Out of Curiosity - FILM TIME LIMITS - Vote in the poll

[Mark Johnson]

I think 20 mins would be too long for these fests. However, I think 10 mins would be better than 5 ...

There are plenty of film festivals out there with varying lengths and requirements. If you don't like the submission lengths settled on here you always have the option of entering elsewhere or submitting a film for exhibition.

I emphatically disagree with 10 minutes or longer for future DVXUSER fests if we are going to keep to the same schedule of doing this many fests per year. Being able to watch all entries is important and any significant increase of film length will (in my opinion) seriously cut down on the number of people willing to devote the time necessary to watch all the films.

 

[Mike@AF]

I don't think the point of DVXuser fests should be to have the most number of fests or entries as possible. It should be to have the best quality of films possible. It comes down quantity vs. quality and I'll take quality 100% of the time. I'd rather spend double the amount of time making a great 10 min film than two mediocre 5 min films. I imagine those watching the films would rather spend more time watching good films than less time watching mediocre films.

EDIT
And I'm not saying the films will be better just because they're longer. I can tell the films are already longer than what has been entered and I think the full versions of those films should be entered, not these cut down 5 min versions. Personally I think most of the 5 min films aren't very good and imagine the full length versions are much better. Therefore, why not allow those films to be entered in their entirety so we can see how good they really are. That may anger some and it's not meant to degrade anyone's work. I'm not saying I'm any better. It's just my opinion of what I've watched.

 

[Blaine]

I imagine those watching the films would rather spend more time watching good films than less time watching mediocre films.

And as it stands right now I expect to see 2 or 3 good entries per fest with another 3 to 4 watchable entries. The rest are pretty raw. But I put that down to basic story telling more than time constraints. I watch EVERY film in its entirety. If the general quality was better, maybe I wouldn't mind sitting through 10 minutes, but as it stands right now with a 10 minute movie and 30-50 entries, if it didn't grab me pretty quickly, i'd be awfully tempted to pass on the rest.

EDIT: My response was prior to your edit. Personally, I'm not sure why any writer is working on anything less than a feature length project anyway. Writing shorts just doesn't (IMO) translate into writing features, which is where most writers I know want to be.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Whatever it was I said, it was not a dig at Jack, actually it was a compliment.:cheesy:...

I understood you.

 

[Jared Meyer]

Yeah, I took the complete opposite translation. Sorry about that, bosindy.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

Personally, I'm not sure why any writer is working on anything less than a feature length project anyway. Writing shorts just doesn't (IMO) translate into writing features, which is where most writers I know want to be.

A story's a story, and good feature writer should be able to write a good short. Just sayin'.

 

[Blaine]

A story's a story, and good feature writer should be able to write a good short. Just sayin'.

In a perfect world, yes. But if it were really true, any good writer could do a good thirty second commercial. But in the real world, different skill sets are better suited to the different formats.

Just sayin'.

 

[Mark Harris]

In a perfect world, yes. But if it were really true, any good writer could do a good thirty second commercial. But in the real world, different skill sets are better suited to the different formats.

Just sayin'.

Yeah Blaine, well you suck.


















Sorry, just felt like starting a fight...

 

[Kholi]

Five minute shorts are a great practice ground for writing, IMO. It's very hard to churn out a feature with any weight to it. Going from five, to fifteen, to twenty and so on is great practice.

And, Blaine-- course you know this-- a writer writes because it must.

Even a bad writer that writes all the time is still a writer because it must write. AKA me. Sit and write a character's background, a non-sense story, etc.

 

[Blaine]

Yeah Blaine, well you suck.


Sorry, just felt like starting a fight...

You can start a fight with me anytime, my friend.

But if we're going to fight, let's do it at The Black Watch Pub. Your skills are being wasted on the east coast.:beer::beer::beer:

 

[Mark Harris]

Five minute shorts are a great practice ground for writing, IMO. It's very hard to churn out a feature with any weight to it. Going from five, to fifteen, to twenty and so on is great practice.

I have actually bee n doing this, increasing the length of my shorts and practicing more and more with longer formats. Ultimately I don't think I even want to write features, but probably more TV shows. So I am working up to the one hour length right now.

 

[Kholi]

I have actually bee n doing this, increasing the length of my shorts and practicing more and more with longer formats. Ultimately I don't think I even want to write features, but probably more TV shows. So I am working up to the one hour length right now.

There's nothing wrong with doing it, either. You become practiced at just WRITING, the doing of, and you can do it more without falling victim to distractions. Not only that, building a great story in five minutes, ten, so-on and so-forth helps for the longer run-times.

If you can establish a main character in five, should be cakewalk to do it in 90+.

 

[Blaine]

Five minute shorts are a great practice ground for writing, IMO. It's very hard to churn out a feature with any weight to it. Going from five, to fifteen, to twenty and so on is great practice.

And, Blaine-- course you know this-- a writer writes because it must.

Even a bad writer that writes all the time is still a writer because it must write. AKA me. Sit and write a character's background, a non-sense story, etc.

I'm kind of in a contrary mood tonight, Kholi. But for me, personally, I'm MUCH more comfortable in the LONG form... :thumbsup:

 

[Kholi]

I'm kind of in a contrary mood tonight, Kholi. But for me, personally, I'm MUCH more comfortable in the LONG form... :thumbsup:

Admittedly, I need to go back and pad out a feature because it's been way too long. I suppose it's double-edged, because if you stay in short form territory too long it might take a bit of grinding to get back into the thick (100 pages) of things.

 

[Paulius]

I liked 6 minutes like it has been for 4 out of the last 6 competitions. Not counting adfest with its 30 second cuttoff.

It's not just server space, it's viewing time. 10 minutes is just way too long for server and viewing time.

30 films X 5 minutes = 2 hours 30 minutes viewing time
30 films X 6 minutes = 3 hours viewing time
30 films X 10 minutes = 5 hours viewing time !

and there are usually more than 30 films

Such a good point! Five to seven is the way to go!

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I am just surprised all my math is right.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

In a perfect world, yes. But if it were really true, any good writer could do a good thirty second commercial. But in the real world, different skill sets are better suited to the different formats.

Any good writer knows story structure and how to apply it. Granted I am not that writer, it takes me about two years to finish a feature. And I do have a specific kind of dialogue I'm sort of OK at writing, you might call that my skill set. Personally, I find all writing to be equally torturous. I'm not sure if I'm making my point here.

 

[Blaine]

I'm not sure if I'm making my point here.

Yeah, I'm not sure if you are either. I believe there are writers that are better suited for commercial work, television or features. That's not to say that there is no crossover, just as a writer myself, I know what I'm more comfortable with.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't think the point of DVXuser fests should be to have the most number of fests or entries as possible. It should be to have the best quality of films possible.

Nope. That should be the goal of the filmmakers, of course, but that's not the point of the fest. The point of the fest is to get the membership making films rather than just talking about 'em.

 

[Simon Höfer]

The main problem still is, that people don't understand the concept of a 5 minute fest. But its is really simple, you have to write a story for a 5 minute entry. Not 6 or 7 or 8 minutes.

If you write a story and in the beginning it fits for five minutes, but afterwards you start expanding it, then it has never been a 5 minute flick. In the beginning you just didnt know that. You chose a story that was too complex for 5 minutes.

If you plan your entry time on an uncomplete script, you are screwed at the end with your finished script. You MUST plan your movie based on the skeleton with flesh on the bones, not just the skeleton.

It is possible to tell a complete story in any time.

You don't like 5 minute stories? Then go ahead and participate at other festivals that allow movies up to 10 or 15 minutes. It is just not possible to watch 40+ movies that are 10 minutes long. It would distract the members from watching them all.

I think DVXUSER found a good balance at 5/6 minutes. That way many people watch all the entries. Alot of members enter the fests and we have a lot of possibilities to enter, because we can have more fests during the year and not just one big festival.

And now stop whining or go away :cheesy: