30 min. or Feature Length?

MLCinema

MLCinema

Well-known member
Hello everyone

I guess this is an opinion question....

Is it better for me to make a 30 minute short

or

A 1 hour and 20 minute feature length

I am looking to put it in festivals

Do people / festivals like features of shorts better????

Thanks All
MLCinema

www.MissingLinkCinema.com
 
Do people / festivals like features of shorts better????

I know you're going to hate this response but..... people/festivals like engaging content better than non-engaging content. I'm not trying to be a smartass here....

Seriously, without having any idea what kind of experience you have....what sort of content you're talking about... what your resources are...
it's kind of impossible to answer that question.

Your running time is not nearly as imporatant as what is contained within that time.

Basically what I'm saying is..... I don't think anyone cares if it's a feature or a short film, as long as it's well made, crafted, and engaging.
 
I'm not trying to be a smartass here....

I'm not trying to be a smartass here....

NO, NO I know what you are saying!

We have been working on a script for a while now....we think it's good....but that's up to the audience to decide!

We could make it 30 min. or 1 hour and 30 min.

I am really trying to get an idea for what people at festivals want to see ie. Sundance, Slamdance etc....


Thanks all
MLCinema

www.MissingLinkCinema.com
 
You should get some third party opinions on the script.

If you expand it, make sure it's not slow-moving with filler scenes that don't have much content to them

If you contract it, make sure you don't rush the story.

I suggest that you just get outside opinions. :)
 
With the screenplay as it is right now, how long would it end up being? When it comes to screenplays, each page should represent one minute of screen time. If you feel that you have the screenplay the way you want it, and it's a tight, well balanced piece of work, then go with the length that the screenplay is.

To answer your question more specifically though, feature length films generally get a lot more respect than short films within the film fest world. However, it would be a much better reflection on you as a film maker to have an excellent short film, than a mediocre feature length film. When you have an excellent feature...that's when you've struck gold...but make sure your talent is best represented, rather than worrying much about run time. Peace.
 
I think it really depends on your budget. What would you rather have, a cheap looking feature or a balls-to-the-wall, all out short?

Louis also makes a good pint. How experienced are you? If you are relatively new to this, then it might be best to focus on short films for the time being, at least until you are comfortable enough behind the camera (or whatever the position is that you might be holding for the film). If you are going to make mistakes, make 'em cheap ones by doing shorts.

Producers are going to be much more interested in a well crafted short film then a drawn out, grossly underbudget feature.

dj200423 makes an excellent point. If you find yourself stretching your story to fill a predetermined running time, you should seriously consider either rewriting it or perhaps adapting it to short form.

Whatever you do, goodluck. I hope it turns out well and you enjoy creating it!
 
For it to be "technically" considered a feature length film it needs to be at least 70 min. But a "standard" feature is 120 min. (Disney invented the 90 min. feature and everyone jumped on board.)

I agree with Luis on this one, make your story awesome first, then make it as long or short as it needs to be. I had an idea for a feature that I decided to use for a film class. I knew the class only made shorts so I wrote the story to 15 min. When I got to the class the assignment was 5 min. So I had to take a 120 min feature idea and turn it into a 5 min. short. It altered the film greatly, the theme was there, but the delivery had changed. My point is, features and shorts aren't just different because of their length, they are constrcuted differently.

The example I use is: with a feature you give someone a cup of hot cocoa and say, "here, try it." The cocoa is very hot, so the person takes little sips and some time later they say, "that was good cocoa." With a short you only have so much time to get your point across, so you say, "here's some cocoa, want it" and the audience is like, "sure" then you toss the scalding hot cup in their face. What you need to decide is do you want the audience to come to the resolution and point of the story over time, gradually and sometimes more convincingly? Or do you want to throw your views in their face and give them time to react afterwards? Both are great, it's up to you. Good luck.
Joe
 
A friend made a feature in '99. Had actual "stars" in it, too. Did very well in the festivals, got great reviews.

He has yet to find a theatrical distributor for it, or a direct-to-DVD deal.

A 30 minute short...you can put up on the web so people can see it.

Dan
 
After six years he's still trying to get it distributed? Maybe it might be best to move on and make another film. If it hasn't happened yet, the odds that it will don't look so good.
 
If you have never made a film before, chances are it won't be very good. I'm not being callous, but most newbies don't understand how difficult and complex it can be to create a "good" film...even a short one. The reason I'm saying this is that I wouldn't worry about entering it into festivals. Just make it, analyze it, learn from it, then go back out and do another one.

I'm on my 4th film. They have grown from 12 minutes to about 40 minutes. I was very serious about each one. I planned out everything as best as I could, based on my experience and resources. I'm an intelligent, creative, hard working guy...yet I have not been really happy with any of them, except as a learning experience.

So unless you have some experience, or have very talented, experienced people around you, don't expect too much. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. Learning the craft is a process. Patience and diligence are key. You should always strive to make the best possible film that you can, but don't set yourself up for disappointment when Sundance doesn't accept your film.

Personally, I always try and focus on one or two specific aspects of filmmaking with each project. (Except the script. As a writer, that always has to meet a high standard) It makes it a little bit easier. This time around I am trying to improve my composition and use more advanced camera moves, like a few dolly shots. Past projects have allowed me to focus on better audio or a more complicated shooting schedule. I haven't mastered any of these things. But I use each film like a science experiment; having specific goals about what I want to get out of...lessons I want to learn. I figure 2 or 3 more shorts and I might be ready for a feature.

Oh, about that. I always advocate shorts first. If for no other reason than to master the logistical aspects of filmmaking. THe first time you do a short that has more than one actor, and more than one location, things get complicated. Every person and location you add increases that by a factor of 10, IMHO. If you work your way up to it, you will have an easier time with the logistics, and will be able to focus more on the creative aspect of what you are doing.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck, and keep at it.
 
Dear Kelly Teaser

Dear Kelly Teaser

Sometimes... we make teasers... that even though seem engaging... tell us nothing about the film... at all. Just kidding, MLCinema! Website looks good, and that's cool that one of your shorts got on imdb.com, that's a goal of mine. Good Luck.

Joe
 
JoeFowler said:
MLCinema! Website looks good, and that's cool that one of your shorts got on imdb.com, that's a goal of mine. Good Luck.

Joe
Click to expand...

Well there goes my blathering about lack of experience out the window :)
 
Super Trooper said:
After six years he's still trying to get it distributed? Maybe it might be best to move on and make another film.
Click to expand...

In the works.

But other projects in the meantime. TV, broadway, etc. This wasn't a make-or-break project. Just pointing out that shorts might be more easily seen since you can even do the "distribution" yourself, if it comes right down to it, via the web. A feature is just too damn big for that.

I don't really have a desire to do a feature length film any time soon. And being halfway through watching the first season of Night Gallery at the moment just reinforces that. 10 minutes, 20, 30...plenty of time to get a good story across.

I just have to get my butt back to the land of round doorknobs first, settle in, and gather a more permanent crew to work with.

Dan
 
Great

Great

Thanks everyone!

Yes I have some expeirence :o If thats what you call it?!

I think I will go with the 30 min. short it seems to be the way to go....at least for now

I always get good advice when I post on dvxuser....THANKS ALL

MLCinema

www.MissingLinkCinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top