Making a Short vs a Feature

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:
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.

For the longest time, I've thought this way - script, script, script. I still think this way. Only, recently I changed my mind - somewhat. I now think, that you should jump in, and make a short or a feature, even though your script is sub-par and your actors are lame.

Let me explain what changed my mind from a hard-core "script first" guy. I totally believe that the script is the single most important thing, and actors a close second. However, there are other considerations - borne from life experience, hard won, and paid for with blood, sweat, tears and bitterness. I paid the price. Let me give you the lesson I learned for free.

Precisely because I believe so whole-heartedly in the "script first" principle, that I have spend an inordinate amount of time re-thinking, re-conceptualizing, re-writing, throwing-out-and-starting-over-again, revising to death. My script is never good enough in my eyes. I don't 100% trust other's opinions either. Net result: I'm still working on a script - yet another one - while my buddy's career as director has taken off. His first script was quite poor. His first film was quite poor. His second film was poor. But then he hit it with the third.

Meanwhile, I avoided his "mistakes" and congratulated myself on being able to recognize a sub-standard script, and not going into production based on a flawed script. He either couldn't tell, or didn't care, and went ahead and made a poor film. I looked at the results and congratulated myself on my wisdom yet again. That happened on his next project again. Again, I was the wise one. Only now, it is he who is the wise and/or lucky one, and I'm the guy who has made the mistakes.

I got trapped. I got trapped aiming for the perfect script. I put so many restrictions on what the script must accomplish, that it repeatedly broke down under so many requirements, like a horse on whose back you keep putting more and more and more weight. Budget must be super low. Original. Great style. Charismatic. Marketable. Appealing to actors. Involving younger actors. Story and shooting style able to minimize damage from poor acting (assumed based on no money to hire great ones etc.). Blah, blah, blah blah + 23456 more conditions.

Meanwhile, my buddy took a silly script and made a ton of mistakes. Except... that allowed him to grow. That is important. If you endlessly prepare, but never just go do it, you won't grow in the right way.

There is such a thing as excess preparation. There's a great line from Andy Warhol "sometimes staying in school too long can hurt you". What he meant is that if you study too long, you can hurt yourself. I'm afraid, this has happened to me. Now, what I'm going to say, is not bragging, just stating stuff - in almost any group of filmmakers, I usually know more about various aspects of film, than the folks around me. Whether history of film, technical nuances of camera and sound work, script construction, principles of drama, lives of film directors, the business aspect of career building etc., etc., etc. And you know what the result of all this is? Paralysis through analysis on a grand, grand scale.

Look at some famous directors - yes, including Kubrick. They often made terrible first films. Yet they became great directors. Hmm. Maybe there's a lesson in there, huh?

Yes, folks, there is. Too much knowledge gives you too many choices, too many ways in which you realize how things can go wrong and how things can possibly get better. You overload. Meanwhile, someone who isn't aware of any of these thousands of rules, just does it, and if they have the right instincts, and a bit of luck, they'll grow. There's this theme that goes through so many of their careers: "I was too young and too ignorant to realize that what I wanted to do was "impossible" - so I just went ahead and did it, and guess what... it worked!".

What does all this have to do with the quotes? That two things can be true at once. Yes, it is true that it is all about "script + actors". However, it is also true at some point you should jump into the water, ready or not - because.... guess what, you are never really ready... and yet, you are also at the same time, ready... never ready as in "knowing all that is to be known", ready in the sense, "you must jump in now, waiting will only kill you dead."

Another Andy Warhol quote: "being afraid of people thinking you're a fool - that will kill you". You must not fear being thought a fool. Of course, at the same time, you cannot be a fool.

You take what you can from these hard-won lessons. Good luck!
 
Yes, some friends of mine are like OldCorpse, constantly waiting until the perfect conditions arise for them to jump in and make their film, short or feature. They've gotten old waiting, I get exasperated hearing them talk about directing for years and years and years.
It's hard to make that call - when are the conditions right for you to go for balls out and risk everything? Chances are you're never going to have a perfect script, like Back To The Future (which is darn close). There are many great movies built on the bare bones of a script - like Kieslowski's "Blue". Some scripts are finished during production - we've all heard those stories.
 
Thanks OldCorpse. You hit a lot of points that I've been wrestling with lately.

I'm reminded of Kubrick and Shindler's List (check out the recent documentary Stanley Kubrick's Boxes for more on this). Kubrick took so long researching and rewriting his holocaust film, that by the time he was ready to enter pre-production, Steven Spielberg had already completed Shindler's List, meaning Spielberg jumped in and initiated Shindler's List a few years after Kubrick had been working on his holocaust film project. Same thing with AI and Napolean. Kubrick died before he got around to actually making those two films.

Now, I don't want to pick on Mr. Kubrick, because I love his films, but you're right. The moral of the story is that there can be too much waiting and preparation, and that eventually can come back to haunt a filmmaker. Look at Indy 4. I'd be willing to bet that if Lucas and Spielberg didn't hire so many writers and spend nearly two freaking decades developing a script, that it would have been a much better film. Weren't the first three done much faster to emulate the old school production environment/mentality that was prevalent during the age of the serial adventure?

As to the flip side of this coin, sometimes I get the impression that someone like Robert Rodriguez might be moving too fast on some of his films, or shooting too many films per year.

Now, how does this apply to this thread's original topic? I guess I'd say that it can be easy to get all worked up about doing a feature because of the possibility of a return on the investment, but a lot of the time it is better to do a bunch of short films and build a great reel, even if the first few films kinda suck a little bit.
 
Yes, some friends of mine are like OldCorpse, constantly waiting until the perfect conditions arise for them to jump in and make their film, short or feature. They've gotten old waiting, I get exasperated hearing them talk about directing for years and years and years.
It's hard to make that call - when are the conditions right for you to go for balls out and risk everything? Chances are you're never going to have a perfect script, like Back To The Future (which is darn close). There are many great movies built on the bare bones of a script - like Kieslowski's "Blue". Some scripts are finished during production - we've all heard those stories.


I'm with the Old Corpse as well, but again I'm pretty ignorant to everything that can really go wrong on a feature. But, knowing that I have NO idea what I'm doing, the right time really is hard to find.

There's an older gent I know and work for, have worked for, since I arrived in Los Angeles in 2006 or so. He's got kids, wife, mortgage, all of those responsibilities. Right now, his start-up is in jeopardy and may tank (I really hope it doesn't!) but whenever I'm in the office he kind of floats into the editing bay and asks me "you got anything for me to shoot? I'm dying... I don't want to do this anymore... I want to shoot a feature again...".

This is his right time to do it. With all of those people depending on him, before he goes crazy inside of his own head and with his business on the fritz, it really may be the right time to go for it.

They all also tell me to do it while I'm young and stupid. Not because it's an excuse, but because I don't have anyone else to worry about at my age. No kids, very little debt (hospitals suck!), no wife, no car notes to pay, etc etc. The decline in work around leaves my good friends with great talents ready and willing to jump in as a skeleton crew to make it happen... so hell, why not?

In both situations, the right time ends up being NOW, and not later.

Again, maybe I'm crazy or too inexperienced to get it, but as far as I can see there's only so much you can prepare for hypothetically before you must commit and get on with it.

Not specifically YOU, by the way, just in general.
 
I'm with the Old Corpse as well, but again I'm pretty ignorant to everything that can really go wrong on a feature. But, knowing that I have NO idea what I'm doing, the right time really is hard to find.

There's an older gent I know and work for, have worked for, since I arrived in Los Angeles in 2006 or so. He's got kids, wife, mortgage, all of those responsibilities. Right now, his start-up is in jeopardy and may tank (I really hope it doesn't!) but whenever I'm in the office he kind of floats into the editing bay and asks me "you got anything for me to shoot? I'm dying... I don't want to do this anymore... I want to shoot a feature again...".

This is his right time to do it. With all of those people depending on him, before he goes crazy inside of his own head and with his business on the fritz, it really may be the right time to go for it.

They all also tell me to do it while I'm young and stupid. Not because it's an excuse, but because I don't have anyone else to worry about at my age. No kids, very little debt (hospitals suck!), no wife, no car notes to pay, etc etc. The decline in work around leaves my good friends with great talents ready and willing to jump in as a skeleton crew to make it happen... so hell, why not?

In both situations, the right time ends up being NOW, and not later.

Again, maybe I'm crazy or too inexperienced to get it, but as far as I can see there's only so much you can prepare for hypothetically before you must commit and get on with it.

Not specifically YOU, by the way, just in general.

It's funny, for me the readiness has much more to do with the business side. Meaning, thinking long and hard about whether I think I can make money with this movie, at least enough to pay back what people put into it. That is the real scary unknown in this process.

On the creative side, I guess I could spend a lot more time getting better with shorts, but I think there comes a point where you learn what you're going to learn on a short, and simply cannot learn what you need to learn about a feature until you jump into that.

But we are going in as prepared as we can be. Months of pre-prod, storyboards, script has been in the works for over year, crew are all trusted people I've worked with before. So I think we are in good shape as far as minimizing risks.

I do think though you should make shorts before a feature just to learn some basic stuff. I have saw one feature on these boards that clearly demonstrated very very basic mistakes no one should be making on a feature set. Things I would think: "Wow, I learned not to do X on my second short."
 
Thanks for the inspiration OldCorpse.

This is a good thread. I'd like to add something but I'm in that decision-making time.
 
At age 13, Spielberg won a prize for a 40-minute war film he titled "Escape to Nowhere". In 1963, at age 16, Spielberg wrote and directed his first independent film, a 140-minute science fiction adventure called Firelight (which would later inspire Close Encounters). The film, which had a budget of US$500, was shown in his local cinema and generated a profit of $1. He also made several WWII films inspired by his father's war stories.

a
 
It's funny, for me the readiness has much more to do with the business side. Meaning, thinking long and hard about whether I think I can make money with this movie, at least enough to pay back what people put into it. That is the real scary unknown in this process.


The not-so-inspiring thing about this is that it's dangerous the more money you spend. I acknowledge that features like THE SIGNAL are anomalies. At 60K, had they not gotten THAT specific deal, I wonder if they would have made their 60K back with another distribution deal?

And that was still a good pair or more years ago, so the ballgame has changed already.

I can't say that I expect my personal investment to get returned to me. Most of the money going into the feature is out of my pocket (I know, I'm crazy) but it may have SOME fledgling of a chance of recouping the shoestring amount basically because it IS a shoestring amount.

So on the flip-side of the "Just do it" coin, what happens if you spend 60K and up on a feature and you don't get a cent back?
 
Very interesting thread! So what's your actual budget Kholi? Besides having quite some nice equipment and quite some good helping people at Rainfall Films?
 
These days $60K for a short seems nuts to me.

Barry Green / David Jimerson (producers) and I (writer director) have had our shorts at major festivals, Delta Airlines, and other places this year and $60k is insane. And we used some name talent. Not Tom Cruise, but Ben Bailey from Cash Cab and Blanchard Ryan from Open Water and Broken Lizards Beer Fest. And everyone was paid $100 a day and fed.

Try $1 - 5K.
If you don't own and can borrow no gear and want to buy really good stuff from scratch, then say, $6-12K.

You can see trailers for our stuff at the website link in my cig. I became friends with another shorts filmmaker at Philadelphia Cinefest who made her short on 35mm in film school with free use of Lucas Soundstages, recording facilities, etc. It cost her about $30k in hard expenses not including all the free hollywood resources she had at her disposal and our short looked as good. Yeah if there was some pixel peeper there who could tell the difference in film and well shot filmlook HD due to the highlight ratios, etc, they could tell for sure, but production value wise, and general look and feel? No sir, which is pretty good considering we spent 10% of her hard cost budget (3.5K) without the use of Lucas Stages, etc. (we built stuff in Barry's Garage.)

BTS
original_1.jpg

cropped production still
original.jpg


If you have a great feature on paper and a burning desire to shoot it, well there's something to be said for getting that done and under your belt. If not, and perhaps even if you do have feature material ready, there's a lot to be said about learning and making mistakes when it won't kill you, priming the pump industry wise, learning the festival circuit, and making connections while touring some shorts.

That's what we wound up doing sort of by accident. I know Zak Forsman did it by design - learning and practing festival marketing strategies etc, by touring shorts as a dry run for putting his feature out there.

Now - that's $1-5 or $6-12K for the film. If you can, also include travel and marketing budget in the realm of an additional $2-5k for a short.
 
The not-so-inspiring thing about this is that it's dangerous the more money you spend. I acknowledge that features like THE SIGNAL are anomalies. At 60K, had they not gotten THAT specific deal, I wonder if they would have made their 60K back with another distribution deal?

And that was still a good pair or more years ago, so the ballgame has changed already.

I can't say that I expect my personal investment to get returned to me. Most of the money going into the feature is out of my pocket (I know, I'm crazy) but it may have SOME fledgling of a chance of recouping the shoestring amount basically because it IS a shoestring amount.

So on the flip-side of the "Just do it" coin, what happens if you spend 60K and up on a feature and you don't get a cent back?

Well that's where the business plan comes in. My business plan is not dependent on that big sale. It might be nice, but we have alternate plans for trying to make the money back. Specific plans, which we lay out for the potential investors. So we try to show them that we are taking responsibility for the film and not just gambling on that big pay-day.

We lay out how we are going to market the film, who we are marketing it to, the various distribution channels we will pursue, in order, etc.

Plus, our business plan is realistic. We don't expect to make this money back for a couple of years. If all goes well, the film will be DONE say next March. That's if everything goes well. There are a couple of things in the way of that, mainly talent schedules. But best case is we are done by next March. So we're taking a realistic view.

We're just trying to approach it like a business. And minimize the risk to investors by having our plan lay out ALL of the avenues we will pursue to make the money back. Which is what I would do if I were outlining a business plan for my software business or any other business.
 
I agree with the Rootinest Tootinest Mod. Makes sense and he's got photos. You cannot beat that combination.
 
I finished watching "The Signal" tonight after hearing about it here at dvxuser.
I cant say that its now a favorite of mine, but its pretty incredible if the budget was less than 50K. Here's what I thought really worked, considering what they were up against:

-Consistently decent acting. A lot of ultra low budgets may have one or two good actors among several weak cast members. The weaker actors in lesser movies often take you out of the suspension of disbelief. Its rare to see this many leads hold their own and bring a lot to the movie, considering that for a $50K its unlikely they got paid much or at all.

-Limited locations that are utilized very well.

-Good script, some unusual scenes and clever dialogue that make it stand out from among the crowd of horrors made each year.

Overall an impressive accomplishment, smartly made and good model for others to follow.
 
I finished watching "The Signal" tonight after hearing about it here at dvxuser.
I cant say that its now a favorite of mine, but its pretty incredible if the budget was less than 50K. Here's what I thought really worked, considering what they were up against:

-Consistently decent acting. A lot of ultra low budgets may have one or two good actors among several weak cast members. The weaker actors in lesser movies often take you out of the suspension of disbelief. Its rare to see this many leads hold their own and bring a lot to the movie, considering that for a $50K its unlikely they got paid much or at all.

-Limited locations that are utilized very well.

-Good script, some unusual scenes and clever dialogue that make it stand out from among the crowd of horrors made each year.

Overall an impressive accomplishment, smartly made and good model for others to follow.


That's pretty much it. I keep passing it around to friends so they can see what can be done on a small budget if you plan properly. Those guys were actually on XLCinema.com as well, so they shared a bit of their process, etc.

Here's a question I wanted to ask (for anyone that wants to answer): when talking about experience, is it enough to have worked on several shorts and productions in camera department (generally right under a director or dp/as dp) to learn from their mistakes? Or would you say that you need an extensive amount of time making those mistakes yourself as well?
 
Kholi,
I graduated from film school 14 years ago. That was the last time I seriously directed anything. I DP'ed and AC'ed in the years since, and the work has definitely informed me how to build a story visually - as in the craft of cinematography.

But I think with directing and especially writing/directing you're dealing with so many more disciplines (directing actors and writing being two huge ones), that I personally would feel pretty shaky taking the directors chair on a dramatic feature. Perhaps if I directed a play or a short before undertaking a feature I would feel more comfortable and confident. Music videos I could handle.

You've already taken the plunge however, on a low budget feature. So you're bound to learn through this experience. If your feature doesnt get picked up I'm sure you'll still get a lot out of it and become a stronger filmmaker. Like you said, you're young and you can take more risks without adversely affecting those around you. You also have more time to pay back any debt you might get into and as they say, a filmmaker who is not in debt is ready to make another movie. :beer:

That's pretty much it. I keep passing it around to friends so they can see what can be done on a small budget if you plan properly. Those guys were actually on XLCinema.com as well, so they shared a bit of their process, etc.

Here's a question I wanted to ask (for anyone that wants to answer): when talking about experience, is it enough to have worked on several shorts and productions in camera department (generally right under a director or dp/as dp) to learn from their mistakes? Or would you say that you need an extensive amount of time making those mistakes yourself as well?
 
Last edited:
I think if you're a first time director on a low-budget feature, you need to really understand coverage. On low budget stuff, you're racing the clock every day and using the bare minimum number of setups. If you don't have much experience directing and editing narrative, there's some risk in not getting enough coverage to cut your piece well.
 
Drew - excellent point: COVERAGE. It not only helps you cut around "problems", but a well timed cut-away or close up or insert REALLY adds to the professionalism of ANY film.
 
I think if you're a first time director on a low-budget feature, you need to really understand coverage. On low budget stuff, you're racing the clock every day and using the bare minimum number of setups. If you don't have much experience directing and editing narrative, there's some risk in not getting enough coverage to cut your piece well.

Drew - excellent point: COVERAGE. It not only helps you cut around "problems", but a well timed cut-away or close up or insert REALLY adds to the professionalism of ANY film.

Yep, this is something I notice in a lot of low/no budget indie films. Sometimes it seems that there is too much lingering on a master shot. I wonder, did they purposely shoot it that way, not have close ups or medium shots, or did they plan it that way and never shot anything besides that master shot?

Now, don't get me wrong, its not like there is some formula saying that you must cut away or go in close or something. Every film doesn't have to be an epileptic assault on the senses due to Bruckheimer cutting styles. I just think the filmmaker really needs to know what the heck they are doing if they are going to not cut much or at all. At the very least, the shot that is being lingered on needs to be telling a story, have some subtext, and just be plain interesting without being overly stylized and distracting from the narrative flow. It is much easier to off load some of that burden onto a series of shots instead of just one ridiculously long wide shot.

Also, the genre of the film and whether the director is going more for "arty" or "mainstream" dictates the shooting style as well. Long lingering shots seem more at home in a drama or a thriller than in an action film. Now, before anybody jumps on me, I'll admit that I've done both fast cutting and no cutting styles within a scene successfully and unsuccessfully in some of my work.

These don't apply to coverage, but some other things I've noticed on micro budget films (and yes, I've screwed these up too) are too many inappropriate dolly and crane/jib shots. I've worked with people that were like, "holy X-mas, I've got a crane!!!! Let's shoot every freakin' shot with it!!!." As for dolly and tracking shots there is the ever dreaded wonky dolly move I've seen a lot that wobbles and shakes, then comes to an awkward stop at the end of the movement.

As for the whole racing against time thing on set, it can all add up due to: having only one camera, small crew, location problems, real life (pedestrians/police/bums/traffic/birds/ambient noise/weather) intrudes, actors aren't consistent, actors/crew flake out and don't show, actors/crew decide they need to leave early, etc. If only a few of these pile up at once they can kill or railroad a ton of your time, concentration, and momentum. For me, a big thing with films I've shot or worked on, is momentum. Once you get in a groove with the actors and crew and are having fun knocking out shot after shot it is easier to just keep moving. When that pace gets killed it can really be a bummer on set. I hate it when that happens because I've been overtaken by the clock and it ain't pretty at the end of the day. Plus, nobody wants to be looking to the next day of shooting knowing that the whole production is behind.
 
...
Try $1 - 5K.
If you don't own and can borrow no gear and want to buy really good stuff from scratch, then say, $6-12K.

...

Ok, lets subtract your maximum budget of $5k because you own your own gear from your maximum $12k because you need to buy "really good stuff" from scratch. That leaves $7k to buy "really good stuff" across five categories.

Categories

Location Audio
Camera Package
Lighting
Grip
Post

That averages $1400 per category.

Are you sure you didn't mean RENT? I can definately see someone using $7k to rent "really good" gear for the shoot and finishing of a short but not its purchase.
 
Back
Top