defining "feature length"

sonnyboo

sonnyboo

A question that comes up often is "How long is feature length?"

I'm currently reading the book BLOCKBUSTING from George Lucas and the opening chapter gives this info (I paraphrase):

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, AFI, and the BFI all state that 40 minutes or over. The Centre National de la Cinematographie in France says 58 minutes or longer. SAG says 80 minute or longer.
Click to expand...

So there is no 100% standard. Each film festival I know of has slightly different run times too for what is and is not feature length.

I guess it really does depend on who you talk to.
 
I have no idea about the French, but the AMPAS has their standard
for Oscar qualification and SAG has theirs for compensation. As
you point out, festivals each have their own length and so do
distributors.

The term came from the early days when a program would be a
newsreel, a cartoon, a short subject, a serial, the “B” picture
and the “feature” presentation - the movie that was featured on
the marquee. It’s also where we get “B’ movie.
 
indietalk said:
Now define a short :D
Click to expand...
Well, I have no idea about the French, but the AMPAS has
their definition for Oscar qualification and SAG has theirs for
compensation and exhibition. And festivals each have their
own definition of a short...
 
Yes, it is always different.

Festivals range from 40-65min+ most are 50min+

SAG considers 80mins+ a hollywood feature.
 
I think an audience best determines what 'feature-length', is. Without factoring in quality, and at 10-14 bucks a pop, *they* expect a good 80+ min. Festivals are a seperate issue, IMO, because peeps usually follow specific genres or topics, and consider a block/day/weekend (lol), the experience. :)
 
Eighty minutes or more is about right for me. I'll consider a short anything that's under half an hour, so I'm not sure what I'd say for something that's longer than that but less than eighty.

Hmmmm.
 
I called my last film a "featurette" at 35 minutes. It fell into the length of the old one reelers. For festival purposes it was a VERY long short. One of the factors that really hurt it as far as festival acceptance. The main reason this time I'm doing a "festival friendly" 15 minute film.
 
I've often wondered, if I did 3 halfhour featurettes/shorts and put them together in an 90 minute package, do I have a 90 min feature, or 3 30 min featurettes/shorts?.



This idea isn't done too much anymore as far as big budget pictures (closest I've seen was the "Grindhouse" combo, which really was just two featurettes that in turn led to 2 different full length versions being released on DVD (I really liked Deathproof :)). I guess it's more in the independents where we may see 3 or 4 shorts put together to make a "feature".
 
Tinalera said:
I've often wondered, if I did 3 halfhour featurettes/shorts and put them together in an 90 minute package, do I have a 90 min feature, or 3 30 min featurettes/shorts?.



This idea isn't done too much anymore as far as big budget pictures (closest I've seen was the "Grindhouse" combo, which really was just two featurettes that in turn led to 2 different full length versions being released on DVD (I really liked Deathproof :)). I guess it's more in the independents where we may see 3 or 4 shorts put together to make a "feature".
Click to expand...

I think if you tied them together somehow it would be a "feature". Prime examples being "Tales From the Crypt" or "The Twilight Zone" movie.
 
For festival purposes it was a VERY long short.
Click to expand...

Nothing upsets me more about the festival circuit than this prejudice. I understand the reasons for it, but I also think short films of 30-45 minutes deserve a home. If you think of it, this is about the average length of dramatic and comedic television programs. Audiences would be just fine.
 
Uranium City said:
Nothing upsets me more about the festival circuit than this prejudice. I understand the reasons for it, but I also think short films of 30-45 minutes deserve a home. If you think of it, this is about the average length of dramatic and comedic television programs. Audiences would be just fine.
Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir here for sure brother. IMO 30 minutes is the minimum to tell a fully realized narrative. I could NOT tell the story in the last film in under 30 minutes, not possible. I understand their thought process as well. They can program two or three movies in the same time my one movie takes. It still pisses me off though. I KNOW it was a pretty good film. It had flaws, absolutely, but I have seen PLENTY of films with a long list of festival credits that objectively are not as "good" as it was. This time I am playing by their rules, and making a 12 to 16 minute film. I did get in one genre festival with the last one, but it deserved more.
 
I have seen a few, and only a precious few, shorts that are over 20 minutes that were so compelling that I had no idea how long they were or that I thought were complete stories.

To me, and this is solely for my own personal tastes, if you're going to make a 30 minute short, why not make a feature? The time and costs are very similar, and the benefits of a feature versus a long short are much better.

I'm a big believer in the dictum that a short should be short, but I am also not going to dictate to anyone else how they make a film and how long their movies are. I can only apply this to my own movies.
 
I don't think it's always (or even most of the time) true the costs are similar Sonnyboo. I shot a 35 minute short in 5 days with a $6000 budget. That number of days, and that budget were more than adequate for a 35 minute film (if still "microbudget"), in some respects even lavish (at least the number of shooting days). What kind of 80 to 90 minute feature can you shoot in 5 days for $6000... Even Roger Corman would be hard pressed to crank out "Bikini Girls With Machine Guns" with that to work with. Making it a feature would have at least doubled my budget, more likely tripled it, and the same for the number of days shooting. At least for my bank account, there is a BIG difference between $6000 and $15,000 to $20,000.
 
To me, and this is solely for my own personal tastes, if you're going to make a 30 minute short, why not make a feature? The time and costs are very similar, and the benefits of a feature versus a long short are much better.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be either <=15 or >=80? For me its the exact opposite...my favorite short films are all longer. I've seen very few films 15 minutes or less that were compelling enough for me to sit through and recommend. Most of the time when a 7-15 minute movie starts I'm bored within one minute and those 15 minutes are glacial. But most films that end up being closer to 30-45 usually have me hooked from the beginning. It doesn't seem logical...but its true, for me anyway. Perhaps the longer length allows for a more realized act structure or enough character development to make me care.

My favorite films under 15 minutes are usually under 5 minutes.

I find the 7-15 length to be too long for a compact idea and too short for a more complex idea.
 
IMO the 15 minute and under (especially the 1 to 7 minute) short is very similar to a "joke". It's a setup and a punch line. They can certainly work, and I have seen great ones, but they are just different than a true narrative. I'm really trying to do something close to a true narrative in my current 15 to 18 minute short. The only way I feel I have any hope of that is by using one interior location (no wasted time establishing locations), only 2 characters (so only two to have to make the audience care about), and some very discrete use of not true montage, but very short scenes in the beginning to set up the conflict. We'll see how successful I am.
 
Gonzo_Entertainment said:
IMO the 15 minute and under (especially the 1 to 7 minute) short is very similar to a "joke". It's a setup and a punch line. They can certainly work, and I have seen great ones, but they are just different than a true narrative. I'm really trying to do something close to a true narrative in my current 15 to 18 minute short. The only way I feel I have any hope of that is by using one interior location (no wasted time establishing locations), only 2 characters (so only two to have to make the audience care about), and some very discrete use of not true montage, but very short scenes in the beginning to set up the conflict. We'll see how successful I am.
Click to expand...

My first short (needing to clean the audio) Delivery Day was under 10min, in one location(townhouse), has one person and has no dialogue. It is my first "shoot footage and edit, and nevermind details like light, sound, ect):lol:
 
I did it totally bassakwards (as we say around here). The first thing I ever directed/produced in my life was a 35 minute short with a $6000 budget, 5 locations, and 14 actors. Considering I had only the vaguest idea what I was doing it's unbelievably good. Objectively it's not to bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top