How do you judge a low-budget short film (or feature)?

S

sonofaresiii

Well-known member
Just wanted to get a discussion going, but I'm sure we've all seen (if nowhere else, then on this site) plenty of people who want you to look at their new short film or trailer for their feature or whatever.

Most people have a few qualifications for whether or not they'll give the film a chance. In the spirit of learning, what are yours?

Personally, if someone starts apologizing for their film, that knock it out right off the bat. "Sorry, it was really low budget!" "It was only me and I didn't have a tripod that day." "My actors didn't show up so I had to fill in, hope you like it."
What are the chances I'm going to like a film that A) Was made by someone who didn't care enough to get reliable actors and B) features an actor who isn't an actor? (or made sure they had the right gear, or whatever). If your film's good, let it be good; don't convince me that it could've been better but isn't. And if it's bad, why would I want to watch it?



But barring that, and the reason I'm putting this in the cinematography forum--
The very first thing I do once I open a movie to see whether it's worth my time is scrub through a few scenes and see what the cinematography's like. Does anyone else do this? I know it seems unfair-- a movie should stand on its story, not the visuals-- but if I see a bunch of scenes that aren't composed well, have terrible lighting, double shadows, etc... that signals to me right off the bat you either didn't take the project seriously or you don't really know what you're doing. Which probably means I'm not really going to enjoy watching it.

I suspect many others do the same thing. So I guess the valuable lesson to take away from this is, if you have a story, a really strong, good story that you think people will like-- don't cheap out on the other areas of production. Give it all you've got, or don't bother.


What do you guys think? Do you have any qualifications for whether you sit down and watch someone's movie unsolicited? Is scrubbing through to check for amateur mistakes a fair elimination process?
 
Well, they say content (story) is king.

But the king never, ever, stands alone. And sometimes the king gets upstaged.
 
Interesting question. I tend to agree that if it doesn't look good then the person making the film hasn't taken it seriously and so I rarely waste my time. I've written a script for a 20-25 minute film (just like everybody else) but I refuse to make it until I know I am capable of making it perfect. It's all or nothing for me. That said, people's aesthetic tendencies differ massively, so what looks like utter shite to me could be the exact look the director wanted. Bad quality audio is definitely my second turn off. I'd be interested to hear what others think.
 
One more thing. I'll never give a short film a chance if a) its title is "7D zombie short film" or b) the thumbnail is a close up of somebody smoking with a large DoF and a ridiculous magic bullets look.
 
Last edited:
iamWZA said:
I've written a script for a 20-25 minute film (just like everybody else) but I refuse to make it until I know I am capable of making it perfect. It's all or nothing for me.
Click to expand...

What are you doing the meantime to make yourself capable of making it perfect?
 
The question really is why to watch maybe?

I cant really remember seeing anything linked here on on vimeo or whatever that I was really engaged by

..That I would choose to watch in the way that I choose to watch a big production on DVD or on TV or even at the cinema

The level tends to be so different.

I think its actors/story that mainly is the true weakness - and biting off more than one can chew as a production - I would have a crack at a student flat based film or an abandoned shed film but explosions - I would not bother on a micro budget - because it will look crap.

But I watch.

The reason to watch here at DVX is probably to learn and also offer (hopfully constructive) criticism to the poster who probable put a great effort into their production ..

Really people making little projects are just so far ahead of those debating the need or not of a matte box and deserve respecto for that.. which is giving them 5mins to have a watch

s
 
"7D zombie short" is a great title because I know not to waste my time! Better than "best movie I've seen in ages..." because if I'm bored I might actually click on the link.

I think people who start off by apologising for their work are doing me the courtesy of being honest. They are usually beginners who know their work is not up to scratch but are looking for evaluation and feedback rather than offering entertainment. Such work shouldn't be inflicted on the world at large but on a forum dedicated to filmmaking it is entirely appropriate to seek criticism on works in progress/representing the first steps towards being able to do something worthy. By establishing the context in which it was made it lets you know how to go in. If I'm not in the mood I don't even open these. But when I'm feeling charitable with my time or am at a loose end (or suitably intrigued by the idea) then I watch it. And will usually watch it from beginning to end (often more than once) whether or not it grabs me in order to be able to give some honest feedback. No point offering my time if I'm going to be half-hearted about it.

As a long time critic and beginning filmmaker myself I can often learn as much from bad films as good films. 'Mutant Chronicles' is one of the worst movies I've ever seen even without the tired computer game monster designs but with the genre mashup should have been exactly to my taste. It was the film where amongst other thing I learnt how important the predictable hollywood character development I loathe is (you know, show the character be kind to a kitten before you kill him so the audience cares) because there was simply no connecting with the characters in this movie and they were all actors I like. And likewise I can try to avoid the common mistakes I see in other beginning filmmakers examples or at least recognise why these mistakes are common once I stumble on the same hurdles.
 
I do the same thing- scrub through and decide based on the cinematography and imagery if it's worth my time. I know story is king, but for me the best story shot poorly is not worth watching. And if the story is incredible it should be capable of getting support from people who know how to shoot, thus making it look good. So that's a good gauge.

I will also not click a link that starts off with an excuse. If the description is limited to 'my short film that I made', which tells me the poster is selling it solely on a personal basis and doesn't believe the film itself is a selling point, that's a deal breaker. If the description is poorly written, such as capital letters not being used properly, I won't watch. If they can't take the time to proofread I don't know that they would take the time to craft a good short.

Sometimes, on rare occasion, I click a link. That short then has about thirty seconds to make me not close the tab. I almost always close the tab unless I want to be nice and offer thorough criticism.

We live in an era where everyone seems to be a filmmaker and very few of them make anything worth my time. So it takes a pretty good sales pitch to get my attention anymore.
 
Having all the elements of a movie line up in a pitch-perfect, polished fashion is not easy in the least. If you do it, you have something that you can take to places like Sundance and have a chance of winning.

The "bar" is higher than you think when you start out.

It's easy to talk smack about what you "would've done" with someone else's resources or idea, but make movies and you'll see how much reality (money, time, other people) fights your lofty goals. So cheers to everyone whose made a zombie 7D short. Keep 'em comin'.
 
I always think it's funny to see people who knock others for not producing a "perfect film" (if there is such a thing.) You know, the ones that rip on everyone elses films but never do a damn thing themselves, usually because their so insecure that someone like themselves will knock it. Or the guys that have a 101 excuses why they can't make a film. These are the guys that never get anywhere or do anything, the useless critics. It's the guys that take a chance, the ones that use their resources to their fullest, and work their ass off till they get something they feel they can be proud of. Regardless if it's perfect or not, Those are the guys that get funded, the go getters, the do'ers. The ones you remember!

As far as the titles go, there was a time when people that would mention a cam might get more views, they did it with the RED ONE, then the 5d, 7d, gh2. Now that the internet is flooded with vids from everycam, it really has no draw anymore. Can you imagine the big boys " The god father" shot on arri alexa with zeiss glass" Who cares anymore, everything has the ability to produce a nice image these days. In Fact, didn't a guy recently get an emmy nomination for a film shot on the IPHONE.
 
maranfilms said:
In Fact, didn't a guy recently get an emmy nomination for a film shot on the IPHONE.
Click to expand...

No, I think that was a song in the film got an Emmy (or some other award), and it wasn't an iPhone, it was some other phone. And the phone was hacked up and hate a **** ton of gear on it to make it work.
 
ahh, ok, I slightly remember seeing a rediculous setup to support a cell phone cam. Or was it a dof adapter on it. IDK, I must have been half asleep when I read it. Either way, I mean if thats all you have to shoot with, don't let it stop you. make your film. with the right lighting it can look good.
 
David Jimerson said:
What are you doing the meantime to make yourself capable of making it perfect?
Click to expand...

Well with regards to cinematography, I basically bring my 550D (I plan to shoot my film on a C300) with me everywhere I go and shoot little things and experiment so I can come home and spend the evening editing and grading etc. It's a constant struggle to get the exact look I want. As for all the other factors of making a film, I'm just reading and lurking on this forum, trying to absorb as much as I can! I'm not in a rush though.
 
If I know that a film is low budget, yes I make allowances for it looking a bit cheap, but I'm also hoping to see good use of that limited budget. An example is the recent NZ film 'Good for Nothing' http://www.goodfornothingmovie.com/ - made very cheaply and it sometimes showed, but really well done, great use of 'free' stuff like locations.

Frankly I do the opposite for a big budget film - I'll be far more unforgiving of mistakes or shoddy production values. The irony is that big budget films often make the most mistakes in terms of the non-money stuff, e.g. a decent script :(
 
iamWZA said:
Well with regards to cinematography, I basically bring my 550D (I plan to shoot my film on a C300) with me everywhere I go and shoot little things and experiment so I can come home and spend the evening editing and grading etc. It's a constant struggle to get the exact look I want. As for all the other factors of making a film, I'm just reading and lurking on this forum, trying to absorb as much as I can! I'm not in a rush though.
Click to expand...

You are not going to learn how to make a film only by reading. You need to go do it. It's OK if your first film is terrible. Everyone's first film is terrible. Thinking you're going to wait until you can do it "perfectly" is a waste of time and unattainable goal.
 
I'm guilty of wanting to see at least passable images, but that will always be usurped by competent acting and, especially, strong dialogue. Dialogue is a HUGE thing for me, massive, and I will instantly be turned off by it. More than bad images, by far.

As an audience member, I've come to a point where I really don't care what the content is as long as it's true to what it is, and again, well acted with great dialogue. Yes, it'll be hard to sit down in front of an adult drama, yet in my defense, my current favorite live action show is MAD MEN, hands down. I have yet to see a bad episode, and sometimes I catch myself in shock at how good the material is.

Nothing really happens in that show? Well, compared to something like Breaking Bad (which is also good).

So, anyway, I judge by the content and if it's got heart, likeable characters (even if you dislike what they do), competently acted and great dialogue then you can basically count me in.

Sometimes my wanna-be filmmaker nature gets the best of me and I become critical of certain projects and filmmakers, trying not to be that guy because I know how difficult it is to create genuinely good content. My definition of good is something I'd pay for without regretting it later.

It's pretty easy to make a feature film, short, etc. Startlingly easy. But, to create something that goes beyond competent is an entirely different ballgame, and that is excruciatingly difficult.
 
David Jimerson said:
You are not going to learn how to make a film only by reading. You need to go do it. It's OK if your first film is terrible. Everyone's first film is terrible. Thinking you're going to wait until you can do it "perfectly" is a waste of time and unattainable goal.
Click to expand...

Although I do appreciate your comment, I want to say it's not okay for your first film to be terrible. There are too many terrible films in the world, why should we consciously add to them? Shooting things (not necessarily in the context of a story), using friends as actors to experiment with light, editing and grading etc. all count towards learning to control and execute a specific look for every scene. Why would you specifically need to make a film to learn those skills? If you've written a script that you think is worth turning into a film, I think it's a shame to have to make the film knowing that it's going to look like a "550d Action Film".
 
iamWZA said:
Although I do appreciate your comment, I want to say it's not okay for your first film to be terrible.
Click to expand...

It's not okay for you, fair enough, but likely your first film will be terrible in comparison to a major motion picture. Thinking it won't be is a pretty naive and inexperienced... well... thought. No matter how much pondering you do on the topic of, only doing gives you the experience you need to do better...

With or without money.

There are too many terrible films in the world, why should we consciously add to them?
Click to expand...

What difference does that make? Movies don't cure diseases, if a filmmaker wants to make films (bad or good) and it's not hurting anyone physically--or they aren't hurting themselves, then they should do what they want to do. To tell someone they should do otherwise sounds a bit entitled.

Shooting things (not necessarily in the context of a story), using friends as actors to experiment with light, editing and grading etc. all count towards learning to control and execute a specific look for every scene. Why would you specifically need to make a film to learn those skills?
Click to expand...

The short answer: If you're asking this question then you haven't made a "film".

The long answer: shooting friends, experimenting with lighting, so-on-and-so-forth is nowhere NEAR the same task as completing a full length feature film, and in some cases a short. You haven't learned how to shoot a motion picture until you shoot a motion picture.

If you've written a script that you think is worth turning into a film, I think it's a shame to have to make the film knowing that it's going to look like a "550d Action Film".
Click to expand...

Some people don't have a real choice in the matter . It's either wait for more money (which probably isn't going to come unless you've already got ties to real money), don't do anything at all and just speculate or talk about it, or do it.

The ones that can't help themselves will do it no matter what, whether it turns out great or not-so-great is neither here nor there (as long as people aren't hurt in the process.)

If you aren't finishing films then you are not a filmmaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top