To feature. Or not to feature

Filmbuff28

Filmbuff28

Well-known member
Hey all,

I have recently received permission from Stephen King to adapt a short story of his to film. The project is for film festivals only and is not commercially viable (AKA: I can't sell it or make money off of it).

I've been working with my writer and we got a draft of the script and it looks like it would be about 45-50 minutes long at this point. So we are wondering whether or not we should add a few more pages to get it over the 60 minute mark for film festival feature entries or try and cut the script in half to make it more of an appetizing short for festival entries.

I have the money and resources to do either (obviously the feature would cost more and would still be shoestring) and I also have a local production company backing the project to ensure it's visual and logistical quality (meaning they'll plan it, shoot it and edit it).

What are your thoughts? Is a feature worth doing because it's a feature? Or is a short the way to go even if you sacrifice some story and character development?

JP
 
Last edited:
If it's for your personal reel then do it as a short but if there's any chance you can sale it go for the feature. Or maybe if you do it as a short it may open doors for you.

-Nate
 
Well as I see it the thing is this: Even though creeping past the 60-minute line might technically make it a feature, it definately does not make i a good one. You should, without a doubt, do what you think will get you the best film.

If you do wan't to make a feature however, I suggest you go all in. Nobody really wants to see a 60-minute feature anyway. So if you wan't to go down that road, make sure you do i right, and flesh it out to be a full 90-minute film instead. But don't do it, if the material won't take it.

By the way; congrats on making the deal with Stephen King. That's definately a huge thing all else regardless.
 
Yeah congrats on the deal, and the plan in general. King's one of our great writers.

But I think a 45-60 minute film is right smack in the middle of a cinematic no-man's-land. IMHO, if it's a short it should probably be under 10 minutes and if it's a feature it should be at least 80, and 90 is a better minimum. I usually feel a little gypped by features that are 80 minutes or less, and imposed upon by short films over 10.

The only place for a mid-size product like that is TV, where they're about 46 minutes for an "hour" show. But as you know, those aren't called 'movies', and people almost never pay to see them (which is also true of shorts, which are more or less 'practice' movies).

I'd make it a 80-90 minute feature if at all possible. As I'm sure you know it's been done successfully many times with King's short stories (Stand By Me, Shawshank Redemption, etc.).

My $02
 
Stephen King's name on the poster and you don't think it's commercial? Make it commercial. If you're going to spend the money anyway -- make it at least 83 minutes. Good luck.
 
He can't make it commercial if the license for the story specifies that it is only for a non-commercial interpretation of the work.

If it's going to be a short, make it as short of a short as you can. Nobody wants to watch a 50-minute short film. And nobody at a festival is going to be too anxious to program a 50-minute short; they'd rather have five filmmakers get in with 10-minute shorts than take up half a programming block with one huge "short."

But stretching a 40-minute story out for 90 minutes is just going to annoy people. So only go for feature-length if the story demands 80+ minutes to tell. If the story isn't there to fully require that much time to tell, then you're just going to annoy the viewers by making a slow-paced lightweight film full of filler.

So, like gi-jones said:
You should, without a doubt, do what you think will get you the best film.
Click to expand...
 
Based on what you've said, I'd definitely shoot it as a short. While technically, 60 minutes is a feature by festival standards, it's a bit short and unless you've got a great adaptation that will fill 80-90 minutes, it will probably feel bloated. Right now, you've got what you feel is 40-50 minutes. I'd got back through it and tight the storyline as much as you can, making it a shorter, tighter story. Good luck.
 
i'm guessing it's one of king's $1 babies. so filmbuff can't make money off it. i don't know how well they perform at festivals as features or shorts. frank durabont did "the woman in the room" as a 30-minute short (same $1 baby deal) and that launched his career. so, i'd say stay around 30 minutes and put more money into fewer minutes. make it good and tight and not stretch it out.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
He can't make it commercial if the license for the story specifies that it is only for a non-commercial interpretation of the work.

If it's going to be a short, make it as short of a short as you can. Nobody wants to watch a 50-minute short film. And nobody at a festival is going to be too anxious to program a 50-minute short; they'd rather have five filmmakers get in with 10-minute shorts than take up half a programming block with one huge "short."
Click to expand...

And many big fest don't even want to do a 50 minute short. Read their rules. I may be mistaken but they seem to want shorts about 25 minutes or less and I've always heard that you keep a short under 30 minutes.

-Nate
 
I am writing this adaptation.

This particular short story is a bit of an abnormality
(or as I told the director, JP, it is a "tweenie")

A true short (10 - 20) is out of the question...
but so also is a 90 minute feature.

It is going to be sitting pretty at 60 minutes
(with has already been budgeted for, by the way)

So, my thoughts...
As a "festival" feature (60, not 90) it will be the perfect running time.

-but-

It will play very much like a one hour televised anthology
(namely "Nightmares and Dreamscapes" or "Masters of Horror"

-so-

I don't believe that festival goers will feel "jipped" seeing as it is one of the illusive
"Stephen King Dollar Babies" (for his fans).
Also, King's name on the bill ain't gonna hurt matters (for everyone else).

-and-

I feel very strongly it will hold its own against any other 80 - 90 minute flick.

-plus-

Stephen King himself will screen it, and who knows...

:beer:
 
my suggestion would be to aim for the 60-minute. if possible, consider things that could be cut for a 30-minute (and if something else needs to be shot or if alternate takes are necessary). that way you can make a 30- and a 60-minute cut (if you are editing it yourself, that will cost $0 for the two cuts). Then you have the option of lengths. My only concern with going to 60 minutes would be having the budget to make it work well. if you don't have that concern, then go for the 60. but if you are padding and it gets boring, cut, cut, cut.

We are developing a 30-minute short which will also cut down to a 10-minute short (yes, really). then we have a 10-minute film for festivals (more likely to get in) and a 30-minute version for festivals we have a history with AND for the DVD.
 
Hi Rubbersquare. What you're saying seems to go against conventional wisdom:
"If a 30-minute short can be cut to 10-minutes, it is impossible for both versions to be very strong."

Thoughts?
 
mentatDUKE said:
Hi Rubbersquare. What you're saying seems to go against conventional wisdom:
"If a 30-minute short can be cut to 10-minutes, it is impossible for both versions to be very strong."

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I hate convention :). We are writing an extra subplot that weaves in with the main story. This (and a few extended scenes) is what will give us the extra 20 minutes. Plus, the 10-minute version will not have opening credits, so that's a big difference, too. The shorter version will be more punchy, in-your-face and the longer version will be more suspenseful and brooding.

It's a similar approach to Fruit Chan's "Dumplings" which was both a 91-minute feature and a shorter version which was included as part of "Three Extremes." There are merits to both.

I think it can work, if you plan ahead for it.

Can you say which story you're adapting?
 
Yes. Sorry for not mentioning it.

Everything's Eventual

It's a 70 page short which can be found in King's short story compilation book under the same name.
 
From my experience, most festivals consider anything over 30mins. to be a featurette. These are very difficult to get screened at festivals. Like others have said, they don't want to take up such a significant block of time with just one film (unless it is brilliant). Additionally, a lot of festivals won't even allow the submission of anything over 30mins. for a short or under 60mins. for a feature. I agree with others that 50 - 60 mins. is an awkward length. I think your best bet is to refine the script and tighten it up to be below the 30min. mark. This will maximize your chances to have the film meet submission requirements for festivals and give it the best possible chance to see as many screens as possible. After all, what's the point of a non-commerical film if it isn't going to make the festival circuit and give you the exposure you're looking for. It's a calling card piece. Make sure you can get it out there and seen by the right people.
 
one thing to consider... maybe there is an element or an aspect of the story that intrigued you. maybe you single that out and flesh that out. i haven't read that story, so i don't know how to help with specifics.
 
I believe that our story and script are at their best at 50-60 pages. There's no way to add 30 without getting boring or going into a totally different story (which we do not have permission for). And, there's no way to subtract 30 pages without losing the essence of the story both ours and King's (In our opinion of course).

So the question is:

Do we make the movie which we think is best for the story even though it may be detrimental to its success in festivals because of its tweener length?

JP
 
You definately make the movie the way it's meant to be. Then make the decision in the editing room, whether you want a shorter version as well.
 
Filmbuff28 said:
I believe that our story and script are at their best at 50-60 pages. There's no way to add 30 without getting boring or going into a totally different story (which we do not have permission for). And, there's no way to subtract 30 pages without losing the essence of the story both ours and King's (In our opinion of course).

So the question is:

Do we make the movie which we think is best for the story even though it may be detrimental to its success in festivals because of its tweener length?

JP
Click to expand...

I'd view it pretty pragmatically - it's difficult enough to make a great film, get it accepted by important festivals, have critics and audiences 'get it' and so on, *even if* it's the presumably 'perfect length' for the category. There's very well established, systemic resistance to films that aren't. The fact that it's based on a Stephen King story is great, but that also means it's not your own original creation. Not to diminish the 'King-value' factor, but there are many of sources of material for movies out there from highly reputable authors. And all else being equal, you'd get better notice with an original script.

In any case, making a 'no-man's-land-length' short/feature is like stepping up to the plate with two strikes against you and a fired-up Jonathan Papelbon on the mound. Why start with that when you don't *have* to? If in the end it's a 'failure', by whatever means that's determined, wouldn't the first thing you'd conclude be that maybe a 60 minute length wasn't such a good idea after all? Why hobble yourself from the outset this way?

Here's a question that might illustrate the point, and I admit it's one that I don't know the answer to, so it most certainly isn't a 'gotcha':

How many ~60 minute films have won or been nominated for Academy Awards for Best Picture in either the short or full-length category in the last 40 years? I suspect the answer is 0. If true, then that's all I'd need to know to avoid that time range like the plague. *No matter what*.

IMHO if you have a good 60 minute script, and you're a good filmmaker, you can make it into a good 40 minute film or a good 80 minute film. I'd look at it as a sort of reversed limitation...how can you creatively solve the insufficient length?

In Jean-Luc Goradr's "Band Of Ousiders" (1964) Godard admits realizing partway through shooting that he didn't have enough movie to fill ~90 minutes, so he incorporated a few shots that simply added time - like one of the main characters reading a newspaper, or the extended dance scene "The Madison" in the luncheonette. I actually thought the latter was simply charming, although it could just as easily been 30 seconds as the three minutes or so that it was (the film ended up at 95 minutes btw).

Sure, you could say "it's not the 60's anymore" and you'd have a point, but if it were my project I'd find a way to make it into a proper feature length film. If you're creative I'm sure there's a (good) way.

My $.02
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top