Dissapointing...

[Brooksy]

So not sure anyone will agree with me on this but would love to hear your thoughts. A few months back we finished shooting a short film. We sent it to a few festivals and then posted it on youtube. Sadly, it sits in hiatus. I feel there is no decent sites for short films to get noticed. Youtube and Vimeo are great but are incredibly over saturated with what seems like junk. How many times can I post it on Facebook? Film festivals are great but that can get expensive and there are only a select few that really are going to push the film to the next level. There are sites like this that are great for a few views but it seems like it quickly gets lost in the shuffle and dies. My question is how do we get seen by people who matter (No offense to anyone)? Even if sites like Aintitcoolnews.com or FilmThreat.com gave us some kind of a chance I would be happier, but it seems they are concerned with features or nothing. What can we as filmmakers do?


Sincerely, a fellow filmmaker who has a short worth seeing.

 

[directorik]

So, you're saying, if you've never completed a short film then you're basically going to have a disastrous feature film? Unless you're in the negligible percentage point that could possibly have a successful one?

Inversely, that means you believe that doing short films somehow raises the chances of a successful feature film production? as if they are the same thing? Just confusing, is all.

To me this isn't confusing at all.

It seems to me that the more practice you have at anything the
better you are at it. That doesn't mean you cannot make a good
feature without making any short films. And it doesn't mean you
will make a successful feature if you make several short films. But
yes, I think doing short films raises the chances of a successful
feature film production. How could it not?

And since making several short films is less expensive than making
several feature films, making a few shorts before tackling a feature
seems like really good advice.

 

[2001 Productions]

And, Brooksy, you think shorts are frustrating? Wait 'til you spend years of your life and thousands of dollars on a feature, only to watch it languish on a shelf because (presumably) you weren't fortunate enough to land name talent for it.

Done it three times in 20+ years -- spent more than $80,000 of my own money and haven't seen a dime. Do you know the definition of insanity?

 

[Kholi]

To me this isn't confusing at all.

It seems to me that the more practice you have at anything the
better you are at it. That doesn't mean you cannot make a good
feature without making any short films.

This isn't what the comment said, it said the exact opposite.

And it doesn't mean you will make a successful feature if you make several short films.

Logical, but the comment was not.

But yes, I think doing short films raises the chances of a successful
feature film production. How could it not?

Maybe, maybe not.

And since making several short films is less expensive than making
several feature films, making a few shorts before tackling a feature
seems like really good advice.

Depends on what the shorts or the features are.

Never said it was bad advice, there wasn't any advice being given, just a statement that didn't make sense (as it was stated almost too plainly).

 

[Kholi]

That's the problem with selling sand in the desert. If you want to be successful, you've got to take the sand from the desert and sell it somewhere they're short on sand. The trick is finding those places.

As great as indietalk is, the truth is it (and any other filmmaking community, site, etc) is the desert. It's a great place to find advice, and support, and inspiration - but it's not the place to find your audience.

Places like YouTube and Vimeo aren't either, they're too broad, too general. Your audience may be there, but they're distributed too broadly to have much chance of reaching them, especially through chance discovery. As platforms they can help amplify a popular film, but you've got to find that popularity elsewhere.

You have to start by knowing who in particular would want to watch your film... if the answer is 'anyone' or 'everyone' then it means you either don't really know the answer, or your film isn't really distinctive enough to stand out among the rest.

Unfortunately I think that may be part of Brooksey's problem. His film is good - but there are a lot of good short films being made these days. I don't see much that makes it distinctive, makes it stand out from all the other good films, makes it speak directly to any specific audience. That's not a knock against the film, but it's a strike against it when it comes to getting people to watch it.

I think you'll need to chalk this one up to experience, and move on to the next film. Only this time, identify an audience first. Figure out who they are, where they are, how you're going to reach them - and what you're going to put in the film that will make that particular audience take notice, identify with it, share it with their friends, etc.

This is advice, and good advice. Realistic, and honest.

But, I typically agree with Donned, anyway.

 

[NickClapper]

I think the age old debate of 'shorts vs a feature' will never be fully solved. It's totally subjective: some people will need the practice to make a decent film, some people will make a decent film straight away and some people could use all the practice in the world and they'd still never make something worthwhile as a feature. There will never be a definitive answer but I think these are solid factual points:

1.) More practice will not make you worse as a filmmaker. It might put you off filmmaking altogether but it is likely to be a positive influence, if it has any influence at all.

2.) If you are making short films for a large, commercial audience then you are barking up the wrong tree. You should make shorts so that you have some narrative work to show potential investors, maybe pick up some festival laurels, maybe meet some interesting cast and crew. But there is no big market for short films so disabuse yourself of that sense of disappointment and get on with some shameless self-promotion.

3.) Tackling a feature film is an entirely different beast to a short. Artistically, logistically and financially the similarities between the two are like the difference between riding a trike and a motorcycle. It's possible to make 100 shorts and still be overwhelmed by the process of shooting a feature. Yes, shorts will help but, in the long run, there are innate characteristics in all successful directors that make it possible for them to shoot features.

4.) If you find the process of shooting shorts fun, shoot shorts. If you find the process ok but would enjoy it if there were more pay-off then, at a certain point, you'll have to accept that you've come as far as you can with the short film medium. Sometimes real ambition gets in the way of finding the process enjoyable.

5.) If you're spending $10,000 on short after short eventually you'll have the piss or get off the pot. Money's hard to find so don't blow it. If you've got it to shoot a short, then shoot a great short. But don't think that just because you've got $10,000 in your bank right now, all you can do is shoot a short. Patience and economy will serve you well in the long run.

Just some thoughts

 

[Kholi]

I think the age old debate of 'shorts vs a feature' will never be fully solved. It's totally subjective: some people will need the practice to make a decent film, some people will make a decent film straight away and some people could use all the practice in the world and they'd still never make something worthwhile as a feature. There will never be a definitive answer but I think these are solid factual points:

1.) More practice will not make you worse as a filmmaker. It might put you off filmmaking altogether but it is likely to be a positive influence, if it has any influence at all.

2.) If you are making short films for a large, commercial audience then you are barking up the wrong tree. You should make shorts so that you have some narrative work to show potential investors, maybe pick up some festival laurels, maybe meet some interesting cast and crew. But there is no big market for short films so disabuse yourself of that sense of disappointment and get on with some shameless self-promotion.

3.) Tackling a feature film is an entirely different beast to a short. Artistically, logistically and financially the similarities between the two are like the difference between riding a trike and a motorcycle. It's possible to make 100 shorts and still be overwhelmed by the process of shooting a feature. Yes, shorts will help but, in the long run, there are innate characteristics in all successful directors that make it possible for them to shoot features.

4.) If you find the process of shooting shorts fun, shoot shorts. If you find the process ok but would enjoy it if there were more pay-off then, at a certain point, you'll have to accept that you've come as far as you can with the short film medium. Sometimes real ambition gets in the way of finding the process enjoyable.

5.) If you're spending $10,000 on short after short eventually you'll have the piss or get off the pot. Money's hard to find so don't blow it. If you've got it to shoot a short, then shoot a great short. But don't think that just because you've got $10,000 in your bank right now, all you can do is shoot a short. Patience and economy will serve you well in the long run.

Just some thoughts

I can't seem to find the +Reputation button, so I am forced to post a +1 for the Clapper. xD

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

The guy who has never piloted a 10' boat MIGHT succeed at driving the ocean liner, but I don't wanna be on board.

 

[Brooksy]

Dang. I am overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude for everyone who took the time to give their opinions on this topic. And also to anyone who watched the piece and gave some feedback. Thanks with my entire filmmaker heart! It means a lot to me. Anywho...

So I agree and disagree with many of the points given here. Some people said that I need to figure out my audience. I know exactly who would enjoy my piece and exactly who wouldn't enjoy my piece, it's getting those people to give me the time of day that is difficult. More importantly it was mentioned that I was being to vague with my line of "People who matter." I agree that is much to vague. In reality I know the exact person who I would show my short film to. I would sit this person down and show the piece. Personally I think that person would enjoy it. Quite a bit. Enough to the point where I think that person would make three phone calls. That person would set up meetings work with the writer on refining everything so it would become either A) A major network pilot. B) Turned into a feature script to be pitched to major motion picture companies that could get the film made.

I know that this person could do it because they are a big force in the Sci-Fi world in television, Film, and comic books, even web series.

The problem I keep seeing is there is no plausible way of getting infront of this person's face. There is no Film Festival that they are going to be at. There is no way of contacting the person directly. Even if I had the contact info, I'm a nobody. Nobody is going to give me a 7 minute 45 second shot. Again I just feel that there should be something out there that helps give us as filmmakers a chance to put our pieces infront of that one person who can make two phone calls and change our lives.

I understand it won't be easy. I don't want easy. I want difficult. But there has to be some kind of way for us to be able to see that carrot.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I see the process of learning to do anything well as a series of three step cycles.

First you learn on a conceptual level - you read about how to do something, watch some tutorials, take classes, etc.

Next you attempt to apply what you've learned in a practical situation - you write a script, shoot it, edit it, apply the concepts to creating something real.

Finally you process what you've done - look back at what worked and what didn't, compare the theory you've learned to the real world experience of attempting to implement that theory. You asses both your successes and the areas you need improvement.

And then you repeat the whole process, going back to the learning phase in an attempt to improve on the areas of weakness you've identified in the previous time around. This is truly a never-ending cycle, but the more you repeat it the finer-grained your refinements and improvements become, while at the same time things that challenged you early on become almost second nature and require less and less conscious attention.

From this perspective I feel there's a significant advantage to making these cycles short - there's a finite limit to what you can learn well at one time, and shorter learning cycles allow you to focus most of your attention on just one or two new things each time around. The key to learning is the repetition of the cycle.

Simply because of it's scope making a feature is necessarily a long learning cycle, and doesn't lend itself well to this learning process, especially in the early cycles. Given the same time frame one could probably make 6 or a dozen shorts and learn quite a bit faster. Certainly - there are aspects of making a feature that can only be learned by actually making a feature, but by getting the stuff that's not specific to features out of the way first you'll be able to focus your limited attention on the things that only making a feature can teach you.

Of course, money can change this equation significantly. A first-time director with no previous filmmaking experience can likely make a decent feature with the right budget - if they spend the money to hire professionals who've already been through this extended learning cycle within their respective fields. Even in that case though having some experience will likely produce better results as it will allow one to better judge the skills, talent and work of those they hire.

It's easier than it's ever been to make short films these days. It's still a lot of hard work. For those starting out the only reason I can see not to do it is if one's hoping to skip the hard work of gaining experience that comes with any advanced skill. To me that's like hoping to become a kung-fu master without years of training and practice. While that may make a great plot point for your first feature film, it's not likely to make that film great.

 

[EuropeanDistributor]

I just watched the short and I have to say I quite enjoyed it.
The premise was good and so was the execution.
It kept me wanting more.

That being said I think your goals are a bit unrealistic.

There isn't a person in the world who will watch your short film and make a phone call and set you up with a feature film production or a tv-pilot. The business doesn't work that way.

I get what you are saying though. I have a list of people who I think if I had 15 minutes alone in a room with I could greenlight a whole bunch of projects. I also know that that isn't realistic at all.
In my mind I am confident that I would be able to do it, but realistically that would be a long shot.

Sure if you could get a powerful and a respected producer to believe in your project, he could set you up with the right people, but that doesn't mean that a movie deal or a tv-deal would just magically happen with a phone call.

If you believe that you can turn your short into a feature, there is only one person in the world who can make it happen, and that is you.

You have to make that movie yourself. You allready did a 7 minute one, why can't you make a 90 minute one too?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

In reality I know the exact person who I would show my short film to. (...) The problem I keep seeing is there is no plausible way of getting infront of this person's face.

Sure there is - plausible is as plausible does. But part of my point earlier was that I don't think that's the real problem...

Again I just feel that there should be something out there that helps give us as filmmakers a chance to put our pieces infront of that one person who can make two phone calls and change our lives.

There is. There are a lot of things that give us that chance, including festivals, the internet, etc - and everyone's taking advantage of it, which is the real source of the problem.

The person you want to show your film to has a finite amount of time and attention. There is a nearly infinite number of people who would like a slice of that time and you are just one of them. So am I, so are many of the other people on indietalk. I'm sure there are creative ways you could actually get your slice of time - but then what? What is it about your film that you believe will convince them to spend more of their time to develop it into a show or feature? What is distinctive about it, what will hook that one person in, what makes it any more likely to do that than any of the other well made short films they likely see on a weekly basis?

That's the problem you have to solve.

I understand it won't be easy. I don't want easy. I want difficult. But there has to be some kind of way for us to be able to see that carrot.

Except that hoping for someone else to make a call that changes your life is sort of wanting it to be easy. Doing the necessary work to change your life yourself is the difficult part.

 

[Brooksy]

Its true that my thoughts are a bit unrealistic. But glad you can see where I am coming from. Also, I realize I sound a bit whiney. I apologize just frustrated that so many of us seem to be getting passed up for movies like... I don't know... anything by Uwe Boll or Titanic in 3-D. But those are my opinions and I digress. Thanks for the view by the way.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I don't think you sound whiney, and none of my advice is intended to single you out in any way. I think you are voicing concerns that most of us here face every day. That's the great thing about indietalk though, it's a place where those concerns can be voiced, and discussed, and hopefully addressed over time.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Hey everybody, I didn't say not to make shorts, I said that as soon as your short is done, it's dead.

Yes, you need to develop your skills and making low/zero-budget shorts help in that regard. But if you expect to get somewhere, making a short is not the ticket. That's the reality.

True, not everyone can make a feature right off the bat, but likewise, not everyone can make a great short even after years of trying.

If you can make a great short, odds are you can make a great feature.

Good luck.

 

[rayw]

Again I just feel that there should be something out there that helps give us as filmmakers a chance to put our pieces infront of that one person who can make two phone calls and change our lives.

This person's telephone receives incoming phone calls in addition to making outgoing calls.
Call this person.

Why would this person listen to you or watch your short?
I dunno.
This person's gotta be devloping multiple future content streams for monetization.
That's where everyone's paychecks come from, so you know this person is meeting someone. A lot of new someones. All the time.
Find out what you gotta do to become one.
Put sensibilty by the wayside.
Ask like you had no shame.

 

[Alcove Audio]

many of us seem to be getting passed up for movies like... I don't know... anything by Uwe Boll or Titanic in 3-D.

You have to keep in mind that it's the entertainment business. The investors expect the business to turn a profit. So the real issue when it comes to funding is that the investors need to have a reasonable expectation of, at the minimum, making their money back. And, of course, their ultimate goal is making a profit, and a large one at that.

So the issue ultimately becomes not just the quality of your work but the profit-making potential of your work.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I think the age old debate of 'shorts vs a feature' will never be fully solved. It's totally subjective: some people will need the practice to make a decent film, some people will make a decent film straight away and some people could use all the practice in the world and they'd still never make something worthwhile as a feature.

I think that depends on how you define "straight away". I think it would be a poor decision to try and make a feature without getting ANY experience prior. I think you need to be in a place of experience before making a feature. There are many roads you can travel that will take you to that place. But you need to get there, shorts or no shorts.

3.) Tackling a feature film is an entirely different beast to a short. Artistically, logistically and financially the similarities between the two are like the difference between riding a trike and a motorcycle. It's possible to make 100 shorts and still be overwhelmed by the process of shooting a feature. Yes, shorts will help but, in the long run, there are innate characteristics in all successful directors that make it possible for them to shoot features.

I'm not sure if that analogy backs up your point because I don't think anyone who rides motorbikes didn't just get there without first riding a trike. I think I'd compare it more to catering for 300 vs cooking a meal for 10 people. Now, you can learn how to be a catering chef without ever cooking for smaller families. But you'd better believe that every catering chef has received LOTS of on-the-job training (and most started by cooking for just a couple people).

 

[NickClapper]

I'll work on my analogies CF

By 'straight away' I mean 'without prior filmmaking experience'. And people do manage to direct well without any practical experience. I've worked on sets with directors who've never done anything other than write before and there's nothing to say that they'd not be able to do a good job.

 

[Blade_Jones]

A few months back we finished shooting a short film.

Name one short film that you can find in Best Buy? You need a 90 minute movie. Shorts are good for YouTube. That's about it. If you want more hits then Google search for ways to promote YouTube videos (not short movies).

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I'm not sure if that analogy backs up your point because I don't think anyone who rides motorbikes didn't just get there without first riding a trike.

I think it's a good analogy, although I'd say it's bicycle before motorcycle that's more appropriate. My wife teaches people to ride motorcycles, and many of the people who drop out of her classes have trouble because they never learned to ride a bike first. The problem is you're trying to learn too many new things at once, while someone who knows how to ride a bicycle doesn't have to think much about balance and steering mechanics and can focus on the things that are specific to riding a motorcycle like clutch and throttle control.

But lets say you took her class without knowing how to ride a bicycle first and still manage to pass. Do you take your shiny new license and bike to the track the next day and sign up to race in a national-level competitive event? You certainly have all the skills you need to navigate the bike around the track, so why not?

To me, that's what making a feature first is like. The question isn't whether you can get around the track, it's whether you can be competitive in the race. Now maybe you're making a feature just for the fun of it; that's fine, but it seems like most people are making a feature with the goal of somehow 'winning the race' - getting distribution, making some money, getting funded for a bigger project, becoming famous, etc. If that's the case it seems like you should be doing everything possible to improve your skills before you actually enter the race, so that you at least have a chance of finishing somewhere in the pack rather than being lapped over and over.

I think I may have stretched that particular analogy as far as it can go

By 'straight away' I mean 'without prior filmmaking experience'. And people do manage to direct well without any practical experience. I've worked on sets with directors who've never done anything other than write before and there's nothing to say that they'd not be able to do a good job.

I actually agree with this - but this comes back to what I said about money changing the equation. If you've got the budget to hire a competent crew then it's entirely possible to direct a feature successfully without any prior filmmaking experience. All you're doing there is externalizing personal skills & experience by hiring those who have already put the time into developing the necessary skills.

I'm assuming though that most people without any prior experience will lack the necessary funding to do this, and because of their inexperience aren't likely to be able to raise the funding elsewhere. Most people who do end up in this position will get there by achieving success in a related field - for instance as a writer, like in your example - success that convinces someone else to back them with funding for a project. For those who don't have either a trust fund or a track record in a related field, practice is the best way to get good - and starting with shorts certainly makes it easier to practice.