Short or feature?

R

randomname

Well-known member
I graduate college in a year, and right now my goal is to have a movie that I can take around the festival circuit ready by next summer. My goal would be to try to impress someone enough to give me something that actually resembles a real budget (I can probably scrap together $3-5k for this project). My question is, would it be better to make an absurdly low budget feature, or pool all of my resources into one really great short? I'm not expecting to be the next district 9, I just want to know what would be a better avenue? And if it is a short, whats the best length to go with? The really short short thats more about the concept than anything else, or a longer one that actually develops characters a little?
 
I had a friend make a 3k feature on s-8, his next film was on 16 and it launched an amazing career. His philosophy was that you can always make money on a feature, and a short your throwing your money away. If you have a great feature script and you can shoot it for 3k go for it, if not shoot the short. Many dvxuser members have made features on super slim budgets and now believe that it was a waste of time and resources (others believe it was invaluable). Good luck.
 
'But if you spend 3K on an amazing short, you'd be making that money back tenfold in career possibilities." Maybe. You can look at the career path of filmakers who have had oscar nominations for short films (or won major festival awards) and see that it isn't so cut and dried. It can be a brutal business for talented filmakers and a great short or feature doesn't guarantee you anything. Make whatever story you are passionate about and if it doesn't help your career at least you made something you cared about. Good luck.
 
We made a feature for 5K and have received some festival play for it. For some people, it may matter more that you made a feature since a feature can be sold but it can also prove that you can handle a big project. But a great short film can be a pretty amazing calling card for some.

Right now I'm producing a $40k short film for an NYU grad. I suggested he make a feature with that size budget but he wants to really shoot on RED and that balloons the project budget because of the entire crew (Production & Post) that has to be hired and paid not to mention all of the equipment we have to rent. I have no idea what his plans are after this short is completed though. Festival play will be good, but maybe he can use this short to fund a feature next time.
 
Yeah

Yeah

I'd go with a short for sure, that is not even close to enough money to make a feature film. I know some people here will tell you otherwise but any professional will laugh at you and that's a fact. Even if you're playing with a few hundred thousand, that is an almost no budget feature, and the only way you can do something with that type of money is to have amazing producers with a lot of connections and some actor friends who are excellent and will do you a huge favor by being in your film for SAG Ultra Low Budget minimum. It's extremely difficult to make a film for a few hundred grand and have it be fully professional and up to standards, but $5K? I mean come on. Our craft services budget is more than that. We have almost that much budgeted just for fuel and vehicles. Even at the lowest wages our cast budget is still about that much. The point is that's a joke.

Even $5,000 for a short requires a lot of creativity and begging and borrowing because my first pro short was only 7 minutes long and we did fantastic to do it for $9,000. Got one location for free, used it to represent two locations, then the other location for $500, so we paid next to nothing overall on locations, $500 for three essentially (three script locations, two physical ones). We paid our actors the minimum SAG would allow. Heck my AD made $100/day, we even used equipment that I already owned and edited on my own system, and managed to get food and drinks down to $450 for two days, which is excellent. Still it was $9,000 total. So again, $5,000 is short film territory and you better be even more creative with spending money than we were. I really tried to be cheap and that was as low budget as I could get it. I had shot a music video for $10,000 in one day, so two days $9,000 was excellent.

It costs money to do things right. If you don't care about that, and quality is no object, I don't see how you'd make it in Hollywood anyway. ;)

It IS true, however, that money spent on a short is basically entirely wasted as far as direct ROI. Indirectly, it can be really useful. I'm directing my first feature and if I hadn't even done one pro short before this, it might have been kind of awkward with my producers, I'm not sure what they would have said. They loved the script but it was immensely useful to have that short to show them. Not only that but their last feature won the same festival that I won, so it was a big connecting point and I think gave me legitimacy as a director in their eyes. That definitely made it worthwhile and it gave me enough confidence to proceed on a feature, too. So a short can be really useful to your career but I would caution you not to get stuck in 'short land' as I call it, where you keep on screwing around doing short after short because you never have enough confidence to jump into a feature. At some point, it's just jerking around and is a waste of time and money. Shorts aren't like features anyway, they are each an art form in their own right, and while a lot of skills transfer between both of course, storytelling is very different I believe between a 5-10 minute short with minimal character development possible and a 90-120 minute feature where you need not only character growth from your leads but even from your supporting roles.

Anyone who tells you that it's hard to make back your money on a $100,000 or $200,000 film has no clue what they're talking about, though. It's not hard at all if you're making a real movie with real crew and real actors. If you can't make that money back, you don't have a real movie. That's the problem and why it's dangerous to listen to every DVXUser, because some dude makes a film in Oklahoma with his buddies who know nothing about filmmaking and none of these people have any connections to distributors or the film industry at all, they waste their money, come up with a turd of a film that has awful acting and basically awful everything, then they whine and moan about how indie films are "impossible" to make your money back. That's nonsense.
 
I actually agree with alot of what you said Jonathan, but it would be wrong of you to think that some of us can't achieve quality with a small budget.

Our $5K movie:
http://www.mindwarpentertainment.com/2/30/hands_of_god_trailer/

We were able to do this on a low budget mostly thanks to the actors and our DP. They all loved the story so they did not mind working on this film at all. Craft services was about 1/3 of our budget. Yes, alot of people dedicated their time to us, but I'll be damned if I ever let anyone go hungry on my set.

If anything, this film helped our DP get several feature film gigs after our film because everyone was impressed on what we accomplished on such a shoe string budget. Getting festival play with your small film will attract more people and money to your next project because people know you can get **** done.
 
Yes

Yes

I would just caution that it's borderline impossible to make a quality feature for what would be considered "cheap" to a normal person. Even a few hundred thousand is "cheap" to most real producers, they talk about it like it's nothing, a no-budget project, because everyone makes $100-125 per day or whatever is minimum wage basically for a 12-hour shoot day. And most films are going to carry a crew of 20 to 30 people when all is said and done, depending on the day and the needs. Then there are equipment expenses, props and wardrobe, production design, locations (even if most are free or cheap), food, gas, it all adds up so fast.
 
Evaluate your production abilities with a scene. If you can produce a scene that looks like it came out of a quality movie or tv narrative, then you'll have a good idea of what larger project might have a chance to become.

I often see people who couldn't craft a scene to save their own life and they waste a lot time thinking that somehow if its just longer, (as in a feature), the quality will just magically show up. Sorry but if the writer(s) can't write, the actors can't act, the director sucks, etc., why draw out the agony by making it longer?

After you take the scene right through post, do a review and pick it apart. Then take all the notes of what you would do the next time and produce the scene again.
 
I think I'm going to go the short route. I think a feature would be feasible as everyone working on it is either in college or just out of it and everyone would be working for free. I just like the idea of having a highly polished short to shop around more than a feature where, realistically, the best reviews it could get are "impressive for the budget". Also, Jonathan, I appreciate your input but the idea that great movies can't come out of a shoestring budget is incredibly arrogant, I have no idea who you are but I'd be willing to bet money that "Primer" was a hell of a lot better than anything you've worked on.
 
randomname said:
I think I'm going to go the short route. I think a feature would be feasible as everyone working on it is either in college or just out of it and everyone would be working for free. I just like the idea of having a highly polished short to shop around more than a feature where, realistically, the best reviews it could get are "impressive for the budget". Also, Jonathan, I appreciate your input but the idea that great movies can't come out of a shoestring budget is incredibly arrogant, I have no idea who you are but I'd be willing to bet money that "Primer" was a hell of a lot better than anything you've worked on.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that Primer, like so many other indie films are diamonds in the rough. For every 1-2% success stories we hear, there are about 98-99% failures. Jonathan was only being truthful with you and I'm sure he wasn't talking down to you.

One last thing, if you are still in college, ask about a Special Projects class in your film department. Believe it or not, I shot my first feature in college titled SANTOS (www.santosthemovie.com). $1500 budget and got class credit for it. Everyone worked for free. UT-Austin has a class titled RTF 366 Special Projects. A prof. can sign off on your project (once he has approved your script, shooting and editing, schedule) and if you can put it all together in one semester, then you get an A. If you fail to finish the feature, you get a nice big fat F.

The point of this class is to fully measure your own potential and it forces you to learn every detail while you manage your feature project. Of course, the movie itself is terrible in my opinion but I wouldn't be the filmmaker I am today with this important experience and lesson. Besides, $1500 is worth an A to me :Drogar-Happy(DBG):.
 
Carlos Corral said:
You have to remember that Primer, like so many other indie films are diamonds in the rough. For every 1-2% success stories we hear, there are about 98-99% failures. Jonathan was only being truthful with you and I'm sure he wasn't talking down to you.

One last thing, if you are still in college, ask about a Special Projects class in your film department. Believe it or not, I shot my first feature in college titled SANTOS (www.santosthemovie.com). $1500 budget and got class credit for it. Everyone worked for free. UT-Austin has a class titled RTF 366 Special Projects. A prof. can sign off on your project (once he has approved your script, shooting and editing, schedule) and if you can put it all together in one semester, then you get an A. If you fail to finish the feature, you get a nice big fat F.

The point of this class is to fully measure your own potential and it forces you to learn every detail while you manage your feature project. Of course, the movie itself is terrible in my opinion but I wouldn't be the filmmaker I am today with this important experience and lesson. Besides, $1500 is worth an A to me :Drogar-Happy(DBG):.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thanks for that Carlos, that's all I'm saying is that it's an odds game and the less money you have, the tougher it is to turn a great script into a great movie. But if you have a bad script you're doomed anyway, lol. The simple fact is that most scripts aren't very good, so it's kind of a moot point, but if you do have a very good script it doesn't guarantee a good film, that part is tough work too. There are so many ways a film project can get derailed.

You CAN make a good movie on a low budget, but honestly $200,000 IS a low budget, lol. There is a limit to what you can do with no money, but as long as your story fits with your budget it may be doable. You just can't write Transformers and do it for $5,000. But you may be able to write some very clever two character, one location film that you can do for $5,000. *shrug*
 
Script is the key, absolutely. Maybe its just a fluke but the majority of my friends (some very close some not so much anymore) who have made low budget films (under 50k and most much less) have been successful. Some are well known today. Most weren't teenagers (actually i don't believe any were) and all had been preparing for a long time, writing screenplays, plays, filming, acting, having constant meaningful discussions of film. It was their number one priority for years, some a decade or more. Most received very little help from parents or family (money wise). 200k is the lowest low budg well I'd respectfully say it depends on the script.
I know a few real producers/directors and I can tell you they don't look down their noses at 200k. These are people who have worked with 30-40 mil budgets (producers/directors but will work on films under 100k if they are passionate about the project (some have slummed down for films under 50k). They are incredibly imaginative filmakers/producers who figure out a way to get it on the screen and most have come out Guerrila theatre/filmaking (some cut their teeth putting on plays and making a profit with $200 budgets). I don't dismiss anyones views of the harsh reality of making a low budget feature film, it isn't the only one.
 
Yes

Yes

Yeah, I mean it is all about the script, if it's a great script you can get highly professional people aboard for little money if they have the time and inclination to help you out. It's a lot of IFs, and it's difficult as heck, but it can be done.

I'm not surprised most of your friends did well, you should do well with a budget that low, you have to seriously make a huge POS not to make back a few hundred thousand, honestly. Every real producer I've spoken to about films in that budget range considers them a slam-dunk to make their money back eventually. While nothing is guaranteed in our industry, the biggest risk is not finishing the film, having major setbacks or something that make it a waste of money. But if you finish a professional looking and sounding film that is at least of decent quality you should eventually make your money back. The better it is, the stronger the quality of the film, not only the more money you'll make in general but the faster you'll start seeing it.

One thing you have to learn on this forum is that people are speaking different languages, and that threw me off for a long time. Bottom line is there is a huge difference between making a fully professional indie film and screwing around with a camcorder. One is not tough to turn a success from, the other is going nowhere the vast majority of the time. The key is figuring out which one you're doing ;) LOL
 
I say do a feature. But that's just me. But you really have to have the skills to pull it off. We shot a feature last year for $1500 and sold it for $10k but it looked like it cost much more to shoot. We had Fantastic Locations for free and a team of great actors. I could not see sinking 5k into a short film. I could do a lot with 5k on a small scale feature film. But again, that's just me.
 
"One thing you have to learn on this forum is that people are speaking different languages, and that threw me off for a long time." Yeah me too, I just assume anyone making a picture will have a great script. I wrote (with a writing partner) for an A list actor for a number of years. I loved every minute of it and was treated really really well but at the end of the day the projects we wrote most likely won't get made for many reasons (they developed 15-20 scripts and actually so far have only made one.) I made that change a few years ago and have been satisfied it was the right choice for me. I have to keep in mind that everyone has different desires, abilities or expectations. A $300 short that is horrible isn't the end of the world but a 30k for some people could be.
 
A mistake many filmmakers make is to think in big budget terms. I have to pay everything, pay locations, get a larger crew than what I need, shoot with everyone entirely dedicated to the project, at high cost per day, on a short shooting schedule. That's not the only way.

Nolan's Following is a good example. It's a feature that cost less than most of the practically useless short films that filmschool graduates do. It's the epitome of no budget filmmaking. But most new filmmakers focus on the no budget success stories with the $50million sales. Those that are the result of luck, circumstance and major distributor efforts in marketing. Those that look bad, those who do not help anyone's career, and those that should be ignored.

Following used almost no lights at all. It used handheld camera. It was shot when people were available (saturdays) and without distracting anyone's dayjob. I assume the actors were friends and the producer was Nolan's girl. Even the stock was progressively funded from Nolan's small dayjob salary. He used heavy rehearshing to minimise shooting cost, 2 rehearshals per week for 6 months before even starting shooting. The actors knew the material, something that is quite rare on rushed productions in the high budget mentality. As a result, the shooting ratio was less than 2:1 according to Nolan. All locations were free. The apartments of friends were used, the streets were used, the house of Nolan's parents was used and his mother did the catering. The shooting ratio minimised cost in everything, production, processing, post production.

Judging by Nolan's career, and the quantum leaps in his budget from film to film, I would say that people do care about what you can do on a low budget. Following did not sell tickets, but it was a feature, it demonstrated serious filmmaking skill. That's what the business is looking for. Even if you could have very high production value or name stars or anything like that in your first feature, it would probably do more harm than good.

I believe a short is not a very good idea.

As an example, you can easily get music composed for a feature for free. Even professional composers with 20 years of studies will do it for free if it's interesting. Scoring a feature film is a priceless credit.

A short never got any actor noticed. Leading a feature is an excellent opportunity. Actors will do it for free. Many of the crew will work for free if it is a feature. Even getting hair and makeup work at the cost of materials is of value in a no budget production.

A short carries a large part of the preproduction work a no budget feature does. You can shoot a short in 5 locations with 5 actors or a feature in 5 locations with 5 actors. You still need to secure 5 locations and do the casting to end up with 5 people.

A short does not demonstrate much. A feature can show a lot about the filmmaker, the skill, the ability to handle the load of a feature and actually finish it. A short does not allow you to demonstrate your skills. A short is, well, too short, you can't even pull the viewer in your story.
 
I would also encourage the feature route, but only under the condition that you know you can handle it. I'm a university student right now and I know that I could never handle making a feature at this point in time which is why I make shorts. One of the major advantages of a short, I think, is the time investment. You can get it out quicker with less time invested into the various stages of production.

But if you were to do the short, I wouldn't spend 3-5k on it. That's 3-5K you can spend on something else that will actually be useful as opposed to a short which you probably won't make money on.

I mean, if you're considering making a feature on 3-5K you may was well make the feature on 3-5K and make a short for $100.00 several months before because if you think you can make a low budget feature work than I'm sure you can also make a low budget short work too. Why not have both?
 
I'd rather shoot my feature first since my short ideas require me to get permits to shoot at some places (office buildings). My feature is only going to be shot at my parents and friends' houses.

Of course, I can come up with a short to be shot at places I can get for free, but my feature is my main priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top