What makes an idea better for a feature vs a tv feature or a short.

J

JJ Alexander

Active member
Hi All,
Are there any type of rules that create a guide for stories that will be better as a feature length movie vs a tv movie vs a short film?
I have been working on a 2 character story and not sure which of 3 dramatic premises will support a full length story best.
I want to avoid writing all 3 storylines and then decide.
If some kind of a guide exists it might steer me in the best direction.

Thanks!
 
Story-wise, don't know why there'd be a conceptual difference between a TV movie and a feature. Structure-wise, maybe, for commercial television because you'd have act breaks. And maybe budget. But the same story could be told either way and often a story written for one will end up being done as the other.
 
JJ Alexander said:
Hi All,
Are there any type of rules that create a guide for stories that will be better as a feature length movie vs a tv movie vs a short film?
I have been working on a 2 character story and not sure which of 3 dramatic premises will support a full length story best.
I want to avoid writing all 3 storylines and then decide.
If some kind of a guide exists it might steer me in the best direction.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I also don't think there is much difference in 'story' between feature, and TV movie... but...

1) Feature films allow for a lot less dialog. Most TV <anything> will be dialog heavy, with less set/location, and so be a 'cheaper' production.
2) TV movies, for 'broadcast' and 'FCC' tend to be lower than PG-13 in types of 'content' restrictions... perhaps even more G. 'cable' TV movies, now are getting out of the mode of producing things that 'play well' on FCC morally censored public airwaves.

Some of these things are changing. I've watched several cable 'broadcast' series, "Rome", "Spartacus", "Mad Men", "Tudors", and all have had more sex and violence than is usually permitted on over-the-air broadcasts. But they still have heavier dialog than what is typical for theatrically released films.

Production values are also improving in the 'made for cable' fare. While watching the "Tudors" the Wife commented on the 6 queens of Henry VIII all had different dresses, stylings, etc. and all looked very good. By the same token, while they had lots of 'set' shots that 'looked good', the location/outdoors shots felt 'lacking' relative to similar shots that would have been in a movie production.
 
The only one that matters here is short or long. I don't know how easy of a criteria you expect, but the decisions are pretty vague. If you find yourself struggling to get to that eightieth page you may have a short on your hands. If the story sounds cluttered, cut the clutter out and make a short. If you have too much to say in a short, make it a feature. The key is that it has to be interesting and engaging for every minute that the audience watches. If you're not sure I would say you probably have a short film in the works. Multiple shorts may also be better if you have too many stories that don't link quite right.

There is no simple answer. You have to decide what works best in your mind.
 
I think there may be a *scope* difference between TV and feature - features tend to be bigger stories. Stakes tend to be bigger, more global. As far as what makes something a short or a feature - that probably comes down to size and complexity of conflict. If the conflict can be easily resolved - short. If the conflict easily escalates and becomes more complicated - feature. If you have to pad the conflict to keep it going - short. Look at it this way - you're going to need close to 60 pages of the protagonist *struggling* with the conflict - if it can easily be solved, you'll never get past 5 pages.

But there is no guide - outline all of your ideas and see what easily goes the distance and what doesn't.
 
If you can imagine Jennifer Love Hewitt in the lead female role, it's a TV movie.

If you can imagine Kate Winslet in the role, it's a theatrical release.

If your lead female actress is of lesser stature than those two, it's a short.
 
Features tend to have more locations, action, visual effects, scope and spectacle. If your script includes creating a world or civilization, period/future, the supernatural or the fantastic, it's probably a feature.

TV movies (MOWs to those in the biz) tend to be contemporary dramas that are female-centric, with more dialogue than action, few settings and a limited cast.
 
I think Bill Martell got it right (unsurprisingly!); it's about the scope, or scale, of the underlying story. "Star Wars" (the original, aka ep 4 "A New Hope") is a good example of a feature-scale story. In a completely different way, so is "The Hangover". They both have very complex underlying stories, both structurally and narratively.

I'm trying and mostly failing to think of features that didn't have 'enough story' but got made anyway, but one I saw recently comes to mind: "Tiny Furniture". It was well received critically (83% Top Critics Tomatometer), and I thought it was cute, charming and quirky enough, but...just not enough meat in the 'story sandwich' if you ask me. I think it 'wanted' to be about a 30-40 minute film - an impossible length of course - too long for a short, too short for a feature. So it was made as a feature. But at the end of it I found myself thinking 'ok...so what actually happened in this film", and the answer was "not a whole lot". In fairness to it, it cost only $50K to make, and looked pretty darn good for that budget. But it grossed less than $400K theatrically. I suspect its failure to achieve bigger success commercially is largely attributable to its lack of a genuinely compelling narrative (aka story).

So, by way of agreement with Mr. Martell, that's what I'd say...it's about the 'scale' (or as he put it, "scope") of the story...
 
Last edited:
I also like to think of a feature, a good feature, as a story involving the GREATEST adventure/journey/event that has, is, or will happen to the protagonist in their ENTIRE life. Take even a 45 minute episode of say the television series Supernatural, or any weekly TV show, there can be high stakes but it will not be the greatest thing to ever happen to the protagonist. In a feature film, what happens is THE event of one's life. Certainly not in a short, not in a TV episode, maybe in a TV movie but as otheres have said a lower budget usually dictates TV/cable movie from theatrical.
 
Popcorn, Ted, Randall and previous posters,
Thank you again.

My story is about racism. 2 men accidently locked in a poolroom. Lifelong competitors and enemies. One black one white. They hate each other and while they don't become friends at the story's end, they are changed. One location but within the poolroom there are 5 very different areas or you might call them sub-locations.
This might be the greatest and most important night of there lives.

I obviously have designed this to be low budget. Only 2 chars & 1 location. I have thought a lot about 'opening up' the story with more characters but I don't think I am going to. I will act and direct.
I am a professional actor (Bway, TV, Film) and was a professional pool player years ago.

The pool playing will be a big part of the story but not for 'flash' or razzle dazzle effect.

I just am not sure if I have a full length story or not. All your suggestions here are a big help.

Thank you!
 
Have you seen "My Dinner With Andre"? Two men sit at a dinner table and talk for two hours. That's it. And it's a well-regarded film; deservedly, IMO. It succeeds (obviously) entirely on writing and acting (incidentally, the characters play their actual selves, but it is not a doc).

Sounds to me like your idea will likewise succeed only if the writing and acting/characters are outstanding. Like "Andre" though, extreme minimalism can work. It just, like any movie, has to be great : )
 
David Jimerson said:
Story-wise, don't know why there'd be a conceptual difference between a TV movie and a feature. Structure-wise, maybe, for commercial television because you'd have act breaks. And maybe budget. But the same story could be told either way and often a story written for one will end up being done as the other.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Execution (to me, anyway--first thought) is what changes it from TV/TV Movie to Theatrical-Type Movie. I.E. how it's shot, so on and so forth.
 
JJ Alexander said:
My story is about racism. 2 men accidently locked in a poolroom. Lifelong competitors and enemies. One black one white. They hate each other and while they don't become friends at the story's end, they are changed. One location but within the poolroom there are 5 very different areas or you might call them sub-locations.
This might be the greatest and most important night of there lives.
...

I just am not sure if I have a full length story or not. All your suggestions here are a big help.
Click to expand...

Since you're not sure if you have enough material, make it a short film under 11 minutes long. Ideally, give it an ending that is a surprise, but after the revelation, will seem inevitable. It doesn't have to be THE SIXTH SENSE, but if you surprise the audience at the end, they will love your film.

Take a look at this book for help on making a short film. Good luck!
 
Ted Spencer said:
Have you seen "My Dinner With Andre"? Two men sit at a dinner table and talk for two hours. That's it....
Click to expand...

Great film, cult classic, I love that film, I remember seeing in a theater when i was in college, mesmerizing dialogue.
Yup, two friends having dinner, period. With great dialogue. It works.

Related-- Before Sunrise. Great film, loved it. Two people talking the entire movie. Period.
I couldn't pull it off, so much dialogue. But it shows what can be done.
 
What's even more minimalistic in "Andre" is that about 80% of the talking is done by...Andre. As true an object lesson in successful cinematic minimalism as there's ever been...
 
I also know and love both 'Sunrise' films. 'Andre' is for sure a classic. 2 men sitting at a table eating and talking. Who would have thunk it! Brilliant! I have all 3 in my video collection.
Thank you!
 
Ted Spencer said:
What's even more minimalistic in "Andre" is that about 80% of the talking is done by...Andre. As true an object lesson in successful cinematic minimalism as there's ever been...
Click to expand...

As I recall, Wally kind of sat there mesmerized, befuddled, his line was usually something like "Huh..." or "Really...".
:)
 
You have more liberties in short films than you do in features. If your story is 1 hour 30 minutes long the audience expects you to develop characters, have a decent plot, make it worth the expense of a $10 ticket.

Short films, you can go abstract, surreal, whatever. It's under 10 minutes and you pretty much can tell whatever story you want to tell and it's okay. No one is paying a dime for it. It's free on YouTube. If it's captivating, it will go viral. If not, a few people will see it.

Short films are like HUGE in what you can actually shoot, because you are limited to your imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top