Anyone $ucce$$ful promoting trailer before feature production?

M

moonlitnite

Well-known member
Hi all,

In a discussion with an opinionated scriptwriting teacher (aren't they all?), I suggested the possibility of first floating a proof of concept trailer for the obvious reasons. The teacher flatly rejected anyone try that approach, saying NOBODY has every successfully done so - insisting the full short story/feature always comes first.

I'm sure I've recently read of others first producing a trailer. I'd appreciate your thoughts and any useful citations/links.

Happy trails,

Michael
 
I've heard of people having success making like the first 10 minutes or 15 minutes of a feature, with a full finished script, and then using the short as a vehicle to get funding for the feature. Not saying it's a slam dunk, anything in this industry is a long shot, but it's one way to go about things. What you're talking about sounds a bit different to me, but who knows.
 
JonathanLB said:
I've heard of people having success making like the first 10 minutes or 15 minutes of a feature, with a full finished script, and then using the short as a vehicle to get funding for the feature. Not saying it's a slam dunk, anything in this industry is a long shot, but it's one way to go about things. What you're talking about sounds a bit different to me, but who knows.
Click to expand...


Yep, I've heard of this as well.

You make the trailer, highlighting aspects of the film, taking care to get some really maginficent shots, etc (maybe with a 5DII and then rent a Red for one day). You then use that to shop it with producers with a synopsis of the script. Burn a bunch of DVDs with some snazzy cover art, etc. Get people excited about the project.

Always, always, always remember that those who cannot do -- TEACH! Anyone can teach you the technicalities of filmmaking, but if they had any real artistry they wouldn't be a teacher, they'd be a working filmmaker.

I think the idea of shooting a completed short film and then asking someone to make it into a feature is bizarre. A movie should only ever be as long as it NEEDS to be. Thus, if you're even ABLE to make your movie into a shorter version, it should never be made into a feature length film, as it doesn't NEED to be a feature length film, see?

Case in point, I saw these cats make this faux-trailer for a Batman inspired movie GRAYSON. Those guys ran it through the circuit, and now they have funding for their feature piece (obviously not for the DC owned character, but it was still a trailer that got producers to notice -- it wasn't a short film)

http://www.untamedcinema.com/


Bottom line, though. I'm seeing features being made left and right now for 10 and 15K. Write a script with 4 characters and two or three locations. Shoot the movie. Damn near anyone can charge 10-15K on credit cards. I'm in banking and I borrow 10-20K every MONTH for leads. Business is borrowing, period. Production is business.

I'll stop before I go too far off topic!

:D
 
I don't think that any great filmmakers teach constantly, though. Lots of very good industry professionals donate some of their time to teaching, you know, a class or two per week, that doesn't kill your schedule. A lot of times those teachers also take time off to do pro work when they have it, at least that is how it was even at the Los Angeles Film School. I had a production design teacher at LMU who just taught one 3-hour night class per week, for instance, but she didn't have to do that obviously, she was making (and she liked to brag about this) into the 6 figures each year from film. She was kinda hot too. A MILF. lol. She always complained about her ex-husband and what a douche he was. I should try to find her again, hire her for something. I always thought that'd be a trip to hire professors I had for my projects. Just for fun.

Chamber, I'm really not sure I agree with that. I think I see what you are saying but it seems a bit simplistic. I mean, I have a short film right now, I think it should remain a short film, but if I was to develop it into a feature I can think of a lot of directions to take it, and I can see creating subplots and expanding the plot to make it work as a feature. It's not overly difficult if the short concept is interesting. Then again, my short is a bit more of a character sketch, and introduction to the character, than a fully fledged story. It's a comedy and I tend to think that as a feature it would simply be a lot less funny -- it would be more interesting and dramatic, but the comedy value would decrease. I have another short idea, however, that could easily be a feature. I think I could make it a short but it'd definitely be pared down quite a lot.

Also what I was talking about isn't making a short film then expanding it into a feature. I was speaking of the fairly common practice of making the first 10 to 15 minutes of a feature, basically right up to the inciting incident, something where you've introduced the characters and the conflict and shown your directing ability and the story's potential, then ended it on essentially a cliffhanger, an event that happens that changes the main character's life, and from that point on it will never be the same, etc. That's the screenplay setup. Act I, Act II, Act III, for the sake of argument 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 30 minutes for a two hour film, or let's say 25, 50, and 25 for a 100 minute film. So the inciting incident is going to come somewhere near the end of Act I generally, which means you could make it happen after 15 minutes or so, or even 18 if you wanted to go that way. Shorter is better in this case, though, I think. Then you have a fully developed feature script ready to pitch, showing what happens next. It's like the short is a sample of what you could actually do with this script, and if you get funding you reshoot the entire thing at a higher level, ideally. You don't just make what happens next, you recast, reshoot, etc. The short only serves as a "Hey, look, this idea is good, this story is interesting, and I can direct it well enough to encourage your funding!" Our screenwriting teacher spoke of this.

From what I understand, though, that type of short film does NOT play well at festivals, because it's seen as reel-building only and for financial purposes, demonstration purposes, etc., rather than a self-contained artistic effort, which is what most festivals like. It's treating the short form like it's not a legitimate art form but only a vehicle. Let's face it, we all know that's basically true, that short films are reel building, for experience, and vehicles for your career, but it's a bit too overt, like not respecting the art of shorts enough. That's what I've heard, at least.
 
James Wan and Leigh Whannell shot a short scene from their script Saw to promote it to prospect backers, the film got snapped up based on that scene before they even arrived in LA.

It could work in either direction. I imagine you'd need to put alot of effort into the trailer, as if it doesn't do your script justice, you're screwed!
 
shutterspeedfilms said:
Terrence Malick teaches. So do David Mamet and Spike Lee.
Click to expand...

A teacher and one who occasionally teaches are not the same thing. That would be like calling the guy who works at my cell phone store who showed me how the cell phone works is a "Teacher". You know what I meant by the title.
 
JonathanLB said:
I don't think that any great filmmakers teach constantly, though. Lots of very good industry professionals donate some of their time to teaching, you know, a class or two per week, that doesn't kill your schedule. A lot of times those teachers also take time off to do pro work when they have it, at least that is how it was even at the Los Angeles Film School. I had a production design teacher at LMU who just taught one 3-hour night class per week, for instance, but she didn't have to do that obviously, she was making (and she liked to brag about this) into the 6 figures each year from film. She was kinda hot too. A MILF. lol. She always complained about her ex-husband and what a douche he was. I should try to find her again, hire her for something. I always thought that'd be a trip to hire professors I had for my projects. Just for fun.

Chamber, I'm really not sure I agree with that. I think I see what you are saying but it seems a bit simplistic. I mean, I have a short film right now, I think it should remain a short film, but if I was to develop it into a feature I can think of a lot of directions to take it, and I can see creating subplots and expanding the plot to make it work as a feature. It's not overly difficult if the short concept is interesting. Then again, my short is a bit more of a character sketch, and introduction to the character, than a fully fledged story. It's a comedy and I tend to think that as a feature it would simply be a lot less funny -- it would be more interesting and dramatic, but the comedy value would decrease. I have another short idea, however, that could easily be a feature. I think I could make it a short but it'd definitely be pared down quite a lot.

Also what I was talking about isn't making a short film then expanding it into a feature. I was speaking of the fairly common practice of making the first 10 to 15 minutes of a feature, basically right up to the inciting incident, something where you've introduced the characters and the conflict and shown your directing ability and the story's potential, then ended it on essentially a cliffhanger, an event that happens that changes the main character's life, and from that point on it will never be the same, etc. That's the screenplay setup. Act I, Act II, Act III, for the sake of argument 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 30 minutes for a two hour film, or let's say 25, 50, and 25 for a 100 minute film. So the inciting incident is going to come somewhere near the end of Act I generally, which means you could make it happen after 15 minutes or so, or even 18 if you wanted to go that way. Shorter is better in this case, though, I think. Then you have a fully developed feature script ready to pitch, showing what happens next. It's like the short is a sample of what you could actually do with this script, and if you get funding you reshoot the entire thing at a higher level, ideally. You don't just make what happens next, you recast, reshoot, etc. The short only serves as a "Hey, look, this idea is good, this story is interesting, and I can direct it well enough to encourage your funding!" Our screenwriting teacher spoke of this.

From what I understand, though, that type of short film does NOT play well at festivals, because it's seen as reel-building only and for financial purposes, demonstration purposes, etc., rather than a self-contained artistic effort, which is what most festivals like. It's treating the short form like it's not a legitimate art form but only a vehicle. Let's face it, we all know that's basically true, that short films are reel building, for experience, and vehicles for your career, but it's a bit too overt, like not respecting the art of shorts enough. That's what I've heard, at least.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I can't see how that scenario would play AT ALL at any festivals. And I really don't think any producer would be interested in paying you to finish the movie you just showed them 20 minutes of...

When it comes to money, less is ALWAYS more. If you show the producer 20 minutes of a movie, and the producer doesn't have the same "vision" you do for where the plot will progress, you're out of luck, or you're stuck making the movie that the producer is seeing. I think there's a small chance that you and the producer's vision will be one in the same, but think about the millions of different perspectives on the planet and then tell me what the odds are of that happening...

I see your argument about the short film vs. feature length. I still believe, though, in visual story telling, you always make it as short as you possibly can, getting across the most information per visual. In American cinema, though, we have this process of establishing shots and of just following around the protaganist, which by any scholar's standards is "incorrect" filmmaking. I think if you're doing prose, adding in more in-depth descriptions, etc, is acceptable to reach a certain word count, but when shooting a film, I just don't see why one would ever shoot a single frame or have a single line of dialouge that wasn't imperative to the STORY. Thus, if you have a STORY that you're abbreviating for the sake of it being a short film, either the story never needed to be a feature length film or you didn't tell the entire story in the short film. I don't believe in this notion that a story can be "expanded" on. A story is not the universe in which your characters preside. I mean, look at the famous science fiction stories from television and movies. Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. There have been multiple books about Luke Skywalker and his kin, but A New Hope is a specific story, just like Return of the Jedi is a specific story. Of course, one could certainly argue that Star Wars is the story, just like Enterprise, Star Trek The Next Generation or Star Trek Voyager are the stories (I wouldn't wholly agree with that, though).

So I guess what you need to ask yourself is, "Am I cutting out parts of a story to make it fit into the short story format," (which, in my opinion, is completely understandable because of budget), or, "Am I, because someone will pay me to do it, adding things into a short story simply for the sake of making it longer and more saleable?" (which I think is wrong to do to and which damages the original intent of the story).

The rules I live by aren't for everyone. I feel I know what is right and what is wrong, just like someone else is free to think the opposite. There's no judge that determines truth in art. We're all measured by our peers and our own perspectives in the end.
 
I'd actually advise against a trailer because it doesn't really show any sort of talent or ability [ie whether you can direct actors, hold the pacing of a scene...tell a story.]

there have been plenty of people who have directed great short films and parlayed that into getting funding for a feature... Look at Wes Anderson's short version of Bottle Rocket for instance, it shows real promise and I would have invested in a feature version of it as well.
 
loselectro said:
I'd actually advise against a trailer because it doesn't really show any sort of talent or ability [ie whether you can direct actors, hold the pacing of a scene...tell a story.]

there have been plenty of people who have directed great short films and parlayed that into getting funding for a feature... Look at Wes Anderson's short version of Bottle Rocket for instance, it shows real promise and I would have invested in a feature version of it as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is good advice, I think, sensible.

Chamber, well, I am not sure I agree with that, I mean I think that Star Wars is a prime example of what I'm talking about actually. A New Hope is a self-contained story, but it was told that way because he couldn't make a 12 hour movie, so he broke it into parts, and decided to start in the middle, the more upbeat part of the story, and while ANH certainly works as a self-contained movie, more so than probably any of the other films (though I don't consider that a strength, it's just a fact that came about practically speaking), it gives reference to a much larger universe, with events taking place before the film, and when it ends it's pretty clear that's not really the end. I mean yay Death Star destroyed, but Darth Vader lives, and the Empire cannot be this small that losing the Death Star, which is newly constructed after all, actually is some crippling blow to them. At best it's just an annoyance, which we learn by ESB is actually true. It's losing the emperor and Darth Vader, the Super Star Destroyer Executor, and a good portion of the fleet in Return of the Jedi that spells doom for the Empire because the central command is gone, so I think the books rightfully spell out that with no central command, the Imperial forces fall into disarray and give birth to a series of warlords vying for power. While Lucas had nothing to do with the books, it's simple logic that what the books show in the grand scheme, anyway, is exactly what would happen, and that nothing else really COULD happen. If you have forces scattered throughout the galaxy, with suddenly no command structure, then you're going to have a lot of people who think they are in charge. And a lot more who are just apathetic in general, and pretty much decide screw this, I'll surrender to the Alliance and retire in peace, haha.

The point is there is a huge story, where the first film made only tells a tiny part of that, and it is expanded upon later. I think shorts can do the same thing. They can show a little event, introduce us to the characters, but not cover the entire story.

You act like somehow once you tell a story it could never be told another way. Well I can tell you the story of my last two years in the film industry in a few sentences, but I'd be leaving out much of the story that is interesting, to make it shorter. Anything can be told in different lengths, it's all up to you to tell it the right way. That's not saying that you add dead wood, boring details, to a story that doesn't need them, but that you can condense things.

Heck there is a great performance they put on at the Star Wars Celebrations, and that has toured the country, Star Wars in 30 Minutes, and it's the entire original trilogy, 6+ hours, in 30 minutes, and it does capture the essence of what the films are about, and the story, but it leaves out a lot. It's always possible to do that.

My short is about a matchmaker who arranges dates, as a side hobby to his main job, between people with awkward last names, hoping that they get married one day, creating funny wedding announcements like Furr-Muncher, or Butts-McCracken, Harry-Pitts, etc. The short is just basically a small introduction to the character, what he does, how he feels about it, and shows us a few dates and the difficulties he faces in trying to match people well. If I were to expand it to a feature, I would make more back story on him, expand his personality (stuff I know, but isn't communicated in my short), and then make my matchmaker happen to fall in love with one of his clients who has an awkward last name (he has one himself, Weiner-Cox), then trying to keep this game of his going while dating the girl, worried that she will find out, but wondering if he should tell her, and when she accidentally finds out, she thinks he is trying to get with her just because of her last name, but to him it's real love, so then he has to win her back, and through a series of events he gets back together with her and they live happily ever after. Typical romantic comedy plot structure, really, and easy to adapt from my short. But my short is almost 8 minutes of plot, almost 10 minutes including the credits and outtakes (only so long because the outtakes are hilarious), so well short of a feature, but it wouldn't be tough to make it one using the same character and new events.
 
loselectro said:
I'd actually advise against a trailer because it doesn't really show any sort of talent or ability [ie whether you can direct actors, hold the pacing of a scene...tell a story.]

there have been plenty of people who have directed great short films and parlayed that into getting funding for a feature... Look at Wes Anderson's short version of Bottle Rocket for instance, it shows real promise and I would have invested in a feature version of it as well.
Click to expand...


I also think this is the correct advice, but again, I'd think you should still start from a complete story and then take a piece from that story and make it into a short. I think performing a story that takes 2 hours to tell in 30 minutes is doing a disservice to the story (it HAS to; there's no way around it. The story MUST BE as long as is required). So I think doing a short film as an excerpt from a larger piece is fine. Taking a film and then turning the entire piece into an abbreviated version of itself is just plain wrong.

Just my opinion, of course. Do what makes you happy and what best serves the artistic integrity of the piece.
 
moonlitnite said:
Hi all,

In a discussion with an opinionated scriptwriting teacher (aren't they all?), I suggested the possibility of first floating a proof of concept trailer for the obvious reasons. The teacher flatly rejected anyone try that approach, saying NOBODY has every successfully done so - insisting the full short story/feature always comes first.

I'm sure I've recently read of others first producing a trailer. I'd appreciate your thoughts and any useful citations/links.

Happy trails,

Michael
Click to expand...

Two words.
Blood. Simple.
Virtually every penny.
Not sure but I think the two guys that made that went on to have decent careers. Anyone know who these guys are or what they've done since. So tell your screenwriting teacher to put that in his pipe and smoke it. BUT you need a killer script to go with your trailer.

Also, not quite a trailer, but tons of people use short films or related projects to aid in feature financing - Sam Raimi.

Also check out this non-mind blowing short that resulted in financing for one of the largest break out indie features of all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSP_NAjIv4Q
 
Blood Simple? The Coen Brothers? No they are not doing anything, they didn't do anything since, I think I heard they were pretty successful PAs on some porno shoots and infomercials, but that's about it. Besides that, no, it's not like they went on to do Fargo, or No Country For Old Men, or The Big Lebowski or anything like that! Oh well at least Blood Simple was good, hopefully they made some money from that, so they can retire in a decent place like, uhh, Northern Iraq. ;)
 
Use the trailer as a means to sell your movie to Sales Agents. We already shot our film and are in the final stages of post-production. I gave our trailer to a Will Morris and CAA sales agents here adn to watch and if they were interested to contact me.

They watched the trailer and want me to send them the finished movie when its complete. So a trailer is there more for marketing your already finished product. You can't start with just filmming the trailer first.

That's what a previous feature or short film are for, to show others what you are capable of.
 
Derkoi said:
James Wan and Leigh Whannell shot a short scene from their script Saw to promote it to prospect backers, the film got snapped up based on that scene before they even arrived in LA.
Click to expand...


took the words right out of my mouth, $100 million off a $1 million budget. i'm not sure i'd listen to any teacher that doesn't know something as basic as that.

also zack synder, after trying a few other tactics before making the film, made a 2 minute teaser for 300 to get the studio interested. it was just one of the 300 soldiers killing a bunch of persians and the camera rotating along with the cool editing ramp speed effects.

in my area i hear of a lot of filmmakers trying the whole make a trailer and look for funding tactic, me personally if i was a producer it wouldnt convince me that you actually know how to direct and put together a full feature on a much larger scale just because you got a few locations and some actors for a trailer. 2 completely different animals.
 
I produced a trailer first on my first film. When we finally got to shooting. The trailer we had was totaly different from the film.
 
It's fairly common, one way or another, for filmmakers to use a short film to attract funding for a larger version of the film.

Whilst I can see where Chamber is coming from regards stories, you can always tell a story in a shorter fashion. Essentially that's all a log line is if you want to take it to extremes.

Star Wars: Farmboy saves the Universe.

You could easily picture a ten minute, self-contained version of Star Wars based on that log-line that could be used to show the idea of what you want to get across and it's potential.

If you present your quality script along with the short, I can't see how that could disadvantage you in any way.

A trailer on its own may not be the best way of showing that you can direct, but presumably you'd have other material to show potential investors at that point, so the trailer may be good to show the genre, the marketing hook etc

I've got an idea for a horror film with a very strong marketing hook that I'm thinking of going down this route with.

As ever with these things, take what people say with a pinch of salt. The vast majority of people who talk about film don't have a clue what they're on about.
 
Actually, I did produce a trailer before my first feature. We used it and were not able to attract Hard Money finance but it did help us to enlist strategic partners who helped us get it produced on a much higher level than we originally could/would have.

Our trailer plus script attracted a top-notch DP who had an HD camera (CineAlta 750 was BIG ISH at the time) as well as getting a top-tier post house to partner with us for HD post-production.

So, it may lead to opportunities other than strictly hard capital.

Our trailer was indeed completely different for the finished film than for the initial teaser (even different actors, etc.).

-M
 
well ok it is only a surf doc but my new trailer should help get my a u.s. distributor . after 4 year it is going to the final edit ,voice over ,credit graphics ,today. having it has helped with getting music guys on board, potential stores interest, and will be playing on surfline to promote the movie. AROUND the WORLD in 80 WAVES. it is up on my site www.jetaddiction.com click on the poster. thanks , welcome any input good or bad. thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top