Sundance Rejection Letter

SHORTS ANNOUNCED.

http://festival.sundance.org/2010/p...e_film_festival_announces_short_film_program/

PRECEEDING TWEETS:

NEWEST

  1. I never get tired of this part: congrats to the #sundance short film class of 2010. –TG http://bit.ly/7UknlF less than 20 seconds ago from web

  2. Shorts aren’t just calling card films. 16 feature directors in the 2010 program started at #sundance with shorts. Happens every year. -TG 7 minutes ago from web

  3. Final meetings with the shorts programmers now. What a killer crew, they have been working nonstop for months. I salute them. -TG about 1 hour ago from web

  4. @KstewRpattzNews: it is a record breaking year, yes! 6,092 is the combined total of US and Intl shorts submissions, can u believe it!? about 2 hours ago from web in reply to KstewRpattzNews

  5. Been doing this for 16 years and it never gets easier. Am I the only one blown away by 6,092 submissions this year!? –TG #sundance about 2 hours ago from web

  6. @semainecannes: got a couple things to run thru yet with the team, (dot i's, cross t's) but it should post right at 12:55 PM PST. about 3 hours ago from web in reply to semainecannes

  7. Morning. Trevor Groth here, taking over the feed. Just arrived at L.A. #sundance offices, finalizing shorts today. Stay tuned here. about 3 hours ago from web
OLDEST
 
Hm ... I got my rejection email(s) 6 minutes after they had their final meeting / announced the short films.

I'd be tempted to read something into this - like maybe I was in close contention for the last few - except for the fact that I got 2 rejection emails for the 2 shorts I sent in and there's just no way they were both in contention, given the odds etc.
 
adamr316 said:
Yeah...I'm one of those people who made that point. Seriously, unless you "know someone" at Sundance or have some sort of media garnering (this is where having a name actor in your film helps) then Sundance is a waste of money IMHO.

Seriously, spend your submission fee elsewhere at small, but still big film festivals. Sundance used to be truly indie but it has turned into a commercialized affair.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, a buddy of mine won Sundance last year with his short: Short Term 12 and it was just announced that he is in the final 10 shorts up for an Academy Award Nomination and to my knowledge he had no connections and had never previously been accepted into Sundance. I'm sure having connections help, but having a good story with GREAT acting can still get you in the door.

Also, after winning Sundance, his film still was getting rejected by other festivals.
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Hm ... I got my rejection email(s) 6 minutes after they had their final meeting / announced the short films.

I'd be tempted to read something into this - like maybe I was in close contention for the last few - except for the fact that I got 2 rejection emails for the 2 shorts I sent in and there's just no way they were both in contention, given the odds etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you were in consideration for the last few...so was I, let's put it that way.
 
Whether or not it's worth it to spend $45 to submit, I find that a lot of people are completely blind to the merits of their movies. Even after a scathing critique by multiple viewers, and very evident weaknesses, a few productions I know just blindly sent their stuff off to Sundance.

Granted, a lot of the selections are political and based on who made it and what names are in it, but lacking the names, the connections, any merit, and faint or nonexistent praise, I don't know why people send their stuff in and spend $45. In that case it's not any better than the lottery - it's worse. At least in a lottery you have as much chance as the next Joe.
 
"Successful Alcoholics(Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts; Screenwriter: T.J. Miller)-Drake and Lindsay are successful alcoholics who may need to redefine their definition of "success.""
:)
 
dadoboy said:
Even after a scathing critique by multiple viewers, and very evident weaknesses, a few productions I know just blindly sent their stuff off to Sundance.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I have been lucky enough to be on few selection panels over the years for local international-level film festivals.....Certainly as prestigious as it gets in my neck of the woods.

While there is certainly a viewing fatigue that can set in, you quickly realise there is also a lot of crap out there. The whole so called democratisation of filmmaking means more films are getting made, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're any good. Many times we couldn't watch till the end.

On one panel we used to meet once a week for several hours. After 14 weeks we watched well over 150 shorts to *recommend* just 10 that we thought would be good enough for the festival. I was on one of 3 panels, that were just watching shorts.

Even after we recommended ten films, they still had to be able to find a slot to program the film against a feature. Something which you should all take note of.....

Any film over 10 minutes is very UNLIKELY to get programmed at a film festival that programs features simply because by the time it's in front of a feature, it takes too long to turn the session around. They'd have to program it in it's own shorts program.

It's amazing how many * TRULY * original films get made. Many many many of the shorts I watched had already been made before in some form or another. Lots of filmmakers are telling the same stories.

With prestigious festivals like Sundance they can afford to be choosy. Everyone wants to get in so they can cherry pick the very best films, long and short.

It might seem like only films with name actors get in, but likely it's because most of the good actors that can lift and carry a film usually already have some kind of profile. The film is genuinely better for their involvement.

We had a way of scoring films on our panels and I always thought it would be great if the filmmakers got their scores back from the fest. At least the filmmakers would know what the selectors thought. Remember, festivals have a programming angle that they are looking for. You might have made a film that just doesn't suit their take...

The biggest fest I was involved with wanted us to be pre-disposed to Australian films (given it's an Australian fest it figures) and films that were less than 10 mins (see above) and they preferenced films that would be Australian and world premieres.

Then it had to fit into the logistics and realities of their schedule. ie there had to be a slot they could program it in.

Filmmaking Isn't democratic.

jb
 
dadoboy said:
Whether or not it's worth it to spend $45 to submit, I find that a lot of people are completely blind to the merits of their movies. Even after a scathing critique by multiple viewers, and very evident weaknesses, a few productions I know just blindly sent their stuff off to Sundance.
Click to expand...

This is true but even good movies have stiff competition. I was on a selection committee for a film festival that isn't even one of the majors (although it's a good festival to be sure) and despite a ton of sub-par material (some even godawful) there were films that I recommended highly that did not make the final cut. And I recommended very few. I believe I gave 5 (out of about 85 that I viewed) a recommend and 1 of them did not make the final cut which I felt bad about but also realize how lucky I am whenever I'm able to get a film into a festival.

-M
 
John Brawley said:
We had a way of scoring films on our panels and I always thought it would be great if the filmmakers got their scores back from the fest. At least the filmmakers would know what the selectors thought. Remember, festivals have a programming angle that they are looking for. You might have made a film that just doesn't suit their take...
Click to expand...

Care to share with us what some of those scoring parameters were? Aside from the geographic (Australian, in your example) or otherwise festival-specifically skewed ones...
 
Zak Forsman said:
me too. particularly in the shorts blocks.
Click to expand...

I haven't attended festival screenings in any number to speak of, but it has never ceased to amaze me how boring most short films are, especially considering that they're...well...*short*. Many have lost my interest almost immediately, and then continue to bore me until I shut the darn things off a few minutes later. If a filmmaker can't make a movie that will hold my attention for 5-10 minutes they pretty darn well better rethink their game plan for fame and fortune in the cinematic big leagues...

I think short filmmakers should spend more time looking at 30 second TV spots for an object lesson on how to tell entertaining stories in abbreviated form. Or, even if slightly slightly overlong by short film standards, episodes of "60 Minutes". The late, great Don Hewitt, producer of the show from its inception until just recently, had one mantra he repeated over and over to his segment producers: "Tell me a story". Filmmakers, of both features and for whatever reason *especially* shorts, should have that tattooed to the insides of their eyelids.
 
the worst is when you're in the middle of a shorts block and a real clunker starts up and you check your program and see it's not going to be five minutes, or ten minutes or fifteen minutes until the next short.... rather its going to be 45 minutes. that's painful.
 
Ted Spencer said:
I think you meant to say how *few* truly original films...

Right?
Click to expand...

Woops. Yes indeed.

Ted Spencer said:
Care to share with us what some of those scoring parameters were? Aside from the geographic (Australian, in your example) or otherwise festival-specifically skewed ones...
Click to expand...

Well we were always looking for something original, something that stood out and above the other films. It didn't have to be polished and the acting didn't have to be awesome. Just tell an original story ! If you can tell an original story and tell it well then you're onto something.

There were several of us on the panel. We'd screen the film. If it was less than 5 mins we'd force ourselves to watch it to the end. We always felt that if we were bored then the audience would be as well. We felt like we were there to make sure the audience was seeing something fresh, original and perhaps challenging ( and not because it's unwatchable )

Even if you think you've made an original film, the chances are there is another film out there that is similar. I'd encourage filmmakers to actively watch as many films as you can.

jb
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
If you can tell an original story and tell it well then you're onto something.
Click to expand...

This is exactly, precisely, what I believe to be *the key thing*. And I've probably said it here enough times to PO a few people who think otherwise...

Hopefully my first short film, coming in 2010, will exemplify it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top