how long is a feature?
- Thread starter merc
- Start date
DeSica
Well-known member
AMPAS considers anything over 40 minutes as feature length (as listed on their site). SAG's minimum run time is 80 minutes, according to wikipedia.
Most festivals I have looked up in the past want something over 75 minutes...so there is no real hard line, but most feature films seem to be about 85 minutes at least, and at that length they tend to be comedies.
Most festivals I have looked up in the past want something over 75 minutes...so there is no real hard line, but most feature films seem to be about 85 minutes at least, and at that length they tend to be comedies.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
There are features here and there that come in at around 75 minutes (although I saw November and didn't recall it being so short - interesting), but unfortunately, at least IMHO, a 40-60 minute film is pretty much right smack in the middle of a cinematic no-man's land: too long for a short and too short for a feature. A sort of "red haired step-child" of a film, if you will, to borrow that particularly unkind phrase.
If it were my project, I'd do just about anything possible to cut it to 30 or under, or much more preferably extend it to 75 or longer. Of course you don't want to just add in weak footage to acomplish that, but you certainly wouldn't be the first to do it if you did.
None other than Jean Luc Godard himself admitted that for "Band Of Outsiders" (as reported on the DVD of the film in a behind-the-scenes documentary), he "padded" the film with filler footage because he realized he didn't have enough in the script to make it feature length. So he shot (and used) a fair-sized chunk of one of the actors just reading a newspaper, had a lengthy dancing scene in a cafe (which is quite cute actually) and so on. Again, he was completely candid later about the fact that he did this in order to extend the movie's run time.
In fairness, it was 1964, and the rules were a lot looser then, but you may nonetheless be able to borrow a thing or two from that playbook. You could stir in some additional B-roll under music or find any number of other ways to artfully stretch it a bit here and there.
My $.02
If it were my project, I'd do just about anything possible to cut it to 30 or under, or much more preferably extend it to 75 or longer. Of course you don't want to just add in weak footage to acomplish that, but you certainly wouldn't be the first to do it if you did.
None other than Jean Luc Godard himself admitted that for "Band Of Outsiders" (as reported on the DVD of the film in a behind-the-scenes documentary), he "padded" the film with filler footage because he realized he didn't have enough in the script to make it feature length. So he shot (and used) a fair-sized chunk of one of the actors just reading a newspaper, had a lengthy dancing scene in a cafe (which is quite cute actually) and so on. Again, he was completely candid later about the fact that he did this in order to extend the movie's run time.
In fairness, it was 1964, and the rules were a lot looser then, but you may nonetheless be able to borrow a thing or two from that playbook. You could stir in some additional B-roll under music or find any number of other ways to artfully stretch it a bit here and there.
My $.02
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
[begin pedantry]
Of course, running time alone does not make something a "feature". A "feature" is the star attraction, something that people will pay money for. A 90-minute log of monkey crap does not qualify as a "feature". It may be "feature length", but that don't make it a feature!
[/end pedantry]
Of course, running time alone does not make something a "feature". A "feature" is the star attraction, something that people will pay money for. A 90-minute log of monkey crap does not qualify as a "feature". It may be "feature length", but that don't make it a feature!
[/end pedantry]
Ted Spencer
Veteran
[begin pedantry]
Of course, running time alone does not make something a "feature". A "feature" is the star attraction, something that people will pay money for. A 90-minute log of monkey crap does not qualify as a "feature". It may be "feature length", but that don't make it a feature!
[/end pedantry]
Fair enough, oh pedantic one : )
But how many ~60 minute narrative films with significant, ticket-selling theatrical runs can you name over, say, the last 15 years?
My own count would be zero.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed, none anywhere that I can think of. I'm just saying that if someone drags out their pic to 90 minutes, that doesn't make it a "feature".
A "feature" is the A-pic, the top of the line, the ticket-selling "feature" of a double-picture. The lousy pic was the B-film. Just like with music where you'd buy a 45rpm single, the one you bought it for was the A-side (the "feature") and they stuck something else on the back side, the B-side. Both the "Feature" and the B-Pic were "feature length" (i.e., at least 90 minutes), but only one was the actual feature.
Keeping with that same analogy, a song "single" is 3 minutes long, and a "feature film" is 90 minutes long. A musical composition that's 30 seconds long isn't a "song", it's a "jingle". And a movie that's 50 minutes long isn't a "feature", it's a "short" (even though it's a very long short!)
But stretching a jingle to 3 minutes doesn't make that jingle a "song", it just makes it longer and more annoying. And stretching a 50 minute short into 90 minutes doesn't transform it into a feature either!
90 minutes is the typical definition of "feature length". Features can be much longer (witness LOTR:ROTK or Titanic) just as songs can be much longer (witness "Hey Jude"). And they can be shorter too; Sundance considers 70 minutes the minimum for a feature, and the Beatles' early singles were frequently less (sometimes quite a bit less) than three minutes.
I guess the main pedantry here is: a feature film should be a feature (like Transformers or The Godfather or My Big Fat Greek Wedding, a ticket-selling bill-topping big-lettered feature that someone looks forward to and actively buys a ticket to). Just like a "hit song" should actually be a hit, y'know? A three-minute jingle isn't a "hit song", and 90 minutes of moving images isn't a "feature".
(and yes, I'm aware that this is approaching a feature-length bit of pedantry!) :thumbsup:
A "feature" is the A-pic, the top of the line, the ticket-selling "feature" of a double-picture. The lousy pic was the B-film. Just like with music where you'd buy a 45rpm single, the one you bought it for was the A-side (the "feature") and they stuck something else on the back side, the B-side. Both the "Feature" and the B-Pic were "feature length" (i.e., at least 90 minutes), but only one was the actual feature.
Keeping with that same analogy, a song "single" is 3 minutes long, and a "feature film" is 90 minutes long. A musical composition that's 30 seconds long isn't a "song", it's a "jingle". And a movie that's 50 minutes long isn't a "feature", it's a "short" (even though it's a very long short!)
But stretching a jingle to 3 minutes doesn't make that jingle a "song", it just makes it longer and more annoying. And stretching a 50 minute short into 90 minutes doesn't transform it into a feature either!
90 minutes is the typical definition of "feature length". Features can be much longer (witness LOTR:ROTK or Titanic) just as songs can be much longer (witness "Hey Jude"). And they can be shorter too; Sundance considers 70 minutes the minimum for a feature, and the Beatles' early singles were frequently less (sometimes quite a bit less) than three minutes.
I guess the main pedantry here is: a feature film should be a feature (like Transformers or The Godfather or My Big Fat Greek Wedding, a ticket-selling bill-topping big-lettered feature that someone looks forward to and actively buys a ticket to). Just like a "hit song" should actually be a hit, y'know? A three-minute jingle isn't a "hit song", and 90 minutes of moving images isn't a "feature".
(and yes, I'm aware that this is approaching a feature-length bit of pedantry!) :thumbsup:
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Speaking of feature length turds, how about Pearl Harbor at 183 minutes? The length should be determined by the story, and not how much time you can waste. Keep in mind, most people have short attenA 90-minute log of monkey crap does not qualify as a "feature". It may be "feature length", but that don't make it a feature!
[/end pedantry]
Keep in mind the highly lucrative TV foreign market.
If a mega movie like Titanic will sell no matter it's lenght, since broadcasting it will be consider an event. The bulk of movies bought for the television market has to fit the programming slot.
My expereince was that the ideal lenght was 96minutes (ntsc) giving a 92minutes when converted in Pal.
This is not a "rule" but a smart target. Any movies exceeding 120 minutes, unless it is a megahit, has proven more difficult to sell to television.
If a mega movie like Titanic will sell no matter it's lenght, since broadcasting it will be consider an event. The bulk of movies bought for the television market has to fit the programming slot.
My expereince was that the ideal lenght was 96minutes (ntsc) giving a 92minutes when converted in Pal.
This is not a "rule" but a smart target. Any movies exceeding 120 minutes, unless it is a megahit, has proven more difficult to sell to television.
tmnt
King of Australia
Don't get me started on too lengthy for their own good features, I fall asleep at 90 minutes 1 second.
30 Days of Night for example, comes in at 113 minutes, I think the story stopped somewhere around the 60min mark. It's as if by making a long movie the filmmakers feel they can trick people into thinking there's an actual worthy story.
30 Days of Night for example, comes in at 113 minutes, I think the story stopped somewhere around the 60min mark. It's as if by making a long movie the filmmakers feel they can trick people into thinking there's an actual worthy story.
DeSica
Well-known member
Instead of waxing poetic about what we think a feature is and engaging in pedantic potsuring (and no, I'm not singleing anyone out...), why don't we address the question?
To answer your question....honestly, probably not. Current trends would suggest the film is a bit short, unless it is a documentary, so all other factors aside, the 60 minute running time could very well work against you when trying to get distribution, even just in the rental market. However....
There are exceptions to the rule, and certain genres are more forgiving in that area...like horror. Try to find a film called Blood Cult. It had no stars, no theatrical release, no high concept...it was just a slasher film.
It was filmed in 9 days, cost around $25 grand, and was 89 minutes long. It was a straight to video movie. eventually, they spent $100 grand marketing it....and it made money.
It's one of the all time cheapest looking, worst made films I have ever seen...like a highschool project gone bad...it looked like it was shot on S-VHS, yet it got home video distribution...so there is always a chance.
To answer your question....honestly, probably not. Current trends would suggest the film is a bit short, unless it is a documentary, so all other factors aside, the 60 minute running time could very well work against you when trying to get distribution, even just in the rental market. However....
There are exceptions to the rule, and certain genres are more forgiving in that area...like horror. Try to find a film called Blood Cult. It had no stars, no theatrical release, no high concept...it was just a slasher film.
It was filmed in 9 days, cost around $25 grand, and was 89 minutes long. It was a straight to video movie. eventually, they spent $100 grand marketing it....and it made money.
It's one of the all time cheapest looking, worst made films I have ever seen...like a highschool project gone bad...it looked like it was shot on S-VHS, yet it got home video distribution...so there is always a chance.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Hey, stoners sometimes rent movies while they're out getting HoHo's and Cheesy Poofs.
IIRC, NOVEMBER was closer to 70 minutes, sans end(less) credits. It worked very well at that length. It didn't seem that short, but it also didn't feel padded, either (except for the credits, that is...)
Yes, I agree, if you're talking about theatrical exhibition (which I think you meant by the term "cinematic"). The ideal distribution medium for 40-60 minute length would seem to be cable/satellite/Internet.
shutterspeedfilms
Well-known member
Off the top of my head...
Army of Darkness clocked in at 81 minutes. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was 84 minutes. I'm sure I've seen shorter, but I can't remember any in the 70-something-minute range right now. Roger Corman used to swear by the 80-minute feature.
Personally speaking, I think 75 minutes would be the baseline to be considered a legitimate feature-length film.
I'm developing an 83-page screenplay right now. That's the tightrope you walk as an indy filmmaker. Every page/minute represents extra dollars. So how do you deliver the most bang for your buck without exhausting your funds?
Army of Darkness clocked in at 81 minutes. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was 84 minutes. I'm sure I've seen shorter, but I can't remember any in the 70-something-minute range right now. Roger Corman used to swear by the 80-minute feature.
Personally speaking, I think 75 minutes would be the baseline to be considered a legitimate feature-length film.
I'm developing an 83-page screenplay right now. That's the tightrope you walk as an indy filmmaker. Every page/minute represents extra dollars. So how do you deliver the most bang for your buck without exhausting your funds?
R
Romane19
Guest
hey
hey
Anything MOTION PICTURE over 65 minutes
hey
Anything MOTION PICTURE over 65 minutes