Why you should make a GOOD short...

Chris_Keaton

Chris_Keaton

ScriptFEST Mod
I have heard, but I do not know for certain, that the new 'District 9' movie deal was nabbed because of a 6 minute short the director made.

Can anyone verify that? Now wouldn't that be a reason to knock one out of the park.

Enjoy!
 
The new cgi movie 9 (Directed by Shane Acker and produced by Tim Burton and Peter Jackson) was also based off a short (Academy Award nominated no less).
 
And why is he a protege? Because Peter Jackson saw the short. He was going to direct the Halo movie but that fell through. Another lesson would be, "Be a VFX specialist," which is a large part of how he managed to make the short so cool.
 
It's not just one simple thing that got Neil the gig directing District 9, it was a slew of things. He is a good VFX artist, he knows how to tell a story well, he was able to tell an original story, he picked the right way to tell the story, he followed it through to completion, he was able to take what little equipment-budget-cast he had to make it so cool, etc. Ever here the phrase "The whole is greater then the sum of it's parts"? Gestalt. Well, his short had plenty of it. That is why he was chosen for this project. If it wouldn't have been District 9 it would have been some other movie.

But I do agree this is why it is so very important to do your short as well as possible. It only takes one short and one viewing to make things happen.
 
Good advice Chris,

its always important i think for a filmmaker to challenge himself, to strive, and even though this is an accessible and popular festival theme, its no excuse for laziness and filmic masturbation as id put it.

In other words self indulgent nonsense. Be it a comedy monster movie or a serious monster movie, then regardless of its production quality or any of the bullshi* too many folk consider important (the superficial) i want to be delighted and impressed with seeing filmmakers grow. Myself included.

MovieMaster is a good example of someone who is clearly a creative talent, equipment non withstanding that i think can provide a positive inspiration for many participating in the fest with limited means. Some filmmakers will perhaps produce films to simply 'have fun' with it... that is very much the most difficult kind of film to make entertaining for everyone else.

Yep what a fun guy i am - (actually im like Vincent Price from Mask of the Red Death but thats ok!)

As a writer Chris, and for most writers - they are only too aware of the importance of good ideas, thought out stories etc. Too many filmmakers - directors can forgo these elements for styles or superficiality.
 
Last edited:
It is a combination of things that allowed Neil to make District 9, I agree. It usually is. Lots of very talented people never get the opportunity to direct a feature film with that kind of support. But there's no single path to "making it". Neil may have had P. Jackson's support but he made his way as a VFX artist and Tech Director. P. Jackson made his way as a writer and indie director. Zhang Yimou started out as a cinematographer.

What all these people have in common is both a great amount of talent and persistence. Good luck with your shorts! I was thinking of making one myself this season - but I'm still very much in debt (despite my self-delusion).
 
Lately I've been pondering over this hypothetical filmmaker dilemma:

If you had ten or twenty big ones (aka thousands) to spend on a film; is it smarter to make a decent or bland DV/HDV/HVX200 35mm adapter feature film that will probably sink in the sea of mediocre features, or make a kick arse short that will stand out because you were able to spend the dollar to minute-of-running time wisely, as well as use better equipment like a Red One or 35mm film?

Let's face it, even $20,000 is not a lot for a feature, unless you're making something that is cheap to begin with like an easy to shoot contemporary drama or a one location horror film. And that doesn't even take into account the importance of having a 'name actor' so that you have a decent chance to sell it to a distributor and get the darn thing into the major festivals.

So in my case, even saving up $20,000 to spend all on a film is not realistic, so I would have to say that making a really great short film is the way to go. The good thing about it is that even if you want to move into doing low budget features, having an amazing short film should make it easier to approach investors.

I don't know how much Alive In Joburg cost to make. I would bet that if he were to have tried making it as a feature back then in 2006 or whenever he made the short, that it wouldn't have been too cheap to do, even if he kept the whole faux doco style. It is a great short film though. I hope they put a high quality version of it on the District 9 DVD/Blu-ray.
 
Last edited:
Statistically speaking (and not knowing your talent or ability to gather resources), the chances a feature made on $20K will get distribution is like the same chance you're going to the moon. At best it would be a showpiece for festivals or Amazon direct sales.

At only $20K, with no chance for further funding, I would personally just make a short or save it and hope to raise more money in the future for a feature. But if its set at 20 - make a good short.

Nektonic said:
Lately I've been pondering over this hypothetical filmmaker dilemma:

If you had ten or twenty big ones (aka thousands) to spend on a film; is it smarter to make a decent or bland DV/HDV/HVX200 35mm adapter feature film that will probably sink in the sea of mediocre features, or make a kick arse short that will stand out because you were able to spend the dollar to minute-of-running time wisely, as well as use better equipment like a Red One or 35mm film?

Let's face it, even $20,000 is not a lot for a feature, unless you're making something that is cheap to begin with like an easy to shoot contemporary drama or a one location horror film. And that doesn't even take into account the importance of having a 'name actor' so that you have a decent chance to sell it to a distributor and get the darn thing into the major festivals.

So in my case, even saving up $20,000 to spend all on a film is not realistic, so I would have to say that making a really great short film is the way to go. The good thing about it is that even if you want to move into doing low budget features, having an amazing short film should make it easier to approach investors.

I don't know how much Alive In Joburg cost to make. I would bet that if he were to have tried making it as a feature back then in 2006 or whenever he made the short, that it wouldn't have been too cheap to do, even if he kept the whole faux doco style. It is a great short film though. I hope they put a high quality version of it on the District 9 DVD/Blu-ray.
Click to expand...
 
A perfect example of what I'm talking about are these two shorts, made by the same dude. One is a spec trailer. The other is an original short film.

THE TALISMAN Trailer

LOVEFIELD

Both of these look like the director spent a lot of time and a considerable amount of money on to make something completely professional looking. Not only that, they keep you in suspense, and the second one is very unique with a nice little twist. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy eventually got a feature made in the next few years.

Then again there was that $70 zombie feature that recently sold and is getting distribution. So there are no absolutes in filmmaking.

Shawn Philip Nelson said:
Option C - make 20 short films at $1,000 apiece
Click to expand...

Not a bad thing to do to learn how to be a filmmaker. :thumbsup:

Or how about make 10 shorts at $1,000 a piece, then use the second half of the $20,000 to make a really amazing and high production value short film that will utilize all that you learned on those first 10?
 
Last edited:
What with these lucrative little flicks of late and all...
It seems that the time has never been better to make a kick-ass short.


Of course if you can double down on that same 20K, Nektonic...
Link
A (good) feature can be done.
Just sayin'.


Edit: I guess I shoulda said that a (good) feature can be "in the can".
 
Last edited:
Alive in Joburg seems to be a fairly cheap short film which was made in his spare time while working as a VFX artist. Beyond the costs of the alien props, it's Neill doing the majority of the VFX so I don't see how it could cost very much at all.

Apparently, when Jackson was looking for a director for Halo, he was specifically looking for a new, first time director with a unique style. Someone gave him a copy of Neill's work, Alive in Joburg and Tempbot. Jackson was impressed and wanted to meet him. They prepped on Halo for months and while it fell apart, they now still had a bunch of crew people committed to shooting something... so they brainstormed and decided to expand on Alive in Joburg.

I think good, even great short films can be made very cheaply. I feel bad for people spending 5k, 25k or even higher to make short films... most of the time that money is not seen on the screen the way they intended. OR they feel that money is directly related to the 'perception of production value' (not production value itself because the two are different things). This perception comes from the belief that money is the only way to get access to the gear, crew, locations and resources that will allow you "the 'opportunity" to make something that feels cinematic and resembles something you'd see on the big screen.

Another director saw one of my shorts a while ago and was very disheartened and upset when I told him how much mine had cost. He was from the UK and had spent about 50k on his last short film. His film had a nice, polished look to it, but it wasn't very interesting and definitely didn't do the 50k justice.

I think it boils down to justification of that expense. I think doing 10 shorts at $1000 apiece is better than doing one at 20k... With each 1k short, you'll get better and learn from all your little f-ups and there'll be plenty of them. By your 7th or 8th short, you should be feeling pretty good. I could even imagine putting 10 or 20k into your 10th and final short film or something... again, only if it were justifiable... if it's an amazing idea, with an excellent script that absolutely cannot be done if you don't have the right money behind it.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
What with these lucrative little flicks of late and all...It seems that the time has never been better to make a kick-ass short.

Of course if you can double down on that same 20K, Nektonic...
Link
A (good) feature can be done.
Just sayin'.
Edit: I guess I shoulda said that a (good) feature can be "in the can".
Click to expand...

Is that a dollar baby or did you guys get the full rights?
 
lawriejaffa said:
Good advice Chris, .....

As a writer Chris, and for most writers - they are only too aware of the importance of good ideas, thought out stories etc. Too many filmmakers - directors can forgo these elements for styles or superficiality.
Click to expand...

Right on Lawrie, I agree with you again. I heard a quote once, not sure who said or that I'm getting it right, Lawrie correct me if I'm wrong --
"A director that has himself as a writer is like a defendant that has himself as a lawyer." You get the point.
 
You're right Geoff, a great short or even a feature can be made for little to nothing. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of which is it smarter to spend the money on. With shorts that money goes quite a bit farther in most cases. There are always exceptions.

It all depends on the film too. If I want to shoot a contemporary drama about a guy who falls in love with his best friend's girlfriend, then I might be able to get away with not spending more than a couple hundred bucks. If on the other hand, I want to make a film about conquistadors fending off a pack of chupacabras in the jungle, well then I best be prepared to spend some dough. That is unless I don't care if my conquistadors have plastic armor and my chupacabras are made of paper mache and spray paint. And I don't live near a jungle, so travel time and cost would be factor as well.

I would never spend the money just to say, "hey, guess what? My film cost $20,000." You're absolutely right. There needs to be some justification as to why and what large sums of money are spent on no matter if it is a $1,000 indie short or a 200 million Hollywood extravaganza.
 
Chris_Keaton said:
Is that a dollar baby or did you guys get the full rights?
Click to expand...
Yes, and Quite Possibly...
It is the first feature dollar baby ever. However, soon (very soon
fingers_crossed.gif
) King is going to rule yay or nay on distribution.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=161645
 
Brooksy said:
It's not just one simple thing that got Neil the gig directing District 9, it was a slew of things. He is a good VFX artist, he knows how to tell a story well, he was able to tell an original story, he picked the right way to tell the story, he followed it through to completion, he was able to take what little equipment-budget-cast he had to make it so cool, etc.
Click to expand...

Didn't hurt that he was repped by Ari Emanuel.
 
I'm not sure how one can make a short film for under 1K in Los Angeles county. I know some of you have done it though. Unless you shoot primarily interiors in locations where you have the permission from the owners to shoot without permit. Permits are expensive here, and sometimes you need to get 2 two for a location.

Guerilla filmmaking is a dicey gamble here. The times that I've shot or have been on crews without all the proper permits, it's been a 50-50 take on whether the they were shut down or not, and if you were shut down it was followed by threats.

To get away with it, you can't be shooting HMIs or lights through windows, because even if you have permission from the owner of the house, you still need a $500 city permit. Most of the short films I've worked on have been in controlled environments for the most part, and the cheapest one where everyone worked for free was around $3K, most of it going into permits, lights and food.

All the more power to you if you have the luck and balls to go guerilla here though!

Other areas of the country have an advantage doing it super cheap because you can get away with guerilla stuff way easier. Except maybe New York.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top