Out of Curiosity - FILM TIME LIMITS - Vote in the poll

[Blaine]

I like the idea of 10 minutes for a good story. On the otherhand I've seen good stories done here (albeit very few) in 5-6 minutes. The major drawback with longer films is server space and viewing time. Oh, and 10 minutes doesn't guarantee a better story, then you'd have to sit through 10 minutes of bad filmmaking instead of 5. So I think 5 minutes, allowing spill over to 6 minutes, is better all around. Of course, that pretty much means every movie is 6 minutes with people complaining that 6 minutes is not enough.

It's not particularly easy to write a good five minute movie, but if more time were take with the script, I think we'd see more good movies. It's just too easy to say that it's hard to make a good movie with 'x' running time. A bad 90 minute movie is still a bad movie...

 

[Mark Harris]

yeah, but as I said, I don't even bother to sit through a bad film. Plus, I think history has proven that the 5 min limit does NOT force people to write better. I don't think anything will force people to write better, because things like writing and acting are largely afterthoughts on this site anyway. So far, time limits have not done anything to make the films better.

I think I proposed before a flash player for the films, and encoding them as flash, which would reduce the file size and standardize the viewing a little more...

 

[Blaine]

Hey you "pain in the ass", I think we're saying the same thing...:evil:

Nothing wrong with 7 minutes either. We'll get the same result, though. A precious few good movies and a lot of fodder...:thumbsup:

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

What if each individual script had to be approved first? That might be interesting...

 

[bosindy]

Time can only help because it gives the opportunity to go deeper. I don't agree that an arbitrary number 5 or 6 somehow improves the economy of the story and makes it better and more concise. It has overwhelmingly hurt most entries. A bad idea or bad acting can never be helped, but there have been many that could have been.

Of the good films, almost without exception other than "18 seconds" (and that film had little dialogue), pacing has seemed slightly rushed to me. Often the dialogue or the reaction shot seems a little too quick, or the realization happens too quickly. The ones that end up pulling it off regardless do so more as a function of the idea suiting the time.

Some might want 12 minutes, some might want 20. In the end, The only concern should be the server space because people are donating that. 5 or more minutes or so per film is not going to change this crowds viewing habits and an arbitrary limit doesn't make anyone better.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

What if each individual script had to be approved first? That might be interesting...

Then you get into issues of - approved by whom?
Things start getting a bit too complicated, I think.

The ones that end up pulling it off regardless do so more as a function of the idea suiting the time.

I totally agree, which is why I think the problem is with the ideas people begin with.
It's not the the time limit is too short - but that the ideas are too long.

My point is - yes, longer GOOD films would be great, I don't think anyone would disagree with that....but there are two important points here -
1) It is possible to make a good 5 minute film, as we've seen some already.
2) There is nothing stopping anyone from cutting a longer version, or even making it longer from the beginning and submitting it for exhibition only.

Though I have to say, while I still think 10 is way too long for a fest like this... I'm starting to thinkg that going back to 6 (or even 7) might be a good idea.

By the way Mark - I really like the idea of going to Flash encoding.
That would be great.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

So, who is going to read through every script that gets submitted and what guidelines are they to use to approve/deny them? Keep in mind that part of the uniqueness and allure of this fest is that it is free and that everyone who enters gets their film publicly screened and is eligible for prizes, critiques by their peers, etc.

You don't get that other places. Now, if you want to pre-screen entries for quality, you are talking about another kind of fest. And, a kind of fest that requires more manpower behind the curtain, and probably won't be free anymore.

Exhibition is cool, but that's also what the user films section is for. If we just wanted to do a periodic exhibtion only film fest, with no prizes or time limits, etc... well that's one thing...

But, if we are doing a free fest that is open to any and everyone, there has to be some kind of cut off that falls into a nice middle ground somewhere.

Personally, I thought 6 minutes was a pretty good time. I think a big part of the problem, is that a lot of us don't recognize the difference between a 6 minute story and a feature length. It's a different kind of story that you can tell in the short form. You don't write the same way. Probably the biggest problem that folks have with the short form is trying to fit a feature length idea into a 5,6, etc. minute time frame. In which case 10 minutes probably isn't going to help solve that problem. Or, there isn't a story in the first place. Just an idea or premise, or one thing in mind. But, not a whole story with a beginning/middle/end. In which case, lengthening it isn't going to help.

Another thing that I think would be great would be to get some writers to come in and volunteer their services like the music guys do for each fest. Let's face it. Most of us aren't writers. But, many of the films end up being written, directed, etc, etc by the same one or two people who are spreading ourselves thin out of necessity, but out of desire to participate. That's great in some ways though.

Anyways... I'm rambling now.

We can make it a paying fest, where not every film makes the final cut and gets viewed, and have longer films if you really want.....

But, ultimately I don't think we are at a place that it would be beneficial for the fests or the participants or the site to do that yet. If ever. It is also counter to the foundation and the whole idea of the fests in the first place.

The whole idea is to have fests to allow people to participate and get feedback and learn, and grow themselves, and gain experience, etc, etc, etc... And, to keep it as simple a process as possible to encourage maximum participation. If you start complicating things too much, you ultimately hurt the fest I think. It's an all inclusive fest right now. And, in terms of its function and purpose, I think it does very well and gets better behind the scenes each and every time. Then it's just an added bonus that DVXuser happens to be the bomb that it is and we can have 10,000 bucks in prizes for a free online film festival b/c we also have some kick ass sponsors. Where else can you get that? and for free? and with no pre-screening for quality?

I say we either make the run times shorter and do more fests, or we keep the runtimes around 6 minutes and perhaps have a longer time inbetween each fest to allow people for more production time. Or, just keep it like we've been doing it so far for the most part

Later,
Jason

 

[Drew Ott]

5 or more minutes or so per film is not going to change this crowds viewing habits and an arbitrary limit doesn't make anyone better.

That would definitely change my viewing habits.

I'd say 7 max but 5 is ideal. With more and more entries each fest, the time constraints shouldn't get more lenient.

 

[Drew Ott]

But, ultimately I don't think we are at a place that it would be beneficial for the fests or the participants or the site to do that yet. If ever. It is also counter to the foundation and the whole idea of the fests in the first place.

I definitely agree. I like the fests how they are. They appeal to everybody on the site instead of just an elite group.

However, I think if there is a time increase, the time alloted to view the films should also increase proportionally.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

The whole idea is to have fests to allow people to participate and get feedback and learn, and grow themselves, and gain experience, etc, etc, etc... And, to keep it as simple a process as possible to encourage maximum participation. If you start complicating things too much, you ultimately hurt the fest I think. It's an all inclusive fest right now. And, in terms of its function and purpose, I think it does very well...

Absolutely.
Great post, Jason.
:thumbsup:

 

[bosindy]

Yes, but it doesn't mean adding or reducing a time limit changes anything because it has been done and no one is suggesting making it fee based.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

Five minutes is fine, but it'd be nice to be allowed 30 seconds or a minute for credits.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Another thing that I think would be great would be to get some writers to come in and volunteer their services like the music guys do for each fest. Let's face it. Most of us aren't writers. But, many of the films end up being written, directed, etc, etc by the same one or two people who are spreading ourselves thin out of necessity, but out of desire to participate. That's great in some ways though.

John Labonney offered up quite a few scripts for this Fest. I believe that they were all taken, but only a couple saw the finish line. One of his previous scripts won SpyFest!

My thought of having the script approved might weed out the few who won't go to the trouble of actually using one. That might eliminate movies that don't really go anywhere.

Either way, the Fest is always run extremely well. I'm already gearing up for the next one. I'm taking all the negative comments to heart and hoping to learn from them.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Jason Ramsey]

I agree that adding or reducing a time limit doesn't change anything (with exceptions) concerning the overall quality of work that is put out for each fest. What it does do is change the amount of overhead that is required to run the fest.

If films were 10 minutes, would the maximum file size also be 100 megs then, or would it still be 50 megs? I dont' know about everyone else, but I am kind of bandwidth challenged and it is already a bit of an endeavor to download all of the 50 meg films.

Server space isn't a huge issue lately b/c we have had some generous mirror providers and Larry's COG system is getting better all the time at handling stuff like that. It does add to the view and download times though and will at least double the bandwidth and storage space needed as well as keep the servers busier for longer which could cause other issues with servers beyond bandwidth/storage like cpu usage, or whatever.

As far as being fee based, the point I was trying to make was that if you start talking about pre-screening scripts or not accepting every entry, you inevitably start talking about a fee based more traditional type of festival. The idea is to encourage maximum participation. Both from film makers and from viewers, critiques, voters, and so on.

No rules, or time limits or any of that will make anyone make a better film. There can be a point where rules or time constraints could hinder the creative process and that is worth exploring. But again, the idea behind the 'rules' is to encourage maximum participation, keep the fests running as smoothly as possible, and for people to make their films for this fest and not just rehash something they have already made.

 

[bosindy]

I agree with you Jason and you make good points. I guess I am really asking what is the sweet spot to give the filmmaker the most time to explore the story and also take all the points you make into consideration? 6 has worked in the past and if we have a better process and more server space, would 7 or 8 work? If the number remains 6 fine, but if we can squeeze a few more minutes it will unquestionable help some entries not all.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

We're on the same page then. It's just what is the sweet spot that doesn't unecessarily hinder the filmmakers or the technical stuff going on in the background, overhead, etc. And, still keeps download and viewing times manageable so as to encourage the maximum amount of people to download, view, respond and vote.

I like 6. But, I'm just one person.

Later,
Jason

 

[Aculag]

I think something that a lot of people are forgetting is that ten minutes would be the LIMIT. Not everyone will make a ten minute film. Some would probably still make two or three minute films.

I am on the side of "not five minutes", but I say seven should be the limit, not ten. I know the film I made this fest could have used an extra minute or so to really fill it out, and a lot of the films in the fest felt a little bit cramped as well. But ten minutes is too long for an internet fest.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I think something that a lot of people are forgetting is that ten minutes would be the LIMIT. Not everyone will make a ten minute film. Some would probably still make two or three minute films.

This has been brought up before, and I still think that the vast majority of people would fill the time they are given. There was nothing stopping people in the past from doing two or three minute fims, but there are the rare exception. When the limit was 6 minutes, virutally every single film was 6 minutes - and I'm pretty certain if the limit were 10, the vast majority of films would be 10 minutes to the frame. I'm not necessarily saying that would be good or bad...just saying that I think people will fill whatever maximum time they are given. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mike@AF]

I agree that these fests should not be fee based. There shouldn't be pre-screening of films or scripts. That would take away from the sense of community around here.

However, I still think 10 mins is ideal. It allows more time for exploring the story, characters, and background of both. Another thing it allows for is a better demonstration of artistic and technical skills around here with more complex and better shots overall. I agree whole-heartedly that some of these films have been hurt by trying to cram what was probably a 7 or 8 min film down to 5 or 6 mins. The only way to do that is to cut out crucial scenes or cut down certain shots, resulting in poorly composed scenes with short reaction shots and no establishing shots.

Sure these aren't feature films, but shouldn't we strive to give these short films more of a cinematic quality? I don't think that can effectively be done in only 5 mins. Can it be done in 10 mins? Maybe, maybe not. There's only one way to find out and that's by trying it.

About the suggestion of a short 5 or 6 min version and then a director's cut... that just supports that the films are being hurt by the short format. those director's cuts have scenes or parts of scenes that were originally part of the script and part of the story as whole. Without them we're missing what the film is really supposed to be. I wonder how many of the hundreds of films made for these fests were originally longer than the version actually entered, meaning what percentage of the films actually had better versions that were longer than the time limit?

I suggest this... make the fest require the film be anywhere from 1-10 mins max. Actually put the "1 to 10 minutes" in the rules so it's clear to everyone that they can make a film as short as they want. The limit includes opening and closing credits. Not only that... require the scripts be no more than 8 pages. That forces the writer to write for an 8 min film, but allows the director and DP to shoot the film with about 2 mins extra to get what they really want. All you have to do is have the filmmakers submit their script to the mods when they sign up for (or just announce they're making a film for) the fest. No one has to really read the script, just see that it's no more than 8 pages which takes all of about a minute, if that. You can also have them submit the final shooting script with the film to make sure they adhered to 8 the page limit all the way thru the fest.

 

[Ben Sliker]

This has been brought up before, and I still think that the vast majority of people would fill the time they are given. There was nothing stopping people in the past from doing two or three minute fims, but there are the rare exception. When the limit was 6 minutes, virutally every single film was 6 minutes - and I'm pretty certain if the limit were 10, the vast majority of films would be 10 minutes to the frame. I'm not necessarily saying that would be good or bad...just saying that I think people will fill whatever maximum time they are given. Just my 2 cents.

this makes a lot of sense. if entrants are trying to squeeze 8-10 min films into 5 minutes, what's going to stop them from trying to put a 15 minute film into 8-10 minutes? It suffers from the same problem regardless of the time limit. I really liked Jack's "flash fiction" thread because it gave people a source on how to LEARN how to write a good story for a five minute film, I think more resources like this and entrants will be properly prepared to write and create a story that would fit into say ... 5 minutes ... without shooting way too much and having their story compromised because of it.