Why Make A Short Film?

zoostory

zoostory

Well-known member
Hey all, I thought I would bring up an interesting topic for debate.

Two days ago I had the honor of meeting and talking business with Aaron Ryder, producer or Memento, Donnie Darko, and recently, the Prestige. I've also been talking with several prominent people in the TV world (A Showrunner of a current hit TV show) as well as some VPs of Technology for various studios.

Anyway, like most, I am fascinated by trends in cinema and technology, and also a filmmaker. Up until now, I have, personally, directed several shorts. To varying degrees some have had great festival success, some not. But I've played the circuit my fair share.

So I asked all these people the same question, or in some cases, they just brough it up, but here it is:

Why make a short movie?

Here's the gist of the answers:

That is, other than personal gratification and, perhaps, education, there is barely a market for shorts (in America mainly). Yes, you can go to festivals, but so what. It's fun, but shorts get over looked. I asked the VP of aquisition for ScreenGems if he ever sees shorts at festivals and he laughed. He stated that he can only make it to about 10% of the features.

Also, if you do have a short, and it is successful, anyone who does want to meet with you will want a feature script right away, or a logline for one.

Seems like the key thing to have in your pocket, more than anything, is a really tight script. That's what big indies are looking for and studios.

Also, in this day and age, if you write something strong, tight, and reasonably affordable, you can use all the new great technology to make a feature! Rodriquez did it. Christopher Nolan did it, his first feature was 7,000 dollars, shot one day a week with a bolex.

So... why do a short? Why not just do a feature and have an amazingly solid script with you to back it up. A feature in a festival has a chance, a feature can be distributed... and, I really don't think it costs that much money, if you're smart.

So hit me with your opinions I'd like some more perspectives!
 
Well there are many reasons I could think of why it would be beneficial to do a short, but one is...
I believe there is an increasing market and/or opportunity to get your short out there.
There is sundance/ifc/current tv. The first 2 air a lot of short films, the latter does nothing but short form content.
There is a growing number of independent delivery methods for short material. The internet being where many of them are. customflix/amazon. all kinds of downloadable services/ profit sharing kind of stuff popping up.
So, I guess I am saying you may have a better chance of at least getting your short out there and as a result your work and your name, which could lead to bigger things, like a budget to support a well made feature length project

Jason
 
Actually the increase in shorts being made has flooded the market and made it more difficult than ever to sell to an indie station or make it into a good quality film festival. Likewise, the internet, while, true, having more capability of cyber-distro, is also flooded, leading to a lot of confusion and discussion amongst everyone from indie to big studio as to how exactly to handle it. Also, in terms of the web, statistically, the only things that do really consistently well are really short comedy sketches. People want to laugh, and in like, a minute, when they are on the web. That or, apparently, really sappy fake girls talking to the camera :)

I have dealt with Sundance and IFC before. Sundance is near impossible, IFC buys your film for an appalingly low price. HBO, which also shows shorts, requires a 35mm print, so that is costly.

As I tally things up, I just see features, in terms of future career goals, being much more intelligent practices than shorts.
 
I agree with all of your points, I thinks.

But the delivery mediums we are speaking of are in there infancy. "Bugs" do have to be worked out, but I see them as options that were not available before.
A lot of films were shorts before they were features. Sling Blade being an example off the top of my head.
Shorts can lead to bigger things. I think they can make good marketing tools. There are an awful lot of people trying to get their features shown as well, and if someone were to watch a 5-15 min piece vs. looking at a feature length.... if you can get something interesting across in that short time... I don't know, I just see it kinda as a valid gateway for lack of a better way to explain it at the moment. Gotta play some commercials.

Jason
 
I make short films because I consider my work my art.

A short film has more leeway in respect to artistic freedom, as there isn't the same restrictions placed on them. A lot of times they are expected to be "artistic" just because they are short films.
 
I have been concentrating on shorts because I don't feel ready for primetime. Shorts are a way for me to practice my art and hone the skills I need to tell a story.
 
I can see it being more financially efficent to have a short rejected, than a feature film. Time is money, and the more time you put into a project, the more money you'll also spend on it.
 
John_Hudson said:
I have been concentrating on shorts because I don't feel ready for primetime. Shorts are a way for me to practice my art and hone the skills I need to tell a story.
Click to expand...

That is the reason I've stuck with shorts, and hopefully in the near future will be expanding to features.
 
Oh yeah, one more good thing about shorts... You can win an hvx in the horrorfest with your short :)

Jason

p.s. zoostory... just curious if hour handle might have anything to do with the Edward Albee play "A Zoo Story"? It is one of my favorites.
 
From a career standpoint, I think a big reason is as a proof of concept. Lots of movies can't be made as a feature on $10,000, no matter how hard you try. But with that $10,000 you could do a 10-minute short, back it up with a script, and say "Look, this is what my movie is about."

I agree that it's basically pointless to make a short if you don't have a feature script practically ready to go. That's what everyone wants to see.

If you're making them as practice, fine, or for your own fun, fine. But as a career move, you're right, it's hard to justify.
 
John_Hudson said:
I have been concentrating on shorts because I don't feel ready for primetime. Shorts are a way for me to practice my art and hone the skills I need to tell a story.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. If you can't make a great short film, then it is very unlikely that you will be able to make a great feature.

10 reasons for making a short over a feature...

1: Costs less.
2: Easier to get good people on board for a great short as the time commitment is a lot less than a feature.
3: A lot quicker to get up and running and see if you "DO" have what it takes.
4: You can make more actual finished product within the same time frame that it would take to make a feature so you can experiment with different styles and genres to see if you have a more natural talent/leaning in one direction over an other.
5: On each short you can crew it with a different cross section of people so have the opportunity of working/networking with a bigger range of possible talent.
6: You yourself can become involved in the making of other filmmakers shorts without as much a time commitment and you get the opportunity of seeing how someone else goes about business.
7: In each of your own shorts you can move around the crewing roles and see if you particularly shine or absolutely suck at something without too much to lose.
8: The stress is lower and it can be a sh#t load of fun.
9: If the production turns out to be a nightmare, at least it will be over quickly.
10: More films, lots of different cast and crew members, lots more opportunities to meet girls.

Would someone else like to add to the list?

Thanks
 
They certainly don't pay the bills. The obvious choice would be to shoot a bunch of short films that work equally well pieced together or as induvidual projects, basically a series that you could re-edit into a feature later. I don't think I've found a way to turn lead into gold here, but c'mon, guys...shouldn't be all that hard. You'd have to plan it out really well, sure, but as long as you actually do plan it out it could work.
 
It's funny you mention that zoostory.

Several months ago I was sitting down with an investor with regards to directing a feature I had written. You can show them commericals, media related material, music videos, whatever you want, but in my experience it always comes down to - show me your short film. Even the lead actress I was wooing wanted to see a narrative piece.

Maybe, if you've distinguished yourself by selling 1/2 million dollar scripts or directing vids for successful bands, then it doesn't matter as much...although you'll still be paired with an amazing ad and dp to offset the first time vibe.

Is there a director who didn't do a short film before they tackled a feature ? I can't think of one, except for a few of the vid cats. Although, you're right, it is a different story if you have done a feature or have a few shorts under your belt, then I can't see a reason for doing them except for your own pleasure...

Your points are good ones, though. :)

IMHO, don't expect to make any money back on a short film. Use it to get into your best game shape, and also to make connections/build a crew that you can trust.

:beer:
 
A lot of good points have been brought up. It looks to me like it breaks down two ways:

Reasons to do a short:
-learning
-artistic freedom
-reel material
-prove to yourself you can do it

I guess I am in a phase where I have directed 9 (yes 9) shorts and one commerical (one of those coke student film things). I think, to a certain extent, if you want to make movies as a director or writer, you HAVE to make a feature. I buy that you want to learn you make a short. But I don't buy that list that says a short is cheaper. The school I am at people spend anywhere from nothing to 100k to make shorts. Ouch. yet Chris Nolan made his first film for 7,000 dollars.

I think what it boils down to is having an amazing script, a great director, great actors, and a producer that is talented and believes in the project. With those basic ingredients, any feature can be done, and be successful.

At my school all the shorts... They all tend to look the same, and even the good ones don't really get the students really far. And I'm talking about shorts that won the Palm'Dor (beancake) or went to Sundance (West Bank Story). The former cost 10k, the latter over 100k to make.

Yes, those extreme examples both garnered interest and led to agents. But neither of the director's had material ready to show how they could accomplish a feature that would have a good chance of making a profit (that's what every financial guy wants to see). So now they are still hustling, even after making the front page of Variety.

Whereas I know people that make crappy horror features and cut huge profits on direct to video and foreign presales.

I'm not saying that is what I want to do... but I am saying I think it is time to re-evaluate shorts. Technology has enabled all of us talented people to do a lot of things cheaply. What it boils down to is, if you have the patience, time, and gusto to put your mind to it, any one of you out there could make a great feature just the same as a great short, and for the same amount of money. So you have to shoot one weekend for a year, big deal. It will pay off in the end. Rather than sitting on your shelf or myspace page.

my two cents.
 
zoostory said:
I think it is time to re-evaluate shorts. Technology has enabled all of us talented people to do a lot of things cheaply. What it boils down to is, if you have the patience, time, and gusto to put your mind to it, any one of you out there could make a great feature just the same as a great short, and for the same amount of money. So you have to shoot one weekend for a year, big deal. It will pay off in the end. Rather than sitting on your shelf or myspace page.

my two cents.
Click to expand...

I guess if you're talking about the short film costs that you are, then they're in the same ballpark. Although, the probability of making money on a feature isn't that great either, but at least it's a bettter one. From the experience of my mates, most of them know when it's time to move on from shorts.

If you've got a few shorts ( ore even one) under your belt, then I think your advice is great, if it's applicable to your own situation. The guy who did Open Water, was lucky that he had an understanding cast, wife, and a great concept. A short for him wouldn't have made sense.
:beer:


PS - I'd love a Palm D'or. When my investor asks, "yeah, you've got a great script but can you direct a feature"? I can slide the golden leaf over on the table, "How's this"? :)
 
Last edited:
shorts arent gunna make u money but they will hone your skills. learn inexpensivly with a short and when your ready for the big game step up to a feature. thats my opinion.. but like you said earlier, sometimes they will come to you and want something bigger... pelicula became napolean dynamite. bottlerocket the short became bottlerocket the feature.. tons of movies have started out as shorts and made it big.. so heck.. why not write a feature you like.. then shoot a short version of it for less and try to sell it.
 
Practice, practice, practice and price.

I was one of those stubborn kids out of filmschool that had myself convinced that I didn't need to do shorts and had the talent to move into a feature. So I put my whole world on the chopping block, to the tune of about $130k, with only one short film under my belt.

The good news is that I found out that I'm not completely without artistic talent. The bad news is that I just didn't have the experience to deal with the unique problems that a feature brings.

So, even though I got DVD distribution, it took me another 5+ years to get out of debt enough to make small projects again behind the camera. Now if I would have even taken half the money of the feature and spread it out over 5 years, i could have made two high-quality shorts per year.

My stuborness and arrogance isn't unique just to me. I see it all the time.

Nothing wrong with practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top