archived-videos What i s"feature length"?
- Thread starter sonnyboo
- Start date
Great video! It's funny how this was just posted since I was just asking myself today, "what is a feature?" and "what is a short?" I saw a film that was 61 minutes long today and I didn't know whether to put it on my favorite feature films list or my favorite short films list. I think it depends when it was made too, when Charlie Chaplin made The Kid in 1921 at the length of 50 minutes, it was considered a feature. Today if someone makes a film like that, it would be in that "black hole" you mentioned which is pretty much a long short film.
Nice! Like the Overlook Hotel carpet background! 
Thanks a lot! 
Dug it. Shared it on FB, too.
I hope you don't mind reposting it with the corrected URL in a few minutes (hated the greenscreen and had to re-render it and damn YouTube doesn't let you keep the link).
Nice! Like the Overlook Hotel carpet background!
soooooo glad someone caught that!
Good grief! What a dizzying array of minimum times/pages. 
Had no idea there were such discrepancies on the topic.
Nice background!
Had no idea there were such discrepancies on the topic.Nice background!
Good grief! What a dizzying array of minimum times/pages.
Me either until I researched it for the video. I personally have no clue what I consider feature length anymore.
Sure, you cant overlook this.
I've always been the caretaker. Has anyone seen my two daughters lately?
Honestly, I wish there were more "features" between 45 and 75 minutes! Then we could have double features, like the old days! I don't like overly long movies (even 2 hours), unless the material is riveting. I don't think that 40 minutes should be a short film. With commercials, that is an hour episode, easy.
At our yearly IndieMeet fest, I've seen 45 minute "shorts" play. They tend to lose the audience, as they are usually a stretched out concept and not a whole story. Now, if it's trying to tell a full story (like the Charlie Chaplin movie), the pace feels much faster and it feels like a feature.
Anyway, I don't care what SAG and the WGA say (80 and 90 minute minimums to be a feature). That is wrongfully excluding a lot of features that played in theaters, during the early decades of film. Let's see, FRANKENSTEIN was 70 minutes. So was THE WOLF MAN. The MUMMY was 73 minutes and DRACULA was 75. Many were shorter than those.
I hate how people have to redefine everything. I understand that 100 minutes is the ideal length, nowadays, but I wish that these off-shoots of the industry would learn more about the origins of the business they are in.
I agree, I've said this before but I really believe there is no reason why a filmmaker needs two hours to tell a good story. Those examples you mentioned are awesome films that I enjoy. I guess now with such high ticket prices it may be harder for me to admire paying for a 60 minute film, however if it's a great film it's a great film regardless of length. I try to watch films of any length but I always find myself watching films that are 90 minutes or less because they just seem to fit my taste perfectly. I remember the second time I saw His Girl Friday (a 90 minute film) and I was surprised by how it told so much more than the drawn out pictures today. Same goes for Frankenstein and its sequel which are even shorter at 60 minutes each. Maybe we should try making some 60 minute pictures and screen them as double-features to start this trend again!
After the GRINDHOUSE double feature bombed so horribly at the box office, don't expect the movie theaters to get too excited by the prospect...
Which is sad because it was a good idea, except Robert Rodriguez did one of them.