Writing shorts

A

aFox

Active member
Whats more difficult, whats easier compared to writing features? What works, what doesnt in a short? Write about your own thought, opinions and experiences. Should be interesting :)
 
IMHO, Features are much harder to write than shorts and yet shorts are still pretty damn hard to write. :)

Shorts really force you to focus and trim all the fat. I think writing shorts is actually the best training for writing features, as it can really help you hone your craft as a screenwriter.

In fact, I believe in short script writing so much, I started a whole web site in support of it: MoviePoet.com

Chris
 
I would agree with Chris, a feature is a lot more work than a short. In a feature you have to plan, research, outline, etc, etc...then write something that keeps the audiences attention for 120 minutes. A short, you can just sit down and write (though it's good to plan them also).

I have not completed a feature script yet (currently working on two), but I have written several shorts. And I wholeheartedly agree, writing shorts improves your ability to streamline your writing.

What actually helped me the most was writing for a couple online film contests (where I wrote and shot the film). The first one required the film not exceed 3 minutes, yet be a complete story. The other was here at DVXUser for the Hero Fest, could not exceed 6 minutes.

When I first set out to write the 3 minute one, I was perplexed at how to tell a complete story in so little time...then I noticed most commercials on TV tell a complete story in 30 seconds to 1 minute. :)

Cool site Chris...thanks for starting that...might just be the motivation I need to get some more writing done :thumbsup:

Peace,
Larry
 
Larry,

Thanks for checking out MoviePoet.com. I hope you choose to take part in some of the competitions, we can always use more talented writers. :)

Chris
 
aFox said:
Whats more difficult, whats easier compared to writing features?
Click to expand...

I concur with the other guys. However, I wouldn't say it is 'easier', just different. The only easier part is the length. You still need a solid story with engaging characters and crisp diologue. You need to condense your story and move the audience forward. No easy task. Many folks say they are easier to write, but when you read their short, you realize it was easy because it sucked. Anyone can write 10 pages of garbage. The trick is to write a festival winning short, every time. At least, that should be the goal.



aFox said:
What works and what doesnt in a short?
Click to expand...

The same things that work and don't work in a feature.



.
 
I agree that writing shorts and features have their own set of challenges. I don't agree they're great for twists. They can have one major twist in it, but trying to fit The Usual Suspects in there won't work. Because of the time restrictions, you can't have too many plot twists in a short. There isn't any room for fat, everything absolutely non-essential has to be trimmed. Of course, you could say that a feature shouldn't have any fat either but...

After completing numerous scripts for SpyFest, I can tell you that writing a solid short isn't easy. But I do think its easier than writing a solid feature.
 
I've written a couple of features and a number of shorts (Non sold - or even submitted anywhere) and I would say shorts are far easier for a couple of reasons.

I am merciless when it comes to cutting and I, like many other writers struggle with the second act. With shorts you effectively don't have a second act.

The second and probably most important reason I think a short is easier is you can complete the first rough draft in a weekend. It can be very difficult sustaining the enjoyment of writing if you are labouring over a script for months on end.

The other side of the coin is of course a short is instant gratification (almost) where as a well written, carefully edited feature script is an achievement you can be proud of for the rest of your life.

Also you'll never get Hollywood to cough up mid against high seven figures for that spec short:)
 
marko5000 said:
With shorts you effectively don't have a second act.
Click to expand...
What makes you say that?

I think most shorts still have a very traditional 3 act structure (each act is just much shorter than normal).

My favorite definition of 3 Act Structure is this:

Act I - Get your protagonist up a tree
Act II - Throw things at them
Act III - Get them out of the tree

Obviously the tree is metaphorical, but even most short stories can have that 3 act arc.

Chris

p.s. If your protagonist comes out of the tree alive it's a comedy and if they come down dead it's a drama. :)
 
I'm talking about that 60 minuites of dramatic padding that Sid Field would call the second act.

Of course the drama is in the second act (or the potential for comedy). I simply mean with a short if you only have one obstacle to overcome and it takes two minutes of screen time then it doesn't matter. If you wanted to make a feature out of that idea then you have to seriously pad it out.

Actually saying that I suppose what I mean is that you can use much leaner ideas, that wouldn't have enough meat for a feature, to craft a quality short crammed with ideas.

Does that better explain it?
 
I think you should figure out what you mean before posting.

A short has a second act. In essence, like any story it has a beginning, middle and end. Like I said, the only difference is length. The rest applies. You must have every other element used in a feature, including an engaging story, which more times than not means a three act structure.
 
marko5000 said:
Actually saying that I suppose what I mean is that you can use much leaner ideas, that wouldn't have enough meat for a feature, to craft a quality short crammed with ideas.
Click to expand...
I think that makes perfect sense.

I totally agree that the best shorts are usually lean and tight.

Chris
 
Writing a short film for me is easier because it's less than ten pages. When I've written a feature, I would write for eight long hours and only accomplish two pages. For a short, I secure the locations first and then it takes me a couple of hours to write seven pages.

It's the approach.

I approach a short film as though it were a snippet of a movie or a reader's digest version of a television episode. If you think BIG you write BIG. It's really on the approach, and yes, there are definitely THREE parts of a short because I am writing a short like a movie or episode.

If you change your approach, you'll attack the short with greater satisfaction.
 
johnlabonney said:
I agree that writing shorts and features have their own set of challenges. I don't agree they're great for twists. They can have one major twist in it, but trying to fit The Usual Suspects in there won't work. Because of the time restrictions, you can't have too many plot twists in a short. There isn't any room for fat, everything absolutely non-essential has to be trimmed. Of course, you could say that a feature shouldn't have any fat either but...

After completing numerous scripts for SpyFest, I can tell you that writing a solid short isn't easy. But I do think its easier than writing a solid feature.
Click to expand...

I meant one major twist at the end. For instance, last month's MoviePoet winner was about a couple waiting for someone, and who the someone turned out to be, confounding your expectations, was the funny twist. It also managed to say something about family relationships in general and to paint solid characters.
 
i have only written two shorts up until now. For me the problem (aside from coming up with compelling story and characters) always seems to be, that may ideas dont fit into a short, too much exposition. I am not sure but it seems to me, that it is easier when a short only plays in one or very few locations. One thing i really think is very diificult in a short is to get people to care for the characters, because there is just not a lot of time to get to know them. Maybe its a question of where to start the short, to find the best szene to start, i will have to find out.
 
On caring for the character, use an everyday trait, or a moment to get us to root for your character. In my latest short I have my hero grab a lollipop. That shows us a sign of innocence, of youth. You could have your character pay someone's parking meter, feed a dog, show kindness to someone.

Blake Snyder calls is the "Save the Cat" moment. Buy his book, it's a good read.
 
Most of the comments have been great so far, but to add something that I don't believe was mentioned earlier: Shorts also tend to allow for more quirky and inventive premises, the sort of concept where anything more than "short and sweet" would become tedious or dull. There are times when a short is the best way to convey a particular story.


This naturally isn't to imply that features can't be creative (quite the contrary in fact) but they are constrained in that their premises have to be capable of adequately fitting into a 1.5-2 hour time slot. They can't revolve around a snappy punch line or concept as shorts do.


It's much the same way with short stories/novellas. Stephen King does a very unsettling one about a guy who is (presumed?) dead and is on the autopsy table (I don't want to say anything to spoil it). The concept works wonderfully as a short, but it would probably not work as a full length story.


So one of the advantages of shorts is being able to play with fun concepts that wouldn't work well if stretched out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top