. I saw The Wire...:)

[Mark Johnson]

I'm not sure how one can make a short film for under 1K in Los Angeles county. I know some of you have done it though. Unless you shoot primarily interiors in locations where you have the permission from the owners to shoot without permit. Permits are expensive here, and sometimes you need to get 2 two for a location.

We shot "Where the Heart Lies" pretty much guerilla on an ultra-low budget and without permits by calling in favors for locations (mansion in Palos Verdes, offce in Pasadena and a motel in the boonies). We snuck a bunch of gear up the back elevator at a hotel and stole several other scenes to complete the film. But, definitely, you are dead-on that shooting in the zone is a f*cking pain in the butt whenever you move outside that kind of interior-intensive project. Pulling permits in L.A. is an exercise akin to waterboarding -- it quickly gets painful. And, of course, when you shoot anything involving pyro things escalate with the need to satisfy the fire marshal and arrange for water trucks etc.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Yep, I don't think anything any one person does can be as good as a team of talented people can produce.
The more talent the better, absolutely.

[Lawsuit_Boy]

I think District 9 was made because Neil is the protege of Peter Jackson

Combination of this and Alive in Joberg. Blomkamp co-directed Jackson's digital experiment short Crossing the Line.

[DChang]

The only reason they made District9 is because the studio would not trust him with Halo. Some people say "fell through" others would say rejected, denied, etc. Even with Peter Jackson supporting him, they did not want him directing Halo. What the studio says, goes. I wonder if the major studios have had any involvement on the difficulty you guys have in getting permits, locations, etc. After all, you are technically the competition. It's like Tesla trying to start something in Detroit 20 years ago.

[Nitsuj]

$20,000 for a short? You can't sell a short like you can a feature. I would make a feature in a second over a short. I'm also not 100% on the notion that more people is a better production. I think a one man crew has energy that a picture can lose with a large crew. Also there is a lot of explaining to the crew which takes time. I guess whatever works good for a filmmaker is good as long as the end result is the same, entertaining the audience. If entertaining the audience is no longer in the picture then it is just an ego piece.

I don't know about anybody else but I think I would rather have District9 as my first film debut rather than Halo. 9 times out of 10 a game adaptation is a failure at the box office and I wouldn't want to take that chance then be cast off as the guy that made that failure. While the whole time it was the black coats butting heads with the Director because they thought they knew what would sell despite their repeated failures in the game adaptation genre. Trying to find work after that could probably be a pain in the arss. I would probably pull out unless I had full creative control and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happened. I bet things worked out for the better.

[Brickhouse Media]

After seeing this, I don't know why anyone would have any doubts about Blomkamp's HALO readiness...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOvvKegdhRE.

[mookid]

http://www.dailyfill.com/11-Features-Based-On-Short-Films-34734/

[Chamber005]

I'm a complete novice when it comes to filmmaking, make-up effects, all of it...my friend just gave me CS4 master collection so I'm starting to learn that now, but I figured the best way to make something happen in film...is to make something happen, consistently.

I'm surprised that more budding filmmakers aren't doing web series. I've filmed two episodes now (which means I've tried composing a moving picture exactly twice now), and I feel like I've learned so much! And because I have complete control of every aspect of the production, I knew that the character I was writing about would have to be agorophobic and have a stay-at-home job and that we'd have extremely limited access to anyone who had any idea how to act!

And each episode costs about 10 bucks for extra make-up when I need it. Even in this last episode we got a pretty famous Australian group, The Beautiful Girls, to donate a song to the cause! You'd be surprised how awesome people can be!!

The important IMO is to be filming consistently, contantly building up a fanbase (our show has over 250 fans on facebook in just the first month!) so that you have something tangible to show an investor.

If you have 5,000 people pre-ordering something you're doing, and potentially a decent reel after shooting for 2 years non-stop (there has to be SOMETHING worthwhile in all that, right?) that to me would be something private investors would be interested in.

Just film, film, film, I think. Have a complete piece at the end of each month. And then, heck, at the end of the year, if you've been making 8 minute pieces every month, you've got a whole movie that probably cost you a few hundred bucks.

Totally in my novice opinion, though! ;)

[Nitsuj]

It's best to get all the bad films out of you first. The experience of making all the 100's of common mistakes is an important part of it all. Once you come out through the other side you are that much closer to making quality work.

[jonE5]

I remember seeing blookamps work in a short about a robotic cop that was filmed like an advertisement for an actual product about 4-5 years ago.

Really awesomely done, when i saw district 9 i thought the style looked familiar sure enough i had seen his work years ago.

its less than 1.5 mins

check it out here, very cool stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-IainlpGzg

[Neil Rowe]

i wouldnt personally say that someones motivation for producing a good short film should be the hope that they will somehow be chosen to direct next summers sleeper blockbuster, but i would encourage anyone to take whatever skill / talent / equipment / time / ect they have and do thier absolute best because that is how you get better. and it may not get you noticed untill you actually get better first. everybody has to start somewhere ..and we all start out in the shallow end of the kiddie pool, but if i saw some kid pulling backflips off the seahorse over there, chances are they are going to be doing great things by the time they get oevr to the deep end.

..now while shorts arent all neccesarily "kiddie pool" in nature. i think we all understand that from the first time we pick up a camera, and were trying to train our hands and brains to get the controls down, by the time were making serious shorts we generally have our eyes on something bigger. and i wouldnt say that making a kick butt short is any sort of decent odds shortcut to jumping into those bigger things, but i do think its very very good practise for it, and before you know it there will be nothing left to practise. thats when you know your ready. from there you should have a large body of quality work behind you that anyone can look at and know that youve got what it takes and have the patience and professionalism to do things right. ..but more importantly you yourself should be sure and confident to stand on top of your work and reach higher.

the reality is simply that 99.9% of the time things do not just fall into peoples laps, theres a much longer story to why most people succeed, and its usually pretty much built around them applying themselves and doing quality work continually throughout thier career, a few of the right connections, and a sprinking of pixie dust.

[Richard J. Johnson]

The only reason they made District9 is because the studio would not trust him with Halo. Some people say "fell through" others would say rejected, denied, etc. Even with Peter Jackson supporting him, they did not want him directing Halo. What the studio says, goes. I wonder if the major studios have had any involvement on the difficulty you guys have in getting permits, locations, etc. After all, you are technically the competition. It's like Tesla trying to start something in Detroit 20 years ago.


It actually was not about trust according to Jackson. He stated that the day before they were about to receive a large sum of money, the studio called them and tried to renegotiate the terms and both declined and that was when D9 got going. maybe there was a lack of trusting him with that kind of money who knows, but jackson felt otherwise. Jackson and Blokamp were pretty pissed off about it to. I just can't find the link to the article with jackson and Blokamp.