Combining Shorts into a Feature

shutterspeedfilms

shutterspeedfilms

Well-known member
Has anyone here ever considered the idea of pooling completed short films together in one feature films? Seems like it would be a great way to overcome budget/time/etc. limitations.

For example, three DVX users who have shot short horror films combine them for one feature-length release. Maybe someone could go back and shoot a common theme that runs throughout the feature a la Creepshow.

I know this has been done before, but how many people out there do you think are trying this? And would it be a good idea for today's marketplace?
 
I actually considered doing this at one time, using several of my short scripts that all had a ghost theme. The unifying thread would be kids in the woods at night, sitting around a campfire and telling ghost stories. Or, actually, a mysterious stranger telling them ghost stories. Not very original, I know.

But yeah, it could be done. Several features, including the various Creepshow entities, have done this -- Twilight Zone, for instance. And some older movies like The Monster Club.

Good idea!
 
When I was 23 I finished my first feature. It was seven short films unified by a single theme.

We had tons of distributors look at it. They all had the same reaction..."Wow, this looks expensive! Wow, great opening...huh? new characters? Wait a minute...do we ever see the first characters again? What do you mean that story is done? THIS IS SEVEN SHORT STORIES?"

Then, they got up and left.

I would suggest NOT making this same mistake.

If you start out with what is easy you'll fail. Begin with the end in mind. Go to the AFM and watch what buyers buy. Then, make something that fits within those parameters. Hopefully, you'll make a GREAT movie that fits within an existing genre. If not, at least you made a genre picture that might be sellable.
 
All due respect to Prodigi, your experience could be different. After all, as we've said, it has been done successfully before in the past. It might be a tougher sell to distributors, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would have to be done REALLY WELL, but I wouldn't completely rule the idea out.
 
But if you are going to try this, then do your best to come up with a concept that's really original and cutting-edge. My idea of kids around the campfire telling ghost stories is stale, and I'm glad I realized it before I tried to do it. Stories all revolving around a particular house would also be pretty lame.

What would make a really cool, cutting-edge unifying storyline? I don't know. If I knew, I'd probably try to do it. :)
 
One last comment about Prodigi's experience....

If it had been me, I probably would have made sure people were aware up-front that the whole idea was it was a series of short stories tied together in some way. I don't know if Prodigi did this or not, but judging from the reactions of the distributors it sounds like they were surprised.

I look at it this way -- if the movie was sitting on the video store shelf, chances are the description on the back of the box would tell the customer, in one way or another, that it was several short tales woven together. So the customer wouldn't be going in blind, then get disappointed when he/she found out what the deal was. The distributors should have had the same info a video store customer would have.

Mind you, that's just the way I think I would've approached it. It might not have worked any better than Prodigi's approach. I don't even know what Prodigi's approach was. I'm just tossing out thoughts here.
 
Well, this idea would primarily be for those who just don't have the resources to make a feature-length film. To me, it'd be much easier to find three individuals who could each make a 25 minute short (with solid scripts). Then one of those people (or, hell, a fourth person) could make the narrative thread.

Like David has mentioned, however, you would probably need a pretty intriguing premise to capture people's attention. I'm sure there are a host of other considerations, as well, such as a consistent kind of video format, etc. And you'd probably have an easier sell in the horror genre than others.
 
An idea for a unifying theme might be the Internet.

One story could involve a 'webcam girl' -- someone who makes a living doing sexy things on-cam for paying customers.

One story could be about a computer programmer or maybe a hacker.

And one could be about an online gaming addict.

Just spitballing here. I'm sure there are far better ideas.
 
Another possibility....

There are probably TONS of already finished shorts out there. Find 3 or 4 of them that were really well done and could be tied together with some unifying element. Work out a deal to share the profits with the producers of those shorts. Then all you have to do is produce the unifying bit and edit it all together.
 
Another possibility....

There are probably TONS of already finished shorts out there. Find 3 or 4 of them that were really well done and could be tied together with some unifying element. Work out a deal to share the profits with the producers of those shorts. Then all you have to do is produce the unifying bit and edit it all together.
Click to expand...

That was the original intent of the post. We know there is not much of a video market for shorts. So what if you found a few quality shorts, linked them together via a narrative thread, and sold them as one feature film trilogy. Seems so much EASIER than a completing a feature, doesn't it? :)
 
shutterspeedfilms said:
That was the original intent of the post. We know there is not much of a video market for shorts. So what if you found a few quality shorts, linked them together via a narrative thread, and sold them as one feature film trilogy. Seems so much EASIER than a completing a feature, doesn't it? :)
Click to expand...

Yes it does! So go for it. Start looking for those shorts. What do you really have to lose?

Good luck!
 
i think "3 extremes" 1 & 2 are great examples of just grouping 3 shorts with no unifying thread. other than being asian-directed. takashi miike's "box" is one of the best shorts i've seen and actually like that it was not "part" of a bigger aspect. maybe the selling point here was the directors and/or writers. look at the success of "masters of horror" - though, again, successful on name recognition.

i'm a HUGE fan of shorts because you can really try out something different, but the general public really seems to hate them. hell, on sundance (or IFC?) they have a countdown for when the shorts will be over.

i've entertained the thought of grouping local filmmakers' shorts on a dvd and splitting any revenue equally, but think it wouldn't ever turn a profit. short films just seem to be the bastard child of cinema, sad as it is.
 
That's why you might be better following the Babel formula -- don't make it obvious that it's actually 3 shorts. Make it seem like one movie, more unified, by intercutting back and forth between the stories. This is better than just telling story A, then story B, then story C, with some sort of narrator in between.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
That's why you might be better following the Babel formula -- don't make it obvious that it's actually 3 shorts. Make it seem like one movie, more unified, by intercutting back and forth between the stories. This is better than just telling story A, then story B, then story C, with some sort of narrator in between.
Click to expand...

IF you're going to take this approach then I totally agree with the above advice.
My biggest issue with features made up of a series of shorts is that there is always going to be one story that I enjoy more than the rest... and odds are it won't be the last one.
Suffice to say, I usually sit through the last 20 minutes of movies like that thinking about the 'other' story that I actually enjoyed.

Intercutting the way cahpelgrove suggested is a much better way to handle it.

Of course I personally still think that a single story is the best approach with the widest potential for success (and at the 'widest' it's still really narrow).
 
there are cases where it works and others where it doesn't. i watched "playing by heart" just because i was a huge x-files fan and loved that gillian anderson was in it, but got annoyed with the way it jumped between her and her sisters and parents without really explaining why. what's ironic is i tend to write that way, jumping between stories and characters with no explanation. maybe i should just follow that natural instinct and finish one of the "jumpy" multi-story scripts without fear of it sucking. HA!
 
When you get right down to it, a lot of 'single story' movies actually have multiple storylines going on, intercutting back and forth between then -- plots and subplots, etc. Of course, there's the main storyline, which is the strongest. But good scripts also have other storylines going on.

As an analogy, it would be similar to what Luis is talking about. The main storyline of a typical movie would equate to the 'favorite' story that Luis would like best in a multiple-shorts feature. The subplots or smaller storylines would equate to the shorts that were less interesting in Luis' mind.

So if you're going to do this, maybe you don't find 3 shorts of equal length. Maybe you find one that's a bit longer, and a much stronger and more interesting story, and you make that one your 'main' story. You open with it in the beginning, and you close with it in the end. Then you intercut your other two 'smaller' shorts, intertwining them into the 'main' story.

It would require deftness and a good sense of artistry, but it could be done and perhaps done well.
 
There are two questions and only two that matter:

1.) Would buyers buy this kind of movie?
2.) Would a large audience enjoy this kind of movie?

What doesn't matter is if it is easy for one of us to do. It would be easy for me to turn my camera on, point it at the wall and shoot for two hours. Voila! Feature film!

A famous quote comes to mind..."Begin with the end in mind." If you do that, you'll follow a path that leads to success. If you start with "Hey, this is what I can easily do" you'll be like every other indie filmmaker.

One final note...almost all of the examples:

1.) involved major names, and therefore it was the celebrity director or celebrity actor that helped the film get distribution
2.) failed at the box office. Look up the grosses on New York Stories, Four Rooms, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Twenty Bucks and my piece of crap, A Day In The Life. They all performed poorly.

You have to understand why an audience watches a film. Storytelling provides a metaphor for the audience's own lives. They identify with a protagonist and the protagonist's journey because it has the potential to inform their own journey. When you have a film that has multiple protagonists who come and go quickly, never to return, it is difficult to invest time and energy into such fleeting characters.

If you want to do this right, then do it like Crash or Traffic (and I'm not a fan of those films either, but at least they tell a cohesive story.)

...or, instead...simply "begin with the end in mind" and stop pursuing the easy path, which will only lead to disappointment. There are no shortcuts in this process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top