amount of time to shoot/number of entrants

[Ben Sliker]

I'm wondering if one of the fest gurus could chime in on this. i was wondering about the relationship between how long we had to shoot/upload our films vs. how many entrants we've had in each fest historically.

other than herofest and adfest, this seems to be the lowest total number of entries in a fest, i feel like on the other fests filmmakers got 3-4 months to create something, and for hallows fest, we had 2 months and 10 days.

So what do you guys think is the best amount of time to give filmmakers so that we get the most amount of entries next time around (like zombiefest and horrorfest)?

I think it's really cool when the number of entries goes into the 60-70-80's range. It's a little taxing to watch them all, but cool nonetheless.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

A little more time might be nice, I shot the majority of mine in one weekend. Some extra time to edit and fine tune the end result would have been great. I did change my script mid-Fest so that's really my own fault.

I'm sure most of us have full time jobs (some of us kids as well) and don't have a lot of free time.

I'm good to go either way. Anything that motivates me to shoot a new movie.

Cheers,

Mike

[Marlon Ladd]

Well, this is my first fest., but I think 2 months was plenty of time. And actually, I'm not sure if I found out about the fest until 2 weeks or so after it had been announced. I don't know, for me if I need 3 or 4 months to get ready for a 5 minute short, I'm gonna' be trying to shoot a full length feature. Then again, it did take me right up to the deadline to get it finished.

[John LaBonney]

I think that this was a good amount of time for this fest. I know that lots of people are chomping at the bit for the next one already, so I think that 3-4 months is a little long.

Let's get the next one cooking!

[Ben Sliker]

i agree that 2.5 months is plenty of time to get a 5 min short done in on time, but what i was trying to ask is if everyone thinks there would be more entries (the purpose of these fests) if it were 3.5 or 4 months. And judging by the start time of this one (Nov. 11) it looks like it's either going to be 2.5 or 3.5 months, ending either the end of January or February.

[John LaBonney]

but what i was trying to ask is if everyone thinks there would be more entries (the purpose of these fests) if it were 3.5 or 4 months.

I don't think that it's a huge issue. More time = more time to procrastinate. All we would be doing is making the waiting period for the debut of the films longer.

In All Hallow's, according to the list, there were 75 films announced, but only a final count of 42 make it to the finish line. Do you think that an extra four weeks would make a big difference in that completion percentage? Maybe three or four films I think, but not enough to warrant a longer time, at least that's my opinion.

[Matt Harris]

yeah i procrastinated like crazy on spyfest. 3 months is not needed.

less time between fests = more filmmaking.
more filmmaking = more learning.
more learning = better films.

i'd rather have the deadline pressure burning a hole through my skull than not.

[deedive]

I understand you guys logic but for me more time would be alot better. My day job is crazy, and the bigger stories cant be done in 2 months too me. There were other people i knew that couldnt enter because of time constraints. But i did think the number of entries for all hallows was a good number. i barely got a chance to watch um all. i would hate of have to vote and not see all the movies.

[FilmBoy77]

i thought 2 months was enough time. i'm just not into the horror genre like that.

[rfox]

I agree with johnlabonney about the procrastination. We didn't decide to enter a flick until the first week of October.

We didn't end up with a perfect product, but I attribute that to the fact that this was our first film fest rather than lack of time

-Russell


--NEXTPHOTO--
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=113619