Making a Short vs a Feature

[dadoboy]

A writer friend of mine went to a film financing seminar, as hes interested in self producing. One of the panelists said if you only have $60K (which he has), make a kick ass short, not a feature film.

In the old days, when I had graduated from film school, I would totally have agreed. The cost of shooting a feature on Super 16mm meant that at a 6:1 ratio, you would be spending about half that budget just on film and processing.

But times have changed, shooting digital frees up a large part of that budget. So I'm not sure which way I would go myself, if I was to advise someone or direct again myself.

I wanted to see what other people thought about this. Obviously the short/feature has to do two things for you 1) It has to be something you are dying to make. and 2) It must advance your career or get you enough acclaim that it will help to finance your next feature.

SHORTS:

Pros:
-Requires fewer shooting days, thus generally cheaper.
-You can use no name talent (again cheaper).
-Your subject matter and themes can be more experimental, and aren't beholden to genre films as much as features.
-More $$$ per minute, so it could possibly have higher production values or a more thought out shooting schedule/style.
-Better chance of success because your dollar isn't stretched to the limit. Features sometimes grind to a halt because they go over budget.

Cons:
-You have practically no chance of making your $60K (hopefully much less) back. It's just a showpiece.
-Very limited shelf life. People can't rent it out at netflix or buy it on amazon.
-A short often needs just as many locations or as many characters as a feature. i.e. just as much logistics.
-Can often take as much life and energy out of you as a feature, depending on how ambitious or involved it is. Can often take as long to finish.
-Film festivals show your short, but uh... it never gets top billing unless its a short film festival.

FEATURES:

Pros:
(Pretty much a reverse of the SHORT cons)
-Better leveraging of locations when you have access to them.
-More exposure, longer shelf life, possibility of return on investment.

Cons:
-Stretches your low budget dollar to the limit and beyond. And beyond.
-Often requires name actors to make any kind of splash. That means $$.
-Very slim possibility that you could blow up big time (statistically 1 in a thousand that a under $100K gets significant distribution) so you must be insane to put $60K of your own money into it.
-Most people who are self financing underestimate how much a feature will cost. Often they sacrifice important departments which hurts their ability to create a good movie.
Hope this makes some sense. I'm sure a lot of you have thought it out one way or another too.

 

[Brian P. McQuilkin]

I'd go with the feature.
While you might not make your money back with a $60k feature, you sure as hell aren't going to do it with a short.
Can't really wrap my brain around a $60k short.
Look at 'The Signal' -- made for $50k, sold to Magnolia for $2.3m. The key is probably making sure that it's an interesting and original story and that the production value is so bad that it makes the viewer realize while watching it that it is in fact a low-budget movie.

 

[Mike Harvey]

I have a hard time believing if the short kicks @$$, you won't break even if you're smart. The key being "smart". Digital downloads, like on Xbox Live or iTunes, could be a good way to go. If he could make a dollar a download... at sixty thousand downloads he's made his money back.

Another possibility is to break it down into something that is episodic, and give the first episode away for free, using that as the hook to get people to buy more. If I saw a five minute episode that was pretty darn good, I would be will to part with, say, $.50 a week for the duration of the series (say, 6-7 more episodes, one a week).

You just need to be creative... and make sure the content is great.

(caveat... I have never worked on either a feature or a short, so there is a very good chance I don't know what I'm talking about. )

 

[dadoboy]

There are students in film school (AFI, USC usually) who spend $50,000 on a short film. It doesn't surprise me though, as they did that too at NYU except rarely to that dollar amount. They tend to look very nice, considering the amount of money that goes into production value in addition to the resources the school will put in for you (a soundstage, dolly, lighting, crew, etc.).

I'll check out the Signal. I haven't seen it but I've heard about it here at dvxuser.
Horror movies are a case unto themselves - perhaps the easiest genre to make your money back on. Not into making them myself, at least not as a director. I've shot two horror features on the Pannie Varicam that did not get sold though.

I'd go with the feature.

Can't really wrap my brain around a $60k short.
Look at 'The Signal' -- made for $50k, sold to Magnolia for $2.3m. The key is probably making sure that it's an interesting and original story and that the production value is so bad that it makes the viewer realize while watching it that it is in fact a low-budget movie.

 

[GoodLuck]

My thoughts on this have changed over time as well. If I had $60k right now or was advising someone on what to do, I would inform them to leverage all the resources around them first off. I've heard stories of people renting Reds for $150-$200 a day because someone locally had a Red and just wasn't doing anything with it so said what the hell. Some of the better producers in your area can also get you locations for practically free. I've heard of one producer getting a mansion for $100! So it's about really leveraging and stretching, negotiating and finding people to sign on because they are excited about the project.

The quickest way to get someone excited is to..

1. Shoot on some badass equipment. (Red One, 16mm, 35mm)
This will attract a really nice crew...

2. Have an amazing cinematographer sign on.
This will help attract even better actors...

3. Have at least one star in the movie.
This will attract everyone, including distributors.

Some of the most famous cinematographers in the US have going rates that are quite affordable on a $60k budget. Think $3k-$4k a week negotiable. I think when that person mentioned shooting a kick ass short, they weren't talking about using no name actors or doing everything on the cheap with 35mm gear and hoping for the best.

I think they may have been implying get a great cinematographer, get at least one big star in it. Who's going to turn down $30k for a week of work if they have nothing going on? Very few people, especially if they like the script. Some well known famous actors may only get offered $100k-$200k for a feature, so a short that is a fun shoot, destined for Sundance that shows they support indie film and up and coming filmmakers...sure why not!

If you can land just one high profile actor, you then leverage that and people from all around will come out of the woodwork to work with you. Free Reds, free editor, free make-up. Oh you need locations and things locked down? Free producers.

I'm a little more strategic going forward, I've shot a feature and I've watched a lot of indie features on NetFlix and they tend to get killed in reviews. Who wants to put something out that gets destroyed like that? Quality is most important first off, then acting. And ironically if you get the right actor you will attract the right quality. Just start marketing your Bill Murray/Morgan Freeman/Jack Black/whoever short film around and people will line up to work with you. Hell I'd pay to travel out just to edit it. So I can then have Bill Murray/Morgan Freeman/Jack Black/whoever in my editing reel. I don't even have an editing reel, but I'd have one after that. :cheesy:

 

[dadoboy]

That's all good advice. If you're able to leverage additional resources through non-monetary means, there's a much better chance of success.

 

[GoodLuck]

There are students in film school (AFI, USC usually) who spend $50,000 on a short film. It doesn't surprise me though, as they did that too at NYU except rarely to that dollar amount. They tend to look very nice, considering the amount of money that goes into production value in addition to the resources the school will put in for you (a soundstage, dolly, lighting, crew, etc.).

From what I've researched on budgets, they are usually 1, inflated lies rounded to something that sounds nice ($50k). Or 2, they factor in free stuff at their cost (in-kind). So let's say you get something for free that usually costs $500 a day, like campus equipment/services, well you'd factor that into your budget whether paid for with cash or not. Either way that value is there comparably to someone who has to pay for it. I know it's factored in when applying for grants. A lot of the in-kind amounts are estimates as well, so are often rounded or totalled together to end up with a nice round figure in the end...for example...$50k.

 

[GoodLuck]

The problem with shooting a short is not in just making your money back. It's having a feature lined up and ready after you get somewhere with the short. If you search IMDb, you'll see a lot of great directors who got into Sundance and Cannes who are very talented. Far more talented than maybe you or me. Yet a year or two out, they haven't done anything. All that work to get into Sundance or Cannes or create that one amazing short film has taken them nowhere. Not because they lack talent, but because nobody is going to line up to just give them a deal.

You have to still have a project that you agressively pitch around right after. The short is more of a calling card or a way in so they are more inclined to read your script. It's also something that will ease investor fears and provide some credibility to your work. You still need a feature film script ready, which most don't have.

So the issue is then if you have it ready, why not just film that?

There are so many ways to do it when you have the money. You could even setup an entity via a lawyer and sell shares to finance something bigger.

With $60k you could shoot the best feature you possibly can and then find investors for finishing funds. From people I know that are looking to get projects off the ground, it seems a lot of people are more interested in seeing the final film. "Contact us when it's done". Why, because it's more of a sure thing, if it's good they buy it and avoid the risk of investing in a movie they can't sell. They probably get a copy of the DVD and send it right over to their distribution division to see if deals can be locked in for it for more than what they pay, if it's confirmed they buy it off you and quickly make a profit.

So the whole shoot a short and have a feature ready if the short does well strategy can be risky because more and more people are wanting a finished product. Based on the current economy and what seems like a shortage of movies, I'd lean more towards completing a feature with $60k, excluding finishing funds/post production funds. Leveraging talent for resources, get the talent to attract the resources. You can then stretch that to a $100k+ budget via in-kind contributions and services. If you're really clever you can contact distributors ahead of time to lock in deals or see what they want/can offer if they like the finished product. This might mean HBO/International Deals/etc.

So really there are a lot of ways to do it. It really depends on what kind of risk your friend is willing to take on and if the funds he's using are debt or equity.

 

[Barry_Green]

Simple fact is, the odds are astronomically against you making your money back with either.

So don't sweat it. You're gonna lose every dime you put into this thing.

And that's just the way it is.

So why do it? Because if you're any good, you'll make enough on the NEXT project, to pay this one back. Ten years ago I sunk $10k into a short, and landed a deal to write the screenplay for the feature version for $60,000. The short never made a dime, but it made the bigger deal possible, so I consider it hugely profitable even if it never directly generated any revenues.

So, with that said -- if you're talking equal money for either, which do you go for? The answer is: which one can you do better? If you've got a 10-minute story, trying to stretch that to 90 minutes just so you can say "it's a feature" is a horrible idea. Make the best 10-minute film you possibly can.

If you've got a 90-minute story, making a 10-minute version of that would be pointless and counterproductive, unless you've got a complete 10-minute opening act that serves as a standalone (that's what we did; the opening 10 minutes was used to sell the investors on the idea of "do you want to see the rest? pay up.")

Besides, something that's 90 minutes long is not a "feature". A "feature" is something people are willing to pay to see. A 90-minute production might be properly classified as "feature-length", but that does not make it a "feature film". :thumbsup:

 

[dadoboy]

Ha ha. Right on Barry. I'm sure if I had $60K, I'd lose it all by putting it in my own movie. Is that being negative about myself? Naw, I'm just realistic because I was never one to care about making commercial horrors and thrillers, just stuff I care about.

I wish I had the $60K to lose though rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Maybe if my Kodak stock goes up to 200.

 

[grinner]

We don't put our own money into our own projects as an investment in the sense of getting an immediate return on that project. We do it for the same reasons we went to work for nada for other people back in the day. An investment to gain relationships... the ole foot in the door.
I'm well into 7 figures in the red with a show called Moddin' Art. Will I make it back? Not if I stop producing episodes. I in no way think any of the episodes I have in the can will ever air. They won't. They are but demos but will be the direct result of a deal for more than one television series.

 

[Kholi]

These are my favorite DVXuser/REDUser threads. I'm gonna respond because I'm right in the same boat at this very moment, but talent is about to come out of make-up.

Dado!!! You HAVE to watch THE SIGNAL immediately if you're even considering this. Let me know if you want to borrow the Blu Ray version, I has it.

 

[Mark Harris]

Actually, you can just watch the first 20 min of the signal. The rest kind of sucks.

 

[Kholi]

Actually, you can just watch the first 20 min of the signal. The rest kind of sucks.

LoL. It was definitely an excellent effort and a great example of execution on what's considered a low budget. Just doing what you can with what you have.

 

[Kholi]

Simple fact is, the odds are astronomically against you making your money back with either.

So don't sweat it. You're gonna lose every dime you put into this thing.

And that's just the way it is.

So why do it? Because if you're any good, you'll make enough on the NEXT project, to pay this one back. Ten years ago I sunk $10k into a short, and landed a deal to write the screenplay for the feature version for $60,000. The short never made a dime, but it made the bigger deal possible, so I consider it hugely profitable even if it never directly generated any revenues.

So, with that said -- if you're talking equal money for either, which do you go for? The answer is: which one can you do better? If you've got a 10-minute story, trying to stretch that to 90 minutes just so you can say "it's a feature" is a horrible idea. Make the best 10-minute film you possibly can.

If you've got a 90-minute story, making a 10-minute version of that would be pointless and counterproductive, unless you've got a complete 10-minute opening act that serves as a standalone (that's what we did; the opening 10 minutes was used to sell the investors on the idea of "do you want to see the rest? pay up.")

Besides, something that's 90 minutes long is not a "feature". A "feature" is something people are willing to pay to see. A 90-minute production might be properly classified as "feature-length", but that does not make it a "feature film". :thumbsup:

This pretty much sums up part of my POV. In addition, It would be very hard for me to sink 60K into a feature film that didn't fall into either the "easier to sell" BS category or "star power" BS category. Both are mostly BS anyway, you just have to choose which BS you're going to go after.

When I tell people how much we're shooting SUPERSEEDS for, shortly after pitching or explaining the concept, I can see the look of "LOL" in their eyes. They think I'm insane, and honestly I am but that's not the point. It's mostly about what X amount of dollars does for each individual production. Depending on the individuals helming a project, be it feature or short, 50.00 can equate to 500.00 quite easily in various departments.

So, back to what Barry said pretty much: Which one can you do better or, even, which one do you know you can pull off effectively for your X amount of dollars?

 

[Nektonic]

So, back to what Barry said pretty much: Which one can you do better or, even, which one do you know you can pull off effectively for your X amount of dollars?

Amen brother.

Seriously though, for a short while I was kinda fired up about doing only features over the next couple years because I figured it would be pointless to do shorts and have no way to make any money back, but have cooled down on that recently.

The big thing is the writing. Unless you have a big budget and star power, an indie feature has to have impeccable writing if it even wants to survive in the wild for one festival. Now in terms of getting into the major festivals like Sundance, Cannes, or the Nicoll Fellowship, I'd say that whether you are an aspiring screenwriter or an up and coming writer/director, you will probably have to write the best script of your life. Those that have an established career later on, that's where a lot of the lazy scripts and bad films come from. Of course there are other key components for an indie success like great acting and professional sound quality being the next two after writing. First things first though, that mega-high quality writing takes time. Lots of it.

In my case, it seems better to hone both my writing skills and my filmmaking skills some more with spec scripts and shorts. I don't have tons of extra cash sitting around to blow on a feature, but even if I was going ultra-low with a budget of say 10K, guess what, that's still 10K that I don't want to waste by making something that doesn't stand a chance no matter how cool a concept is at the core of the story.

The problem with shooting a short is not in just making your money back. It's having a feature lined up and ready after you get somewhere with the short. If you search IMDb, you'll see a lot of great directors who got into Sundance and Cannes who are very talented. Far more talented than maybe you or me. Yet a year or two out, they haven't done anything. All that work to get into Sundance or Cannes or create that one amazing short film has taken them nowhere. Not because they lack talent, but because nobody is going to line up to just give them a deal.

When I read this I immediately thought of Primer. Anybody remember that clever little science fiction mind twister that blew everyone away at Sundance about five years ago? It was a pretty sweet little flick, but I'm guessing that the director didn't have anything else in the works as a follow up to his debut, or enough concrete ideas to pitch.

I've started to approach filmmaking with a business plan mentality, something I didn't really do all that long ago. I don't want to do all the work and get attention if I make something great, just to have it all go down the drain because I didn't have several spec scripts and another lower budget feature ready to go or in the works. Basically, get your film into Sundance, Cannes, etc... and then from there you use your other projects, whether they be films ready to shoot or only scripts to bolster you as you launch your career. So make a 3, 5, or 10 year plan so that you have some benchmarks to hit along the way as well as a clear idea of both what you want and how you will achieve it.

 

[dadoboy]

Thanks man for the offer. I am going to watch it on DVD this weekend.
My post was hypothetical though, no way I have 60K right now. More like I owe 60K. It's my writing buddy who has 60K, bless his heart.

From experience as a shooter, I know that making your own low budget feature is one of the hardest, riskiest things you can do in your life. I admire anyone who can bring a feature to completion, they're gods.

Dado!!! You HAVE to watch THE SIGNAL immediately if you're even considering this. Let me know if you want to borrow the Blu Ray version, I has it.

 

[Doc Bernard]

My $0.02: Do a short, but film it so you can create a teaser out of it to create a feature. Unless you are doing this strictly for the experience of making a feature, I would look at the financial future of this project. What do you plan to do with it? That is the very first question I ask to producers wanting me on their projects. You can invest a lot of money in a short or feature, but if you have not done the planning, you may not get a lot of interest.

How many shorts or features have you done in the past? Tackling a feature with little to no experience can really burn you out, both mentally and financially.

But Shorts are where you learn the in's and out's of filming a production. Learn from them, and then tackle a feature. But based on the info given, I could be totally off base. 60K is not a lot for a feature, but do-able, depending on the script requirements, and how many people you can get to believe in the project. The way I look at things, from a cam-op or stunt coordinator POV, if the budget is tight, cool, where is the film going in the end? Can I profit by it in the long run (exposure), even though I am suffering in the short run? Is the script viable? Is the direction viable? How is this going to look as a finished product? What I ask (without saying it) is "since I am taking a lower rate for my work, how will this help me in the long run?" And I expect a good answer before I get involved on a Low Budget project. Start by doing a realistic cost analysis of the project you are wanting to do, both as a short and as a feature. Include Pre-pro, actual, editing, ancillary, post-pro, overhead, and advertising. You might find that 60K being taken up very quickly on a feature, while on a short........

But this is just my opinion and how I look at things. What I could do with 60K for a project..............wow.

 

[Kholi]

Some really good points. Especially about having more ideas/scripts ready. I think in the end, I wonder how long can you wait to do what you came to do. Nobody's really getting younger, but I guess that's not really a reason to jump out there and just sort of do it with what you've got.

That's really not a smart way to think, but with things so readily available as far as hardware goes, the last frontier is really paper and people. What's really stopping anyone outside of a decent script?

Hmm, maybe I am crazy.

 

[Nektonic]

Some really good points. Especially about having more ideas/scripts ready. I think in the end, I wonder how long can you wait to do what you came to do. Nobody's really getting younger, but I guess that's not really a reason to jump out there and just sort of do it with what you've got.

That's really not a smart way to think, but with things so readily available as far as hardware goes, the last frontier is really paper and people. What's really stopping anyone outside of a decent script?

Hmm, maybe I am crazy.

No, we can't wait forever. I'm not Kubrick, but at the same time, I have a hard time jumping into things until I have a script that just kicks ass. Same thing with actors. I don't live in NY or LA, so that is a constant worry too. These are things that I've effed up in the past though, example: rushing into production with a sub par script and casting incompetent actors. I'm actually less worried about my ability to craft a great script than I am in finding actors that won't royally screw things up (bear in mind I'm talking about low or no budget filmmaking. If you have the money then you can hire somewhat established actors and at the very least up and coming ones who have some film or TV work under their belt.)

My current plan is to re-direct my focus to screenwriting for the remainder of this year and do a couple of no-budget shorts, more for the learning and fun of it, but still trying to make a couple of really awesome short films. As for the writing, I would like to ring in 2010 with at least 5 great feature spec scripts under my belt. Then next year, continue writing some specs whilst getting more ambitious with the short films. Then in 2011, probably go for a no-to-low budget feature. After that, probably try to do another feature, this time with proper financing and a known actor either as the lead or as a supporting role. From there, use all this to leverage getting my foot in the door for writing assignments and or developing more feature films. Of course, I wouldn't argue with selling a spec script for a healthy six figures either.

That is just a basic overview of my plan. I'm sure others may have different agendas and strategies worked out for their career depending on their current skills and finances. Either way, I think it is smart to think ahead and set goals beyond just one film at a time.