Seems like it's getting harder and harder to get people to watch short films

[Doc Bernard]

Some people want to learn and will listen and appreciate good advice, but like so many have pointed out, a lotof people just want a pat of the back and a "well done" in place of honesty. They seem to forget that we all know what they've been through and we know how hard it was to pull it off... so most of our criticisms are valid and not just being mean. For me I learn a HELL of a lot from every single review and I intend to never make those same mistakes again. Damn the pat on the back. Let me know what's wrong so I can mix it.

Those that don't want to know what's wrong, they're just in the wrong place.

I like that attitude! Same goes for anything I link. It's about respect. I respect the people on here, because I consider them pros. Heck, in the next couple of months, I am going to be asking for advice on the demo reel. I am bringing together a crew to shoot a few scenes. And since this will be a work in progress, I can incorporate the ideas and suggestions into the next scene.

For those that get upset about a review that is "less than great", just remember the old adage: "Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it." Ask for an honest review, you might get an honest review.

 

[MeAgain]

Technical aspects aside, I tend to dislike constructive criticism (as in, that shot should have been shorter, that character should have been nicer, etc). Unless the film is clearly a first film and it's full of terrible cliches.

But sorry, I don't buy into this "Tell a short story everyone likes, in the shortest amount of time, that pleases everyone, Amen". Maybe if you're looking for some sort of position at some company like Dreamworks and you want to impress people with your technical prowess (like that robot short)....but if you're actually making short films because you want to create something artistically, trying to appeal to a mass audience is death. That's why student shorts suck so bad today. Same thing, over and over and over. I don't care how well it's told or if you used a Viper or if the sound is crisp and the lighting is real good. If you aren't saying anything, if you aren't shaking up my perceptions of cinema, why bother? The short form could arguably be the best place for this too...some people won't watch a 90 minute film with a radical structure or off the wall ideas. But 10 minutes? Better chance they'll stick around knowing it's short. Even if they hate it, at least they saw it.

Not that you can't do things conventionally in a short either...but this aim to please people and not rustle feathers...it's counter-productive. You scale back your ambitions so people will like your stuff. It reminds me of people like Miley Cyrus, who say stuff like "Well, I'm not a really a pop singer, I just that pop song to become more well known. I don't want to be known as a pop singer, etc" Too late, you made the garbage pop song. Can't have it both ways.

Remember when George Lucas was going to take all those billions of dollars from his Star Wars income and start making "art house" films? Never happened.

All I'm saying is, if we're talking about strictly breaking into the business as a cinematographer or FX engineer or director for music videos and commercials- if that's your aim- then yeah, the idea is to be succinct and rope people in. If you want to be an independent film director you have to be totally unique with your approach, and true to yourself. Otherwise we won't get anywhere.


And again, I disagree that there's a universal "good" for everyone. I think that's a fallacy developed from the hegemonic nature of Hollywood. With limited choices in mainstream theaters, the general public is more or less told what is good and what isn't, and alot of them don't bother with things like On Demand or IFC...and when they do, their minds are either completely blown that there's alternative cinema out there, or they reject it because it doesn't look like the movies they're used to.

If you look at any other artform, like painting or music, it's gone through constant radical changes over the years in structure, approach, genre, style. While film has evolved, I don't think it's gone through the same periods as the others. Granted, it's younger, but people seem more afraid to try something radically different in cinema. Granted, it's the most expensive artform, but with stuff like the DVX, I think that's really changed. We need more people molding the artform to fit their own vision rather than simply just using 35mm adapters and really nice cameras to make it look like a "real" (AKA Hollywood) film.

 

[MattinSTL]

I also think some people (no one specific) will post 'brutally honest' comments just because they enjoy being brutal.

Since I used the term "brutally honest" just above one of your previous posts... I feel compelled to follow that up.

I don't choose to be brutally honest unless I think I have constructive criticism that the recipient will appreciate... OR in times when I have some enthusiastically positive things to say... OR when I really really like the project overall.

Otherwise I say nothing.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Since I used the term "brutally honest" just above one of your previous posts... I feel compelled to follow that up.

I don't choose to be brutally honest unless I think I have constructive criticism that the recipient will appreciate... OR in times when I have some enthusiastically positive things to say... OR when I really really like the project overall.

Otherwise I say nothing.

I didn't mean you, Matt. It's just your 'brutally honest' remark jogged my memory.

 

[Rodney V. Smith]

Technical aspects aside, I tend to dislike constructive criticism (as in, that shot should have been shorter, that character should have been nicer, etc). Unless the film is clearly a first film and it's full of terrible cliches.

Sometimes you're just too damned close to a project or so full of your self that you refuse to see the flaws or just plain overlook them. This happens all of the time where we try to push something through instead of just fixing it, trying to get one over for whatever reason. I'm guilty of this and I'm sure lots of us are as well. It's when we get caught that we start to bluster and try to explain it away... instead of being honest saying "yeah I ****ed up, but I seriously thought no one would notice."

That's the biggest problem there with taking any criticism and even giving a review. Nobody wants to admit that they just plain ****ed up, were lazy or whatever. So why should anyone bother to give a good critique?

For those who want actual critiques at least do us the favor of being honest about what you need. Don't present a finished product and say "here it is, give me a pat on the head". Give us the first draft and ask us what we think you can do to fix it.

This is what most of us are here for, to give an honest review when you can;t get one at home.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I'll submit that it has more to do with below par content than anything.

Watch a GOOD short like THIS:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=193859

and you'll see that content, as always is king.

When the camera and the lens and the editing becomes transparent, THEN you have arrived.

 

[MeAgain]

I'll listen to criticism and sometimes I agree, but it's usually something I feel off about in the first place. But the overall idea of constructive criticism irks me because sometimes you're trying something new to push people to think in a new direction, and because of this people think it flat out isn't "working" after one view.

I've made tons of mistakes, of course, but I was only able to really identify them by moving ahead. I can look back at past work and see where I've matured and where I've taken it too. But sometimes you have to take a chance on trying something new, and sometimes it doesn't work and sometimes it's brilliant, and you really don't know until the end.

Maybe not everyone works that way and I understand. I don't make expensive projects with other people's money so it doesn't matter if I fail at something. I just think constructive criticism can SOMETIMES become the equivalent of someone walking into someone else's dream and telling them they aren't dreaming the "right way".


And agree with the content remark. I'm no technician, so technical pointers are always welcome, but sometimes people completely ignore content and only focus on a handful of technical flaws (something was a little too dark, boost up the sound). I understand if you flat out can't see or hear the project, but sometimes people get nitpicky when it doesn't look professional enough. It might be discouraging.

 

[Sad Max]

A given work does not exist in a vacuum. Most creators (I'm guessing, but I suspect that it's a good guess) create their work with the intent of eliciting a response in those who experience the work. Being irked by the idea of criticism - constructive or otherwise - sounds like the position of someone whose interest doesn't lie in the kind of response their work elicits in their audience. I'll admit that I don't really see that the creator who's disinterested in responses to their work is doing much besides masturbating. Although I'm open to learning what else people feel they're accomplishing, by releasing work without regard for or interest in how it's perceived by their audience.

Was someone suggesting that there is a universal 'good' for everyone? Missed it.

Watch a GOOD short like THIS:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=193859

Thanks for that link. I mean it, if not for you posting it I wouldn't have seen that short, so I'm grateful that you did.

 

[Huy Vu]

But sorry, I don't buy into this "Tell a short story everyone likes, in the shortest amount of time, that pleases everyone, Amen".

Nobody is saying that you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to sell your short. Not true at all. In fact, you absolutely can make films that are different and still hold the audience's attention. The key words here are "hold the audience's attention." The best experimental pieces I've seen are always just interesting enough to leave me wanting to continue, even if I don't necessarily get it right away. That's something that only a skilled artist can create. If you're thinking that the audience just aren't giving your work a chance, consider the possibility that maybe it's you who aren't presenting it effectively.

 

[MeAgain]

But how would you know what holds the audience's attention? Which audience? Everyone is different. Some people love Tokyo Story, some people find it boring and completely unwatchable.


I'm saying that it's often very hard to tell what "good" is, especially when you're making something and it's doing something different, and to back out of trying something because a few people told you it was no good is a mistake.

When I make films, or anything, I want people to see it, no doubt. But I have no clue how people will respond to it, because I'm not them. I HOPE that people will connect to it, but all I can do while creating is what interests me and try to be honest to myself. If I want to make a scene very long for a specific reason, or structure something a certain way for a purpose, I can't stop and say "Well, they might get bored here!" and cut it, because what if that scene pays off? And I think asking 50 strangers to tell you if it works or not after the first viewing is not a good barometer. 50 people, yes, can be wrong. I'm not putting myself up high, I could judge someone's film wrongly as well and not understand what they're doing on the first viewing.

If your aim is to entertain people and have them "like" your work, then you're asking the wrong guy, because to me it just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying everyone hear thinks that way, but some most likely do. The only way to judge if something is attention grabbing or interesting is if it interests you while you make it. Either you're being honest to what you wanted to make or you're compromising in fear that it may not be accepted, in my eyes. And if it's between someone liking my work, or possibly challenging people (where they may not actually "like" my work), I'd pick the latter.

 

[GoodLuck]

But seriously, you're right. I can't speak for everyone on this site, but it seems the focus has shifted from the "art" of film making to the "technical". If you post a question about depth of field or MXF workflow on Final Cut Pro, the thread is 20 pages long. But post a short film or doc and ask what people think and the comments are few and far between.

That's a really great point that is very true. Part of it might also be the websites that shorts are promoted on. All the websites that welcome the posting/sharing/uploading of shorts are full of filmmakers who tend to watch with a technical/critical eye. Like I meantioned, it's nearly impossible to post a short somewhere else where there is traffic.

I was waiting for you to post in the thread on TXIndie.com before I offered my comment.

Thanks Ryan, I just posted it on there.

But I think that if it's put into the User Films section, it deserves to be pulled apart. It needs to be. It's expected to be. If someone wants to just show something off, and they say, "no comments other than praise" then fine. But when I post something in there, I want to hear what people think. I've learned a lot from this site because of the comments in the videos.

I tend to agree. I see filmmaker forums like this as kind of a hideaway from the general public/actors/and others. A place where you can get critical feedback and read critical feedback on projects for possible tips.

This is merely an extension of the problem of distribution and exhibition that filmmakers face in the real world. Yes, you can book a theater or put it online, but in both cases, what audience exactly are you expecting to come along and watch it? Have you given them a compelling reason to do so? Have you spent time genuinely participating in this community and fostering relationships? Have you provided feedback for other filmmakers? Getting good feedback in the user films section is predicated upon having an established audience/community that is invested in what you're doing.

I agree Zak, an effort has to be put into promoting what you do. I think I probably promote my stuff more than most to the point where it's downright spam. I've found MySpace to be a great resource for promoting work and we've filled 200+ seat theatres before for a premiere of a feature film we did and for a short film festival we did in Dallas. However when you look and see 740+ user short film threads with 0 replies, it's just kind of sad to see. And I know it's not like that just on DVX, it's like that all over the web, it seems there is just too much stuff out there now, everyones got a short. It might also be in part to expectations and the unfair exchange. Maybe if it was review my short and I'll review yours type of thing, there would be much more activity. That's likely why the contests do so well in regards to reviews, it's a more fair exchange since voting/competition is involved.

Ok, this post got me to go back and watch it - LMAO ! Absolutely loved it. Really well done. Kudos to the cast & crew - Great Job.

Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to check it out and comment! :laugh:

I think you're right, many would rather say nothing at all than say something negative. I've found myself attacked on forums before for things that I thought were quite neutral, let alone negative. I think part of it is also the lack of being anonymous. Many here have their names/companies/organizations closely tied to everything they post or say and the forum is not set to private.

Then you have the revengeful nature of some filmmakers and people on forums in general. You post a negative comment on something and suddenly they are following you around posting replies in all your threads to get even. Have seen that happen before. lol

I think that for a short film, grabbing the audience's attention quickly is pretty much mandatory no matter what. You really don't have the luxury of building up your film into a payoff since you only have a few minutes of their time. Being able to hold the audience's interest within the first couple of minutes is a skill which sadly few filmmakers want to acquire. They think that the burden is on the audience to experience "their" work and so you end up with 5 minutes films where the first minute is nothing but fancy opening credits or endless shots of characters doing mundane things to build a "mood." Really, get to the point already!

I think you bring up an important point Huy and I've been rolling the idea around in my head of doing a faster/shorter version of my short for youtube. Someone else posted that as a vimeo comment (doing a 5 minute version) and I never really thought about doing it. I told a filmmaker friend that I was considering shaving 3 minutes off to get it under 10 minutes just to get it on youtube to a larger audience and he said no way, like I was selling out if I did that. But I just might, and then link to the extended full version on vimeo for those that are interested.

One thing that I learned doing this short is that you really have to accelerate the pace on short films by pushing your actors to talk a little faster. I remember watching Luke Greenfield's short "The Right Hook", the short that helped launched his film career, and it had ridiculously fast pacing in it. All the actors spoke faster, the cuts were faster, everything was packed in tight for a funny 10 minute story. I didn't really push that, I didn't push the pace and I didn't get quite enough coverage that would allow for extremely tight cuts without dicing out sections of the script. We ran on a 1 camera setup and afterwards I thought, on the next feature I do, It would be really nice to have a 2 or 3 camera setup. :laugh:

 

[Kholi]

As well, what Zak says doesn't just apply to films that are a bit more... ummm... let's see... innovative and human. He has an audience for his shorts, and we Users have seen some of those audience members come from a more mainstream appeal right here on these boards.

Hell, I know a few guys that are like "I need to do some more stuff like Zak Forsman".

So, even if you're doing the all-to-dreaded mainstream "muck" that everyone seems to put down, you still need to identify your audience. If it happens to NOT be a good portion of DVXuser and you really haven't made yourself known in some way or another, you probably won't get many responses if it's not out and out provoking to the point where it generates its own interests just by viewing (see: Five Minutes with Oden) or extremely well done Technically (see: Dispatch) it'll be an uphill battle.

 

[GoodLuck]

I think the best start to appealing to a wider audience is to find a script you really like that is written by someone else. That way at least 2 people like it a lot, you and the writer. You have to find the best script you can get your hands on. You look at some of the DVXfest winners and top placers and they're often shooting scripts written by other writers and on top of that, scripts that have been finalists/winners in short script contests. They have a huge edge from the start. I'm just throwing that out there as one perspective or way to do things. I did that with the short I did. I read through 40+ short scripts until I found one I liked a lot. I then showed it to others who confirmed they also liked it, so I made the short. The main goal though with it was to work on improving some technical skills before doing the next feature film.

 

[Huy Vu]

Either you're being honest to what you wanted to make or you're compromising in fear that it may not be accepted, in my eyes. And if it's between someone liking my work, or possibly challenging people (where they may not actually "like" my work), I'd pick the latter.

It's a false dilemma to suggest that just because you're considering the audience's viewpoint that you're somehow "selling out." We've seen far too many examples of artists ignoring all advice to the contrary and insists on being true to their "vision," only to see it crash and burn (i.e The Brown Bunny). It's beneficial to all filmmakers to open the process up to outside perspective, because sometimes your "vision" might just be plain misguided and it's helpful to take a step back and say "Will people respond to this the way that I want them to? And why?" Part of your job as a filmmaker is to shape that response and therefore delivers the message that you intended.

 

[MeAgain]

But there are plenty of people who love The Brown Bunny. Some might consider it a masterwork (I know Jean-Luc Godard loved it). I don't personally think it is, but I think it was worth making. I don't think it's "wrong". He took had an idea, wanted to film that idea, self financed the entire thing, and made it. Even if it's a "disaster" or a failure, the point is he tried something different and unique to his perspective. And that's what we need a lot more of, that's why everything is stale. That film isn't proof of your point, it's proof against it, I'd say.

You can't decide how people will respond to your film after it is made. You keep saying getting responses and shaping the film into something that will have people respond in the way you want- but what people? A few test audiences? What people do you mean? You must be referring to the "mainstream audience" that doesn't really exist, because there are 6.5 billion people on the planet and there is no way that there is a "majority consensus". A large quantity of people are used to a certain type of movie because that's what people with money allow them to see. Not everyone has the Angelika around the corner from them, and not everyone is into film enough to know. Just like the top 40 stations on the radio- they're only going to play stuff that is already established, already makes money, already palatable and forgettable. So it sets up this fake idea that if you appease Joe Schmo or Jane Smith, everyone will like the film. Everyone will like Miley Cyrus. Everyone will like Titanic. Everyone will like Star Wars. I think it just adds to the cycle.

Just like you have your own personality. Some people like you, some people don't like you. Who goes around changing themselves just so other people will like them? The people that do wind up hating themselves.

*I'd like to note that I'm not against directors collaborating- I think they should be open to other people working on the film who come up with ideas. Part of a director's job is to filter out what works best for the film. Someone completely outside the process, who isn't in the same mindframe as his collaborators may misinterpret what they're trying to accomplish. But a director's job is also to choose the right people, someone who he can communicate with. Those opinions are more valuable than the outside perspective, I think.

 

[GoodLuck]

I say make the type of movies you enjoy watching.

 

[Huy Vu]

You can't decide how people will respond to your film after it is made. You keep saying getting responses and shaping the film into something that will have people respond in the way you want- but what people? A few test audiences? What people do you mean?

Do you have a message that you want people to take away from your film? Do you want them to feel a certain emotion? Think about certain issues? This is a universal goal regardless of whether you do "cliche" films like you keep mentioning or "innovative" work. Then you need to think about how to present this idea to them the best way you know how. In high school, the first thing they teach about essay writing is that it needs to have a clear thesis. You need to make your point and find ways to clearly support your point. The how is left up to you. Same thing with filmmaking: you have a point you want to make and it's up to YOU to make sure that it reaches as many people as possible. Doing a film "for yourself" would be like writing in code; you'll understand it perfectly but it's useless to everybody else who's not in on it.

When you start out, you'll be doing the same thing that everybody is doing, presenting your ideas in a conventional way. But when you start getting proficient and wanting to experiment, you'll be presenting your work in more novel and original ways. But the trick is to find a way to present the NEW in a way that people can be clued in on it. That's where audience consideration comes in: you need to think whether certain ideas can make sense from an outsider perspective. Of course to you things make perfect sense, but if people aren't given the tools to understand where you're coming from, then your message will be lost and your film becomes a failure. You keep saying you don't care what other people think, but imagine if nobody understands your film and at its core is a great message that no one will ever get because it's not presented clearly. That's the pitfall of the "artist's vision."

 

[Scott F]

...it gets harder and harder as we get more and more inundated with video.

^^ That's it for me right there in a nutshell. (no time to go thru all the responses)

I'm agreeing with Forsman. Get involved with the DVXfest if you want feedback. The last short film contest I entered was such a borefest. Everything was shrouded in secrecy, and after the films were released, no one said s*&%. OTOH, with the DVXfests there is an opportunity to talk amongst the forum about everything from start to finish. And I see plenty of feedback once the films are done.

And LOL at Old Corpse for the use of the word "dildo". It's such an 'old man', degrading and hilarious word.

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

I thought was funny as hell.

 

[Nitsuj]

Time is the most valuable thing anybody can ever have. Once you run out of time then nothing else matters. So you gotta try to sell people in using up their time. Just simply doing something and putting it up for everybody to see won't sell everybody on it. Even still you will never get everybody to take the time to watch your film. There is more to the art of filmmaking than the process or the film itself. I think promotion is a part of the art that should be considered. I also don't think feedback is necessary for a film. I myself make films because it is the only way I know how to satisfy my drive to be creative. I don't rely on feedback to satisfy my drive.